Podcasts about civil rights division

How is the Trump administration transforming the Department of Justice's civil rights priorities?Joining us today for a deep dive is DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the civil rights division.Their jurisdiction includes a wide range of constitutional issues, from religious freedom to Title IX protections, race-based discrimination, and enforcing voting rights laws.The views expressed in this video are those of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

White House Boys , Florida School For Boyshe Florida School for Boys, also known as the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys (AGDS), was a reform school operated by the state of Florida in the panhandle town of Marianna from January 1, 1900, to June 30, 2011.[1][2] A second campus was opened in the town of Okeechobee in 1955. For a time, it was the largest juvenile reform institution in the United States.[3]Throughout its 111-year history, the school gained a reputation for abuse, beatings, rapes, torture, and even murder of students by staff. Despite periodic investigations, changes of leadership, and promises to improve, the allegations of cruelty and abuse continued.After the school failed a state inspection in 2009, the governor ordered a full investigation. Many of the historic and recent allegations of abuse and violence were confirmed by separate investigations by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 2010, and by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in 2011.[4] State authorities closed the school permanently in June 2011. At the time of its closure, it was a part of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.[5]Because of questions about the number of deaths at the school and a high number of unmarked graves, the state authorized a forensic anthropology survey by University of South Florida in 2012. They identified 55 burials on the grounds, most outside the cemetery, and documented nearly 100 deaths at the school. The state said it did not have authority to allow exhumation of graves, which would permit determination of cause of death and identification of remains. (In addition it wanted to sell land on the property.) A family member of a student who died at the school in 1934, and who wanted to reinter his remains, filed suit and gained an injunction against the state's moving ahead with the sale before remains could be exhumed and identified. The state responded to the court injunction and authorized more work by a multi-disciplinary team from the University of South Florida, including exhumations. In January 2016, the USF team issued its final report, having made seven DNA matches and 14 presumptive identifications of remains. They will continue to work on identification.After passage of resolutions by both houses of the legislature, on April 26, 2017, the state held a formal ceremony to apologize personally to two dozen survivors of the school and to families of other victims. In 2018, bills were being considered to provide some compensation to victims and their descendants, possibly as scholarships for children.In 2019, during preliminary survey work for a pollution clean-up, a further 27 suspected graves were identified by ground penetrating radar. Many people, including former detainees, believe that over 100 bodies were buried on the schools grounds, and that further investigating should be done until all the remains have been identified and cared for. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Trump has so destroyed the DOJ's reputation for candor and integrity that federal judges won't handle their cases unless a court reporter takes down every word in a transcript to ensure that their words are not twisted out of all meaning. Michael Popok looks at new reporting that Trump's former criminal lawyer Emil Bove is running amok at the DOJ, destroying its Public Integrity Unit and its Civil Rights Division to use the DOJ to intimidate students on college campuses and threaten them with deportation or worse to chill their First Amendment expression. Allermi: For 60% off your order, head to https://Allermi.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press This week's show is sponsored by: EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News Fulton Fish Market

Thanks for listening to The Morning Five! Thanks for listening, rating/subscribing The Morning Five on your favorite podcast platform. Learn more about the work of CCPL at www.ccpubliclife.org. Michael's new book, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, is now available! You can order on Amazon, Bookshop.org, Barnes & Noble, or at your favorite local bookstore. Join the conversation and follow us at: Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@michaelwear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclife Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MichaelRWear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclifeAnd check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tsfnetwork⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music by: King Sis #politics #faith #prayer #education #technology #NewYork #DOJ #civilrights #Canada #MarkCarney #elections Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over 100 attorneys have left the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—not because they're soft, but because Trump's DOJ has flipped the script on civil rights. The division was created after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fight racism, protect voting rights, and confront police abuse. But under Trump's handpicked appointee, Harmeet Dhillon, the division's new priorities shifted to targeting transgender athletes, focusing on antisemitism, and dismantling diversity programs. Those who left said they refused to help dismantle the very laws they swore to uphold. Dhillon shrugged off the walkout, saying: “I don't want people in the federal government who feel like it's their pet project to go persecute police departments based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence. That's not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.” With staff down from 380 to possibly 140, the question remains: Who will enforce civil rights now? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is there really a “bloodbath” in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, joins Glenn to discuss firebombing at Christian churches, “violence” against free speech, and the fate of the innocent people persecuted under the Biden administration. Harmeet reveals how the FACE Act doesn't just protect abortion centers but pro-life pregnancy centers as well, says it's time for violent activists to be prosecuted, and explains why “you don't have to sue everybody.” Then, she and Glenn break down anti-Semitism on college campuses, her focus on the Second Amendment, and her advice to Congress to prevent a repeat of COVID-19 government tyranny.         GLENN'S SPONSOR      American Financing   American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial 800-906-2440, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Quang'sadvocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather than a...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

What would it look like for the Ten Commandments to make a comeback in public schools? In this episode of The Narrative, Andrea Piccotti-Bayer joins CCV President Aaron Baer, Policy Director David Mahan, and Communications Director Mike Andrews to discuss the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments and why public schools should return to the religious roots that our country was founded on. Andrea explains how these tenants have a rightful place in our classrooms and breaks down the historical and legal arguments for their proposed return to public education, such as would be allowed by Ohio Senate Bill 34. Before talking with Andrea, Aaron and Mike celebrate the recent Senate Bill 1 victory banning DEI at Ohio's state colleges and universities. They also discuss the proposed House budget and Senate Bill 156, which would require schools to teach the Success Sequence. More about Andrea Picciotti-Bayer Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. Andrea started as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. Before leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the US Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. She frequently appears in the media to discuss religious freedom controversies and legal victories. In 2021, she received First Place for Best Coverage—Religious Liberty Issues from the Catholic Media Association. She is also a legal analyst for EWTN News and a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Her writing has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Fox News, Newsweek, CNN en Español, and other well-regarded publications. She has also joined Fox News, Newsmax, and various other shows to share expert commentary. Andrea has ten children and lives in the Washington, DC area. For more, check out the video put together by the Conscience Project: Louisiana Ten Commandments: When Does The Government Go Too Far In Promoting Religion?

