Podcasts about american civil liberties union aclu

The recent fatal shootings of Renee Good & Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota shook the nation and the world. In recent months, the tactics and actions of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE,  have reached a boiling point in communities and have come under scrutiny for the treatment of civilians. In response, many  have taken to the streets to protest. With the Trump administration's mission to deport dangerous criminals, a recent internal ICE policy specifically allowed agents to go door to door without a judicial warrant, in direct contradiction to the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures by the government). As protestors lined the streets, an individual's First Amendment rights—freedom of speech and assembly in particular—were also under attack.  Are we currently witnessing the shredding of the U.S Constitution and the rule of law?  Will there be investigations into the actions of ICE? Will the legislative branch step in? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins David Cole, Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown Law and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Craig & David discuss the legalities behind the actions of ICE, the constitutional rights of individuals who encounter ICE agents, the recent tragedies in Minnesota surrounding ICE agents and civilians, and the overall impact these actions are having on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

OIN SHERI HORN HASAN @ FOR THIS WEEK'S ASTROLOGICALLY SPEAKING PODCAST WHICH DROPS SEPTEMBER 26 @ https://www.karmicevolution.com/astrologically-speakingSome astro transits are fleeting but all are part of a cycle—astrology is, after all, the study of cycles! The one that's most prevalent right now is clearly represented by the repercussions of the recent Mars in Scorpio third quarter waning “crisis in consciousness” square to Pluto in Aquarius which perfected on September 24. The repercussions triggered by this Mars/Pluto square are clearly upon us now, especially here in the U.S. Don't forget that when you put Mars & Pluto together—whether its through aspects between the two or aspects between planets in their ruled signs of Aries & Scorpio—you can pretty much be assured the energies are going to be about one or more of the following subjects: money, power, control, secrets, sex, anger, &/or violence.That's why astrologer Rob Hand defines this square in his book “Planets In Transit” as a time that heralds “a serious conflict between individual energies & the energies of a group.” This becomes more obviously prevalent now because Pluto is in Uranus-ruled Aquarius, the sign of groups. “Transit cycles involving Pluto have a strange way of producing total destruction of your own ends if you take illegitimate shortcuts,” Hand continues. However, “the consequences of your deceptive actions will not be apparent until the next time transiting Mars either conjoins or opposes Pluto.” Hand is, of course, speaking of the transit of Mars to one's natal Pluto. However, I have found his description of aspects between transiting planets often to be as accurate in energetic terms as a transit to a natal chart planet. At the least, he captures the essence of the potential manifestation of archetypal aspect combinations be they solely in the sky or affecting the natal.And don't forget astrologer Michael Lutin's teaching that whenever an aspect in the sky echoes one in your individual chart, you will experience a “recurrence” of that energy.I can pretty much guarantee that there are plenty of Mars/Pluto frictional aspects in the natal charts of sexual abuse victims, such as those trafficked by sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, though there are likely other astrological indications specific to each as well. Anybody recognize how a recurrence of Mars/Pluto energy entered the collective since a number of his victims spoke out about his abuse on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. recently? And how this week's election of a new Congresswoman in Arizona put the Epstein issue front & center back in the news?According to The Hill publication on Sept 25: “Lawmakers in both parties fighting to force the Trump administration to release all the federal files on Jeffrey Epstein took a big step closer to their goal this week. Adelita Grijalva's victory on Tuesday in a special House election in southern Arizona sends another Democrat to Capitol Hill — and secures the deciding 218th signature on a discharge petition designed to compel the Justice Department to disclose the still-concealed documents related to the late child sex offender.”THERE WERE INCIDENTS & ACCIDENTS, HINTS & ALLEGATIONSRegardless, since this Mars/Pluto square—which represents the waning third quarter “crisis in consciousness” portion of the Mars/Pluto synodic cycle which began with their conjunction at 0'46” AQ on Feb 14, 2024—we've seen numerous related incidents that reflect its energies pretty accurately.“Incidents” that cannot be ignored here in America if we are to preserve our democratic system of three independent branches of government which are currently now being dissolved & destroyed under the U.S. Pluto return's ongoing energies, along with that of the current Saturn/Neptune conjunction & its cycle in Aries.Incidents such as U.S. president's statement “I hate my enemies” at Charlie Kirk's funeral, which clearly invites others to do the same. Incidents like governmentally-driven suppression of free speech & the decision by the CDC to recommend Covid vaccines ONLY to anyone over 65 or with a verifiable health issue. And then there's the agency's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) panel vote to restrict children's access to a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine known as MMRV. The panel also postponed a vote on whether all newborns should get the hepatitis B shot. Incidents such as the DoJ's indictment of former FBI director James Comey on charges even the DoJ says won't stick. Incidents such as the FBI dropping its bribery case against the now immigration czar Tom Homan who last year secretly accepted a bag filled with $50K in cash in return for “favors” when he entered government in 2025.Incidents such as learning the Secret Service dismantled a covert telecommunications network spread across five locations in the New York area that contained a system also used to transmit assassination threats against senior U.S. officials during the gathering of the world's dignitaries at the United Nations in New York City this past week.And, neither last nor least, incidents such as the looming U.S. government shutdown on October 1 based on the inability of Congress to do the “Libra thang” & negotiate & compromise to avoid such a catastrophe. Mars square Pluto doesn't compromise, after all…it's about power and those who get hurt in the process be damned…THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALLWe arrived at the first Mars/Pluto waxing first quarter “crisis in action” square on June 11, 2024, & it was July 1, 2024, when the Supreme Court granted U.S. presidents “immunity from criminal liability for…official acts,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU.) Thus began the time of “a serious conflict between individual energies & the energies of a group,” as Rob Hand puts it. On November 3, 2024, the day before the U.S. presidential election, Mars made its first exact opposition to Pluto. Because of Mars' retrograde period, these two opposed again late on January 2/early Jan 3, 2025, & then one more time on April 26 of this year.Rob Hand describes a Mars/Pluto opposition thusly: “If you are tempted to gain control over others, be very careful. Eventually you might find yourself opposed by everyone whom you have ever tried to rule.” Certainly sounds like something that ultimately manifested as the massive “No Kings” protest rallies around the nation, no?Meanwhile, the next time Mars & Pluto conjoin to begin a new synodic cycle will be at 3'34” Aquarius on January 27, 2026. So it's between now & then that we'll be experiencing the waning quarter of this current cycle between the two which, again, denotes a time of conflict between those in power & the energies of a group.The U.S. Pluto return brings us back to the origins (read: birth) of America, which clearly did not happen without a fight. Taxation of the colonists by the British monarchy clearly helped ignite the American Revolution, which began in 1775 & lasted until peace was formally declared in 1783.It then took the colonists' "founding fathers" until 1789 to construct a constitution, create three co-equal branches of government, inaugurate the first U.S. president & seat the first Supreme Court justices. As we look at what's happening now, especially the repercussions of the waning square of Mars in Scorpio to Pluto in Aquarius those who are paying attention can clearly see the handwriting on the wall…The question becomes: Do we want to be puppets on a string, or stand up & fight back? Even if it took something as seemingly superficial as the censoring of a late-night talk show comedian to wake the masses up, it nevertheless sparked a revolution against suppression of our democratic rights. The waning portion of this Mars/Pluto cycle advises: Don't let that spark die as the winds of suppression try to snuff it out…   Tune in to all of this & more Astro News You Can Use starting today @ https://www.karmicevolution.com/astrologically-speakingincluding the upcoming September 29 first-quarter lunar monthly square & Mercury in Libra's cardinal square to Jupiter in Cancer October 1, as we wax toward the exact Eris/Chiron conjunction in Aries October 9! See you then! Namaste…

David D. Cole, Georgetown University Professor in Law and Public Policy and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), explains how President Donald Trump's crackdown on flag burning is part of his effort to torch the Constitution.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

Societies are grappling with how to help keep children safe while navigating online spaces, including through legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the US. In this episode, Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), joins host Janelle Wrigley to talk about KOSA and America's First Amendment. Jenna and Janelle explore why free speech principles are so important in the "new town square" of the internet, and discuss the benefits and risks that young people face online. Jenna explains the ACLU's concerns with KOSA's duty of care and potential over-censorship, and advocates for alternatives centered on privacy, user controls, and digital literacy.

This Day in Legal History: Second Bank of the United States VetoedOn July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed legislation that would have renewed the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, setting off a fierce political and constitutional conflict known as the “Bank War.” The Bank, originally chartered in 1816, acted as a quasi-governmental financial institution and played a central role in stabilizing the U.S. economy. Jackson, however, saw the Bank as a symbol of entrenched privilege and a threat to democratic values. In his veto message, he argued that the Bank was unconstitutional—even though the Supreme Court had previously upheld its legitimacy in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—and that it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a wealthy elite.Jackson framed his opposition as a defense of the common man against corporate monopoly. His veto marked a dramatic assertion of presidential power, expanding the scope of the executive's role in legislative review. By directly challenging a long-standing institution supported by Congress and the courts, Jackson redefined the balance between branches of government. His veto was also politically strategic, rallying populist support ahead of the 1832 presidential election, which he would go on to win decisively.The fallout was immense: Jackson's administration began withdrawing federal funds from the Bank and redistributing them to selected state banks, derogatorily termed “pet banks.” This redistribution triggered economic instability and helped contribute to the Panic of 1837. Despite intense opposition from figures like Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, Jackson remained steadfast, and the Bank's federal charter ultimately expired in 1836.The legal significance of this event lies in its reimagining of the veto as a political, not merely constitutional, tool. Jackson's interpretation of the Constitution, driven by populist ideals rather than judicial precedent, established a precedent for a more active and independent executive.A federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, is set to hear arguments on whether to block President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, despite a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is asking the court to grant class-action status to a lawsuit aimed at protecting U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. If class status is granted, it could enable a nationwide block on the policy through the class action mechanism—something the Supreme Court ruling left open as an exception to its injunction restrictions.Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January, would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or green card holder. The Supreme Court previously narrowed three injunctions against the order, but did not rule on its constitutionality. Opponents argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and contradicts the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that birthright citizenship applies regardless of a parent's immigration status.Judge Laplante had already ruled in February that the policy was likely unconstitutional and issued a limited injunction affecting only certain advocacy groups. The ACLU is now urging him to expand this to a broader class of affected families, citing the risk of statelessness or undocumented status for tens of thousands of children. The Justice Department, meanwhile, claims the plaintiffs are too diverse to form a single legal class and that the suit bypasses proper legal procedures.Judge to weigh blocking Trump on birthright citizenship despite Supreme Court ruling | ReutersThe Trump administration escalated its standoff with Harvard University by threatening its accreditation and subpoenaing records related to international students. Federal officials claimed Harvard may have violated anti-discrimination laws by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students, citing a Title VI investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services. As a result, the Education and Health Departments formally notified Harvard's accrediting body that the university might not meet its standards. However, the accreditor clarified it operates independently and typically allows schools up to four years to come into compliance.Simultaneously, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to issue subpoenas targeting potential "criminality and misconduct" among student visa holders at Harvard. These actions follow previous federal efforts to block Harvard from admitting international students and to freeze billions in grants, which the university is currently challenging in court. A judge had already halted Trump's proclamation barring foreign students, though the administration is appealing that ruling.Trump accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and "woke" ideology, while the university insists the administration's actions are politically motivated retaliation infringing on its First Amendment rights. Nearly 6,800 international students—about 27% of Harvard's student body—could be affected if the administration succeeds in stripping the university of its ability to host them. A separate lawsuit seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in grants is set to be heard on July 21.Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it will no longer consider a farmer's race or sex when administering many of its key programs, including those related to loans, commodities, and conservation. The decision follows directives from the Trump administration aimed at rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies. According to the USDA, the shift reflects its belief that past discrimination has been sufficiently addressed and that programs should now focus solely on merit and fairness.The final rule, signed by the USDA's acting General Counsel, states that race- or sex-based criteria will no longer influence program eligibility or funding decisions, though some advantages remain for beginning and military veteran farmers. For decades, the agency had designated certain groups—such as women and farmers of color—as "socially disadvantaged," often creating set-asides or prioritizations for them. This latest move effectively ends that practice.Critics argue the change undermines transparency and accessibility for farmers of color who have historically faced systemic exclusion. Legal scholar Margo Schlanger, formerly involved in USDA civil rights work, said the rule shuts off a vital avenue for ensuring equitable access to federal support. The decision comes despite the fact that only about 4.5% of U.S. farmers identify as nonwhite or multiracial, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture.US agriculture agency to end consideration of race, sex in many farm programs | ReutersThe Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the state's animal welfare laws concerning egg and poultry farming unlawfully raise egg prices nationwide and violate federal law. The complaint, brought in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California's regulations conflict with the Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970, which mandates national uniformity in egg safety standards. The federal government asserts that only it has the authority to regulate egg safety and that California's restrictions burden interstate commerce.California laws passed by voter initiatives in 2008 and 2018 prohibit confining hens so tightly that they cannot move freely. These measures were designed to reduce animal cruelty and prevent foodborne illness. However, the federal government argues that while California can regulate farms within its borders, it cannot impose its requirements on out-of-state producers selling eggs in California.This is not the first legal battle over the issue. In 2014, several states sued California on similar grounds and lost at both the district and appellate levels. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's 2018 animal welfare measure in a separate challenge from pig farmers in 2023, further solidifying the state's right to set agricultural standards for products sold within its borders.US government sues California over egg prices | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, crafted by a coalition of conservative organizations and political operatives, is more than just a policy blueprint; it is a radical vision for reshaping American governance.Project 2025 emerged in the spring of 2022, when a group of conservative extremists and political operatives gathered to draft a comprehensive plan for a new administration, presuming a GOP victory in the November 2024 elections. This 927-page document, also known as "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," was released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023 and is backed by 100 advisory coalition partners, including far-right groups and organizations funded by billionaires.At its core, Project 2025 aims to "destroy the Administrative State" by radically restructuring each of the 30 federal departments. The plan is divided into detailed chapters, each outlining specific proposals for overhauling these agencies and ensuring that political loyalists fill key positions from "Day One" of a new Republican administration. This is not just a matter of personnel changes; it involves a fundamental shift in how the executive branch operates, with a strong emphasis on centralizing power in the White House.One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its advocacy for the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies. Kevin Roberts, a key figure behind the project, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is supported by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation, which have been instrumental in shaping a stronger unitary executive since the Reagan administration.For instance, Project 2025 recommends dismissing all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any such occurrences, highlighting the ideological rather than pragmatic basis of these recommendations.The project also includes a 180-day playbook with specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a prepared stack of Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This rapid implementation is designed to ensure that the new administration can swiftly consolidate power and begin dismantling existing structures.A crucial component of Project 2025 is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their protections against corruption, political overreach, and abuse of power. As described in the project documentation, this would give the president and political loyalists full control over the Executive Branch, allowing them to act for personal and political gain without checks.The implications of these changes are far-reaching. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 threatens to undermine the independence of critical agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power could lead to a significant erosion of democratic checks and balances, potentially resulting in devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health, as noted by the Center for Progressive Reform.Experts and critics alike have sounded alarms about the potential impacts of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense implications of such a radical shift in governance, particularly if it aligns with the re-election of a president like Donald Trump. The AFL-CIO's American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that the plan could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, drastically altering the landscape of the federal workforce.As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The next few months will be critical in determining whether this vision for a more centralized and ideologically driven federal government becomes a reality. If implemented, Project 2025 would mark a significant departure from the traditional balance of power in American governance, raising fundamental questions about the future of democracy and the role of the executive branch.In the words of those behind Project 2025, this is a "Mandate for Leadership" aimed at reshaping the federal government in a conservative image. However, for many, it represents a dangerous path toward authoritarianism and the dismantling of essential safeguards. As the nation prepares for this potential transformation, it is imperative to engage in a robust and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the implications of such profound changes.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, born out of a convergence of conservative ideologies and strategic planning, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance in ways that are both sweeping and contentious.Project 2025 is the brainchild of a coalition of conservative organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation, and was formalized in a 927-page policy blueprint released in April 2023. This document, often referred to as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, with each of its 30 chapters dedicated to a specific department. The overarching goal is stark: to “destroy the Administrative State” and consolidate executive power under the presidency[5].At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Proponents argue that this concentration of power is necessary for efficient governance, but critics warn it could lead to an unprecedented erosion of checks and balances. Kevin Roberts, a key figure in this initiative, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a notion that resonates with the Federalist Society and conservative justices who have supported stronger executive powers since the Reagan administration[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan for the Department of State. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled with ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is that many current State Department employees are too left-wing and thus need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[4].This approach is not isolated to the State Department; it is part of a broader strategy to ensure that key positions across the federal government are filled with political loyalists. Project 2025 includes a 180-day playbook detailing specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a stack of prepared Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This playbook is designed to expedite the transition and ensure that political appointees, rather than career civil servants, hold the reins of power[5].A critical component of this plan is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their civil service protections and leaving them vulnerable to political overreach and abuse of power. This move would grant the president and their loyalists unparalleled control over the Executive Branch, raising significant concerns about corruption and the politicization of federal agencies[5].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. For instance, Project 2025 seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power under the presidency could undermine the integrity and autonomy of these agencies, potentially leading to a loss of public trust and the erosion of democratic institutions[4].Experts and critics alike have sounded the alarm about the potential consequences of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense impact that such a reorganization could have on civil liberties and the rule of law. The AFL-CIO's Federal Employees union (AFGE) warns that up to 1 million federal workers could be terminated as part of this restructuring, exacerbating job insecurity and destabilizing essential public services[2][4].As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The success of this initiative hinges on a Republican victory in the upcoming elections, after which the blueprint's detailed proposals would be swiftly executed. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this radical vision for American governance will become a reality.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this is not just a policy initiative but a fundamental challenge to the existing structure of the U.S. government. As we move forward, it is imperative to engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the potential impacts of such profound changes. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the next year will shape the course of the country for years to come.

