Podcasts about american civil liberties union aclu

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.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and depth of its ambitions. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2023, is more than just a policy document; it is a vision for a radical restructuring of the American federal government, aligned with a staunchly conservative agenda.At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan designed to guide a potential future conservative administration, with ties that are unmistakably linked to the Trump campaign. Despite Trump's public disavowal, the connections run deep: many of the project's authors and contributors are veterans of Trump's first administration or are closely associated with his inner circle. For instance, John McEntee, a senior advisor to Project 2025, was the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, and Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, was part of Trump's 2016 transition team[4][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its sweeping proposal to overhaul various federal agencies. The Department of Education, for example, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Homeland Security would be dismantled, and the Department of Justice, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would come under partisan control. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would also face significant changes, with the FTC potentially being abolished altogether[1].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 outlines a future where fundamental research is prioritized over practical applications. The Department of Energy would focus on research that the private sector would not otherwise undertake, while programs focused on climate change would be significantly curtailed. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its climate change research activities heavily criticized as part of the "climate change alarm industry"[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would undergo a transformative shift, with proposals to prevent the agency from using what the project deems "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts. The EPA would also be required to obtain clear congressional authorization for any science activity, and its staff would be selected based on managerial skills rather than scientific qualifications. This approach is encapsulated in the words of Mandy Gunasekara, the EPA chapter author and former chief of staff at the EPA during the previous Trump administration, who advocates for reforms that would significantly limit the EPA's role in addressing climate change[2].The project's stance on social and civil rights issues is equally profound. It labels diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives as "managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology" that must be eradicated. Funding for critical race theory would be banned, and civil rights data collection, including racial classifications, would be halted. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would be shrunk, with its resources redirected to protect white men from employment discrimination rather than its traditional role of safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups[3].In the realm of technology and media, Project 2025 proposes significant reforms. The FCC would be held to greater accountability while reducing what the project sees as wasteful spending. Regulations on media ownership would be revised to promote competition, though with a caveat: adversary ownership above 10% in any American entity would need to be transparently disclosed for national security reasons. The project also advocates for expanding 5G and satellite connectivity, such as StarLink, to reduce the digital divide and support economic prosperity[4].The economic policies outlined in Project 2025 are no less ambitious. The plan includes tax cuts, though there is internal disagreement on protectionism. Medicare and Medicaid would face cuts, and the government would be urged to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. Emergency contraception and abortion pills would be subject to prosecution under the Comstock Act, a law dating back to the 19th century. Work requirements would be instituted for those reliant on food stamps, and overtime rules could be altered to weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers[1].Critics argue that these proposals amount to a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, eroding democratic norms and civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been vocal in its opposition, highlighting the project's potential to undermine protections for LGBTQ employees, immigrants, and racial equity. As the ACLU puts it, Project 2025 threatens to "erode our democracy" and is a call to action against "bigotry, injustice, and inequality"[5].As we approach the potential implementation of these policies in 2025, the stakes are high. The project's authors envision a rapid and comprehensive transformation of the federal government, one that would align with conservative principles and significantly alter the landscape of American governance. Whether these proposals will become reality remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in policy direction, one that will have far-reaching implications for every aspect of American life.In the coming months, as the political landscape continues to evolve, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be a central point of contention. Will its vision for a radically restructured government come to fruition, or will it face significant resistance? The answer to this question will shape the future of American governance in ways both profound and far-reaching. As we navigate this critical juncture, it is imperative to remain vigilant and informed, for the decisions made now will have lasting impacts on the nation's trajectory.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a comprehensive vision for a radical restructuring of the American government and its agencies.Project 2025, published in April 2022, is the brainchild of former Trump administration officials, including Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, who have woven together a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership." This document outlines a sweeping overhaul of the federal government, touching on nearly every aspect of American life, from economic policies and social programs to science agencies and environmental regulations.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to reshape the very fabric of federal agencies. For instance, the project proposes dismantling the Department of Education, transferring its programs or terminating them altogether, in favor of promoting school choice and increasing parental control over schools[1][3][4].The Department of Homeland Security is another target, with Project 2025 advocating for its dismantling. This move is part of a broader strategy to redefine immigration policies, aligning with the project's stance that "men and women are biological realities and married men and women are the ideal, natural family"[3].Economic reforms are a significant component of Project 2025. The plan criticizes the Federal Reserve, blaming it for the business cycle, and suggests abolishing it in favor of a commodity-backed currency, such as the gold standard. It also recommends simplifying individual income taxes to two flat tax rates: 15% on incomes up to the Social Security Wage Base and 30% above that. However, this proposal is likely to increase taxes for millions of low- and middle-income households[1].The project's approach to science policy is equally transformative. It prioritizes fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current Department of Energy programs act as subsidies to the private sector. The plan proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology development and climate change programs, and reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program to critically analyze and potentially refuse any assessments prepared under the Biden administration[2].Climate change research is a particular target, with Project 2025 describing the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also in the crosshairs, with proposals to prevent the agency from using "unrealistic" climate change impact projections and to require clear congressional authorization for any science activity[2].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025 seeks significant changes. The plan calls for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. It also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1].The project's vision for the workforce is marked by a push for more stringent work requirements. For example, it proposes legislation requiring Americans to be paid more for working on Sundays and institutes work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which issues food stamps. Additionally, changes to overtime rules could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers[1].The influence of Project 2025 extends beyond policy proposals; it also envisions a structural overhaul of the federal bureaucracy. The project advocates for the "unitary executive" theory, which would place the entire federal bureaucracy under the direct control of the president, eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees. This move would allow these positions to be filled by political appointees beholden to the executive[3].Despite attempts by Donald Trump to distance himself from Project 2025, the connections between the two are undeniable. The project's senior advisor, John McEntee, has stated that they and the Trump campaign planned to "integrate a lot of our work"[1]. Russell Vought, founder of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), which is on Project 2025's advisory board, has been named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee. Vought has acknowledged that Trump has "blessed" the CRA's efforts and is "very supportive of what we do"[1].As we look ahead, the implications of Project 2025 are profound. If implemented, these policies could fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, reshape the social and economic landscape, and have far-reaching consequences for environmental and healthcare policies.In the words of Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, the goal is to "institutionalize Trumpism." However, critics argue that many of these proposals are not only radical but also potentially unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned that Project 2025 threatens to erode democracy and has called for action to fight against its implementation[5].As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Project 2025 stands as a critical blueprint that could shape the future of American governance. Whether these proposals will become reality remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the stakes are high, and the potential impact on American society is immense. As we navigate these uncertain times, it is crucial to remain vigilant and informed about the policies that could redefine our nation's trajectory.