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 aims to centralize power in the White House, leveraging the unitary executive theory to expand presidential control over the federal government. This vision is championed by conservative legal scholars and has been embraced by the Supreme Court in recent years. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order issued by Trump in October 2020 that was later rescinded by President Biden. Schedule F would strip career government employees of their employment protections, allowing the president to fire and replace them with loyalists and ideologues. This move would fundamentally alter the civil service system, which has been merit-based since the Pendleton Act of 1883. As the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Public Policy Director Jacque Simon warned, "If all of their recommendations were implemented, it wouldn't just eviscerate our statutory collective bargaining rights and pay system but undo the basics of the apolitical, merit-based system we have today"[5].The implications of Schedule F are far-reaching. It would enable the president to reward cronies and punish enemies, creating an environment ripe for corruption and abuse of power. Independent agencies, which currently provide crucial oversight and accountability, would be rendered ineffective. This could lead to a chilling effect where government employees are discouraged from speaking out, and agencies might be incentivized to suppress the truth and spread misinformation[2].Project 2025 also outlines drastic changes to various federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move would revert the country to a pre-9/11 era, potentially compromising national security efforts and intelligence sharing. The Department of Education would be dismantled, with oversight and federal funding for education handed over to the states, a change that could severely impact Title I funding for high-poverty schools and exacerbate existing teacher shortages[5][3].The Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would undergo significant reforms. The DOJ would be tasked with combating "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and its Civil Rights Division would prosecute 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, argued that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law. This approach would fundamentally alter the DOJ's role in protecting civil rights, instead aligning it with a conservative agenda[1].In the realm of public education, Project 2025's proposals are equally alarming. The plan would eliminate Title I funding, which has been critical for high-poverty schools since 1965, and replace it with no-strings-attached block grants to states. This change could lead to significant budget strains for already underfunded schools, undermining academic outcomes for millions of vulnerable students. Additionally, the project advocates for weakening regulations on charter schools and promoting federal voucher laws, which could siphon funds from public schools and destabilize state budgets[3].The project's stance on healthcare is also contentious. It proposes cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and reversing many of the healthcare policies implemented by President Joe Biden. This would strip away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, a move that has been widely criticized by Democrats and healthcare advocates. Vice-President Kamala Harris has been vocal about these plans, stating that Project 2025 is a "plan to return America to a dark past"[3][4].Project 2025 also delves into environmental and social policies. It recommends reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and proposes making the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent, including defunding its stem cell research. The project suggests criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBT discrimination, and ending DEI programs. It even proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, the connections between the project and his administration are clear. Many of the project's architects and supporters are former Trump officials, and several Trump campaign officials have maintained contact with the project. After Trump's 2024 election victory, he nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his second administration. An analysis by *Time* found that nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025[1].The public's reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative. Polls indicate that the more Americans learn about the project, the more they oppose it. A Navigator poll found that 53% of Americans, including 37% of non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the project, while only 12% support it. The opposition stems from concerns about the plan's impact on healthcare, education, and the overall erosion of democratic institutions[3].As I reflect on the breadth and depth of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government operates. The project's proponents see it as a last opportunity to "save our republic" by aligning it with a far-right agenda. However, critics argue that it would dismantle the administrative state, undermine national security, and strip away fundamental rights and freedoms.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and judicial oversight. As the country navigates these potential changes, it is crucial for Americans to remain informed and engaged. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power, and implement a far-right agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is about centralizing power in the White House. The plan advocates for the elimination of the independence of key federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to federal staffing. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with individuals loyal to the president. This is not a new idea; during Trump's first term, he established the Schedule F job classification by executive order, which was later rescinded by President Biden. However, with Trump's return to office, this classification has been revived, paving the way for a significant purge of federal employees deemed disloyal[1].The project's impact on education is equally profound. It envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This would mean the end of federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides $18 billion annually to schools in low-income areas, and the Head Start program, which supports children from low-income families. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers that could be used for private or religious schools, a move that critics argue would exacerbate educational inequality[1][3].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to social safety nets. It recommends reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and ending programs aimed at forgiving student loans. The plan also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggesting a reduction in its independence and the defunding of stem cell research. These changes are part of a broader agenda to align scientific research with conservative principles, with a particular emphasis on reducing funding for climatology research and reversing the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health[1].Environmental policies are another critical area where Project 2025 seeks to make its mark. The plan advocates for the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the expansion of oil and gas drilling, and the blocking of the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased methane emissions. The project also proposes incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, further undermining efforts to address climate change[1].The project's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. It calls for the reform of the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and proposes that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plan also suggests curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and authorizing the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, a move that critics argue would further militarize law enforcement[1].Project 2025's economic policies are designed to favor corporations and reduce regulatory oversight. It recommends the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the shrinkage of the National Labor Relations Board, and the merger of several statistical agencies into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The plan also advocates for a flat income tax, reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains, and the relaxation of regulations on small businesses, particularly in rural areas[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his policies is striking. As CBS News noted, at least 270 proposals in the project's blueprint match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on changes to FEMA, align with Project 2025's call to shift disaster response costs to states and local governments[4][5].The reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative from many quarters. Critics argue that it would gut the system of checks and balances, create an imperial presidency, and devastate public education and social safety nets. The National Education Association (NEA) has warned that the project's education reforms would deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed. Environmental groups have condemned the project's climate policies as disastrous and misguided[2][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's architects see it as a last opportunity to save what they perceive as a beleaguered republic, but critics see it as a dangerous blueprint for extremism and authoritarianism.