First up, Georgetown law professor and former national legal director at the ACLU, David Cole, joins us to discuss the legal response to the Trump Administration's serial violations of the Constitution. Then Mike Ferner of Veterans for Peace checks in to update us halfway through his Fast for Gaza, 40 days of living on 250 calories per day, which is the average caloric intake of Palestinian survivors in Gaza. Finally, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Joe Holley, stops by to pay tribute to his mentor and colleague, the late crusading journalist, Ronnie Dugger, founder of the progressive Texas Observer.David Cole is the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He writes about and teaches constitutional law, freedom of speech, and constitutional criminal procedure. He is a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books and is the legal affairs correspondent for The Nation.Trump is obviously not concerned about antisemitism. He's concerned about targeting schools because they are places where people can criticize the president, where people can think independently, are taught to think independently, and often don't support what the president is doing. He's using his excuse to target a central institution of civil society.David ColeThe decision on Trump versus the United States is only about criminal liability for criminal acts, not for unconstitutional acts. And violating the Constitution is not a crime. Every president has violated the Constitution probably since George Washington. That's not a crime.David ColeMike Ferner served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, and he is former National Director and current Special Projects Coordinator for Veterans for Peace. He is the author of Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran for Peace Reports from Iraq.Two hundred and fifty calories is technically, officially, a starvation diet, and we're doing it for 40 days. The people in Gaza have been doing it for months and months and months, and they're dying like crazy. That's the whole concern that we're trying to raise. And I'll tell you at the end of this fast, on the 40th day, we are not just going out silently. There are going to be some fireworks before we're done with this thing. So all I'm saying is: stay tuned.Mike Ferner: Special Projects Coordinator of Veterans for Peace on “FastforGaza”They're (The Veterans Administration is) being defamed, Ralph, for the same reason that those right-wing corporatists defamed public education. So they can privatize it. And that's exactly what they're trying to do with the VA. And I can tell you every single member of Veterans for Peace has got nothing but praise for the VA.Mike FernerJoe Holley was the editor of the Texas Observer in the early 1980s. A former staff writer at The Washington Post and a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer and columnist at the Houston Chronicle, he is the author of eight books, mostly about Texas.He would talk to people, and he would find out things going on about racial discrimination, about farm workers being mistreated, all kind of stories that the big papers weren't reporting. And this one guy, young Ronnie Dugger, would write these stories and expose things about Texas that a lot of Texans just did not know.Joe Holley on the late progressive journalist, Ronnie DuggerHe knew the dark side of Texas, but he always had an upbeat personality. I had numerous conversations with Ronnie (Dugger), and he was ferociously independent.Ralph NaderNews 6/13/251. On Monday, Israeli forces seized the Madleen, the ship carrying activist Greta Thunberg and others attempting to bring food and other supplies past the Israeli blockade into Gaza, and detained the crew. The ship was part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition and Thunberg had been designated an “Ambassador of Conscience,” by Amnesty International. The group decried her detention, with Secretary General Agnès Callamard writing, “Israel has once again flouted its legal obligations towards civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip and demonstrated its chilling contempt for legally binding orders of the International Court of Justice.” On Tuesday, CBS reported that Israel deported Thunberg. Eight other passengers refused deportation and the Jerusalem Post reports they remain in Israeli custody. They will be represented in Israeli courts by Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. One of these detainees is Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament.2. Shortly before the Madleen was intercepted, members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing concern for the safety of these activists, citing the deadly 2010 raid of the Mavi Marmara, which ultimately resulted in the death of ten activists, including an American. This letter continued, “any attack on the Madleen or its civilian crew is a clear and blatant violation of international law. United Nations experts have called for the ship's safe passage and warned Israel to “refrain from any act of hostility” against the Madleen and its passengers…We call on you to monitor the Madleen's journey and deter any such hostile actions.” This letter was led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and drew signatures from Congressional progressives like Reps. Summer Lee, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Greg Casar, and others.3. On the other end of the political spectrum, Trump – ever unpredictable – seemed to criticize Israel's detention of Thunberg. In a press conference, “Trump was…asked about Thunberg's claim that she had been kidnapped.” The president responded “I think Israel has enough problems without kidnapping Greta Thunberg…Is that what she said? She was kidnapped by Israel?” The reporter replied “Yes, sir,” to which “Trump responded by shaking his head.” This from Newsweek.4. Of course, the major Trump news this week is his response to the uprising in Los Angeles. Set off by a new wave of ICE raids, protesters have clashed with police in the streets and Trump has responded by increasingly upping the ante, including threatening to arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom, per KTLA. Beyond such bluster however, Trump has moved to deploy U.S. Marines onto the streets of the nation's second-largest city. Reuters reports, “About 700 Marines were in a staging area in the Seal Beach area about 30 miles…south of Los Angeles, awaiting deployment to specific locations,” in addition to 2,100 National Guard troops. The deployment of these troops raises thorny legal questions. Per Reuters, “The Marines and National Guard troops lack the authority to makes arrests and will be charged only with protecting federal property and personnel,” but “California Attorney General Rob Bonta… [said] there was a risk that could violate an 1878 law that…forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement.” Yet, despite all the tumult, these protests seem to have gotten the goods, so to speak: the City of Glendale announced it would, “end its agreement with…ICE to house federal immigration detainees.” All of this sets quite a scene going into Trump's military parade in DC slated for Saturday, June 14th.5. In classic fashion however, Trump's tough posture does not extend to corporate crime. Public Citizen's Rick Claypool reports, “Trump's DOJ just announced American corporations that engage in criminal bribery schemes abroad will no longer be prosecuted.” Claypool cites a June 9th memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, which reads, “Effective today, prosecutors shall…not attribute…malfeasance to corporate structures.” Claypool also cites a Wall Street Journal piece noting that “the DOJ has already ended half of its criminal investigations into corporate bribery in foreign countries and shrunk its [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act] unit down to 25 employees.”6. Americans can at least take small comfort in one thing: the departure of Elon Musk from the top rungs of government. It remains to be seen what exactly precipitated his final exit and how deep his rift with Trump goes – Musk has already backed down on his harshest criticisms of the president, deleting his tweet claiming Trump was in Epstein files, per ABC. Yet, this appears to be a victory for Steve Bannon and the forces he represents within Trump's inner circle. On June 5th, the New York Times reported that Bannon, “said he was advising the president to cancel all [Musk's] contracts and… ‘initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status'.” Bannon added, “[Musk] should be deported from the country immediately.'” Bannon has even called for a special counsel probe, per the Hill. Bannon's apparent ascendency goes beyond the Oval Office as well. POLITICO Playbook reports Bannon had a 20-minute-long conversation with Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman on Monday evening – while Fetterman dined with Washington bureau chief for Breitbart, Matt Boyle – at Butterworth's, the DC MAGA “watering hole.” This also from the Hill.7. On the way out, the Daily Beast reports, “Elon Musk's goons at the Department of Government Efficiency transmitted a large amount of data—all of it undetected—using a Starlink Wi-Fi terminal they installed on top of the White House.” Sources “suggested that the [the installation of the Starlink terminal] was intended to bypass White House systems that track the transmission of data—with names and time stamps—and secure it from spies.” It is unknown exactly what data Musk and his minions absconded with, and for what purpose. We can only hope the public gets some answers.8. With Musk and Trump parting ways, other political forces are now seeking to woo the richest man in the world. Semafor reports enigmatic Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and chaired Bernie Sanders' campaign in California, “talked with one of…Musk's ‘senior confidants' …about whether the ex-DOGE leader…might want to help the Democratic Party in the midterms.” Khanna added, “Having Elon speak out against the irrational tariff policy, against the deficit exploding Trump bill, and the anti-science and anti-immigrant agenda can help check Trump's unconstitutional administration…I look forward to Elon turning his fire against MAGA Republicans instead of Democrats in 2026.” On the other hand, the Hill reports ex-Democrat Andrew Yang is publicly appealing to Musk for an alliance following Musk's call for the establishment of an “America Party.” Yang himself founded the Forward Party in 2021. Yang indicated Musk has not responded to his overtures.9. Meanwhile, the leadership of the Democratic Party appears to be giving up entirely. In a leaked Zoom meeting, DNC Chair Ken Martin – only elected in February – said, “I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,” per POLITICO. On this call, Martin expressed frustration with DNC Vice Chair David Hogg, blaming him for, “[destroying] any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to.” Hogg meanwhile has doubled down, defying DNC leadership by “wading into another primary,” this time for the open seat left by the death of Congressman Gerry Conolly in Virginia, the Washington Post reports. The DNC is still weighing whether to void Hogg's election as Vice Chair.10. Finally, in some good news from New York City, State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani appears to have closed the gap with disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo began the race with a 40-point lead; a new Data for Progress poll shows that lead has been cut down to just two points. Moreover, that poll was conducted before Mamdani was endorsed by AOC, who is expected to bring with her substantial support from Latinos and residents of Queens, among other groups. Notably, Mamdani has racked up tremendous numbers among young men, a demographic the Democratic Party has struggled to attract in recent elections. Cuomo will not go down without a fight however. The political nepo-baby has already secured a separate ballot line for the November election, meaning he will be in the race even if he loses the Democratic primary, and he is being boosted by a new million-dollar digital ad spend by Airbnb, per POLITICO. The New York City Democratic Primary will be held on June 24th.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to witnessing a seismic shift in the foundational landscape of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to radically reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and dismantling the independence of various federal agencies.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under direct presidential oversight. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These agencies, designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. The project dismisses these entities as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances that have long been a cornerstone of American democracy[5].For instance, the Federal Trade Commission, a body established to protect consumers and promote competition, would no longer enjoy the autonomy granted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. Under Project 2025, the president would gain the power to remove FTC commissioners at will, should they not align with the president's agenda. This change would fundamentally alter the FTC's ability to function independently, potentially turning it into a tool for partisan policy implementation[5].The State Department is another focal point of this initiative. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all State Department employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The implications of such reforms are far-reaching and profound. By centralizing power and eliminating the independence of federal agencies, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. This would shatter the system of checks and balances that has been a bulwark of American democracy since its inception. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies would have "immense" consequences, potentially undermining the very fabric of democratic governance[1].The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House would also play a critical role in this new landscape. Project 2025 proposes that OIRA should review and potentially revise or block rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the autonomy of these agencies, ensuring that all regulatory actions align with the president's agenda rather than serving the public interest[5].The potential impacts of these changes are alarming. Experts warn that such a concentration of power could lead to policies that are detrimental to workers, consumers, and the broader public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for various sectors, from labor rights to environmental regulations[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the stakes are high. The plan's proponents are pushing for significant changes to be implemented by January 20, 2025. This timeline underscores the urgency and the need for vigilant scrutiny from both policymakers and the public.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the democratic principles that have guided the United States. It is a call to action, a reminder that the balance of power in American governance is not a static entity but a dynamic system that requires constant vigilance and engagement. As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor these developments closely, ensuring that the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy are not dismantled in the name of executive power. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to watching a seismic shift in the foundations of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both profound and troubling.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which have historically operated with a degree of autonomy to ensure they are not swayed by political whims, are now in the crosshairs. These agencies, designed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies, are protected by Supreme Court precedents such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which shields their commissioners from removal except "for cause." However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, granting the president the power to remove these commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda[5].The implications are far-reaching. For instance, the Department of State is slated for a significant overhaul. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. She intends to replace these positions with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is stark: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].This ideological purge is not limited to the State Department. The plan extends to other federal agencies, with the aim of ensuring that every branch of the executive government is directly answerable to the president. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is proposed to play a more intrusive role, reviewing and potentially revising or blocking rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the independence of these bodies, aligning them more closely with the president's policies[5].The potential consequences of such reforms are daunting. Experts warn that these changes could destroy the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have "immense" implications, potentially leading to an "imperial presidency" with almost unlimited power to implement policies without significant oversight[1][5].The broader theme here is the erosion of democratic guardrails. Project 2025 represents a fundamental shift away from the principles of separation of powers and towards a more authoritarian form of governance. This is not merely a theoretical concern; it has real-world implications for workers, consumers, and the general public. For example, the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a crucial role in protecting consumers from unfair business practices, could find its ability to act independently severely curtailed. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board, which safeguards workers' rights, might see its authority diminished under a president who prioritizes corporate interests over labor rights[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just about policy reforms; it is about redefining the very fabric of American governance. The project's proponents argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government and ensure efficiency, but critics see it as a power grab that undermines the democratic process.Looking ahead, the next few months will be critical. As the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be tied to the outcome. If a president aligned with these policies is elected, we can expect a swift and decisive push to implement these reforms. The Supreme Court, which has already shown a inclination towards a stronger unitary executive, may play a pivotal role in upholding or challenging these changes[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 is a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for the soul of American democracy. As we navigate these uncharted waters, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and informed, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are not sacrificed at the altar of political ideology. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting impacts on the nation's trajectory.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power in the White House, fundamentally altering the balance of American governance.The project's architects, including figures like Kiron Skinner, who briefly led the State Department's office of policy planning during the Trump administration, envision a government where the entire executive branch is under direct presidential control. This vision is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan era. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ambition: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for greater presidential oversight. This centralization of power is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle; it represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. government operates. For instance, the project advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's perspective on this is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The 900-page policy proposal is replete with specific reforms and policy objectives that paint a picture of a significantly streamlined and ideologically aligned federal workforce. The elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, is a stark example of the project's scope. These actions are part of a broader effort to cut back on civil servants' powers and reduce what the project's backers see as inefficiencies across the federal government. As reported, the Trump administration, aided by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun implementing these plans, albeit in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable[5].The numbers are staggering: the Trump administration has either laid off or plans to lay off 280,253 federal workers and contractors, impacting 27 agencies. This purge is not just about reducing the federal workforce; it is about reshaping the government's ideological landscape. The project's proponents argue that this will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative values, but critics see it as a dangerous erosion of institutional independence and a threat to public services.Experts and analysts are wary of the potential implications. The Center for Progressive Reform, for example, is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that these actions will have "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expresses deep concern, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with Project 2025's goals would have immense and far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and the rule of law[1].As I reflect on the latest developments, it becomes clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative but a philosophical battle over the role of the executive branch in American democracy. The project's backers see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, while critics view it as an authoritarian power grab.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the project continues to unfold, key milestones will include the implementation of further agency eliminations and the replacement of federal employees with ideologically aligned appointees. The legal challenges to these actions will also come to a head, testing the limits of executive power and the resilience of the U.S. system of checks and balances.In the end, Project 2025 represents a crossroads in American governance, a moment where the very fabric of the federal government is being reimagined. Whether this transformation will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative ideals or result in a dangerous concentration of power remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a radical blueprint to reshape American governance.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has made it clear that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a notion that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. The Supreme Court, with its conservative lean, has supported this stronger unitary executive, setting the stage for Project 2025's ambitious plans[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is not just about streamlining bureaucracy; it's about consolidating power in a way that could fundamentally alter the checks and balances that have long defined American democracy.For instance, the plan explicitly recommends dismissing all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has been vocal about her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When asked if she could name a time when State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, she admitted she could not, highlighting the ideological rather than performance-based nature of these proposed changes[4].The policy proposals outlined in Project 2025 are comprehensive and far-reaching. The 900-page document calls for the elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID. These moves are part of a broader effort to cut back on civil servants' powers and reduce what the project's backers see as inefficiencies across the federal government. The Trump administration, with the help of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun executing these plans, albeit in a chaotic and legally questionable manner. As of the latest data, this has resulted in the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The implications of these changes are profound. By eliminating agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the administration is stripping away regulatory bodies that were designed to protect consumers from financial abuse. This move aligns with the project's goal of reducing government oversight and empowering the executive branch, but it also raises significant concerns about the protection of public interests.Experts and critics alike have sounded alarms about the potential consequences of Project 2025. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that these actions will have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also expressed deep concerns, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have immense and far-reaching impacts on civil liberties and governance[1][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a vision for a fundamentally different form of government. The project's backers see it as a necessary step to streamline government and align it more closely with conservative ideals. However, critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic principles and the independence of federal agencies.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial in determining the fate of Project 2025. As the Trump administration continues to implement its plans, legal challenges and public backlash are likely to intensify. The upcoming milestones, including the continued dismantling of federal agencies and the replacement of key personnel, will serve as critical decision points that could shape the future of American governance.In the end, Project 2025 represents a crossroads in American politics—a choice between a more centralized, executive-driven government and the traditional system of checks and balances that has defined the country's democracy. As this story unfolds, it remains to be seen whether this vision of governance will prevail, and what the long-term consequences will be for the nation.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer ambition and controversial nature of its proposals. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations and thinkers, aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and challenging long-standing principles of checks and balances.At the heart of Project 2025 is the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. This vision is not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been bolstered by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation. However, the current iteration takes this concept to unprecedented heights. As Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has stated, all federal employees should answer directly to the president, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan for the Department of State. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is stark: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[4].This approach is not isolated to the State Department. Project 2025 targets the independence of various federal agencies, which have historically operated with a degree of autonomy to ensure they are not swayed by political whims. Agencies like the FCC, FTC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are designed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies, shielded from presidential interference by bipartisan commissions. The Supreme Court has upheld this independence in landmark cases such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*[5].However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule such precedents, allowing the president to remove independent agency commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda. This would fundamentally alter the balance of power, giving the president unprecedented control over these agencies. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) would also be empowered to review, revise, or block rules and significant guidance issued by these agencies, further eroding their independence[5].The potential implications of these changes are profound. By centralizing power and dismantling the checks and balances that have long defined American governance, Project 2025 could lead to what critics describe as an "imperial presidency." This would enable a president to implement policies with minimal oversight, potentially undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has noted, such a reconfiguration of executive power would have immense and far-reaching consequences, particularly if it aligns with the re-election of a president like Donald Trump[1].The plan also includes significant workforce reductions, with estimates suggesting up to 1 million federal workers could be terminated. This would not only decimate the federal workforce but also severely impact the functioning of various government agencies, leading to potential inefficiencies and gaps in public services[2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The stated goals of its proponents—greater efficiency and alignment with conservative ideologies—mask a more profound challenge to the foundational principles of American democracy.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be tied to the outcome. If a president sympathetic to these proposals is elected, the stage could be set for a dramatic overhaul of the federal government. The tracking of executive action proposals by organizations like the Center for Progressive Reform will be essential in monitoring the implementation of these plans and their impact on workers, agencies, and the broader public[3].In the end, Project 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debate about the role of the executive branch in American governance. Whether this initiative succeeds or fails, it underscores the importance of vigilant oversight and the need to protect the checks and balances that have long safeguarded American democracy. As we move forward, it is imperative that we remain informed and engaged, ensuring that any reforms to our government align with the principles of transparency, accountability, and the public good.