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, is more than just a policy document; it is a vision for a radically restructured federal government, aligned closely with conservative ideals and tied intimately to the orbit of former President Donald Trump.At its core, Project 2025 aims to transform the executive branch, bringing it under tighter control of the president and reshaping various federal agencies to conform to conservative principles. The project's authors, many of whom are veterans of Trump's first administration or closely associated with his inner circle, have outlined a comprehensive agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Education would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated, in a bid to promote school choice and increase parental control over education[1][3][5]. The Department of Homeland Security would also be dismantled, reflecting a broader skepticism towards the administrative state and a desire to streamline government operations[1][3].The project also targets the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other independent agencies, seeking to bring them under more direct presidential control. This aligns with the "unitary executive theory," which advocates for placing the entire federal bureaucracy under the president's direct authority, eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees and replacing them with political appointees[3][4].In the realm of economic policy, Project 2025 proposes significant changes, including tax cuts and the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It also recommends shrinking the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' rights to organize and fight unfair labor practices, and eliminating the Federal Trade Commission, a key enforcer of antitrust laws[1][4].The project's stance on environmental and climate policies is particularly contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing offices focused on energy technology development and climate change within the Department of Energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[1][2].Project 2025 also delves into the realm of science policy, prioritizing fundamental research over deployment and restricting academic and technology exchanges with countries labeled as adversaries, particularly China. The report proposes capping indirect research costs for universities and directing more R&D funding towards small businesses through programs like the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer initiatives[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. For example, the plan to subject EPA research activities to closer oversight by political appointees, rather than scientists, raises concerns about the politicization of science. Mandy Gunasekara, who authored the EPA chapter and was the agency's chief of staff during the previous Trump administration, argues that EPA should not conduct science activities without clear congressional authorization, reflecting a distrust of independent scientific inquiry[2].In the area of social policy, Project 2025 is equally bold. It recommends eliminating the Head Start program, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, and phasing out programs like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and income-driven repayment initiatives for student loans. The project also seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare, going so far as to propose using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1][3][5].The connection between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign is a topic of significant debate. Despite Trump's public disavowal of the project, many of its authors and advisors have close ties to his administration. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, has described his organization's role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," and CNN has reported that at least 140 people who worked on Project 2025 previously worked in Trump's administration[1][5].Experts and critics alike have raised alarms about the potential impacts of these proposals. Darrell West of the Brookings Institution notes that the inconsistencies in the plan may be designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors who would benefit from the changes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has labeled Project 2025 a "blueprint for autocratic takeover," highlighting its potential to erode democratic norms and undermine civil liberties[1][4][5].As we approach the potential implementation of these policies in January 2025, the stakes are high. The project's vision for a more centralized, conservative government raises fundamental questions about the future of American governance. Will the next administration adopt these sweeping reforms, or will they face significant resistance from Congress, the courts, and the public?In the words of Russell Vought, who is closely associated with Project 2025 and now serves as the policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee, "he's very supportive of what we do," referring to Trump's backing of the project's efforts. This support, combined with the project's detailed blueprint and the network of aligned personnel ready to implement it, suggests that Project 2025 is more than just a theoretical exercise—it is a roadmap for a profound transformation of the U.S. government[1].As the nation prepares for this potential shift, one thing is clear: the next few months will be pivotal in determining whether Project 2025's vision becomes a reality, and what that reality might mean for the future of American democracy.

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

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a political initiative published by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it is a comprehensive vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government, aligned closely with conservative principles and the ideology of former President Donald Trump.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," crafted by former Trump administration officials and conservative thinkers. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections run deep. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, who previously worked on Trump's transition team in 2016, has described his organization's role as “institutionalizing Trumpism”[5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its sweeping proposal to overhaul various federal agencies. The plan calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Commerce (DOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are all slated for partisan control, a move that raises significant concerns about the politicization of these critical institutions[1].The project also targets the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), proposing to prevent the agency from using what it deems "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts. For instance, it criticizes the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, suggesting it has been misused for political purposes. The EPA's research activities would be subjected to closer oversight by political appointees, rather than scientists, and the agency would be barred from conducting any science activity without clear congressional authorization[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. It aims to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and proposes using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader agenda that opposes abortion and reproductive rights, reflecting the conservative values of the Heritage Foundation[1].The project's energy and climate policies are equally contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, despite climatologists' warnings about the dangers of such policies. For example, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, even though this could increase leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas[1].Project 2025 also outlines significant changes to science policy. It proposes focusing the Department of Energy on fundamental research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct, while eliminating many of the agency's offices focused on energy technology development and climate change programs. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would be restructured, combining it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Technical Information Service, with non-mission-critical research functions either eliminated or moved to other federal agencies[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. By prioritizing fundamental research over practical applications and rolling back climate science initiatives, the project could significantly hinder the U.S.'s ability to address pressing environmental issues. Darrell West of the Brookings Institution argues that the inconsistencies in the plan are designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors that would benefit from these changes[1].In addition to these policy changes, Project 2025 includes plans for administrative reforms. It suggests merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single organization, aligning its mission with conservative principles. The project also recommends maximizing the hiring of political appointees in statistical analysis positions, a move that could compromise the impartiality of these agencies[1].The project's vision extends to labor policies as well. It proposes work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers. It also seeks to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and shrink the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' ability to organize and fight unfair labor practices[1].Despite the ambitious scope of Project 2025, it is not without its critics. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has labeled the initiative as a threat to democracy, arguing that many of its recommendations are outright unconstitutional and erode fundamental rights such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and racial equity[5].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals hinges on several key milestones. With Trump's return to office, the project's authors are poised to integrate their work into the new administration's policies. Russell Vought, the founder of the Center for Renewing America, which is on Project 2025's advisory board, has been named policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee. Vought has confirmed that they are "secretly drafting hundreds of executive orders, regulations, and memos" to lay the groundwork for rapid action on Trump's plans if he wins[1].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the way the U.S. federal government could operate, with far-reaching implications for various aspects of American life. As the country navigates these proposed changes, it is crucial to consider both the stated goals and the potential impacts of such a radical overhaul. Whether these policies will come to fruition remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – the next few years will be pivotal in determining the future of American governance.