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and public opposition. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is likely to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this vision for a radically reshaped federal government becomes a reality or remains a contentious blueprint on the fringes of American politics. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals, ideological convictions, and far-reaching implications for American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving over 100 conservative groups, is more than just a policy guide; it is a blueprint for a radical transformation of the federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-plus page "Mandate for Leadership" authored by former Trump administration officials and other conservative stalwarts. The project is built around four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration, a database of potential personnel, training for these candidates, and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the redistribution of power within the federal government. The project advocates for a significant expansion of presidential powers, aiming to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. This includes eliminating the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). According to Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, all federal employees should answer directly to the president, reflecting a unitary executive theory that centralizes greater control in the White House[2].This centralization of power is not limited to administrative restructuring. Project 2025 also proposes sweeping reforms in various federal agencies. For instance, the Department of Education is slated for dismantling, a move that would gut federal education funding and deny critical resources to vulnerable students. The National Education Association has warned that such changes would devastate public education, sanctioning discrimination against LGBTQ+ students and undermining the very fabric of the education system[3].In the realm of disaster response, Project 2025 suggests a drastic shift in the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The proposal recommends reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, rather than the federal government. This aligns with Trump's recent actions, where he established a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities and suggested that states should take over disaster response management. The project's authors argue that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness," leading to deep debt and an unsustainable model[1].The project's stance on law enforcement is equally contentious. It calls for a thorough reform of the DOJ, criticizing it as a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda." The proposal suggests that the DOJ should combat "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and that the Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This vision is starkly at odds with traditional civil rights protections and reflects a broader agenda to reverse decades of progress in civil rights[2].Project 2025's economic policies are no less radical. The plan includes proposals to cut overtime protections for over 4 million workers, stop efforts to lower prescription drug prices, and limit access to food assistance for millions of Americans. It also aims to eliminate funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. These changes would make it significantly harder for Americans without cars to commute to work or travel around their communities[5].The environmental implications of Project 2025 are equally alarming. The plan seeks to undermine critical climate action by attacking the EPA's "Endangerment Finding," a cornerstone of federal efforts to curb emissions under the Clean Air Act. By 'updating' this finding, Project 2025 would make it harder for the EPA to take action against climate change, effectively rolling back hard-fought gains in environmental protection[5].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's architects and supporters have been nominated to key positions in his administration. This close alignment between Trump's policies and Project 2025's proposals has led critics to argue that the project is, in essence, a roadmap for Trump's second term. As CBS News noted, nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term mirror or partially mirror proposals from Project 2025[4].The broader themes of Project 2025—centralization of power, dismantling of social safety nets, and a radical shift in federal policies—paint a picture of an initiative that is both ambitious and deeply divisive. As the American public becomes more aware of these proposals, opposition grows, reflecting a deep-seated concern about the direction in which this project could steer the country.Looking forward, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will likely be a contentious and highly politicized process. With the project's architects now in key positions within the administration, the next few months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals become reality. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a profound shift in American governance, one that could have far-reaching and lasting impacts on the lives of millions of Americans.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of unease about the profound implications this initiative could have on the fabric of American governance. Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with deep ties to the Trump administration, Project 2025 is more than just a policy guide; it's a comprehensive blueprint for a radical restructuring of the federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is a four-pillared initiative: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for 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 proposals that align closely with Trump's past policies and current campaign promises[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The project advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This vision is rooted in the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. As Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation President, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[2].The proposed changes to federal agencies are far-reaching. Project 2025 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. It recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and shrinking the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' ability to organize and fight unfair labor practices. The project also calls for the elimination of the Federal Trade Commission, a move that would significantly undermine antitrust enforcement[2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a significant reduction of the federal government's role. It proposes closing the Department of Education and giving states control over education funding and policy. The project advocates for public funds to be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools, and suggests cutting funding for free school meals and ending the Head Start program. This shift is justified by the project's backers as a move to treat education as a private rather than a public good[2].The project's stance on environmental issues is equally contentious. It seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also advocates for the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and opposes the transition to renewable energy by blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid[2].Project 2025's approach to law enforcement is marked by a critical view of the DOJ, which it describes as a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda." The project proposes reforming the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and suggests that the Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. This stance is echoed by Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, who argues that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law[2].The project's impact on social policies is also significant. It recommends instituting work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and proposes legislation requiring higher pay for working on Sundays, based on the belief that "God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest." Additionally, it suggests that OSHA should be more lenient on small businesses and that the overtime exception threshold should be kept low to avoid burdening businesses in rural areas[2].Critics of Project 2025 argue that it would destroy the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government, creating an "imperial presidency" with almost unlimited power to implement policies. The League of Conservation Voters has criticized the project as a giveaway to private industry, while Republican climate advocates have disagreed with its climate policy, highlighting the growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change[3][2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a vision for a fundamentally different America. With its emphasis on centralizing executive power, dismantling federal agencies, and promoting conservative principles across various sectors, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on the outcome of future elections and the political will of the next administration. As the 2024 elections approach, the debate around this project is likely to intensify. Whether Project 2025 will succeed in reshaping American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: its impact, if realized, would be profound and far-reaching. As the American public navigates this complex landscape, it is crucial to engage in informed discussions about the future of democracy and the role of government in American life.