What's at stake when nonprofits and democracy are under attack? How can organizations respond effectively to threats against their tax status and Constitutional rights? In this illuminating conversation, Rusty speaks with Mike Zamore, National Director of Policy and Government Affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about the unprecedented challenges facing nonprofits in today's political climate.Mike Zamore draws from his 22 years of Capitol Hill experience and current ACLU leadership to explain how nonprofits are essential to America's constitutional framework of checks and balances. He details recent fights against attempts to weaponize government power against nonprofits, including legislation that would have allowed stripping organizations of tax-exempt status without due process. The conversation highlights parallels between threats to individual liberties and threats to nonprofit First Amendment freedoms.The discussion concludes with practical advice for nonprofits in red states and red districts to effectively engage with Republican representatives regarding the upcoming tax reconciliation bill that could adversely affect the sector. Zamore emphasizes the importance of solidarity, encouraging nonprofits to stand together against intimidation tactics, and that reminding us that maintaining collective courage is crucial for preserving both Constitutional rights and the ability to serve communities.This episode was recorded the morning of May 9, 2025, before the House Ways and Means Committee revealed the language in their portion of the proposed tax bill, which includes re-introduction of H.R. 9495. Click here for resources on new tax bill.Resources referenced in the episode:ACLUA Call to Action for Red State Nonprofits on the FTP blog"Meet the Man Who Wants to Tax Most of the Nonprofit World" by Ben Gose"‘Five Alarm Fire': How New Tax Law Could Decimate Nonprofits — and What Can Be Done" by Steve TaylorFilibustered!: How to Fix the Broken Senate and Save America, co-authored by Senator Jeff Merkley and Mike Zamore"How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy?"Harvard statement "Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University" and lawsuit against the governmentStatement of Solidarity with Harvard UniversityFTP Podcast Episode “Dr. King, AmeriCorps, & Nonprofit Work - with Michael Smith, AmeriCorps”“AmeriCorps members who respond to disasters and help nonprofits are let go in DOGE cuts”Guest Bio:Mike Zamore is the National Director of Policy & Government Affairs at the ACLU, where he leads efforts to harness the organization's vast expertise, 4 million members and supporters, paid staff in every state, and electoral work to shape federal, state, and local policy.Mike is a 22-year veteran of Capitol Hill, and spent over 14 years as the Chief of Staff to Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat first elected in 2008. As Merkley's top aide, Mike managed a 50+ person staff and $4 million budget, counseled the Senator on legislative and political strategy, represented the Senator to various constituencies, and led two successful re-elections. Prior to joining Senator Merkley, Mike was the Policy Director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, where he assisted the 2008 Senate candidates develop their positions on the issues. Mike earlier served as Policy Advisor to Representative Patrick Kennedy and spearheaded Kennedy's legislative agenda, including mental health parity legislation that became law in 2008, and spoke frequently on health systems reform. Earlier in his career, he spent several years working on business development projects in the early days of post-Soviet Russia and clerked for Judge Allyne R. Ross on the Eastern District of New York.Mike is an adjunct faculty member at American University's Washington College of Law. He graduated from Brown University and Harvard Law School, lives in Washington, DC with his wife and two sons.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, it becomes clear that this project is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American government. The ties between Project 2025 and the Trump administration are undeniable, despite President Trump's attempts to distance himself from it.Project 2025 is the brainchild of over 400 scholars and policy experts from the conservative movement, many of whom have direct connections to Trump's first administration and his 2024 election campaign. Kevin Roberts, the President of The Heritage Foundation, who was part of Trump's transition team in 2016, has openly described the project's goal as "institutionalizing Trumpism"[1][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambitious plan to reshape the federal government. The project advocates for replacing merit-based federal civil service workers with individuals loyal to Trump, effectively taking partisan control of key government agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Trade Commission. This move is designed to consolidate executive power and align these agencies with Trump's political agenda[5].The project also proposes significant structural changes to various federal agencies. For instance, it recommends dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education. The Department of Homeland Security, crucial for national security and disaster response, would be disbanded, while the Department of Education, vital for educational policy and funding, would cease to exist. These changes reflect a broader theme of reducing federal oversight and shifting responsibilities to state and local levels[5].In the realm of disaster response, Project 2025 suggests reforming FEMA's emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. Currently, FEMA covers at least 75% of the costs for disaster response and recovery; under the new plan, the federal government would cover only 25% of the costs for small disasters and up to 75% for "truly catastrophic disasters." This change is justified by the project's authors, who argue that FEMA is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt"[2].The project's policy proposals extend far beyond structural changes to federal agencies. It includes a wide range of policy objectives that align with conservative and Christian right ideologies. For example, it proposes reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, making the National Institutes of Health less independent, and defunding its stem cell research. The plan also calls for reducing taxes on corporations and instituting a flat income tax on individuals, while cutting Medicare and Medicaid. These economic policies are designed to reduce the federal government's role in social welfare and healthcare[5].Social and cultural issues are also central to Project 2025. The project recommends criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBT discrimination, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Instead, the Department of Justice would focus on prosecuting what the project terms "anti-white racism." Additionally, it proposes laws that would criminalize the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications and eliminate coverage of emergency contraception. These proposals reflect a strong alignment with the Christian right's agenda[5].The immigration policy under Project 2025 is particularly stringent. It calls for the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants and suggests deploying the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement. This approach is part of a broader strategy to tighten border control and enforce strict immigration laws[5].As President Trump marks his first 100 days in his second term, many of his policies have begun to mirror or partially mirror the proposals outlined in Project 2025. Nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions have been found to align with the project's goals, according to an analysis by *Time*. This alignment is not coincidental; several Trump campaign officials maintained close contact with Project 2025, seeing its goals as integral to their *Agenda 47* program[5].The implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and have sparked significant concern among civil rights and civil liberties advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has detailed the potential challenges a second Trump presidency, influenced by Project 2025, would pose. The ACLU plans to go to court to preserve and advance rights related to immigration, LGBTQ issues, abortion access, nondiscrimination laws, voting rights, and free speech. They also intend to work with Congress to enact policy solutions and provide oversight to counter the most extreme proposals of Project 2025[1].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will likely face numerous challenges and legal battles. The ACLU and other advocacy groups are already organizing in communities to educate the public about the potential harms of these policies and what they can do to protect their rights. The coming months will be crucial as Congress and the courts grapple with the constitutional and ethical implications of these sweeping changes.In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a profound shift in American governance, one that seeks to consolidate executive power, reduce federal oversight, and align government policies with a conservative and Christian right agenda. As the country navigates these changes, it is imperative to remain vigilant and informed about the potential impacts on civil rights, social welfare, and the very fabric of American democracy. The future of these policies will depend on the actions of lawmakers, judges, and the public's engagement in the democratic process.