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer breadth and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, aligning it with a staunchly conservative agenda. Despite President Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between Project 2025 and his campaign are undeniable.At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan to reshape American governance, touching on nearly every aspect of federal policy. One of the most striking aspects is its vision for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The project proposes politicizing these agencies, empowering the president to use them to target political opponents and enforce a radical agenda. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, this could lead to a significant erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law[5].The project's authors also envision drastic changes to various federal agencies. For instance, they recommend dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolishing the Department of Education (ED), transferring or terminating its programs. The Department of Commerce would see significant alterations as well, with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) either abolished or repurposed to assist "rural communities destroyed by the Biden administration's attack on domestic energy production"[1].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 is equally transformative. It suggests focusing the Department of Energy on fundamental research, rather than technology development and climate change programs. The report argues that many current DOE programs act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources, and proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology and climate change. This shift is part of a broader strategy to roll back climate science initiatives, including reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program and preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts[2].The EPA itself would undergo significant changes, with its research activities subject to closer oversight by political appointees rather than scientists. The project proposes that EPA grants be managed by political appointees and that the public be incentivized to scrutinize the agency's scientific conduct. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential for increased methane leaks[1].Project 2025 also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), aiming to make it less independent and stopping its funding for research involving embryonic stem cells. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its climate change research activities severely curtailed. Thomas Gilman, who served under Trump as the chief financial officer of the Commerce Department, describes NOAA as "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry"[2].The project's economic policies are just as far-reaching. It proposes instituting tax cuts, though there is disagreement among its writers on the issue of protectionism. Medicare and Medicaid would face significant cuts, and the government would be urged to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. The project also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1].In the area of labor and employment, Project 2025 recommends instituting work requirements for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and weakening overtime protections. It also suggests legislation requiring Americans to be paid more for working on Sundays, based on the premise that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest"[1].The implications of these proposals are profound. Critics argue that Project 2025 represents a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, compromising the checks and balances of the U.S. system of government. The plan involves purging the civil service, firing independent agency leaders, and conditioning federal funding on political fealty. This could lead to a situation where thousands of political operatives, hand-picked for their loyalty to the president, control key government positions regardless of their qualifications or commitment to constitutional duty[3].The project's approach to technology and media policies is equally concerning. It proposes increasing agency accountability at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) while decreasing wasteful spending and promoting national security and economic prosperity. However, it also suggests that Big Tech companies should fund the Universal Service Fund, currently supported through telephone bills, and that media ownership regulations are outdated and stifle competition[4].As I reflect on the scope of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a policy blueprint but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's authors and supporters see it as a way to "institutionalize Trumpism," as Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has described it. However, critics like the ACLU warn that it threatens to erode democracy, perpetuate bigotry, and undermine justice and equality[5].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals hinges on several key milestones. The upcoming presidential term will be crucial, as the project's success depends on a conservative administration willing to enact its recommendations. With Russell Vought, the founder of the Center for Renewing America, now serving as the policy director of the Republican National Committee platform committee, and given the ongoing connections between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign, the stage is set for a potentially transformative period in American governance[1].As the nation approaches these critical decision points, it is imperative to engage in a thorough and informed discussion about the implications of Project 2025. Whether one views this initiative as a necessary correction to current policies or a dangerous erosion of democratic principles, its impact on American life will be profound. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and ensure that any changes to our governance system are made with the utmost care and a deep respect for the principles of democracy.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and trepidation. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2022, outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, envisioning a future that is as ambitious as it is contentious.At its core, Project 2025 is a comprehensive policy agenda designed to guide a potential conservative administration, with ties that run deep into the circles of former President Donald Trump. Despite Trump's public disavowal of the project, the connections are undeniable; many of its authors and contributors are veterans of Trump's first administration or closely aligned with his inner circle[3][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to overhaul various federal agencies. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. The Department of Homeland Security would be dismantled, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be made less independent, with a specific ban on funding research involving embryonic stem cells[1].The project also targets environmental and climate change regulations, advocating for a significant rollback to favor fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential for increased methane leaks[1].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 prioritizes fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current Department of Energy (DOE) programs act as subsidies to the private sector. It proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology development and climate change programs, and reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program to critically analyze and potentially refuse any assessments prepared under the Biden administration[2].The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is another agency in the crosshairs, with Project 2025 describing it as a "main driver of the climate change alarm industry" and proposing its breakup. The EPA would be restricted from using "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts and would require clear congressional authorization for any science activity[2].The project's vision extends to the economy and labor policies as well. It recommends instituting work requirements for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and proposes changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers. Additionally, it suggests legislation requiring higher pay for working on Sundays, based on the principle that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest"[1].In the technology and media sector, Project 2025 is keen on addressing what it perceives as the threats posed by Big Tech. The authors argue that business concentration should no longer be considered solely in economic terms but also in socio-political terms, suggesting that antitrust laws should be applied more rigorously to prevent what they see as a "leftist" agenda. The project also emphasizes the need to subvert China's goal of becoming the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI) by investing in and protecting American innovation[3].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked significant debate. Critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), view Project 2025 as a blueprint for an "autocratic takeover," threatening to erode democracy and undermine various rights, including abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity[4].Darrell West, an expert in the field, points out the inconsistencies in the plan, suggesting they are designed to attract funding from certain industries or donors that would benefit from the proposed changes. This raises questions about the true motivations behind the project and whether it serves a broader conservative agenda or specific corporate interests[1].As the 2024 elections have concluded, the connections between Project 2025 and the Trump campaign have become more apparent. Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself, the involvement of key figures like John McEntee and Russell Vought, who have transitioned between roles in the Trump administration and Project 2025, underscores the deep ties between the two[1][4].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's recommendations would depend on the next conservative president's willingness to adopt these sweeping changes. With Kevin Roberts, who previously worked on Trump's transition team, now leading the project, the stage is set for a potentially transformative period in American governance.As we approach 2025, the fate of Project 2025 hangs in the balance. Will its ambitious and sometimes controversial proposals reshape the federal government, or will they face significant resistance from Congress, civil society, and the courts? One thing is certain: the next few years will be pivotal in determining the future of American governance and the extent to which Project 2025's vision becomes a reality.