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by former Trump administration officials and the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government.Project 2025 is encapsulated in a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," which outlines a comprehensive plan to reorganize every federal agency to align with conservative principles. This project is not just about policy tweaks; it's about transforming the very fabric of American governance. The Heritage Foundation's President, Kevin Roberts, has described their role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," a notion that underscores the deep connections between this project and the former Trump administration[1][4][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The initiative advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This centralization is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to give the president unprecedented control over the government. As Kevin Roberts put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[2][3].The project's impact on federal agencies is far-reaching. For instance, it proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, with a mission aligned with conservative principles. It also recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws. The National Labor Relations Board, crucial for protecting employees' rights to organize, would see its role significantly diminished[2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role. It suggests closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. Federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be curtailed, and programs like the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The project also advocates for the expiration of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools[2].The environment is another area where Project 2025's proposals are particularly contentious. The initiative seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and advocates for preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[2].Project 2025's stance on climate change is starkly at odds with the views of many Republicans, including younger conservatives who acknowledge human activity's role in climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has called the project's climate policies "wrongheaded," highlighting a growing consensus among younger Republicans that climate action is essential[2].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally transformative. It views the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people, particularly due to its role in investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would be reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This shift aligns with the views of former Trump DOJ official Gene Hamilton, who argues that advancing certain segments of society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law[2].In the media and communications sector, Project 2025 proposes significant changes. It suggests defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. This could force NPR to relocate from its current FM dial range, making way for religious programming. The project also advocates for more media consolidation and proposes legislation to prevent social media companies from removing "core political viewpoints" from their platforms[2].The implications of these proposals are profound. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that is a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Progress article notes, Project 2025 "would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency"[3].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between his policies and the project's proposals is striking. CBS News analysis has identified over 270 proposals in the project's blueprint that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, has praised Trump's actions as "home runs" that reflect the initiative's efforts and the readiness of the conservative movement[4][5].As we look ahead, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the coming months and years. With its comprehensive and far-reaching proposals, this initiative represents a critical juncture in American governance. Whether it succeeds in reshaping the federal government or is met with significant resistance will depend on the political landscape and the will of the American people.In the words of 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 ambition and the stakes involved. As we navigate this complex and contentious terrain, it is clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative – it is a battle for the future of American democracy.

Anne Telnaes Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, State Department Senior Adviser “Big Balls” is 19-year-old high school graduate Edward Coristine, who now works as a “senior adviser” in the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Technology. That pretty much sums up President Elon Musk's reign of terror running through the federal government, even as Trump's Clown Cabinet gets virtually unanimous support from a spineless U.S. Senate. This week we talk with a veteran of federal departments that are being gutted by the Musk administration. In Michigan, we have our first polling on how the race for Governor might be impacted by third-party candidate Mike Duggan. We get the detailed findings from veteran pollster Bernie Porn, CEO of EPIC-MRA. Also on our radar:  Governor Whitmer and the Legislature are in last-minute 3-way negotiations over Michigan's minimum wage and paid medical leave;  The CEO of Ford warns that Trump's economic agenda could cripple the auto industry which means crippling Michigan's economy; And the Governor is looking at weed and big corporations to fund more fixing of the damn roads. Also joining us on the podcast: University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos, who was a senior staffer at what it now Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services, the Project 2025-driven office of Management and Budget, and the probably-soon-to-be shuttered Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights. Sam Bagenstos — Frank G. Millard Professor of Law, University of Michigan Bagenstos took an extended leave from U. of M. to serve in multiple roles in the Biden administration, with senior positions in HHS, the Federal Budget Office and Department of Justice. From June 2022 to December 2024, he was general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where he played a key role in advancing and implementing policies across the department, including: pursuing several initiatives on abortion and reproductive rights; crafting and defending the first-ever Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program; drafting and issuing major rules on civil rights, health privacy, Medicare and Medicaid, drug advertising, the regulation of “lab-developed” medical tests and food safety, the treatment of unaccompanied migrant children in HHS care, the treatment of LGBTQ+ kids in the foster care system, and many other issues; advancing marijuana rescheduling, and advising and defending the Food and Drug Administration's tobacco enforcement program; and working with the Department of Justice on litigation involving HHS, including significant abortion rights, free speech, and tobacco regulation cases in the US Supreme Court. From Inauguration Day 2021 to June 2022, he served as general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget. There, he worked on President Biden's Day One executive orders; helped respond to COVID-19, including implementing several crucial aid programs; responded to regulations adopted by the prior administration just before the inauguration and helped advance the new administration's regulations on labor, health, the environment, and much else; helped craft and implement the American Rescue Plan, the bipartisan infrastructure law, and what became the Inflation Reduction Act; and assisted in developing two annual budgets, along with advising the entire Executive Branch on issues of appropriations law and administrative law. In an earlier stint on leave from the Law School, from 2009 to 2011, Bagenstos was an appointee in the US Department of Justice, where he served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, the No. 2 official in the Civil Rights Division. There, he helped promulgate the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations—the first comprehensive update of those regulations since they were first issued in 1991—and led the reinvigoration of the Civil Rights Division's enforcement of the US Supreme Court's deci...