As I delved into the world of Project 2025, I found myself at the forefront of a movement that promises to reshape the very fabric of American governance. This initiative, backed by over 100 respected organizations from across the conservative spectrum, is nothing short of ambitious. At its core, Project 2025 aims to "take down the Deep State and return the government to the people," a mantra that resonates deeply with its supporters.The project's blueprint for change is outlined in the comprehensive document, "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," published in April 2023. This tome, crafted by more than 400 scholars and policy experts, presents a wide array of policy suggestions designed to address some of the nation's most pressing challenges. One of the most striking proposals is the call to "secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens." This stance reflects a hardline approach to immigration, a topic that has long been a lightning rod for political debate.Another key area of focus is the reform of federal agencies, particularly the FBI and DOJ. Project 2025 advocates for "de-weaponizing the Federal Government" by increasing accountability and oversight of these institutions. This move is part of a broader effort to make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress, a theme that echoes throughout the project's policy recommendations.Energy production is another critical sector targeted by Project 2025. The initiative urges the "unleash[ing] of American energy production to reduce energy prices," a strategy that aligns with long-standing conservative views on energy independence and deregulation. This proposal is intertwined with the broader goal of cutting government spending to reduce inflation, a fiscal policy that could have far-reaching implications for the national economy.Education reform is also high on the agenda. Project 2025 proposes shifting control and funding of education from federal bureaucrats to parents and state and local governments. This decentralization is intended to empower local communities to make decisions about their own educational systems, a move that could significantly alter the educational landscape in the United States.One of the more contentious proposals involves banning biological males from competing in women's sports, a policy that has sparked intense debate and criticism from various civil rights groups. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, has expressed deep concerns about this and other aspects of Project 2025, arguing that such policies undermine civil rights and erode essential social programs[3].The project's vision for disaster response and management is another area of significant change. Project 2025 recommends reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities rather than the federal government. This proposal is based on the argument that FEMA is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt[4]." The plan suggests that Congress should change the cost-sharing arrangement so the federal government covers only 25% of the costs for small disasters and up to 75% for "truly catastrophic disasters."This shift in disaster response aligns with broader themes of decentralization and state autonomy, as exemplified by Donald Trump's suggestion to leave disaster response management to the states. "That's what states are for, to take care of problems," Trump stated, reflecting a philosophy that underpins many of Project 2025's policy proposals[4].Despite its ambitious scope, Project 2025 has already begun to manifest in various states. In Texas and Washington, for example, policies similar to those outlined in the project are being tested through legislation and court challenges. These incremental steps are "stress-testing their viability and setting the stage for easier implementation nationwide," according to an update by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)[5].Critics argue that these policies represent a substantial threat not only to individual rights but also to the very foundation of American democracy. By seeking to centralize power in the executive branch and undermine civil rights, Project 2025's agenda is seen as prioritizing control over fairness and enforcement over welfare. The potential consequences of such policies are far-reaching, with concerns raised about the impact on marginalized groups, including women, immigrants, and low-income families[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a distant vision but a tangible force already shaping the political landscape. With its comprehensive policy proposals and incremental implementation in various states, Project 2025 is poised to be a significant player in the upcoming political cycle.Looking ahead, the next few years will be crucial in determining the full impact of Project 2025. As the 2025 presidential election approaches, the alignment of Trump's policies with those of Project 2025 will likely remain a point of contention and discussion. Whether this movement succeeds in its goals of reshaping American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Project 2025 has already become a pivotal force in the ongoing debate about the future of the United States.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is more than just a collection of policy proposals; it is a comprehensive vision for a radical shift in American governance. Born out of a coalition of over 100 respected conservative organizations, Project 2025 aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both profound and contentious.At the heart of Project 2025 is its manifesto, "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," published in April 2023. This document, crafted by more than 400 scholars and policy experts, outlines a sweeping array of policy suggestions designed to address what the project's proponents see as the country's most pressing challenges. One of the key proposals is to "secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens," reflecting a hardline stance on immigration that aligns with long-held conservative views on border security[1].Another significant area of focus is the reform of federal agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Project 2025 advocates for de-weaponizing these agencies by increasing accountability and oversight, a move that its authors believe will restore trust in these institutions and ensure they are more accountable to the democratically elected branches of government[1].Energy policy is also a critical component, with the project calling for the unleashing of American energy production to reduce energy prices. This approach is rooted in the belief that domestic energy production can be a powerful economic driver and a means to achieve energy independence[1].The project's economic policies are equally ambitious, with a strong emphasis on cutting the growth of government spending to reduce inflation. This fiscal conservatism is central to the project's broader goal of making federal bureaucrats more accountable to the elected branches of government. By reducing federal spending, the project's authors argue that the government can be made more efficient and responsive to the needs of the people[1].Education reform is another key area, with Project 2025 proposing to move control and funding of education from federal bureaucrats to parents and state and local governments. This decentralization is intended to give communities more control over their educational systems, a move that reflects a long-standing conservative critique of federal overreach in education policy[1].One of the more contentious proposals is the ban on biological males competing in women's sports, a policy that has sparked heated debates about gender identity and athletic fairness. This proposal is part of a broader set of social policies that aim to redefine the role of the federal government in regulating personal and social issues[1].The project's vision for disaster response is also noteworthy. Project 2025 suggests reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This approach is based on the argument that FEMA is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt." The proposal includes changing the cost-sharing arrangement so the federal government covers 25% of the costs for small disasters and up to 75% for "truly catastrophic disasters"[4].This shift in disaster response aligns with broader themes of decentralization and state autonomy that run through many of Project 2025's proposals. For instance, Donald Trump, whose policies have been compared to those of Project 2025, has suggested that states should take more responsibility for disaster response, stating, "That's what states are for, to take care of problems"[4].Despite its ambitious scope, Project 2025 has faced significant criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned that the project's agenda represents a substantial threat not only to individual rights but also to the very foundation of American democracy. The ACLU argues that by seeking to centralize power in the executive branch, undermine civil rights, and erode essential social programs, Project 2025 prioritizes control over fairness and enforcement over welfare[3].Experts and critics alike point out that the incremental implementation of these policies in states like Texas and Washington is already testing the limits of legislative and judicial resilience. These small, strategic moves are paving the way for the project's larger vision, which could have far-reaching detrimental effects on communities and the economy, particularly for marginalized groups such as women, immigrants, and low-income families[5].As I reflect on the breadth and depth of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a vision for a fundamentally different America. Whether one sees this vision as a necessary correction or a dangerous deviation from current norms, it is undeniable that Project 2025 is shaping the conversation about the future of American governance.Looking ahead, the next few years will be crucial in determining the trajectory of Project 2025. As the 2025 presidential election approaches, the alignment of Trump's policies with those of Project 2025 will likely remain a point of contention. The project's success will depend on its ability to garner widespread support and navigate the complex landscape of American politics.In the end, Project 2025 stands as a testament to the enduring power of ideological vision in shaping public policy. Whether it succeeds in its ambitious goals or faces significant resistance, its impact on the national discourse is already being felt. As the country moves forward, it will be important to continue monitoring the developments of Project 2025, not just as a set of policies, but as a reflection of the deeper debates about the role of government in American society.

The Supreme Court made huge waves in the ongoing debate surrounding the rights of illegal immigrants in the United States when it temporarily blocked Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, which calls for the removal of identified gang members (from confirmed terrorist organizations), following the filing of an emergency application by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The order notes, “The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” Of course, it has left many people divided, as it surrounds controversial members of the Venezuelan Tren da Aragua gang, as well as the Salvadoran MS-13 gang and several Mexican cartels. I will ask Michael A. Letts, the Founder, President, and CEO of InVest USA (a national grassroots non-profit organization that is helping hundreds of communities provide thousands of bulletproof vests for their police forces all across the U.S.), his thoughts about the Supreme Court intervening in the enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has instituted what she and her political cohorts call a “congestion pricing program,” which was approved by the Biden administration on Joe's way out of the White House. Hochul and company sought approval from Biden and his people because the program is a toll on roads built and maintained with federal dollars, which is a violation of federal law. The Trump administration reviewed the program, canceled the approval granted by Biden, and issued a deadline to end the collection of tolls. Hochul and other New York officials have, so far, ignored the Trump administration, but now faces an escalation as Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has issued warnings that federal funding for construction projects in New York City will be cut off if the illegal toll isn't ended. I discuss the issue with Jay Beeber, Executive Director of Policy at the National Motorists Association, an organization dedicated to protecting American drivers against the tyranny of the anti-car movement. I was joined by Ron Edwards, host of The Ron Edwards American Experience. We discussed the arrest of former Dona Ana County Magistrate Judge Jose “Joel” Cano and his wife, Nancy, for tampering with evidence that was part of a probe by Homeland Security Investigations into their association with 23-year-old Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, who authorities say is linked to Tren de Aragua; also, the arrest of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan for intentionally misdirected federal agents away from a subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest. We also discussed North Dakota Republican Governor Kelly Armstrong vetoing a bill that would have required school districts to keep books determined to be “sexually explicit” out of the reach of students.Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/supportInVest USATruth, Lies and Control: Finding Hope in an Upside-Down WorldNational Motorist Association Ron EdwardsIf you love high-quality jerky, you need to check out Jerky Snob. They deliver small-batch, artisan jerky straight to your door every month—no MSG, no nitrates, just premium cuts and bold flavors. You can choose from 2, 4, or 8-bag subscriptions, and every delivery brings something new and delicious. One of my favorite things is the variety—spicy, smoky, sweet, all from different craft makers. It's like a jerky tasting adventure every month. Plus, it makes an awesome gift! Grab your subscription at tappintofood.com and treat yourself to better jerky. If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplyDiversify and protect your hard-earned wealth. Use America's Premiere Conservative Gold Company, Harvard Gold Group. Use promo code TAPP.Support American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit patriotmobile.com or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!If you are a content creator in need of a professional drone or you just enjoy flying a drone on the weekend, EXO Drones has you covered!  EXO Drones Plus, get 15% off your order by using this link.Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonIsland BrandsBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is more than just a collection of policy proposals; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical transformation of American governance. At its core, Project 2025 is a vision for an effective conservative administration, built on four pillars that aim to reshape the country's political, social, and economic landscape.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to disaster management and federal emergency response. The project's authors argue that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is "overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt"[5]. To address this, they propose a significant shift in the cost-sharing arrangement between the federal government and states. Under their plan, the federal government would cover only 25% of the costs for small disasters and up to 75% for "truly catastrophic disasters." This reform is part of a broader strategy to transfer the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, a move that aligns with Trump's suggestion to leave disaster response management to the states, stating, "That's what states are for, to take care of problems"[5].This proposal is not merely theoretical; it reflects a broader theme of decentralization and reduced federal involvement. For instance, Project 2025 advocates for the termination of preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that "DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated"[5]. This stance underscores a commitment to reducing federal oversight and financial support, a policy that could have far-reaching implications for communities reliant on federal aid during emergencies.The project's impact on social programs and individual rights is another critical area of concern. Critics, such as those from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), warn that Project 2025 represents a substantial threat to American democracy. By seeking to centralize power in the executive branch, undermine civil rights, and erode essential social programs, the project prioritizes control over fairness and enforcement over welfare[4].For example, the incremental steps already being taken in states like Texas and Washington foreshadow a future where the rights of marginalized groups—such as women, immigrants, and low-income families—are further compromised. Policies that restrict access to healthcare, particularly for women facing severe health risks during pregnancy, are already being tested in legislation and courts. This gradual centralization of power and erosion of individual rights raises serious concerns about the future of American governance and the well-being of vulnerable populations[4].The immigration policies proposed under Project 2025 are equally contentious. The project's vision includes housing immigrants in tent complexes, a practice already observed in El Paso, Texas, where Deployed Resources has set up such facilities. This approach reflects a broader strategy of exclusion and enforcement, which critics argue will exacerbate hardships for immigrant communities and undermine the principles of inclusion and fairness[2].Despite the alignment of some of these policies with Trump's past proposals, it is worth noting that Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail. However, the overlap between his policies and those of Project 2025 is undeniable. For instance, Trump's establishment of a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities and his suggestions for reforming disaster response management mirror key proposals outlined in Project 2025[5].As we look ahead to the upcoming milestones and decision points for Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative will continue to shape the political discourse in the United States. The project's incremental approach, where small, strategic moves are made to test the viability of larger policy changes, suggests that its impact will be felt long before 2025. The gradual erosion of civil rights, the decentralization of federal responsibilities, and the centralization of executive power all point to a future where the fabric of American democracy could be significantly altered.In conclusion, Project 2025 is not just a set of policy proposals; it is a roadmap for a fundamental transformation of American governance. As we navigate the complexities and implications of this project, it becomes evident that its success or failure will have profound consequences for the rights, welfare, and democratic foundations of the United States. The journey ahead will be marked by intense political battles, judicial challenges, and societal shifts, all of which will determine the future shape of American society.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a comprehensive vision for reshaping American governance. This project, which has garnered significant attention and controversy, aims to guide the next conservative presidential administration in implementing a wide array of policy changes that could profoundly impact various aspects of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is a collaborative effort involving over 100 respected organizations from the conservative movement. The project's foundation is laid out in the book "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," published in April 2023, which is the culmination of work by more than 400 scholars and policy experts. This document outlines a sweeping policy agenda that touches on nearly every major federal agency and aspect of government operations.One of the key pillars of Project 2025 is the restructuring of federal agencies and the way they operate. For instance, the project proposes to "de-weaponize the Federal Government" by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and the Department of Justice. This includes measures to make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress, a move that critics argue could erode the independence and integrity of these agencies[1][3][5].Another significant area of focus is energy policy. Project 2025 advocates for unleashing American energy production to reduce energy prices, a goal that aligns with broader conservative sentiments on energy independence. However, this approach also raises concerns about environmental regulations and the long-term sustainability of such policies[1][5].Education is another sector that would see substantial changes under Project 2025. The initiative suggests moving control and funding of education from federal bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments. Proponents argue this would increase local control and efficiency, while critics worry it could lead to unequal access to quality education across different regions[1].The project also delves into highly contentious issues such as immigration and reproductive rights. It proposes securing the border, finishing the wall, and deporting illegal aliens, as well as transferring the custody of immigrant children from Health and Human Services to the Department of Homeland Security. This move is criticized for prioritizing enforcement over welfare and potentially worsening the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable immigrant children[1][4].On reproductive rights, Project 2025 calls for the revival of the 19th-century Comstock Act to ban abortion medications and materials from being sent through the U.S. Postal Service, and the reversal of the FDA's approval of mifepristone. These proposals are part of a broader effort to restrict abortion access, which has been met with fierce opposition from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[3][4].The project's ambitions extend to the very structure of the federal government. It aims to establish a more unitary executive branch by increasing the president's authority over federal agencies. This includes reissuing Trump's Schedule F executive order, which would allow the dismissal of federal employees deemed 'non-performing' or disloyal. Critics argue this could erode the system of checks and balances and lead to the politicization of the federal workforce[4].Despite President Trump's public distancing from Project 2025 during his campaign, many of the policies he has implemented align closely with the project's proposals. For example, Trump's executive order ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government mirrors Project 2025's call to dismantle the "DEI apparatus" at various agencies. Trump has also suggested reforms to FEMA, shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, a proposal that is directly outlined in Project 2025's policy book[5].The implications of these changes are far-reaching. Experts and civil rights organizations, such as the ACLU, warn that Project 2025's policies could significantly erode civil rights, undermine the independence of federal agencies, and centralize power in the executive branch. The ACLU has detailed a roadmap for fighting back against these proposals, including going to court to preserve and advance rights, working with Congress to enact policy solutions, and organizing community efforts to educate the public about the potential harms of Project 2025[3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how conservatives envision American governance. The project's proponents see it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as a bloated and unaccountable federal government, while critics view it as a dangerous erosion of civil liberties and democratic norms.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will likely be a contentious and ongoing process. As the country approaches future elections and potential changes in administration, the fate of these proposals will remain a critical point of debate. Whether Project 2025 succeeds in reshaping American governance or is met with significant resistance, one thing is certain: its impact will be felt across every aspect of American life.