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)

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals that promise to reshape the very fabric of American governance. This initiative, unveiled in April 2022, is not just a set of recommendations; it is a comprehensive plan for a radical overhaul of the federal government, tailored for the next Republican president.At its core, Project 2025 is a multi-pronged initiative that includes a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, training programs for these candidates, and a playbook outlining actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project has drawn significant attention for its sweeping and often contentious proposals.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the restructuring of federal agencies. The plan calls for the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security, with its components either combined with other agencies or moved under different departments. For instance, immigration-related entities would be consolidated into a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency, staffed by over 100,000 employees[1][2].The Department of Education is another target, with Project 2025 advocating for its abolition and the transfer of its programs to other departments or states. This move is part of a broader push to reduce the federal government's role in education, elevating school choice and parental rights instead. Public funds would be redirected as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools, and programs like the Head Start initiative for low-income families would be eliminated[2].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant changes, particularly concerning abortion and reproductive rights. The agenda recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its approval of the abortion pill mifepristone and reinstate more stringent rules for its use. It also suggests eliminating coverage of emergency contraception and using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1][2].The project's stance on environmental and climate change policies is equally profound. It seeks to reduce environmental regulations, favoring fossil fuels over clean energy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would undergo significant changes, with its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights closed, and its staff selected based on managerial rather than scientific skills. The plan also includes repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocates $370 billion for clean technology, and encouraging allied nations to use fossil fuels[2].Economic policies are another key area of focus. Project 2025 proposes tax cuts, though its authors are divided on the issue of protectionism. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the Federal Trade Commission, responsible for enforcing antitrust laws, would be significantly downsized. The National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' right to organize, would also see its role diminished[2].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. Critics argue that these changes would erode democratic institutions and undermine social and environmental protections. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned that many of the recommendations are outright unconstitutional and threaten to erode democracy, targeting abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity[5].Despite former President Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the initiative, the connections between Project 2025 and his administration are clear. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who worked on Trump's transition team in 2016, has described the project as "institutionalizing Trumpism." A recent report found that at least 140 people who worked on Project 2025 had previously worked in Trump's administration[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes evident that this is not just a policy blueprint but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's authors see it as part of a "second American Revolution," as Roberts put it, one that aims to reshape the country according to conservative principles.The coming months will be crucial as the nation watches whether these proposals become reality. With Trump projected to win the presidency, the stage is set for a potential implementation of these sweeping changes. As the country approaches this crossroads, it is imperative to understand the depth and breadth of Project 2025's ambitions and the potential consequences for American governance.In the words of Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the project seeks to align federal policies with conservative values, even if it means challenging established norms and regulations. As the nation prepares for what could be a transformative period, one thing is certain: Project 2025 represents a clear and unambiguous vision for the future, one that will undoubtedly shape the course of American politics in the years to come.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative crafted by the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals, ideological ambitions, and far-reaching implications for American governance.Project 2025, unveiled in April 2022, is the ninth iteration of the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership" series, which has been a cornerstone of conservative policy planning since 1981. This latest version is a 900-page blueprint designed to guide the next Republican president in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch. The project is led by former Trump administration officials, including Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, who have been instrumental in shaping its vision[1][2][5].At its core, Project 2025 is built around four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office. This structured approach is meant to ensure a smooth transition and the swift implementation of conservative policies, learning from the mistakes of Trump's 2016 transition effort, which was criticized for being unprepared[1][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which posits that the entire executive branch should be under the complete control of the U.S. president. This philosophy underpins a proposal to reclassify tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing the president to replace them with loyalists. Proponents argue this would dismantle a perceived liberal bureaucratic stranglehold, but critics see it as a move towards authoritarianism and the erosion of civil liberties[2][3].The project's policy agenda is vast and multifaceted. In the realm of education, Project 2025 advocates for a dramatic reduction in the federal government's role, promoting school choice and parental rights over federal standards. It suggests eliminating the Department of Education and transferring its programs to the Department of Health and Human Services or allowing states to opt out of federal education programs altogether. This shift is part of a broader effort to combat what the project terms "woke propaganda" in public schools[2][4].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025 proposes significant changes. The blueprint calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, reinstating more stringent rules for its use, such as requiring in-person dispensing instead of mail distribution. It also seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid, and to explicitly reject abortion as a form of healthcare. Additionally, the project recommends eliminating coverage of emergency contraception and using the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills[1][2].The project's vision for environmental and climate policies is equally contentious. It proposes downsizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights would be closed, and the agency's staff would be selected based on managerial rather than scientific qualifications. This aligns with the project's broader goal of encouraging the use of fossil fuels and rolling back climate change mitigation efforts, including repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and eliminating climate change from the National Security Council's agenda[2].In terms of economic policies, Project 2025 suggests significant reforms, including the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces antitrust laws. It also recommends shrinking the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' ability to organize and fight unfair labor practices. The project proposes merging several statistical agencies, such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, into a single organization aligned with conservative principles[2].The potential implications of these proposals are profound. Critics argue that Project 2025 would undermine the system of checks and balances, creating an "imperial presidency" with almost unlimited power to implement policies. Legal experts warn that it would erode the rule of law, the separation of powers, and civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has characterized the project as a threat to democracy, aimed at eroding rights related to abortion, LGBTQ issues, immigrants, and racial equity[3][5].Despite the Heritage Foundation's efforts to present Project 2025 as a neutral policy guide, its ties to the Trump administration are undeniable. Trump has publicly distanced himself from the project, claiming he knows nothing about it and disagreeing with some of its proposals. However, the involvement of former Trump officials and the alignment of many policy recommendations with Trump's past policies and campaign promises suggest a closer connection than he admits[1][4].As the 2024 presidential election has concluded with Trump projected to win, the spotlight is now on how these policies might be implemented. The Heritage Foundation's President, Kevin Roberts, has described the project as "institutionalizing Trumpism," indicating a deep-seated commitment to the ideological underpinnings of Trump's presidency. With over 100 conservative groups supporting the initiative, the stage is set for a potentially transformative period in American governance[1][5].Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial as the new administration begins to take shape. The implementation of Project 2025's policies will depend on both executive actions and congressional support. As the nation watches, it remains to be seen whether these proposals will reshape the federal government and American society in the profound ways envisioned by the Heritage Foundation, or if they will face significant resistance from various stakeholders.One thing is certain: Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the ideological landscape of American politics, with far-reaching consequences that will be felt for years to come. As we navigate this new terrain, it is imperative to engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the future of our governance and the values that underpin it.

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

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.