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation and former Trump administration officials, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a radical restructuring of the American government.Project 2025 is presented as a comprehensive guide for the next conservative president, encapsulated in a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership." This document outlines a sweeping agenda that touches nearly every facet of American life, from immigration and abortion rights to free speech and racial justice. The project's authors, many of whom have direct ties to Trump's first administration, aim to institutionalize what Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts calls "Trumpism"[1][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to centralize executive power, aligning with the unitary executive theory that advocates for greater presidential control over the government. This vision includes placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Federal Trade Commission. Roberts succinctly captures this ambition: "All federal employees should answer to the president"[2].The project's impact on federal agencies is profound. For instance, it recommends merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, with a mission aligned with conservative principles. This includes maximizing the hiring of political appointees in statistical analysis positions, a move that raises concerns about the politicization of data[2].In the realm of economic policy, Project 2025 suggests abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and shrinking the role of the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees' rights to organize and fight unfair labor practices. The Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce would either be abolished or repurposed to assist rural communities allegedly harmed by the Biden administration's energy policies[2].Education is another area where Project 2025 seeks significant changes. The proposal includes closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. Federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be curtailed, with responsibilities shifted to the Department of Justice, which would enforce laws only through litigation. This approach is justified by the project's authors as a response to what they see as federal overreach prioritizing "racial parity in school discipline indicators" over student safety[2].The project's stance on climate change is particularly contentious. It advocates for reversing the EPA's 2009 finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, thereby preventing federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights would be closed, and the expansion of the national electrical grid would be blocked to hinder the transition to renewable energy. Instead, the project promotes the development of oil, gas, and coal resources, including Arctic drilling, and encourages allied nations to use fossil fuels[2].Project 2025 also delves into law enforcement and justice, proposing a thorough reform of the Department of Justice to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism." The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. This approach is rooted in the belief that such programs violate federal law and come at the expense of other Americans[2].The project's authors are not shy about their intentions. As Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, wrote, "To execute requires a well-conceived, coordinated, unified plan and a trained and committed cadre of personnel to implement it." This plan includes a LinkedIn-style database of personnel loyal to a conservative administration, a Presidential Administration Academy to train these candidates, and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office[4][5].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the connections between the initiative and his administration are undeniable. At least 140 people who worked on Project 2025 previously worked in Trump's administration, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts has described the project as "institutionalizing Trumpism"[1].Experts and critics alike have sounded the alarm about the potential implications of Project 2025. Dr. Emma Shortis from The Australia Institute notes that the project "shines a light on the significance of what is happening and the danger of what Trump is doing." She highlights the broad proposals to review climate action and rescind policies from the Biden administration, including a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling[5].As we look to the future, it is clear that Project 2025 represents a critical juncture in American governance. With its sweeping policy proposals and centralized vision of executive power, this initiative has the potential to reshape the very fabric of the U.S. government. As the country navigates the complexities of this blueprint, it remains to be seen how these policies will be implemented and what their long-term effects will be.In the words of Kevin Roberts, "The nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Whether this revolution will be bloodless or not, one thing is certain: Project 2025 is a call to action that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of American democracy[4].

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 delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a federal policy agenda crafted by former Trump administration officials in collaboration with The Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this initiative is more than just a set of policy proposals – it's a blueprint for a radical restructuring of the American government.Project 2025, encapsulated in the 900-page manual "Mandate For Leadership," is a comprehensive plan to reorganize the entire federal government, agency by agency, to align with a conservative agenda. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank known for its opposition to abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants' rights, and racial equity, is at the helm of this project. Despite Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself, the connections run deep; at least 140 people involved in Project 2025 previously worked in Trump's administration, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who was part of Trump's transition team in 2016, has described the project as "institutionalizing Trumpism"[1][2][3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its sweeping overhaul of federal agencies. For instance, the project proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, aligning its mission with conservative principles. This includes maximizing the hiring of political appointees in statistical analysis positions, a move that could significantly politicize data collection and analysis[3].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 outlines a future where the Department of Energy focuses on fundamental research rather than energy technology development and climate change programs. The report suggests eliminating many DOE offices and programs, arguing they act as subsidies to the private sector. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would also face significant changes, with proposals to prevent the agency from using certain climate change impact projections and to require clear congressional authorization for any science activity. Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff at the EPA during the Trump administration, authored the EPA chapter, reflecting the deep ties between Project 2025 and Trump's previous policies[2].The project's vision for the executive branch is perhaps its most contentious aspect. It seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is based on an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control in the White House. As Kevin Roberts put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[3].Project 2025 also delves into personnel changes, proposing the reclassification of tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees. This would allow for the replacement of current employees with Trump loyalists, using a questionnaire to screen potential recruits for their adherence to the project's agenda. This approach is reminiscent of Trump's previous efforts to remove employees he deemed disloyal, regardless of their ideological convictions[3].The impact on social and economic policies is equally profound. Project 2025 recommends work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which issues food stamps, and suggests legislation to pay Americans more for working on Sundays, citing the biblical ordinance of the Sabbath. It also proposes cutting overtime protections for 4.3 million workers, limiting access to food assistance for over 40 million people, and denying students in 25 states and Washington, D.C. access to student loans if their schools provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants[5].In the area of civil rights, Project 2025 is particularly draconian. It recommends rolling back civil rights protections, cutting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and targeting LGBTQ+ rights in healthcare, education, and workplaces. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would be reformed to combat what the project calls "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," a stance that former Trump DOJ official Gene Hamilton argues is necessary to prevent the advancement of certain segments of society at the expense of others[3].The project's approach to law enforcement is also noteworthy. It suggests that the DOJ has become a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda" and must be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The director of the FBI would be made personally accountable to the president, and legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments would be curtailed[3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it's clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates. It centralizes power, politicizes agencies, and rolls back protections for various segments of the population. The project's authors and supporters see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a liberal bias in the current system, but critics argue it erodes democracy and promotes inequality.