This Day in Legal History: Butler Act Passes in TennesseeOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Butler Act, a law prohibiting public school teachers from denying the biblical account of creation and from teaching evolution. The law reflected growing tensions between religious fundamentalism and modern science in early 20th-century America. Although the statute faced little opposition in the legislature, it soon became the center of national controversy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought to challenge the law and found a willing participant in John T. Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution and put on trial in July 1925 in what became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. The trial drew national attention, featuring a courtroom showdown between famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow and three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who argued for the prosecution. Though Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, the case exposed deep cultural divisions in the United States. The verdict was later overturned on a technicality, but the Butler Act remained in effect until 1967. The case paved the way for future legal battles over academic freedom and the separation of church and state in public education.French publishers and authors have filed a lawsuit against Meta, accusing the tech giant of using copyrighted content without permission to train its AI models. The National Publishing Union (SNE), the National Union of Authors and Composers (SNAC), and the Society of Men of Letters (SGDL) allege that Meta engaged in large-scale copyright infringement and economic "parasitism."This marks the first such lawsuit in France against an AI company, though similar cases have emerged in the U.S., where Meta faces lawsuits from authors, including Sarah Silverman and Christopher Farnsworth. Other AI firms, such as OpenAI, are also facing legal challenges in multiple countries over data used to train their models.The French associations argue that Meta's actions amount to “monumental looting” and see the case as a critical battle for copyright protection in the AI era. Meta has not yet responded to the allegations.French publishers and authors file lawsuit against Meta in AI case | ReutersThe Trump administration has revoked $20 billion in funding for greenhouse gas reduction projects, a move criticized by climate advocates and Democrats as an illegal seizure of funds intended for clean energy and disadvantaged communities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the decision, citing concerns over fraud, waste, and mismanagement, though no specific details were provided. The U.S. Justice Department and FBI are now reviewing the program.The funds were originally allocated through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act under President Biden to support pollution-reduction projects. Under Trump, the EPA has sought to halt climate-related funding, aligning with broader efforts to scale back environmental initiatives. The agency has not clarified how it plans to reallocate the funds.In response, the advocacy group Climate United Fund has sued the EPA and Citibank, arguing that withholding the funds violates a legally binding agreement. The lawsuit represents one of the first major legal battles over the Biden-era climate policies under the new administration.Trump administration claws back $20 billion in climate funds | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Education has announced plans to lay off nearly half its staff, potentially setting the stage for its complete elimination as part of President Trump's broader effort to downsize the federal government. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon confirmed the move aligns with Trump's mandate to dismantle the department, which manages student loans and enforces civil rights laws in schools.The layoffs are part of a wider restructuring effort led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), which has already cut over 100,000 federal jobs and halted numerous programs. While the administration argues these cuts reduce government waste, critics—including unions representing affected workers—condemn them as reckless and legally questionable.Many agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Social Security Administration, have offered early retirement buyouts to meet Trump's cost-cutting demands. However, lawsuits challenging these mass layoffs are mounting, with concerns over legality and disruption to essential government functions.US Education Department to cut half its staff as Trump eyes its elimination | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of its ambitious scope, but also due to the profound implications it holds for the future of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and crafted by former Trump administration officials, is more than just a policy blueprint; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government in the image of conservative ideology.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," which outlines a radical restructuring of the executive branch. The project's architects, including Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, both veterans of the Trump administration, have woven together a tapestry of policy proposals that touch nearly every aspect of American life. From immigration and abortion rights to free speech and racial justice, no area is left unscathed[1][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its expansion of presidential powers. The initiative advocates for a unitary executive theory, which centralizes greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, has been clear about this vision: "All federal employees should answer to the president." This approach aims to eliminate the independence of key agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)[3].The project's personnel strategy is equally alarming. It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with loyalists to a conservative president. This is part of a broader effort to create a "wrecking ball for the administrative state," as described by Russ Vought, a key figure in the project. The Heritage Foundation plans to have 20,000 personnel in its database by the end of 2024, all screened through a questionnaire designed to test their commitment to Trump's "America First" agenda[3].The Department of Justice is another target for significant reform under Project 2025. The initiative views the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people. It recommends a thorough overhaul, with the DOJ's Civil Rights Division focusing on combating "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism." This would involve prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argues that these programs "come at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violate longstanding federal law"[3].In the realm of economic policy, Project 2025's proposals are just as far-reaching. It suggests cutting overtime protections for 4.3 million workers, stopping efforts to lower prescription drug prices, and limiting access to food assistance for over 40 million people who rely on it monthly. The project also aims to eliminate funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding billions of dollars for infrastructure projects across the country. This could make it much harder for Americans without cars to get to work and travel around their communities[2].Environmental policies are not spared either. Project 2025 seeks to undo significant climate action by attacking the EPA's "Endangerment Finding," a critical component of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. The project proposes 'updating' this finding, which would restrict the federal government's mandate to combat climate change. Additionally, it suggests disbanding the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which provides critical weather data and scientific research[2].The impact on healthcare is also profound. Project 2025 recommends pushing more people towards Medicare Advantage and other private options, which could affect 33 million people. It also proposes eliminating the Head Start early education program, which serves over 1 million children, and restricting access to medication abortion[2].Despite the project's sweeping ambitions, its architects and supporters face significant criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been vocal about the project's potential to erode democracy and perpetuate bigotry, injustice, and inequality. The ACLU argues that many of Project 2025's recommendations are outright unconstitutional and rely on support from the executive branch and Congress[1].Donald Trump, despite his claims of having no connection to Project 2025, has ties that are hard to ignore. At least 140 people who worked on the project previously worked in Trump's administration, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has described his organization's role as "institutionalizing Trumpism." Trump's disavowal of the project in public statements contrasts sharply with the involvement of his former officials and the alignment of the project's policies with his own campaign promises[1][4].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 become increasingly clear. If implemented, it could fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, centralizing control in the White House and undermining the independence of critical agencies. The project's focus on dismantling safety nets, rolling back civil rights protections, and undoing climate action sets a perilous course for the nation.In the coming months, as the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be a central issue. Will it serve as a blueprint for a new administration, or will it be rejected as an overreach of executive power? The answer will depend on the choices made by voters and policymakers. One thing is certain, however: the future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will shape the country for generations to come.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a political initiative crafted by the American conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This is not just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government, aligned with a staunchly conservative agenda.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," authored by former Trump administration officials and supported by over 100 conservative groups. The project's director, Paul Dans, and associate director, Spencer Chretien, both high-ranking officials in the Trump administration, have been instrumental in shaping this vision. Despite former President Trump's public disavowal of the project, the involvement of his former officials and the alignment with his past policies and campaign promises suggest a deep connection[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its call for sweeping changes to federal agencies and their missions. The plan proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Education's responsibilities would be devolved to the states, and federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be significantly curtailed. For instance, the project rejects the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline indicators, prioritizing student safety over equity[1].The project also envisions a dramatic reduction in the federal government's role in education, elevating school choice and parental rights. This includes allowing states to opt out of federal programs or standards and converting public funds for education into school vouchers that could be used even for private or religious schools. The Head Start program, which provides services to children of low-income families, would be eliminated, and funding for free school meals would be cut. The underlying philosophy here is that education is a private rather than a public good[1].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant reforms that align with conservative principles. It suggests prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices and promoting the Medicare Advantage program, which consists of private insurance plans. The project also recommends cutting funding for Medicaid through various measures, such as caps on federal funding, limits on lifetime benefits, and stricter work requirements for beneficiaries. Additionally, it advocates for denying gender-affirming care to transgender people and eliminating insurance coverage for the morning-after pill Ella, as required by the Affordable Care Act[1].The project's stance on environmental and climate change policies is equally contentious. It recommends reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, reversing a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, and preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Mandy Gunasekara, a contributor to the project and former EPA chief of staff, acknowledges the reality of human-made climate change but considers it politicized and overstated. The project also seeks to block the expansion of the national electrical grid and stymie the transition to renewable energy, reflecting a strong bias towards fossil fuel interests[1].Project 2025 also outlines a vision for a more centralized executive branch, with the president having greater control over federal agencies. This is based on an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with loyalists to a conservative president. This move is seen as a "wrecking ball for the administrative state," according to Heritage Foundation plans[1].The implications of these changes are far-reaching. For instance, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be thoroughly reformed to combat what the project calls "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would be closely overseen by the White House. The project also proposes curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and shifting the FBI's focus away from overlapping responsibilities with other agencies like the DEA[1].In the area of law enforcement, Project 2025 suggests deploying the military for domestic law enforcement and promoting capital punishment with the speedy "finality" of those sentences. It also recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants living in the U.S., reflecting a hardline stance on immigration[1].The project's approach to media and public discourse is equally telling. It proposes defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status, and forcing them to relocate outside their current FM dial range. Social media companies would be required not to remove "core political viewpoints" from their platforms, and the project entertains the idea of banning TikTok. These measures are part of a broader effort to reshape the media landscape in favor of conservative viewpoints[1].As I navigated through the detailed proposals of Project 2025, it became clear that this initiative is not just about policy changes but about a fundamental shift in the role of the federal government and its relationship with the American people. The project's emphasis on conservative principles and its rejection of many existing federal programs and regulations suggest a profound redefinition of what the government should do and how it should operate.Critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that Project 2025 threatens to erode democracy by promoting bigotry, injustice, and inequality. The ACLU sees the project as a radical restructuring that opposes abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity[4].Despite the controversy, Project 2025 remains a significant force in the conservative policy landscape. As the 2024 elections approach, it will be interesting to see how these proposals are received by the public and whether they will influence the next presidential administration's policies.In the words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, "The nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This statement encapsulates the project's ambitious and somewhat ominous vision for the future of American governance. As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor the developments and implications of Project 2025, for it represents a potential turning point in the balance of power and the direction of federal policy in the United States[3].

Donald Trump is back in the White House after his historic re-election in November. At his inaugural speech this week, he laid out a manifesto for reinventing America, starting with some fundamental changes to the way that the law operates in the United States. What does he mean? Can he does this? And will the courts intervene? From denying asylum claims to changing America's established views on gender, President Trump is ploughing a controversial furrow. To discuss this, Nicholas Mostyn and Helena Kennedy are joined by David D. Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).If you have questions, criticisms, praise or other feedback, please do send your thoughts to us via lawanddisorderfeedback@gmail.com!Law and Disorder is a Podot podcast.Executive Producer and Editor: Nick Hilton.Associate Producer: Ewan Cameron.Music by Richard Strauss, arranged and performed by Anthony Willis & Brett Bailey.PR by Sally Jones. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Palmer RaidsOn January 2, 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer orchestrated a sweeping crackdown on suspected radicals in what came to be known as the "Palmer Raids." Over 500 federal agents, joined by local law enforcement, conducted coordinated raids across 33 U.S. cities, arresting between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals. The targets were primarily immigrants accused of being communists, anarchists, or other political radicals. Many of those detained were held without warrants or evidence, and legal proceedings against them often lacked due process.These raids were the culmination of the first Red Scare, a period marked by paranoia about leftist ideologies following the Russian Revolution and a wave of domestic labor unrest. Palmer justified the operation as a necessary defense against a supposed revolutionary threat, publishing his infamous article, The Case Against the 'Reds,' which fanned public fears. However, the raids quickly drew criticism for their unconstitutional practices. Detainees were denied legal counsel, held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and subjected to deportation without fair hearings.Prominent legal figures and organizations denounced the Palmer Raids, seeing them as a gross abuse of government power. Critics argued that Palmer's actions not only violated individual rights but also reflected an opportunistic attempt to bolster his political ambitions. The backlash led to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which emerged as a leading advocate against such government overreach.In hindsight, the Palmer Raids are a stark reminder of how fear and political expediency can undermine constitutional protections. They stand as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security, a pattern that has echoed through subsequent decades.Law schools are navigating significant changes as they head into 2025, with notable trends shaping the legal education landscape. Enrollment is surging, with applications for fall 2025 up 25% compared to last year. This follows a 6% increase in applicants and a 5% rise in first-year students in 2024. Interest in legal careers appears driven by the prominent role of law in current events, including the recent presidential election. The competition for spots, particularly at elite schools, is intensifying, with a sharp increase in applicants holding top LSAT scores.Diversity in law school classes remains a critical issue. While the overall diversity of the 2024 entering class held steady, Black and Hispanic enrollment at top-ranked "T-14" law schools dropped by 8% and 9%, respectively, following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ban. Experts anticipate further impacts on diversity as fewer undergraduates of color enter the pipeline, with effects becoming clearer by 2028. For now, Black and Hispanic applicants are up significantly, reflecting continued interest in legal education.Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to influence law school curricula, though adoption varies widely. While only a small percentage of faculty actively teach AI-focused courses, some schools, like UC Berkeley and Arizona State, now offer AI-specific degrees or certificates. Legal writing courses and law clinics are increasingly integrating AI tools, responding to the legal profession's rapid adoption of generative AI technologies. Advocates argue that law schools must accelerate these efforts to meet employer and industry demands.Law school trends to watch in 2025 | ReutersA U.S. military appeals court has upheld the validity of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and two accomplices. This decision follows an earlier ruling by a military judge stating that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's attempt to invalidate the agreements in August was untimely. Under these plea deals, the three men could plead guilty to their roles in the 9/11 attacks in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. The Pentagon has not commented on the ruling but previously indicated that Austin was surprised by the plea deals, which were made independently of his office. The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Mohammed remains one of the most notable detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a detention center established in 2002 to hold foreign militant suspects.The case has renewed criticism of Guantanamo Bay, with human rights advocates condemning the use of torture and calling for accountability. Separately, on the same day as the court ruling, the Pentagon announced the repatriation of Ridah Bin Saleh Al-Yazidi, one of Guantanamo's longest-held detainees, to Tunisia after being detained for over 20 years without charge. The facility currently houses 26 detainees, 14 of whom are eligible for transfer.US military appeals court says plea deals related to 9/11 attacks may proceed | ReutersCorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs faced mounting pressure in 2024, a trend likely to continue into 2025. Conservative activists, such as Robby Starbuck, successfully pushed major corporations like Walmart and Ford to modify or scale back their DEI initiatives. Starbuck's efforts have caught the attention of investors, with some threatening shareholder proposals in response to unwanted changes. Companies are also adjusting their language and communication around DEI to avoid political backlash, with organizations like Citigroup and Uber removing terms like "anti-racist" from corporate filings.The legal and political landscape is shifting as well. Trump's incoming administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, plans to restrict corporate DEI through measures like prohibiting SEC workforce disclosures and barring government contracts for companies with DEI programs. Simultaneously, legal challenges from groups like America First Legal are targeting DEI policies as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with lawsuits filed against companies like IBM's Red Hat.Some corporations now list DEI as a potential risk factor in their filings, signaling concerns about legal or reputational fallout from their diversity efforts. Despite the scrutiny, many businesses quietly continue pursuing diversity goals, while some executives maintain that inclusivity is essential for long-term success. This balancing act reflects the growing complexity of navigating DEI in a polarized environment.Corporate DEI Programs Recoil and Rebrand as Pressure MountsIn my column this week, I contend that if the Department of Government Efficiency, which will not be a real executive agency, wants to make the IRS more efficient it should do so by ordering more audits of wealthy taxpayers. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's push for government efficiency could start by significantly improving federal revenue by addressing the $696 billion annual tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and collected. Research suggests that better auditing of high-income taxpayers, without requiring new legislation, could recover substantial unpaid taxes, aligning with the duo's mission of improving efficiency. Studies show that audits of wealthier individuals yield a high return on investment, deterring future tax evasion while reinforcing compliance.The IRS, weakened by years of budget cuts, requires more personnel to handle labor-intensive audits of complex high-income returns effectively. Targeted funding has already proven successful, as the Inflation Reduction Act enabled the IRS to recover over $1 billion from high-net-worth taxpayers. For every $1 spent auditing a taxpayer in the 90th percentile, the IRS recouped $12 in taxes owed – a truly staggering return on investment. However, the agency still struggles to match its 1995 staffing levels, highlighting a critical need for further investment.Closing the tax gap would not only generate significant revenue but also restore fairness by ensuring progressive tax rates function as intended. This effort is essential for creating an accurate picture of government resources and addressing fiscal responsibility. Whether Musk and Ramaswamy's commission will embrace this nuanced approach to tax administration remains to be seen, but don't hold your breath. A successful efficiency audit of the IRS hinges on informed decision-making and precision – something neither Musk nor Ramaswamy has evinced having in matters of politics.Musk, Ramaswamy Can Target Inefficiency by Closing the Tax Gap This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Original publish date February 2020 Our guest this week is Nisia Thornton who is discussing bills that particularly impact our LGBTQ community. Hosted by: Roberto Henriquez, Ann Dickerson, and Amy Ferguson. Resources https://www.thetrevorproject.org/ - Our trained counselors are here to support you 24/7. If you are a young person in crisis, feeling suicidal, or in need of a safe and judgment-free place to talk, call the TrevorLifeline now at 1-866-488-7386. Go to TrevorChat➜ online instant messaging TrevorText is a confidential and secure resource that provides live help for LGBTQ youth with a trained specialist, over text messages. Text START to 678678. https://www.translifeline.org/ - a trans-led organization that connects trans people to the community, support, and resources they need to survive and thrive. 877-565-8860 The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender National Hotline : (888) 843-4564 The GLBT National Youth Talkline (youth serving youth through age 25): (800) 246-7743 The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255) https://www.glaad.org/transgender/resources National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) (advocacy) Transgender Law Center (TLC) (legal services and advocacy) Gender Proud (advocacy) Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) (legal services) Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) (legal services) Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) (advocacy) Trans People of Color Coalition (TPOCC) (advocacy) Trans Women of Color Collective (TWOCC) (advocacy) Black Trans Advocacy (advocacy) Trans Latina Coalition (advocacy) Gender Spectrum (support for families, trans youth, and educators) Gender Diversity (support for families, trans youth, and educators) Trans Youth Equality Federation (support for families and trans youth) Trans Youth Family Allies (TYFA) (support for families and trans youth) TransTech Social Enterprises (economic empowerment) SPART*A (advocacy for trans military service members) Transgender American Veterans Association (advocacy for trans veterans) TransAthlete.com (info about trans athletes) TransLife Center at Chicago House (support services) Transgender Programs at LGBT Organizations GLAAD's Transgender Media Program (media advocacy) Freedom for All Americans (policy and legislative advocacy) PFLAG Our Trans Loved Ones (support for families of people who are trans) PFLAG Transgender Resources (resources for trans people and their families) PFLAG's Transgender Ally campaign (advocacy) COLAGE Kids of Trans Community (support for kids of trans parents) The Task Force's Transgender Civil Rights Project (advocacy) HRC's transgender resources (advocacy) Gender Identity Project at the NYC LGBT Center (support services) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (legal services) Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project (legal services) National Center for Lesbian Rights - Transgender Law (legal services) L.A. LGBT Center's Transgender Economic Empowerment Project (economic empowerment) SF Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative (economic empowerment)

A bill nicknamed the "nonprofit killer" is barreling toward a vote in the House, and its implications are chilling. H.R. 9495, backed by House Republicans, would let President-elect Donald Trump revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed "terrorist-supporting" by the Treasury Department without due process. While the bill, known as the "Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act," claims to target terrorism, many civil rights advocates warn this measure could silence groups fighting for justice, including those advocating for racial equity, Palestinian rights, and press freedoms. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), say it's a dangerous overreach. If passed, the bill risks stifling free speech and dismantling protections for civil society. With a vote expected Thursday, the clock is ticking for lawmakers to decide whether they'll protect democracy or enable its suppression. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The US House of Representatives recently failed to pass a bill that could have removed the tax-exempt status of “terrorist supporting organizations,” an unclear designation that could be arbitrarily used. The bill, HR 9495, was condemned by many groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). KCSB's Joyce Chi talked to the ACLU's senior policy counsel Kia Hamadanchy about the implications of the bill for free speech, why the fight over HR 9495 continues, and how it still could end up passing.