Two Chinese students at Florida International University and a professor at the University of Florida are filing a lawsuit in a federal court against a new state law that restricts students from China and six other countries from being employed as graduate assistants to conduct academic research projects. 佛罗里达国际大学的两名中国学生和佛罗里达大学的一名教授正在联邦法院提起诉讼，反对盖州推出一项新法律，该法律限制来自中国和其他六个国家的学生被聘用为研究生助理进行学术研究项目。The law, SB 846, was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in May 2023 and went into effect on July 1. It prohibits state universities from accepting grants from or participating in partnerships with a college or university based in a "foreign country of concern", which includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria.该项名为SB 846的法案于2023年5月由州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯(Ron DeSantis)签署，并于7月1日生效。该法律禁止州立大学接受来自“相关外国国家”的学院或大学的资助或与其建立合作伙伴关系，其中包括中国、俄罗斯、伊朗、朝鲜、古巴、委内瑞拉和叙利亚。The law is discriminatory, unconstitutional and reminiscent of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which instituted a 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami. The new law also usurps the power of the federal government, which has exclusive authority over immigration, national security and foreign affairs, the lawsuit said.根据这几名中国人在迈阿密向联邦法院提起的诉讼，该法律具有歧视性、违宪，就像是1882年颁布的十年内禁止中国劳工移民美国《排华法案》的翻版。他们认为，此法律还篡夺了联邦政府的权力，联邦政府对移民、国家安全和外交事务拥有专属权力。The impact of SB 846 is becoming increasingly apparent. For instance, Florida International University has implemented a hiring pause on candidates from the seven countries until the State University System's Board of Governors revises its vetting process for such candidates. Several doctoral students are also posting on social media platforms seeking advice to transfer from Florida universities to other states or countries.SB846法案的影响越来越明显。例如，佛罗里达国际大学已暂停招聘来自七个国家的候选人，直到州立大学系统理事会修改对此类候选人的审查流程。几名博士生也在社交媒体平台上发帖寻求从佛罗里达大学转学到其他州或国家的建议。The law has forced two of the plaintiffs who are from China to put their graduate studies at Florida International University on hold and denied them entry into their research labs.该法律要求两名来自中国的原告终止在佛罗里达国际大学的研究生学习课程，并拒绝这两位中国学生进入该校的研究实验室。Yin Zhipeng, a computer science major, and Guo Zhen, a doctoral student majoring in material engineering and working as a graduate research assistant at Florida International University, were dismissed from their research positions. They maintain that the law jeopardizes their educational opportunities by firing them, as their research positions were requirements to completing their doctorates.佛罗里达国际大学计算机科学专业尹志鹏和材料工程专业博士生郭震被解除研究职务。他们认为，该项法案导致他们被解雇，会进而影响他们的学业，因为完成博士学位要求进行研究工作。Joining them in the lawsuit is Guan Zhengfei, an agricultural economics professor at the University of Florida (UF), who also is originally from China. He said the law has stopped him from recruiting the most qualified postdoctoral candidates to assist with his research, which has slowed his publishing productivity and research projects.同样参与诉讼的还有来自中国的佛罗里达大学农业经济学教授关正飞。他说，SB846法案使他无法招募最合格的博士后学生来协助研究，影响了他的出版效率和研究项目。"This law is unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional," said Daniel Tilley, the Florida director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a statement. The ACLU is representing the students along with the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA) and Perkins Coie LLP, in coordination with the Chinese American Scholar Forum.美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)佛罗里达州主任丹尼尔·蒂利(Daniel Tilley)在一份声明中表示：“这项法律不公平、不公正且违宪”。同时，这些学生及老师还受到了来自华裔美国法律辩护联盟(CALDA)和博钦律师事务所(Perkins Coie LLP)以及华裔美国学者论坛的支持。A 33-page complaint claims that the law "improperly acts as a state veto over issues subject to the exclusive federal power over immigration law", violates employment rights, and "predominant and superior federal power, such as national security and foreign affairs, and which in this instance the federal government is managing through its exclusive immigration power".一份长达33页的诉讼文件写道，该法律“对受联邦移民法专属权力管辖的问题不当行使州否决权”，侵犯了就业权，并“侵犯了联邦管理国家安全和外交事务等主导和高级权力，只有联邦政府才有权管理移民”。"SB 846 facially uses domicile as a proxy for improper discriminatory prohibitions in federal employment rights that are actually based on national origin, alienage, race, and ethnicity, disproportionately burdening individuals from China," the complaint said.诉讼文件写道，SB 846法案中的不动产购买限制其实是一系列充满就业歧视色彩、不正当禁令的挡箭牌，这些禁令实际上是基于国籍、国籍、种族和族裔，给中国个人带来了极大的负担。”Several universities are also holding demonstrations on campuses to support the rights of Chinese scholars at higher education institutions. The University of Florida Chinese Student Association (CSA) and Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) at UF jointly published a statement condemning the state law and the school's reaction to it.一些大学还在校园内举行示威活动，支持高等教育机构中中国学者的权利。佛罗里达大学中国学生会（CSA）和佛罗里达大学中国学生学者联谊会（CSSA）联合发表声明，谴责该州法律以及学校对此的反应。Xie Zhiwei, the president of CSA, told China Daily that recently the Board of Governors informed them that they are looking at ways to better nuance the regulation. "That is a big improvement in that they recognize they may have adopted a bit of a sledgehammer approach, and they are willing to consider amendments," he said.CSA总裁谢志伟在接受《中国日报》采访时表示：“最近理事会通知他们，他们正在研究如何更好地完善监管。这是一个很大的进步，因为他们认识到自己可能做法过于激进啦，并且愿意做出一些调整”。"Xenophobic policies toward China stoke racial bias, and all Asian Americans will feel the stigma and the chilling effect created by this Florida law," said Clay Zhu, attorney and co-founder of CALDA. "We will not back down."CALDA律师兼联合创始人克莱·朱(Clay Zhu)表示：“针对中国的仇外政策会加剧种族偏见，佛罗里达州这项法律让所有亚裔美国人感到耻辱寒心，但我们会坚持捍卫自己权益”。xenophobic policies仇外政策be reminiscent of使想起另一个事物

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 Day in Legal History: Georgia Outlaws LynchingOn December 20, 1893, Georgia took a historical step by becoming the first state in the United States to outlaw lynching. This groundbreaking law declared lynching a criminal act, subject to a punishment of up to four years in prison. The enactment of this law was a response to the rampant and brutal practice of lynching, primarily targeting African Americans in the post-Civil War era.Despite the law's presence, its enforcement was another matter. The statute struggled to curb the barbaric practice, largely due to deep-seated racial prejudices and a lack of political will. This failure was notably highlighted by Ida Wells-Barnett, a prominent African American journalist and crusader against lynching. In her 1899 pamphlet titled "Lynch Law in Georgia," Wells-Barnett meticulously documented instances of lynching and the state's inability to enforce its own law effectively.Wells-Barnett's work served as a crucial document, shedding light on the harsh realities and ineffectiveness of the law in Georgia. Her detailed accounts provided a stark contrast to the legal intentions of the statute, revealing a disturbing continuation of racially motivated violence. The pamphlet not only exposed the failures of the legal system but also helped catalyze the anti-lynching movement nationally.This legislation in Georgia, while a legal landmark, underscored the complexities and challenges in addressing deeply entrenched social evils through law alone. The ongoing struggle against lynching highlighted the necessity for a combination of legal reform, societal change, and relentless advocacy. The efforts of individuals like Wells-Barnett were instrumental in keeping the spotlight on this critical issue, ultimately contributing to the broader civil rights movement in the United States.WilmerHale, a Big Law firm, is conducting an investigation into the sudden dismissal and subsequent reinstatement of Sam Altman as CEO of OpenAI, a Microsoft-backed startup. This probe aims to aid OpenAI in regaining trust and credibility, while also allowing WilmerHale to recover from its controversial handling of a congressional hearing involving two university presidents. Experts like James Park