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on several factors, including the outcome of future elections and the willingness of Congress to support these radical changes. As the 2025 timeline approaches, the country will be watching closely to see how these plans unfold. Will Project 2025 succeed in reshaping the federal government, or will it face significant resistance? The answer will have profound implications for American governance and the lives of millions of Americans.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sweeping initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American government. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project is designed to guide the next Republican president in implementing a conservative agenda that touches nearly every aspect of federal governance.At its core, Project 2025 is built on four pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of conservative personnel, training programs for these individuals, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days of the new administration. This structure is meant to ensure that conservatives are not just winning elections, but also have the right people and plans in place to execute their vision from day one[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambitious plan to reshape the federal bureaucracy. The project advocates for significant cuts to the federal workforce and the elimination of several key agencies, including the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. This move is part of a broader strategy to reduce the federal government's role in education, elevating school choice and parental rights instead. Federal funds for low-income students would be converted into school vouchers, even for those attending private or religious schools, and programs like Head Start would be eliminated[1].The project also targets the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), proposing to place these agencies under direct presidential control. This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which centralizes greater control over the government in the White House. According to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, "The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic"[1].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 suggests drastic reforms. It proposes to cut funding for Medicaid, imposing stricter work requirements and limits on lifetime benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services would be reformed to promote traditional nuclear families, and Medicare would be prohibited from negotiating drug prices. Additionally, federal healthcare providers would be barred from offering gender-affirming care to transgender individuals, and insurance coverage for emergency contraception would be eliminated[1].The project's stance on environmental and climate change policies is equally contentious. It recommends reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using certain climate change impact projections. Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff at the EPA during the Trump administration, authored the EPA chapter, arguing that the agency's science activities should require clear congressional authorization[5].Project 2025 also delves into law enforcement, proposing a DOJ that would combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism." The Civil Rights Division would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. This approach is based on the argument that such programs violate federal law and come at the expense of other Americans[1].The project's impact on science and research is significant as well. It suggests prioritizing basic research while rolling back climate science initiatives. Academic and technology exchanges with countries like China would be restricted, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be prohibited from funding research involving embryonic stem cells. The NIH would also be made less independent, with easier procedures for firing employees and removing DEI programs[5].Recent developments indicate that these proposals are not mere theoretical exercises. Donald Trump's early executive actions since his return to office have mirrored or partially mirrored several of Project 2025's proposals. For example, Trump revived the Schedule F executive order, which allows certain federal employees to be reclassified as political appointees, making them easier to remove. This move aligns with Project 2025's goal of reducing the independence of the federal workforce and empowering the executive branch[2].Critics argue that these actions and proposals are designed to benefit specific industries or donors, rather than the broader public. Darrell West notes that the inconsistencies in the plan may be intended for fundraising purposes, targeting industries that would benefit from the proposed changes[1].As Project 2025 continues to shape the conservative agenda, its implications for American governance are profound. The centralization of power in the White House, the dismantling of key federal agencies, and the significant cuts to social and environmental programs all point to a future where the federal government's role is dramatically reduced. Whether this vision aligns with the broader interests of the American people remains a subject of intense debate.Looking ahead, the next milestones for Project 2025 will be closely watched. As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the project's coalition of over 100 conservative groups will continue to grow and influence policy discussions. The training programs and personnel database will be crucial in preparing conservatives for key roles in the new administration. The playbook for the first 180 days will serve as a roadmap for swift and decisive action, aiming to bring about the sweeping changes envisioned by Project 2025.In the end, Project 2025 represents a clear and ambitious vision for conservative governance, one that promises to reshape the very fabric of American government. As this project unfolds, it will be essential to monitor its progress and assess its impact on the nation, ensuring that the changes it brings align with the democratic principles and the diverse needs of the American people.

A week into the second iteration of Donald Trump's White House, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord take stock of the abrupt and unrelenting changes to our federal government. Andrew points to security details yanked and security clearances revoked as blatant retaliation against Trump's perceived foes. Mary highlights several judges who are pushing back against blanket pardons for J6 convictions. Then, they turn to Trump's executive action on birthright citizenship, reviewing several challenges already in motion, including a case brought by Mary and her ICAP team. And before wrapping up, our two resident career litigators look at the withering independence of the Justice Department from the White House, and how all roads lead through the DOJ.Further reading: Here is the New York Times' piece on Kash Patel that Andrew mentioned in this episode: F.B.I. Pick Pushed False and Misleading Claims About Trump InvestigationsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

According to The New York Times, the Justice Department has halted new civil rights investigations and signaled it may backtrack on Biden-era agreements with police departments accused of discrimination or violence. In two internal memos, Chad Mizelle, the department's chief of staff, ordered a freeze on civil rights litigation and consent decrees, requiring senior Trump appointees' approval for new cases or interventions. Consent decrees, agreements with local governments to address systemic police misconduct, may be reconsidered, jeopardizing settlements like those with Louisville after Breonna Taylor's killing and Minneapolis following George Floyd's murder. A conservative lawyer and Trump ally has been nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division, raising concerns about the rollback of diversity and equity programs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joins Dr. Roberts for a powerful discussion on the landmark case U.S. v. Skrmetti and the critical battles against federal overreach. General Skrmetti shares insights into his leadership in defending state sovereignty, tackling ESG mandates, and shaping the future of cyber law. From safeguarding education and healthcare policy to advancing common-sense public policy, this episode dives into the legal fights that will define America's future. About General Skrmetti: Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in to an eight-year term as Tennessee's Attorney General and Reporter on September 1, 2022. Prior to his current role, General Skrmetti served as Chief Counsel to Governor Bill Lee and as Chief Deputy Attorney General to his predecessor, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. Before working for the State of Tennessee, General Skrmetti was a partner at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis. His legal career began with nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor. He worked at the Civil Rights Division at Main Justice and then at the Memphis U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted sex traffickers, corrupt government officials, and violent white supremacists. In addition, General Skrmetti taught cyberlaw as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis. General Skrmetti earned honors degrees from George Washington University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Following law school, Jonathan clerked for Judge Steven Colloton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and four children.