¿Quienes observan a los que cuentan? Gary Gutierrez y José Raúl Cepeda conversan hoy con portavoces de la Comisión de Derechos Civiles de PR y la American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Segmento 1 Comenzamos con el Lcdo. Ever Padilla, director ejecutivo de la Comisión Derechos Civiles de PR. La CDC es una agencia del gobierno. Tienen la función de proteger el cumplimiento de los Derechos Civiles en Puerto Rico. ¿Cómo hacen cumplir cuando reciben querellas de violaciones a los derechos civiles? Segmento 2 Derecho al voto. CDC activó academia de observadores ( al estilo internacional) para mirar, tomar notas y denunciar cualquier intento de fraude en el proceso electoral. Para querellas (787)764-8686 Página web Email Segmento 3 Ahora hablamos con Lcdo. Fermín Arraiza de la American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). ¿Qué es la ACLU? Es una ONG - organización no gubernamental. Que opera como un bufete el más grande con sucursales en todos los estados. ACLU PR llevó casi para mantener el registro electoral abierto hasta 30 días antes de las elecciones. La Corte de Distrito Federal les falló en contra. En PR la CEE ha ido aplicando una política pública q desalienta la participación electoral. Ni siquiera cumple con el propio código electoral de 2020. Segmento 4 Dentro de la propia CEE y los partidos políticos parece haber personas q ilegalmente intentan limitar los derechos de los electores. ACLU logró certificarse como observadores. Están solicitando información sobre difuntos y personas declaradas incapaces por el tribunal. Estos informes debieran ser mensuales pero la CEE se niega ofrecer información. ¿Se debe participar en el proceso electoral? Su interesan participar como observadores de la ACLU (787)753-8493

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

It's often been referred to as the trial of the century. It occurred in July of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. It's formally known as- The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes but is more commonly referred to as The Scopes Monkey Trial. --Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the book, The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Dr. Bergman is a multi-award-winning teacher and author. He's taught biology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics and other courses for over 40 years at the University of Toledo Medical College, Bowling Green State University and other colleges. His nine degrees include a doctorate from Wayne State University in Detroit. The 1,026 college credit hours he has earned is the equivalent to almost 20 master's degrees. He has over 1,800 publications in both scholarly and popular science journals which have been translated into 13 languages. His books, which include chapters he has authored, are in over 2,400 college libraries in 65 countries. --According to Dr. Bergman, the American Civil Liberties Union -ACLU-, was aware of a law passed that stated that in public schools, you couldn't teach theories which contradicted the biblical account of creation. The ACLU didn't appreciate that because human evolution is a major plank in their worldview. They wanted to go to court but they needed a case so they asked for volunteers. Scopes was asked to volunteer in Dayton, Tennessee. The thought was that it would bring attention to the city as it wasn't doing well due to the fact that a lot of industry had moved out. So in the end, the trial was about creation vs. evolution.

It's often been referred to as the trial of the century. It occurred in July of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. It's formally known as- The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes but is more commonly referred to as The Scopes Monkey Trial. --Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the book, The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Dr. Bergman is a multi-award-winning teacher and author. He's taught biology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics and other courses for over 40 years at the University of Toledo Medical College, Bowling Green State University and other colleges. His nine degrees include a doctorate from Wayne State University in Detroit. The 1,026 college credit hours he has earned is the equivalent to almost 20 master's degrees. He has over 1,800 publications in both scholarly and popular science journals which have been translated into 13 languages. His books, which include chapters he has authored, are in over 2,400 college libraries in 65 countries. --According to Dr. Bergman, the American Civil Liberties Union -ACLU-, was aware of a law passed that stated that in public schools, you couldn't teach theories which contradicted the biblical account of creation. The ACLU didn't appreciate that because human evolution is a major plank in their worldview. They wanted to go to court but they needed a case so they asked for volunteers. Scopes was asked to volunteer in Dayton, Tennessee. The thought was that it would bring attention to the city as it wasn't doing well due to the fact that a lot of industry had moved out. So in the end, the trial was about creation vs. evolution.

It's often been referred to as the trial of the century. It occurred in July of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. It's formally known as: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes but is more commonly referred to as The Scopes Monkey Trial. Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the book, The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Dr. Bergman is a multi-award-winning teacher and author. He's taught biology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics and other courses for over 40 years at the University of Toledo Medical College, Bowling Green State University and other colleges. His nine degrees include a doctorate from Wayne State University in Detroit. The 1,026 college credit hours he has earned is the equivalent to almost 20 master's degrees. He has over 1,800 publications in both scholarly and popular science journals which have been translated into 13 languages. His books, which include chapters he has authored, are in over 2,400 college libraries in 65 countries. According to Dr. Bergman, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was aware of a law passed that stated that in public schools, you couldn't teach theories which contradicted the biblical account of creation. The ACLU didn't appreciate that because human evolution is a major plank in their worldview. They wanted to go to court but they needed a case so they asked for volunteers. Scopes was asked to volunteer in Dayton, Tennessee. The thought was that it would bring attention to the city as it wasn't doing well due to the fact that a lot of industry had moved out. So in the end, the trial was about creation vs. evolution.

It's often been referred to as the trial of the century. It occurred in July of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. It's formally known as: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes but is more commonly referred to as The Scopes Monkey Trial. Joining Jim to discuss this issue was Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the book, The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Dr. Bergman is a multi-award-winning teacher and author. He's taught biology, biochemistry, anatomy, genetics and other courses for over 40 years at the University of Toledo Medical College, Bowling Green State University and other colleges. His nine degrees include a doctorate from Wayne State University in Detroit. The 1,026 college credit hours he has earned is the equivalent to almost 20 master's degrees. He has over 1,800 publications in both scholarly and popular science journals which have been translated into 13 languages. His books, which include chapters he has authored, are in over 2,400 college libraries in 65 countries. According to Dr. Bergman, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was aware of a law passed that stated that in public schools, you couldn't teach theories which contradicted the biblical account of creation. The ACLU didn't appreciate that because human evolution is a major plank in their worldview. They wanted to go to court but they needed a case so they asked for volunteers. Scopes was asked to volunteer in Dayton, Tennessee. The thought was that it would bring attention to the city as it wasn't doing well due to the fact that a lot of industry had moved out. So in the end, the trial was about creation vs. evolution.

In 2023, Montgomery County, Maryland, began using drones to respond to 911 calls for faster response, triaging ability, and cost reduction. But big issues of privacy, mass surveillance, and transparency remain. The courts are redefining old assumptions about privacy in public spaces and a decade ago shut down an aircraft-based mass surveillance program in Baltimore. Sunil Dasgupta talks with Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst in speech, policy, and technology at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about emerging concerns about drone use in policing. Music from Finster.

On this episode of SPS, Pamela N. and Platypus member Adrienne F. interview Nadine Strossen, an American legal scholar and civil liberties activist. Strossen served as the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1991 to 2008; she is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education Expression (FIRE); and is the author of Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (2023). We discuss her history on the Left, her relationship to the antiwar movement, the Students for a Democratic Society, and radical & progressive positions today. We also take up the recent illiberal turn in society, and what if any effect it has had on the ACLU, as well as her proposed solutions. Finally, we take a critical look at demands by the Left to reform the Supreme Court. If you live in the East Coast, Platypus is hosting its annual East Coast Conference in Boston on Oct 11-13. There will be a variety of panels, teach-ins and social gatherings. Panels include, "The American Revolution and Communism" held at Boston College on 10.12 and "The Role of Theory in Defeat," at Harvard University on 10.13. More information will be available at: https://www.facebook.com/platypusbc | https://x.com/BcPlatypus | https://www.instagram.com/platypusbc/ The French chapter of Platypus is holding a virtual panel, on "Popular Front Politics Today," held in French on Sat Sept 28 via Zoom. The panel will feature, Gilles Candar, Aymeric Monville, and a member of the Spartacist League. More information will be available at: https://www.instagram.com/platypusfrance LINKS - Strossen, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (2023) https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-speech-9780197699652 - Strossen, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship (2018) https://www.amazon.com/-/en/Nadine-Strossen/dp/0190859121 - Strossen, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights (1995, new ed. 2024) https://nyupress.org/9781479830763/defending-pornography/ - Nogales, “The Cancel Wars: The Legacy of the Cultural Turn in the Age of Trump” in Platypus Review 131 (November 2020) https://platypus1917.org/2020/11/01/the-cancel-wars-the-legacy-of-the-cultural-turn-in-the-age-of-trump/ - ACLU Case Selection Guidelines (2017) https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf - Strossen, “The First Amendment Doesn't Protect White Supremacists Behind Violent Charlottesville Rallies,” LA Progressive Newsletter, Dec. 7, 2021 - Strossen, “Charlottesville Three Years Later: The First Amendment Confronts Hate and Violence,” Los Angeles Review of Books, Aug. 10, 2020 - Strossen, “The Interdependence of Racial Justice and Free Speech for Racists,” 1 Journal of Free Speech Law 51-70 (2021) - Moyn, “Socialists Have Long Fought to Disempower the Supreme Court. That's More Urgent Than Ever Now,” Jacobin (2020) https://jacobin.com/2020/09/supreme-court-socialists-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death - Cotlin, “Mayor Eric Adams, DSA agree: expand the court” City & State New York (2023) https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2023/02/mayor-eric-adams-dsa-agree-expand-court/383006/ - Lazare, “A central driver” in the Weekly Worker (2021) https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1337/a-central-driver/ - Strossen on SCOTUS term limits, in “Forum: What's the Matter With the Supreme Court? And what can be done to fix it?” in The Nation (2018) https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/forum-whats-the-matter-with-the-supreme-court/ - Sublation Media with Doug Lain, “Nadine Strossen Talks to Marxists” (2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gd5-KoOosA - “The Politics of Free Speech,” (04/06/24) Platypus International Convention 2024 panel, Chicago, IL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anorBcUZ-uE - "Free Speech and the Left," Platypus virtual panel (05/02/24), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9xc0IIKUz8

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a pivotal moment in American history that marked a significant escalation in the Vietnam War. This resolution was a direct response to the alleged attack on the USS Maddox by North Vietnamese forces on August 4, 1964. The text of the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." Essentially, it provided the President with a blank check to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without an official declaration of war. President Johnson's message to Congress emphasized the need for decisive action to protect American interests and allies in the region. He portrayed the resolution as a means to maintain international peace and security, suggesting that failure to act would embolden Communist expansion. The resolution received overwhelming support in Congress, with only two Senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, voting against it. This legislative act significantly broadened the executive powers and set the stage for large-scale American involvement in Vietnam, leading to a prolonged and contentious conflict that would have lasting impacts on both American and Vietnamese societies.The Biden administration's $250 million initiative aims to bolster electric trucking along the Northeast I-95 corridor through the Clean Corridor Coalition plan. This involves installing chargers in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut to support electric trucks, aligning with the administration's climate goals to cut 18.6 million tons of carbon emissions by 2050. Despite this, electric trucks only represent 0.23% of registered U.S. trucks, partly due to their higher cost compared to diesel trucks.The trucking industry's adoption of electric vehicles is unpredictable due to varying fleet management practices and preferences. Larger companies like J.B. Hunt and Schneider National are leading by integrating electric trucks, potentially setting a trend for smaller fleets. The initiative also intends to inspire private motorists by showcasing electric trucks.Effective placement of chargers, likely at existing rest stops, is crucial for the plan's success. However, the power capacity at these locations may pose challenges. A mix of charger types is essential to accommodate different charging needs and maintain truck operation efficiency.Permitting and zoning are being addressed to streamline the installation process. This initiative could potentially pave the way for broader national adoption of electric trucking, although substantial investment in charging infrastructure is needed for full electrification. The coalition's efforts might inspire mid-sized and smaller fleets to follow suit, enhancing the shift towards greener transportation. The detailed focus on charger placement and power availability highlights the legal and logistical complexities of this initiative, emphasizing the need for coordinated efforts between state and local governments.Electric Trucks Put to the Test in I-95 Corridor Charger ProgramThe U.S. public school system has become a new battleground over religious expression, particularly regarding the display and teaching of religious texts. Louisiana and Oklahoma have enacted laws requiring the display of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the Bible in public schools, respectively. These moves challenge the Constitution's "establishment clause," which separates church and state. This year alone, lawmakers in 29 states have proposed 91 bills promoting religion in schools, driven by conservative opposition to liberal curriculums and the Supreme Court's recent rightward shift.In Louisiana, Attorney General Liz Murrill defends the Ten Commandments law as a way to address discipline in schools, while Governor Jeff Landry suggests non-religious parents tell their children to ignore the displays. Oklahoma's policy focuses on the Bible's historical and cultural significance, but some school districts resist the change. The National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL) is coordinating these efforts, producing model bills for state legislatures.The Supreme Court's recent rulings have emboldened conservative Christians by expanding religious rights in public life. Decisions supporting school prayer, exempting religious entities from certain regulations, and backing individuals' rights to refuse services for same-sex weddings have all contributed to this movement. As more laws emerge, the Court may need to address whether such mandates create denominational preferences or coerce religious participation.How US public schools became a new religious battleground | ReutersThe Justice Department's Tax Division has been without a Senate-confirmed assistant attorney general (AAG) for most of the time since January 2009, with only a two-year exception. This vacancy undermines morale, hampers tax administration, and impacts taxpayers negatively. The AAG oversees civil tax trials, appeals, and criminal tax cases, making the role crucial for effective tax enforcement.Historically, presidential appointees have brought unique expertise and accountability to the position. For instance, under President George W. Bush, Eileen J. O'Connor revitalized the Tax Division by updating policies and expediting investigations. Nathan J. Hochman continued these efforts before the position became largely vacant. Although President Obama briefly appointed Kathryn Keneally, who led a successful initiative against Swiss banks facilitating tax evasion, subsequent nominees failed to gain Senate confirmation.President Trump did not fill the position, and President Biden has also left it vacant without nominating a candidate. This lack of leadership has contributed to a 72% decline in federal tax prosecutions since 2013. The absence of an AAG means there is no one to take responsibility for tax policy decisions, motivate prosecutors, or engage with the IRS and Congress. The resulting leadership void diminishes the Tax Division's effectiveness and prestige.To restore the division's functionality and reputation, it is crucial for the next administration and Senate to prioritize appointing a qualified AAG. This would enhance tax enforcement, support the division's employees, and ensure better tax compliance and administration.Tax Leadership Vacuum in Justice Department Must Come to an EndOn August 6, 2024, Ohio Judge Michael Holbrook upheld a state law banning gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormones, for transgender minors, following a challenge by families of transgender adolescents. The decision, which came after a non-jury trial, had previously been blocked by Holbrook during the trial. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost supported the ruling, asserting the legislature's authority to protect children from making irreversible medical decisions.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Ohio chapter, representing the plaintiffs, expressed their intent to appeal, emphasizing the critical nature of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Ohio's Republican-controlled legislature passed the law in January, despite Governor Mike DeWine's veto, which he issued after hearing from parents about the lifesaving impact of gender-affirming care.The plaintiffs argued the law violated a 2011 state constitutional amendment preventing state laws from prohibiting the purchase of healthcare. Judge Holbrook countered that the amendment did not prevent the state from regulating healthcare providers' actions, categorizing gender-affirming care as wrongdoing. He stated that those opposed to the law should seek change through the voting process rather than the judicial system, citing the potential risks and permanent outcomes associated with gender-affirming care as a legitimate state interest in passing the law.Ohio ban on gender-affirming care for minors upheld by judge | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This episode features an interview with AJ Hikes, Deputy Executive Director for Strategy & Culture at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This discussion covers everything from healing the harm caused by racist bias within organizations, to integrating justice into diversity, equity & inclusion work, to the exclusionary nature of our modern legal system.