from UCLA and Simon Gaugush, a former federal prosecutor, see this investigation as crucial for restoring faith among OpenAI's employees and investors, especially after the turmoil caused by Altman's brief ouster.WilmerHale has a history of advising on high-profile crises, having worked with clients like Meta Platforms Inc. and PurduePharma. However, its reputation suffered a setback when it was criticized for the advice given to Harvard and University of Pennsylvania presidents during a hearing on antisemitism. Despite this, OpenAI chose WilmerHale for its expertise in crisis management, just days after the firm's mishap at the congressional hearing.Sam Altman's abrupt firing was reportedly due to a lack of candor with OpenAI's board. This event led to a leadership shakeup and a restructuring of the board, which now includes a non-voting observer from Microsoft. The investigation by WilmerHale, led by Hallie Levin and Anjan Sahni, is expected to delve into the circumstances surrounding Altman's dismissal and scrutinize OpenAI's corporate structure.Corporate boards often prefer law firm-led investigations as they can identify internal issues while maintaining attorney-client privilege. These probes, according to Jason de Bretteville, a partner at Stradling, are typically aimed at uncovering compliance failures and preempting any stakeholder challenges. The outcome of WilmerHale's investigation, especially whether it will result in a public report, remains to be seen. However, given the regulatory scrutiny over OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft, maintaining secrecy could potentially harm the company's public image.OpenAI Probe Is WilmerHale Test After College President DebacleDonald Trump was disqualified from appearing on Colorado's presidential primary ballot by the state's Supreme Court, citing his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. This ruling is based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone engaged in insurrection from holding federal office. However, a lower court previously ruled that while Trump's actions could be considered insurrection, this section doesn't apply to presidents. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision is currently on hold pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court, to which Trump plans to appeal.The case raises unprecedented legal issues, especially since Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is rarely invoked and the U.S. Supreme Court, with a conservative majority including three Trump appointees, has shown skepticism towards expanding court powers. The dissenting justices in the Colorado decision emphasized that Trump hadn't been criminally convicted of insurrection and lacked basic rights such as subpoena power in this case.Trump's campaign has denounced the ruling as undemocratic, planning a swift appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that these disqualification efforts in Colorado and other states are politically motivated attempts to prevent him from holding office.The impact of this ruling on the 2024 election might be limited, as Colorado, a state with Democratic leanings, is not crucial for Trump's electoral success. However, similar lawsuits in more pivotal states could influence the election, with judges likely to consider the Colorado ruling in their decisions.Meanwhile, disqualification cases against Trump in over 12 states have seen mixed outcomes. Courts in Michigan, New Hampshire, Florida, and Minnesota have dismissed similar cases, often on procedural or jurisdictional grounds, indicating that courts generally resist unilaterally disqualifying candidates from ballots.Why was Trump removed from Colorado ballot and what does it mean? | ReutersTrump's Legal, Political Fate Rests With Supreme Court He ShapedCivil rights groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a lawsuit challenging a new Texas law (SB4) that increases state powers to arrest, prosecute, and deport individuals for illegal border crossings. This law, signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, conflicts with the federal government's authority under the U.S. Constitution to enforce immigration laws, according to the lawsuit. SB4, effective from March, criminalizes illegal entry or re-entry into Texas from a foreign country and empowers state and local law enforcement to act on these violations. It also authorizes state judges to order deportations, with severe penalties for non-compliance.The ACLU argues that this law, one of the most stringent state-led immigration measures in the U.S., could result in racial profiling, particularly against Brown and Black communities. The lawsuit also contends that SB4 illegally prevents migrants from seeking asylum or other humanitarian protections in the U.S. El Paso County, Texas, one of the plaintiffs, anticipates a significant increase in arrests due to this law, straining its resources and conflicting with its policy to incarcerate only high-risk individuals.Governor Abbott defends the law as a necessary response to the Biden administration's failure to curb illegal migration. However, legal experts, like Cornell Law School's Stephen Yale-Loehr, have pointed out the law's vulnerability to legal challenges based on a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sees the law as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit this precedent.This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges faced by Texas under its Operation Lone Star, aimed at deterring illegal border crossings. These include court rulings against Texas' measures such as installing razor wire fencing and floating barriers along the Mexico border.Lawsuit challenges Texas efforts to restrict illegal border crossings | ReutersIn Florida, a new bill is being proposed to regulate the collection of biometric data, such as fingerprints, from the deceased by funeral homes. This legislation was prompted by Mark Cady-Archilla, who discovered his mother's fingerprints were scanned and shared with Legacy Touch, a company that creates keepsakes, without his consent. The Florida bill, unique in its focus on the deceased, requires funeral homes to disclose in writing what data they collect and why, and whether it is sold to third parties, giving legal representatives the option to opt out.This move in Florida is part of a broader legislative interest in biometric privacy, with laws in other states like Illinois, Texas, and Washington already providing biometric privacy rights to living residents. However, the collection of biometric data from the deceased often falls outside current laws. Federal courts have held that privacy rights end at death, and funeral industry practices vary widely.Legacy Touch, which partners with funeral homes to collect and transfer fingerprint scans, states that homes do not legally need permission to scan fingerprints but should communicate with families. They also offer commissions to funeral homes for orders placed. The National Funeral Directors Association recommends obtaining written consent for fingerprint collection.In Massachusetts, a policy requires consent for the removal of personal materials, including fingerprints or DNA, from a deceased body. This policy came into effect after a family was upset to learn about the collection of a decedent's fingerprints for jewelry offerings.Cady-Archilla, who filed a civil suit against the funeral home that handled his mother's body, argues for the need to protect the deceased's privacy. He emphasizes the importance of dignity and informed consent in handling the remains of loved ones.The Florida bill, if passed, could set a precedent in regulating biometric data collection from the deceased, potentially influencing similar legislation in other states. It raises questions about the nature of biometric data and the rights of individuals