First Week.Based on a post by FinalStand, in 13 parts. Listen to the ► Podcast at Explicit Novels. I started out the next morning admiring the boarding on the window to the Principal's second story office. The ground and bushes beneath it were pretty trampled up too. That was a good way to start the day. In homeroom, I was talking to Kaelyne again when Princess Brandy announced her entrance and her 'power' over me.‘Hey Vlad,' she greeted me with sugary sweetness. She was working out ways to get me for the whole 'dog not kissing her mouth' thing.‘Hey Skank,' I grinned at her. Her face froze. Taliyah pulled up short.‘What did you say?' Brandy hissed.‘Skank. Are you hard of hearing?' I mused.‘I'm Darius' girl, asshole. You had better accept that right now.'‘Girl? Sure. I imagine that Darius and seven other guys fucking you in all three holes until you are oozing sperm is your ideal dream date,' I chortled.Having the scope of her depravity openly discussed really pissed her off.‘You are jealous,' she sneered. There was a hint of desperation in her voice. I chuckled.‘That's clearly delusional thinking,' I laughed. ‘You look hot, just not enough for me to want to wash my dick in ten other guys' cum. You act like a skank so that is how I will address you, Skank.'She was infuriated. The start of homeroom ended the matter for the moment. The rest of the day was spent with a hundred slights and pin pricks. Darius' crowd would get in jabs from behind as we walked the halls, or projectiles tossed at us during class. We were fine with that. There was no fighting back. The 'niggers' didn't get it.We were scoping out the faces of our enemies and finding blind spots in the school's security camera system. The truth about what happened to the Principal had also gotten out. Mom had already informed us of the series of events, including the spy camera video she took of the entire proceedings.She'd kept up the 'dunce housewife' act even after he whipped out his cock and forced her to suck it, because he was a 'big Black stud', his words recorded for posterity. Finally, he put his hand down her blouse to give her bountiful bosom a good squeeze while shoving his cock past her loudly protesting lips. That was all the excuse Mom needed. She portrayed the frantic housewife really well. We, her family, knew better.She was hamming it up to allay any criminal charges. His pleas for mercy were ignored. It was hard to make out what he was saying after she bashed out half his teeth with his 'African-American Educator of the Year' award. She'd ruptured his scrotum, stabbed his exposed cock repeatedly with a letter opener and cracked half a dozen vertebrae and a dozen ribs.We were pretty sure she'd broken his arms in multiple places, ground up both his hands and shattered his left wrist. She snapped his right leg in two, all the while screaming 'Don't touch me! Don't touch me!' Her last bit of sadism was to toss him out his second story window. The first try, he bounced back, but we were pretty sure he had a concussion.The second try cracked the safety glass. The third time was the charm and down that rapist rat-bastard fell into a modest sized holly bush (ouch!). Mom completed the act by pretending to sob as she crawled into a corner of the office while she dialed 9-1-1. As she gleefully went over the play-by-play for us once home, we knew she was cool about the entire incident, even the groping and forced blowjob.It was Davis County jurisdiction so they were in charge of the investigation. That didn't stop Kingston from sticking their noses in. The Mayor was all about the Principal being a pillar of the community, a Black leader and a church-going man. Then the School's video evidence came out. The Principle had been so full of himself and his immunity, he recorded his attempted violation of my Mom.Did the Negro community accept the obvious? No. This was a racist White lady, from a racist family, framing a good Black man though how she accomplished that was unclear to most of us and undefined by the Black leadership. They claimed that the Principal had yet to give his side of the story. That would take a while. The man had lost most of his teeth and had his jaw wired shut.Both eardrums were ruptured and he could barely see out of his right eye. His left was swollen shut. His nose was pancaked. There was even a rumor that his penis was so badly mauled they had to cut most of it off (which turned out to be true). Big Bob, some deputies (all White) and some Highway Patrol (both colors) raided the Principal's house and found a stockpile of tapes and DVDs depicting previous sexual encounters at school going back almost two decades.Apparently that was nothing more than extra proof of the hateful, bigoted White man framing a decent, hard-working Black man. That any group could be so blinded by their own bigotry that they would embrace such a blatant fiction was appalling to me. At school, the Blacks were indignant and the Whites kept a low profile, as if they'd done something wrong.The one grey cloud in this monsoon of misery was basketball tryouts were on Thursday after school. We picked up consent forms from a furious coach that slathered on the kind of negativity we had come to expect from him and his sick breed. White boys can't jump. White boys can't dunk. White boys can score inside the 'paint'; yep. No racism there (insert maniacal laughter).The Assistant Athletic Director coached the basketball team. He was a short, thin, hyperactive White man and, as we were to learn, a race-hater. He hated White people, or at least White athlete wannabes. More on him later. There were two key developments on my front. First, Alexander informed us he had a side project he couldn't talk about yet.The second thing was that Darius demanded, by way of Brandy, that I took Brandy to an 'after victory' celebration out by the lake Friday night. From 9 p.m. to whenever, I was to sit back and let Brandy be used like a drunk runaway at an outlaw biker rally. Personally, I didn't see how that could be an enjoyable sexual experience.Brandy believed this made her Darius' lady. She certainly embraced the bukkake, sperm baths eagerly. I still chose to ridicule her constantly because I could tell she was having trouble rationalizing her sexual treatment with any style of romance, or affection. She hadn't been honest with me so I was now tormenting her and using her shame to stab at Darius.We could see it in his eyes whenever we mocked his crowd. Darius was plotting out his revenge. His problem was we didn't care what he called us, we didn't care about the teachers he turned against us and we had no spies in our camp, or friends to turn against us. We accepted our social life, for the time being, would be limited to our home.Mom hinted she had a 'plan' in the offing and proved the internet had rendered local belligerence impudent. All our supplies came by parcel delivery from out of town. We wired up a new home security system, engaging a Little Rock private security service instead of putting any faith in the local, Black-run firm. We signed a waiver for the self-install.There were times when we could totally believe that Mom and Uncle Theo were twins. Technically, as the twin born last, Mom was the youngest of the five children. For unspoken reasons, Theo ended up at a military academy for delinquents at fifteen. She only