In the realm of criminal justice, Pennsylvania stands as a stage where the specter of wrongful convictions casts a long and haunting shadow. Recent research by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sheds light on the staggering prevalence of wrongful accusations within the state, illuminating the urgent need for systemic reforms. According to the ACLU's data, Pennsylvania ranks among the highest in the nation for wrongful convictions, with a significant portion of those affected belonging to marginalized communities. The indigent defense fund, a crucial lifeline for those who cannot afford legal representation, has emerged as a beacon of hope amidst this bleak landscape. On The Spark, Senator Vincent Hughes shed light on the pivotal role of indigent defense funding in safeguarding the rights of Pennsylvanians. The recent statewide budget allocated substantial resources to bolster this essential aspect of the justice system. Senator Hughes emphasized that expanding this funding could be instrumental in rectifying the injustices faced by wrongfully accused individuals, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The human toll of wrongful convictions came to the forefront in a poignant conversation with Ronald Johnson, a man who spent 34 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. Released just last month, Johnson's harrowing ordeal serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of miscarriages of justice. During the interview, Johnson recounted the anguish of knowing his innocence while languishing in prison, separated from loved ones and robbed of precious moments of freedom. As we dove deeper into the heart-wrenching stories of those wrongfully convicted, attention turned to Chester Hollman III, another victim of a flawed justice system. Reporter Emily Preveti provided insights into Hollman's case, shedding light on the systemic failures that led to his wrongful conviction in Philadelphia. Hollman's exoneration serves as a testament to the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity, but it also underscores the pressing need for comprehensive reforms to prevent similar tragedies in the future.The statistics presented by the ACLU paint a sobering picture of the pervasive injustices that plague Pennsylvania's criminal justice system. Among the wrongfully accused, a disproportionate number hail from marginalized communities, highlighting the intersecting dynamics of race, poverty, and systemic bias.Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jen and Justine are joined by McKenzie Johnson, Demetrius Johnson, and Kaylee Bahe to discuss an incident that gained national attention on Halloween of 2018. On October 31, 2018, two Indigenous students were assaulted by their teacher, Mary Jane Eastin, at Cibola High School in Albuquerque, NM. In an AP literature course, one student had the end of their braid cut off and the other was called “a bloody Indian.” Mckenzie Johnson is the student who was called a “bloody Indian." On January 8, 2020, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the Second Judicial District Court against Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) and former Cibola High School Teacher Mary Jane Eastin for violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act. This case has now reached the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico and the next hearing will be on April 29, 2024 at Central New Mexico Community College.  This episode opens with audio from the Albuquerque Public Schools District Equity and Inclusion Committee hearing on November 28, 2018, and closes with remarks from the Johnson family after hearing. Full press release and call to action to follow. Stay updated on The Red Nation website and social media accounts. Podcast art created by McKenzie Johnson. The Red Nation Podcast is produced by Red Media and is sustained by comrades and supporters like you. Power our work here: www.patreon.com/redmedia

The podcast episode from "Mid Atlantic" with host Roifield Brown features the topic of bail and criminal justice reform in the U.S., contrasting it with the UK's approach. The guest, Jeffrey J. Clayton, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition, https://ambailcoalition.org provides insights into the complexities of the American bail system, its historical background, current challenges, and debates surrounding reform efforts. The episode illuminates the stark differences in how bail is approached in the U.S. and the UK, highlighting the impact on freedom, equality, and justice, particularly for marginalised communities in the U.S.Key Points:Comparison of U.S. and UK Bail Systems: The U.S. system, reliant on commercial bail bonds, starkly contrasts with the UK's preference for granting bail without such bonds, raising questions about justice and equality.Disproportionate Impact on Marginalised Communities: The financial burden of bail in the U.S. often means that wealth determines pre-trial freedom, disproportionately harming black and poor Americans.Divergence in State Policies: Some states like Illinois, New Jersey, and New Mexico are moving away from monetary bonds, while others like Georgia and New York are tightening bail requirements.Increase in Pretrial Detention Rates: From 1984 to present, the detention rate has increased from 24% to 75%, indicating a shift towards mass pretrial incarceration.Challenges with Non-Monetary Pretrial Conditions: The growing use of ankle monitors, house arrest, and other conditions has become a significant and costly part of the pretrial process.Notable Quotes:"We've substituted the evils of money bail in the federal system for a system of mass federal pretrial incarceration.""The presumption of crime...really does affect people's attitudes around monetary bail and its efficacy.""Bail challenges prosecutors to act...there's no incentive to get a conviction when you've already got pretrial detention.""Our system...it's really a test of your ties to the community. Can you find a third party to put up a financial guarantee?"Organisations Advocating for Bail Reform:The Bail Project (https://bailproject.org): A national nonprofit organization that provides bail assistance and advocates for bail reform across the U.S.American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (https://www.aclu.org): Advocates for a fairer justice system and works on various fronts, including bail reform, to ensure equality and justice for all, particularly marginalized communities.Equal Justice Under Law (https://equaljusticeunderlaw.org): Focuses on ending wealth-based discrimination in the justice system, including challenges to the cash bail system.National Bail Fund Network (https://www.communityjusticeexchange.org/nbfn-directory): A directory of over 60 community bail and bond funds across the U.S. that work to prevent incarceration and combat racial and economic disparities in the bail system. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Brock Pierce is a well-known figure in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space, a true OG, recognized for his extensive contributions as an entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and advocate for the digital currency ecosystem. Pierce began his career in the entertainment industry as a child actor but later shifted his focus towards technology and innovation.He co-founded several high-profile projects in the crypto and blockchain sectors, including Blockchain Capital, Tether, and EOS. Brock has also served as the chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, aiming to standardize, protect, and promote the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money worldwide.Brock is also actively involved in philanthropic efforts and supports organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the Brennan Center for Human Rights.In this conversation, we discuss:- EstateX- Real estate tokenization- Security tokens in the real estate industry- Being a market maker for virtual worlds- The difference between securities and utility tokens- 2024 Crypto Market- RWA - real-world assets- How crypto provides solutions to the traditional banking system- $USDT - $50trillion in annual transaction volume- Bitcoin ETF- 52 million Americans hold digital assetsEstateXWebsite: www.estatex.euX: @estatexeuTelegram: t.me/estatexofficialBrock PierceX: @brockpierceWikipedia: Brock Pierce   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  This episode is brought to you by PrimeXBT.  PrimeXBT offers a robust trading system for both beginners and professional traders that demand highly reliable market data and performance. Traders of all experience levels can easily design and customize layouts and widgets to best fit their trading style. PrimeXBT is always offering innovative products and professional trading conditions to all customers.  PrimeXBT is running an exclusive promotion for listeners of the podcast. After making your first deposit, 50% of that first deposit will be credited to your account as a bonus that can be used as additional collateral to open positions.  Code: CRYPTONEWS50  This promotion is available for a month after activation. Click the link below:  PrimeXBT x CRYPTONEWS50 

Welcome to Episode 176!  This week The Boys are unpacking a new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which was released recently. The information is frightening, angering, and depressing and you need to know more so your gay BFFs are bringing to the floor for you.  These are concerns touching all of our lives so it is important to be informed -- and The Boys are nothing if not educational!The report provides an ongoing count and summarization of current bills and laws introduced in all 50 states targeting LGBTQ+ people already in 2024.  It's only February -- the 2nd of 12 months.  Some are geared towards Trans healthcare, Trans youth, curriculum bans, book bans, drag bans, and many more topics harming LGBTQ+ rights and existence.  In this week's Trash Talk, The Boys are touching on a viral meme, the new Yea album no one can find, and Fani Willis takes the stand and gives us some chuckles.  In the weekly Pick-Up, and outing with too much of a good thing! All this and recommendations (or wreck-o-mendations) too!This one's gonna be sure to fill your diaper and maybe even blow your wig off, so make sure the diaper is fresh and the wig is secured!  Pour yourself a glass of delicious and comforting port vintage (you're gonna want it) and pull up a chair at the table with your GFFs.  It's Time To Paint!=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Let The Boys of Painted Trash know your thoughts on this week's topics and episode! What street festivals do you attend? Do you like street fests? What is your favorite festival??Have a topic idea or story you recommend for Trash Talk, be sure to send it in to our email or through the "contact us" on our website.Follow us on:Instagram: instragram.com/paintedtrashpodTwitter: twitter.com/paintedtrashpodFacebook: facebookcom/paintedtrashpodcastDon't forget to click Subscribe and/or Follow and leave us a review!email: paintedtrashpodcast@gmail.comweb: www.paintedtrashpodcast.com

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!Looking back over my time at Above the Law, one of the things I'm most proud of is the talent I discovered. My first full-time hire was Elie Mystal, now the justice correspondent on The Nation, frequent television commentator, and author of the bestselling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution. My second full-time hire was Kashmir Hill, now at the New York Times, who has a book of her own: Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup's Quest to End Privacy as We Know It, published last month by Penguin Random House.Your Face Belongs to Us is about the future of facial-recognition technology, an incredibly powerful tool with great promise and peril. The book is a story about privacy and technology, but it's also a story about the law and legal issues. The future of facial recognition will be shaped profoundly by legal responses. Can we craft laws that allow society to take advantage of the benefits of this technology while at the same time preserving the privacy that it threatens?In my podcast interview with Kashmir, I pushed back on some of the more dystopian elements of Your Face Belongs to Us. I pressed her on whether she might be underestimating the positive aspects of facial-recognition technology, such as its use by law enforcement (such as tracking down January 6 rioters for arrest and prosecution). We analyzed the crucial role played by lawyers in the story of Clearview AI, the mysterious startup at the heart of the book; they include Paul Clement, Floyd Abrams, Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, and attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). And we explored stories of facial-recognition technology gone wrong, including innocent people arrested for crimes they didn't commit because of false positives on Clearview and similar software.Thanks to Kashmir for joining me, as well as for her important work exploring the legal and policy aspects of a transformative but troubling technology.Show Notes:* Kashmir Hill bio, author website* Kashmir Hill archives, The New York Times* Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup's Quest to End Privacy as We Know It, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Show links: Nadine Strossen, THE LONGEST SERVING president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1991 to 2008. Her indispensable book, Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship My last interview with Strossen JULY 26, 2022 Nadine's latest article on the forced government speech case (“gay website case”) with Kristen […]