after death, as well as the responsibilities of companies and funeral homes in handling such sensitive information.Florida Tests Waters for Privacy Law With Focus on Dead People Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Renowned legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, stands firm in his criticism of the imposed 'gag order' pertaining to former President Donald Trump, deeming it as an 'unconstitutional' directive. Speaking on 'The Ingraham Angle', a platform hosted by Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Turley expressed his dissent, dissecting the judicial order that an appeals court placed a momentary hold on. He communicated, 'They embraced, perhaps out of an overflow of caution, to authorize this interim halt until they can scrutinize it thoroughly.' He reiterated strong beliefs on the potential significance of this situation due to the perceived unconstitutional nature of the court order. Turley drew attention to the fact that the order was rebuked, not only by him, but also by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Interestingly, the ACLU has often found itself in opposition to Trump's decisions during his term. Despite their past differences, Turley noted, 'The ACLU voiced its viewpoints: This order plainly contradicts the Constitution.' Notably, this criticism occurred just a day after the imposition of the gag order. Underscoring deeper concerns, Turley penned an opinion piece, delineating his thoughts on why the directive is 'overbroad and dangerous.' The esteemed professor declared, 'Every individual who values the freedom of speech should be mindful of this alarming development.' While appreciating that appellate success may likely favor Judge Chutkan, he strongly advocated for an overturn, re-stressing the 'overbroad and dangerous' nature of the order.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 […]

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, 2022Nadine's latest article on the forced government speech case (“gay website case”) with Kristen Waggoner: ‘Web Designer's Free Speech Supreme Court Victory Is a Win for All'

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.”

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Wednesday, December 7th, 2022. Before I get to the news today, how about a little on this day in history? On December 7, 1941, Japanese planes attacked the United States Naval Base at Pearl HarborExternal, Hawaii Territory, killing more than 2,300 Americans. The U.S.S. Arizona was completely destroyed and the U.S.S. Oklahoma capsized. A total of twelve ships sank or were beached in the attack and nine additional vessels were damaged. More than 160 aircraft were destroyed and more than 150 others damaged. A hurried dispatch from the ranking United States naval officer in Pearl Harbor, Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel, Commander in Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, to all major navy commands and fleet units provided the first official word of the attack at the ill-prepared Pearl Harbor base. It said simply: AIR RAID ON PEARL HARBOR X THIS IS NOT DRILL. The following day, in an address to a joint session of Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt called December 7, 1941 “a date which will live in infamy.” Congress then declared War on Japan, abandoning the nation’s isolationism policy and ushering the United States into World War II. Within days, Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States, and the country began a rapid transition to a wartime economy by building up armaments in support of military campaigns in the Pacific, North Africa, and Europe. So there ya go, a little history for you guys on this Wednesday morning. Let’s start the news off with this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vladimir-putin-bans-all-lgbt-propaganda-far-reaching-move Vladimir Putin bans all 'LGBT propaganda' in far-reaching move Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation banning all LGBT "propaganda" on Sunday, according to Russian media. The far-reaching bill prohibits the creation or sharing of content depicting nontraditional sexual relations, gender reassignment and pedophilia in a positive lights, according to state-run media. The law reportedly extends to social media platforms, as well as mass media like films and advertisement. The law also has a provision pertaining to minors and empowers to country's media watchdog to implement systems preventing minors from viewing such content. The law went into effect the same day it was signed, on Sunday. Putin has long waged a political war against the LGBT movement in Russia, and his allies have in the past cited the movement's success in the U.S. as an excuse for expansive actions. State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin, who authored the bill, cited trends in the U.S. and Europe as a reason to pass it in November. "He cited data from opinion polls, according to which 16% of Europeans aged 14 to 29 identify themselves as LGBT," the Duma reported at the time. "And in the U.S. state of Maryland, the number of students who have not decided on their gender due to the promotion of non-traditional relationships has grown almost six times in two years and today makes up 45% of all students in the state." The Duma did not cite where it received the polls, and it was not immediately clear if the polls are in fact accurate. Violations of the new law are mostly punished with fines, ranging from $800 for citizens infringing on the lowest tier to $160,000 for legal entities that infringe on the highest tier, which is pedophilia. Now moving on to our stellar economy: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/12/06/u-s-trade-deficit-rises-5-4-to-four-month-high/ U.S. Trade Deficit Rises 5.4% to Four-Month High The nation’s trade deficit widened 5.4 percent in October to a four-month high of $78.2 billion, data from the Commerce Department showed Tuesday. This was lower than expected. Economists had forecast the deficit would rise to around $80 billion. The October increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $6.1 billion to $99.6 billion and an increase in the services surplus of $2.1 billion to $21.4 billion. The U.S. is typically a net exporter of services to the rest of the world and an importer of goods. So far this year, the goods and services deficit is up $136.9 billion, or 19.9 percent, from the same period in 2021. Exports increased $415.3 billion or 19.8 percent. Imports increased $552.2 billion or 19.8 percent. Economic weakness around the globe, particularly in Europe, has softened demand for U.S. energy imports, including natural gas and petroleum products. Crude oil exports, however, grew by $1.6 billion. The numbers are not adjusted for inflation so the declines also reflected the recent weakening of the dollar against many other currencies .Exports of consumer goods were also lower, led by a decline in pharmaceuticals due to lower demand for drugs to treat or prevent infection of China’s coronavirus. The U.S. spent more on imported cars and pharmaceuticals. Imports of cell phones, toys, games, and sports equipment slipped lower. Let’s check in on our southern border: https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/06/ice-biden-immigration-border/ ICE Is Massively Misreporting How Many Illegal Immigrants Are Being Released With GPS Trackers Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is significantly misreporting the number of illegal immigrants released into the country with GPS tracking technology by nearly 600%, according to an internal document exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. ICE disclosed privately to participants of a closed-door event about the agency’s “Alternatives to Detention” Thursday, attended by ICE Director Tae Johnson along with several