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, March 2nd, 2023. Happy Friday Jr. everyone! Fight Laugh Feast Magazine Our Fight Laugh Feast Magazine is a quarterly issue that packs a punch like a 21 year Balvenie, no ice. We don’t water down our scotch, why would we water down our theology? Order a yearly subscription for yourself and then send a couple yearly subscriptions to your friends who have been drinking luke-warm evangelical cool-aid. Every quarter we promise quality food for the soul, wine for the heart, and some Red Bull for turning over tables. Our magazine will include cultural commentary, a Psalm of the quarter, recipes for feasting, laughter sprinkled through out the glossy pages, and more. Sign up today, at fightlaughfeast.com. https://thepoliticalinsider.com/recent-study-shows-a-majority-of-americans-are-too-fat-and-dumb-to-join-the-military/ Recent Study Shows a Majority of Americans are too Fat and Dumb to Join the Military Last year, the Pentagon had to grapple with quite a few negative headlines. The most alarming repetitive headline was that recruiting goals were not met across the board. Of course, one might think that isn’t a big deal given that we have pulled out of Afghanistan and aren’t technically in an active war with anyone. That is, if you ignore the ‘secret wars’ in Syria and Iraq and our proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, but I digress. This news rightly rocked legislators and should concern Americans at large because of our increased tensions with China, which seems to be inevitably heading toward a future war. However, let’s say you think the prospects of us finding ourselves in a hot war, like Afghanistan or a conflict with China, are slim to null. The fact that most young Americans couldn’t join the military if they wanted to should matter to every American, as it directly reflects the type of society we currently elevate. A recent study has found that 77% of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 are physically unqualified to join the armed services, up 6% from 2017. To put that into simpler terms, over three-quarters of Americans within the prime military recruitment ages are too fat to raise their right hand to serve. Look at those two statistics I mentioned again. It might be bad now, but that same demographic was just as fat and unqualified six years ago. According to 2020 numbers, 42% of American adults are considered obese, with 19% on active duty falling into that category. That number is up from 16% of obesity in the active duty force in 2015. Ironically, some of the blame, according to experts, falls on a food insecurity program many active duty and young Americans are forced to participate in. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture found in 2015 that 40% of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are obese. An estimated 22,000 Active Duty and over 250,000 National Guard families receive SNAP benefits. For those of us familiar, that means a whole lot of government cheese and other processed food. Here’s Bill Maher on the obesity crisis: https://twitter.com/i/status/1555939261043511296 - Play Video Anybody who has tried to eat healthily knows it is costly and cumbersome. For example, research from Utah State University found that if a family of four were to grocery shop based on the healthy dietary guidelines, it would cost them approximately $14,400 annually. The recruiting dilemma facing the military, like most issues plaguing the Armed Forces, is multifaceted. Army Lt. Gen. Xavier Brunson explains, “Some of the challenges we have are obesity, we have pre-existing medical conditions, we have behavioral health problems, we have criminality, people with felonies, and we have drug use.” That’s a pretty damning yet accurate depiction of America’s youth. Additionally, many Americans need help to pass the education standards the Armed Forces require. Often joked as a test you get half credit for if you can spell your name right, the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) is used to see if you are smart enough to wear the uniform and what jobs you might have a natural aptitude for. According to security analyst Irina Tsukerman, “falling intelligence and education standards” have made the military less prepared for “asymmetrical or conventional challenges.” The Navy is tossing around the idea of lowering the minimum scores for acceptance on the AFQT and increasing the age ceiling from 35 to 41. Lowering standards might increase the number of recruits, but what about the quality? The Army is opting to keep its standards but has stood up what they call the Future Soldier’s Prep Course at Fort Jackson to get recruits whose scores are too low up to snuff. The Centers for Disease Control classifies obesity as a security threat stating that 1 in 5 kids and 2 in 5 adults are obese. With American kids graduating high school without knowing how to read or do simple math, one could argue our public education system is also a security threat. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/01/uk-cat-cull-was-considered-early-in-covid-crisis-ex-minister-says UK cat cull was considered early in Covid crisis, ex-minister says The UK government considered whether it might have to ask people to exterminate all pet cats during the early days of the Covid pandemic, a former health minister said. It was unclear whether domestic cats could transmit coronavirus, James Bethell said. He told Channel 4 News: “What we shouldn’t forget is how little we understood about this disease. There was a moment we were very unclear about whether domestic pets could transmit the disease. “In fact, there was an idea at one moment that we might have to ask the public to exterminate all the cats in Britain. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had wanted to do that?” In July 2020, at the height of the Covid crisis, cat owners were warned not to kiss their pets after a female Siamese became the first known animal in the UK to catch the disease. Margaret Hosie, a professor of comparative virology at Glasgow University who led the screening programme, advised cat owners at the time to “observe very careful hygiene”. It comes as Lord Bethell’s boss at the time, Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, is facing a series of claims based on a leaked cache of more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages. The messages provide an insight into the way the UK government operated at the start of the pandemic. They include the suggestion that Hancock rejected advice from England’s chief medical officer, Prof Sir Chris Whitty, to test everyone going into care homes in England for Covid. Hancock vehemently denies overruling clinical advice. A spokesperson called the claim “categorically untrue”. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chicago-mayor-lightfoot-reacts-election-loss-says-she-was-treated-unfairly-because-her-race-gender Chicago Mayor Lightfoot reacts to election loss, says she was treated unfairly because of her race, gender Ding Dong the Witch is Dead- Play 0:08-0:15 How’d that get in there? Ousted Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot explained away her Tuesday election loss as a result of her being a "Black woman in America." Lightfoot faced eight challengers and finished Tuesday night's election in third place, failing to get enough support to continue into a runoff election. Reporters pressed her on whether she believed she was treated unfairly during the campaign process. "I’m a Black woman in America. Of course," she responded, according to reports. "Regardless of tonight’s outcome, we fought the right fights and we put this city on a better path," Lightfoot said Tuesday night, adding that serving as Chicago's mayor was "the honor of a lifetime." She also blamed the tricksie hobbitses for her loss. For those keeping score: Paul Vallas lead the way with 33.8% of the vote, Brandon Johnson received 20.3%, and Lightfoot received 17.1%. With Lightfoot out of the race, Chicago Public Schools CEO and city budget director Paul Vallas will face off against Cook County Board of Commissioners member Brandon Johnson in the April 4 runoff. Neither candidate reached the 50% necessary to win the election outright on Tuesday, though Vallas came closest with 33%. Dime Payments Dime Payments is a Christian owned processing payment business. Every business needs a payment process system, so please go to https://dimepayments.com/flf and sign your business up. Working with them supports us. They wont cancel you, like Stripe canceled President Trump. They wont cancel you, like Mailchimp canceled the Babylon Bee. Check them out. At least have a phone call and tell them that CrossPolitic sent you. Go to https://dimepayments.com/flf. https://www.theepochtimes.com/mississippi-bans-gender-affirming-care-for-minors_5091041.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport&src_src=partner&src_cmp=BonginoReport Mississippi Bans ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors Mississippi has become the latest state to ban health care professionals from providing “gender-affirming care” for transgender youth in what officials say will stop the attempt to “push a sick and twisted ideology” on children. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, signed the GOP-led House Bill 1125, also known as the “Regulate Experimental Adolescent Procedures (REAP) Act” into law on Feb. 28. Under the legislation, which is effective immediately, individuals in the state are banned from “knowingly engaging in conduct that aids or abets” the performance or inducement of gender transition procedures for Mississippians under the age of 18. The bill also prevents public funds or tax deductions for prohibited gender transition procedures, noting that the direct or indirect use, grant, payment, or distribution of public funds to any entity, organization, or individual that provides gender transition procedures to individuals under the age of 18 is also prohibited. It also puts in place enforcement procedures on the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure. Any health care professional found to be in violation of the ban will have their license to practice medicine in the state revoked. The measure, which also prevents Medicaid from reimbursing or providing coverage for gender transition for persons under the age of 18, allows for health care providers to be sued by their former patients, via their “parent or next friend” within 30 years. In a separate statement on Twitter shortly before signing the law, Reeves said there are individuals in the state who are “attempting to push a sick and twisted ideology that seeks to convince our kids they’re in the wrong body and the solution is to drug, sterilize, and castrate themselves.” The signing of the bill makes Mississippi the latest state to enact a ban on gender-affirming care after South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, also a Republican, signed a similar “Help Not Harm” bill into law last month. Similar bans have also been passed in Alabama, Arizona, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, although some of them are currently being blocked by lawsuits. Nebraska and Oklahoma are also considering similar bills and last month, Republican Florida state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia introduced a bill that would require businesses that cover the cost of gender-transition medical care for their employees to pay for any subsequent detransition care. Supporters of such bills claim that they are intended to safeguard children. Experts have said that four out of five children grow out of gender dysphoria once they reach adolescence. However, opponents, including a string of major medical organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, have all voiced support for gender transition care among minors, arguing that it is safe and effective. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which works to “protect and defend individuals’ rights,” said in a statement on Tuesday that the new legislation “shuts the door on medical best practice and puts politics between parents, their children, and their doctors.” “This life-saving care was already difficult to access for trans youth across the state, and is now entirely out of reach,” ACLU said. “Our politicians continue to fail trans youth — but we will never stop fighting back against this ongoing attack against trans rights across the nation. Trans youth shouldn’t have to fight this hard to be who they are.”

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Thursday, January 12th, 2022. We’ve got a lot of news to get to folks, so let’s get right to it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-vote-against-bill-requiring-medical-care-babies-born-alive-abortion-attempt 210 Democrats vote against bill requiring medical care for babies born alive after abortion attempt Nearly every House Democrat on Wednesday voted against legislation that would require immediate medical attention for babies who are born alive after an attempt was made to abort them. The House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which says any infant born alive after an attempted abortion is a "legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States." Doctors would be required to care for those infants as a "reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive." The bill passed 220-210, and all 210 of the "no" votes came from Democrats. Only one Democrat voted for the bill — Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas — and one other Democrat, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, voted "present." Following that level of care, doctors would be required admit those infants to a hospital for further care. Any violation of this standard would result in fines and imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Republicans argued on the floor that comments from Virginia’s former Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam are an example of why the law needs to be clarified to protect newborn infants who survive abortions. Northam was talking about third-trimester abortions and appeared to indicate support for delivering babies that might still be alive before taking their life outside the womb. "We all know in 2019, then-Gov. Northam of the state of Virginia stated this: 'The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,'" said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. "The cavalier attitude he displayed towards human life is just wrong," Jordan said. "It is simple. Infants born alive following an abortion are kids, are children. All newborns deserve the same level of care." Nonetheless, Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the bill. Some, like Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., argued that the bill would set up new requirements that would "directly interfere with the doctors’ medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances." He and other Democrats said the requirement to eventually take infants who survive abortion to a hospital may not be in the best interest of the family. Some Democrats said the bill is unnecessary because it is already illegal to kill newborn infants, but Republicans accused Democrats of opposing the legislation to further their radical agenda of abortion on demand. https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/01/11/breaking-faa-grounds-all-outbound-domestic-flights-as-system-crashes-n523027 FAA grounds all outbound domestic flights as system crashes; Update: FAA lifts ground stop As of this writing, the FAA has grounded all outbound domestic flights until at least 9 am ET. It may take longer than that to restore service to its NOTAM system, the on-line platform that all commercial and military pilots must consult before taking off. The disruption began hours earlier, and the FAA has apparently struggled to overcome it. Savannah Guthrie calls it a “sweeping outage,” and it will almost certainly impact flights for hours even after the FAA restores it: https://twitter.com/i/status/1613145694923096065 - Play Video The FAA lifted the national ground stop a few minutes ago, but it’s not clear whether the NOTAM system has been fully restored or they’re using work-arounds. They reopened two airports without out NOTAM due to “air congestion” prior to ending the ground stop: Well over 500 flights got cancelled this morning and over three thousand delayed. The snarl in air travel today will be massive. Stay tuned. https://www.theepochtimes.com/mexican-president-praises-biden-for-not-building-border-wall-even-when-conservatives-dont-like-it_4977673.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport Mexican President Praises Biden for Not Building Border Wall Even When ‘Conservatives Don’t Like It’ Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has praised President Joe Biden for taking a stand against the U.S. border wall, and criticized conservatives during the North American Leaders’ Summit on Tuesday. It comes as the United States sees a surge in illegal immigration across the southern border. “You, President Biden, you are the first president of the United States in a very long time that has not built not even one meter of wall. And that—we thank you for that, sir, although some might not like it—although the conservatives don’t like it,” Lopez Obrador said in a joint press conference. He thanked Biden for maintaining a “relationship of cooperation” with Mexico and for not subjecting Mexicans who “live and work in a very honest fashion” in the United States to harassment. “They’re not suffering raids as it unfortunately used to happen in the past,” the Mexican president added. Lopez Obrador asked Biden to insist that Congress “regularize the migration situations” of millions of Mexicans who have been living in the United States. On Jan. 21, 2021, a day after becoming president, Biden issued an executive order that halted construction of the border wall, commenting that a massive wall spanning the entire southern border is “not a serious policy solution” and a “waste of money.” Between 2017 and 2020, 450 miles of the wall were authorized and built under the Trump administration. In July last year, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the remaining funds, which were allocated for the construction of the wall along the Mexico–U.S. border, would be spent on “environmental remediation and mitigation” as well as for installing cameras, lighting, and detection technology in places where barriers are already built. Under the Biden administration, illegal immigrants entering via the southern border have surged. During fiscal year 2020, there were 458,088 apprehensions. This rose to 1.73 million in fiscal year 2021, a jump of 278 percent, data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) show. During fiscal year 2022, apprehensions rose to 2.3 million. In the first two months of fiscal year 2023, apprehensions exceeded the total apprehensions of fiscal year 2020. According to Steven Kopits with Princeton Policy Advisors, the rise in border crossers is set to continue its upward trend this year as well. Kopits had earlier predicted around 2 million apprehensions for 2021 and 2.3 million for 2022, which is close to the actual numbers. For 2023, Kopits is predicting apprehensions to hit 2.6 million, another record in terms of annual illegal immigration. If Kopits’s projections are true, it would mean that 6.9 million illegal aliens would have been apprehended between 2021 and 2023 under the Biden administration. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. https://www.foxnews.com/us/pro-life-pregnancy-center-hires-private-investigators-look-attack-blasts-fbi-wheres-the-manhunt?intcmp=tw_fnc Pro-life pregnancy center hires private investigators to look into attack, blasts FBI: 'Where's the manhunt?' A network of pro-life pregnancy centers in New York hired private investigators to probe a firebomb attack against a facility last June after what they describe as an inadequate response from federal law enforcement. "They've been responsive, but what they've done we don't know," Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, told Fox News Digital of the FBI. CompassCare, which has multiple pro-life pregnancy centers in upstate New York, announced last week that it was joining forces with the society, a nonprofit law firm, to hire private investigators to find those behind the incident at their Buffalo office last summer. Vandals reportedly smashed windows and lit fires in the building's reception room and nurses’ office, then defaced the building with "Jane was here" graffiti, an apparent reference to the radical pro-abortion group Jane's Revenge. The pro-life pregnancy center was able to rebuild quickly, but the individuals responsible have not been apprehended. Brejcha, who told Fox News Digital that his own home was targeted last July by "40 to 50 masked, black-clad thugs," said the investigation has expanded to include all 78 of the attacks against pro-life facilities in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned last year. "Along with CompassCare and others, we're looking to investigate connections here," the lawyer explained. "We have security video of attackers. We have license plates. We're pursuing the kind of investigation that lawyers pursue when they're looking to achieve justice on behalf of their clients, civil and criminal. So we're not sitting on our hands just writing letters to the editor about it." Brejcha said they hope to reveal "some of the folks that are behind this," and he is optimistic that they will succeed. https://thepostmillennial.com/biological-males-blocked-from-competing-in-womens-school-sports-in-west-virginia-federal-court?utm_campaign=64487 Biological males blocked from competing in women's school sports in West Virginia: federal court A federal judge in West Virginia has upheld a state law preventing male athletes who identify as female from participating in female school sports. In a ruling on January 5, Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia said that HB 3293, the Save Women’s Sports Bill, was "constitutionally permissible." The bill defines "girl" and "women" as biologically female for the purpose of secondary school sports and Goodwin found that this was "substantially related to its important interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females." The law was first introduced in March 2021 but was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU represented trans-identified male middle school student Becky Pepper-Jackson who was barred from the girls' cross-country team. This, the ACLU argued, was a violation of Pepper-Jackson’s rights under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, the federal state statute that prohibits sex-based discrimination, reports Fox News. At the time, Goodwin ruled in favor of the ACLU and blocked the law at the preliminary stage, ruling that Pepper-Jackson was being excluded from school sports on the basis of sex making it a Title IX violation. While Goodwin acknowledged in his new decision that the law was seeking to "prevent transgender girls from playing on girls’ sports teams," he highlighted the biological differences between males and females that give males a significant sporting advantage. "While some females may be able to outperform some males, it is generally accepted that, on average, males outperform females athletically because of inherent physical differences between the sexes. This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes," said the judge. Goodwin also noted that while Pepper-Jackson had taken puberty blockers, not all transgender athletes do. Some only socially transition, while others take blockers and hormones at a later stage in puberty. Goodwin stated that "there is much debate over whether and to what extent hormone therapies after puberty can reduce a transgender girl's athletic advantage over cisgender girls." "The fact is, however, that a transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically. The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports," Goodwin ruled. The West Virginia ACLU had filed the lawsuit alleging that banning girls from participating in school sports because they are transgender is unconstitutional. In a 2019 speech, developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton demonstrated just how wide the gap between the athletic performance of biological males and females is. "So big is the gap, there are 9000 males between 100m world record holders Usain Bolt and FloJo. So early does the gap emerge, the current female 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson, is slower than the 14-year-old schoolboy record holder," said Hilton. Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! www.redballoon.work https://www.outkick.com/peyton-hillis-is-reportedly-still-in-critical-condition/ PEYTON HILLIS IS REPORTEDLY STILL IN CRITICAL CONDITION Doctors have given an update on the condition of former NFL running back Peyton Hillis. Last week, Hillis was rushed to the hospital after a swimming incident at a Florida beach. He reportedly rescued his two children who were in danger of drowning in the ocean. Both children were reportedly uninjured in the incident WREG Memphis reporter Otis Kirk reported that he had been told that Hillis is “battling and definitely needs as many prayers as he can get.” He also reported that the former Razorback’s kidneys and lungs were the primary reasons why he was still in the hospital. WREG’s report mentioned that Hillis’ kidneys are now the main concern. Kirk did not reveal who gave him this information or their relationship with Hillis. He played both high school and college football in the state, before embarking on an NFL career that took him to Cleveland, Denver, New York, and Kansas City. While at Arkansas, Hillis was one part of a running back triumvirate comprised of himself, Darren McFadden, and Felix Jones. The report on Hillis’ condition comes just as a prayer vigil was being held in his native Arkansas. Hillis volunteers as an assistant for his son’s football team. Bryant Davis, who is coach and head of the program, was at the vigil and spoke to KSFM-TV. He talked about the importance of community support. “One of the great things about being a body of believers is relationship and community, and it’s about being not only here to pray for people, but it’s also here, Bryant said. “It’s also to be here to support them through times like this.”