agency officials and non-profits, that 8,118 illegal immigrants are monitored with GPS tracking through the program as of Nov. 14. Publicly, however, ICE says on its website that 56,805 illegal immigrants are monitored by GPS as of Nov. 19. Former ICE Chief of Staff Jon Feere, who now serves as director of investigations at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), believes that the Biden administration is seeking to appease groups that have fought ICE detention, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was listed as an attendee at Thursday’s event. The ACLU has a campaign on its website titled “SHUT DOWN THE ICE DETENTION MACHINE,” which encourages the public to email Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to urge ICE against any new detention contracts. The ACLU didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The program given to the Thursday event’s attendees also showed that ICE underreported illegal immigrants without tracking technology by more than 18,000%, as previously reported by the DCNF. ICE disclosed to the attendees that as of Nov. 14 there are 49,459 illegal aliens that aren’t monitored with any tracking equipment, while its own website says that as of Nov. 19 there are 266. The Biden administration continues to see record numbers of migrants illegally cross the southern border, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountering over 2.3 million in fiscal year 2022 and more than 230,000 in October. Story Real Estate: Home. It’s where you build your legacy. Where traditions are started, seeds are planted, meals are shared, and stories are told. Home is where you prepare to go out into the world. Finding the home that’s perfect for your family is a big job. Story Real Estate is Moscow’s top real estate team. They give people real estate advice all over the country. Family homes, investments, land, new construction, or commercial— they know real estate. If you’ve thought about a move to Moscow or anywhere in the country, reach out to get connected with a Story Real Estate agent. Wherever you’re going, they can help guide you Home. Visit storyrealestate.com. How about a word from our friends across the pond? https://www.dailyfetched.com/uk-government-approves-climate-lockdown-trials-for-2024/ UK Government Approves Climate Lockdown Trials for 2024 Residents would be confined to their local neighborhood and would not be able to leave unless they requested permission from the government. As part of the climate lockdown plan, the ’15 minute cities’ would place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, so the government would be instantly alerted by anyone trying to leave. Those who request permission to leave their city would be profiled by the government, which would make a decision on whether to let that person out. Under the new scheme, residents would be permitted to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, according to reports. However, every resident must register their car details with the government, enabling them to be tracked via smart cameras around the city. As Vision News reported: Oxfordshire County Council, which is run by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party, secretly decided to divide up the city of Oxford into six ’15 minute’ districts in 2021 soon after they were elected to office. None of the councilors declared their intention of imprisoning local residents in their manifestos of course, preferring to make vague claims about how they will ‘improve the environment instead. Every resident will be required to register their car with the County Council, which will then monitor how many times they leave their district via number plate recognition cameras. And don’t think you can beat the system if you’re a two-car household. Those two cars will be counted as one, meaning you will have to divide up the journeys between yourselves. 2 cars, 50 journeys each; 3 cars, 33 journeys each and so on. Under the new rules, your social life becomes irrelevant. By de facto, Councils dictate how many times per year you can see friends and family. You will be stopped from fraternizing with anyone outside your district, and if you want a long-distance relationship in the future, forget it; you are confined to dating only those within a 15-minute walk of your house. A single person’s life will be at the mercy of Communists in the central office, dictating the same draconian rules we had to avert the last crisis, a mild flu virus so deadly 80% of people didn’t even know they had it. An entirely new social structure is being imposed on Oxford’s residents ( and more cities are to follow) under the lie of saving the planet. but what it really is, is a plan for Command and Control. There will be permits, penalties and even more ubiquitous surveillance. Council officials will determine where you can go and how often, and will log every time you do. 15-minute cities, or 15 minute prisons? According to an article on The World Economic Forum’s website, ’15 minute’ cities are a powerful tool for action: Would Paris’s Mayor Anne Hidalgo have pushed for progressive urban design without this framing? Undoubtedly. But with COVID-19 and its variants keeping everyone home (or closer to home than usual), the 15-minute city went from a “nice-to-have” to a rallying cry. Meeting all of one’s needs within a walking, biking, or transit distance was suddenly a matter of life and death. The pandemic created an urgency around equitable urbanism that sidelined arguments about bike lanes and other “amenities” that have roiled communities for years. Such calls for draconian measures to fight climate change are nothing new. In November 2020, the Red Cross declared climate change is a more significant threat than COVID, saying it should be confronted with “the same urgency.” Meanwhile, Bill Gates demanded dramatic measures to stop climate change, arguing it would be worse than the pandemic. Former governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said that climate deaths would dwarf those of the pandemic. So what is the solution? More lockdowns. Politicians and government know that fear helps the public to accept dramatic curtailing of freedoms, especially with vague promises of safety. The COVID lockdowns proved this. So now power-hungry bureaucrats can utilize the precedents for more comprehensive lockdowns in the future. And finally, from California: https://thepostmillennial.com/california-english-teacher-says-proper-grammar-is-white-supremacist-refuses-to-teach-it?utm_campaign=64487 California English teacher says proper grammar is ‘white supremacist,’ refuses to teach it A California high school English teacher claimed that she undermines "white supremacy" in her classroom by educating students about the overemphasis placed on writing rules and grammar usage. According to Fox News, as a tenured English teacher at Oroville High School, Marta Shaffer began this school year by teaching parts of linguistics as a way of "fighting white supremacy in my classes." She posted on TikTok that her goal was to be "inclusive of all kinds of ways we use the language." https://twitter.com/i/status/1599466639740706816 - Play Video Schaffer said in another video obtained by the outlet that a student's "codes" – how they speak at home or with friends – is "just as important, if not more than important," than a boss's expectations of how their employee communicate. "Just because your teachers, your professors, and your boss may expect you to write and speak in a certain way that may not be natural to you, does not mean that your more natural… languages are not important. They are just as important, if not more important than the ‘language of respectability.’" Schaffer said she feels like a "cringe white lady" when "teaching students of color" about linguistics. Hey something we can both agree on ms. schaffer!