publically saw him three times since then. Once when she broke into his school (and got caught), at his academy graduation and lastly when he finished basic training for the Army.Yet they remained close in ways only multiple birth kids could understand despite the time and distance. It also meant Mom came equipped with (cough) healthy doses of paranoia and vindictiveness. Mom reminded us our battle wasn't limited to the school. We were fighting a secularist religion with a fanatic core.Had Black Americans been fucked over by White America? Yep. That didn't end 150 years ago either. There was Jim Crow legislation after Reconstruction as well as uninvestigated rapes, beatings, whippings, lynching and even being burned alive. All horrors visited on the Black Race by the White Man.Yet it was White men who passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Yes they did, but getting Black people to accept that there were White people who stood with them as equals was impossible. Since 1965, had there been Black councilmen/women, mayors, state legislators, governors, Congressmen/women, Supreme Court Justices and, dare we say, a president?Why yes. Where there Blacks in every aspect of professional life? Damn right there were. Where there Black millionaires? Thousands of them, and even an African-American self-made Billionaire. So exactly what were White Americans supposed to feel guilty about? Crap our parents and grandparents did? Great-grandparents?When was the cut-off date for being held accountable for actions you had no part in? There were poor Black people. There were poor White people and poor Latinos for that matter. As far as my Mom was concerned, racism was racism and it had no exceptions for color, creed, and orientation coming, or going.She'd given the Blacks of Kingston their chance to make things right, to end the cycle of hate. They had declined to rein in their own, so she felt no obligation for her, or her sons, to give obedience to their injustice.There was a pile of evidence that the Principal had done wrong, still Kingston treated him like a hero and martyr. Fuck that noise. Mom didn't want to start some wacked-out guerilla war. She only wanted to punish those responsible for this fucked up situation. Target #1, Darius and by default, Darius' family. That, in turn, was Darius' biggest problem.He didn't realize he was hunting people more than capable of hunting the hunters. We knew he and his supporters were coming for our family, they had tons of advantages and little fear of the four of us (we wouldn't involve Dad since he was in law enforcement and a straight arrow). We weren't aiming for a body count. Our goal was humiliation and breaking their wills to resist.With that accomplished, we could install some truly impartial justice and social order. My family was aided in this quest by the clarity of our enemy's weaknesses. They were proud of their Big Black Cocks and their lack of restraint in using them on whomever they pleased. Basing their Black masculinity on a single bit of mythology rendered them painfully vulnerable to us.They hadn't chosen to base their dominion on anything but their cock and balls. Solidarity, economic output and healthy competitiveness had been tossed aside. The Black community in Kingston accepted Black male predation as the natural course of things. It was revenge for the White Master/Black Slave Girl depredations that happened during Slavery. Did they humble White men by fucking their moms, sisters, wives and daughters? Yeah.That disregard for social bonds and femininity meant Black women were under the same dominion, though they lied to themselves about it and the Black men comforted them in that lie. Black Mammas let their boys run around like dogs then were aghast when their husbands did the same thing. Big Black Cocks were eroding the basis for trust in this town.If BBC wanted a woman, he stuck the cock in and that woman became his cock-slave. Had the woman started out resisting? That didn't matter because now they needed that cock to get her through the week. That was the score. The truth Mom laid out was confirmed by a week of school. How were we going to defeat the BBC menace?Mom just smiled and said she had a 'Secret Weapon' to go along with her battle plan. We took that assurance into Thursday's basketball team tryouts. We rocked. We had the talent and the skills. That didn't matter to the Assistant Coach. He had six Black players returning from last year's team.There was one White guy whose Mom was throwing gobs of new equipment the team's way, so he was on board. That left five spots to fill the twelve man roster. Up against us was one ambitious White junior, seven Black juniors and one Black female senior. Apparently she'd been denied a spot on last year's team based on gender alone and was still pissed about it.The Ass Coach immediately set his sights on five of the Black juniors that fit the profile, Black top (that's outdoor courts that used asphalt) experience, tall, lanky and a willingness to dunk on a moment's notice. Our scrimmages were stupid and biased. The Black players could elbow, trip and punch us without repercussions. Mikhail almost got booted for threatening to toss the next blatant fouler into the bleachers.We caught a break when Ass Coach got called away with a phone call which he couldn't understand because his 'chosen ones' wouldn't shut up and even attempt to be quietly considerate. I had an idea to create our own scrimmage team, but I had a problem. The two Black guys and one White guy not getting on the team sucked. I needed two of the other Black players.I chose an alliance. I went to the angry, dispirited female player and made my offer. We would challenge the current team and, if we beat them, we made a pact that all of us made the team, or none of us did. I could see her weighing screwing me over. The whole school knew Darius was gunning for me and my brothers. She shook my hand. We needed a fifth.The girl, Kaja Woodrow, went over to her cousin, one of the players from last year's team. He didn't want to join us. He had a guaranteed spot and he could blow it by joining his crazy female cousin and the three most hated White boys in school. Kaja threatened to bring their grandmother into this mess. I think that threat plus a strong sense of fair play changed his mind.We were good. Shaquille, Kaja's cousin, knew it. Everyone knew it. He was shorter than us, around 5' 10'. His ball-handling skills were phenomenal, he was a fairly accurate shooter and would happily pass the ball if someone was in a better court possession instead of taking a risky shot.Passing the ball was key and not an art form shared by the rest of his current teammates. With Shaquille on our side, we put our proposal before the Ass Coach. He denied us, but we were ready for that. Our team took to physically and verbally mocking and denigrating the manhood of the current roster. They took our bait.After a quick warm-up, we made our move. Everything worked in our favor. High School courts aren't black top. The courts are wider and there is no turning around at mid-court. You added to that our opponents were ball-hogs and suffered from terminal 'dunk-itis'. Mikhail made the 'paint' his bailiwick (bally-wick?).Dunk attempt after dunk attempt were brutally rejected by him. By their logic, my brothers and I would also keep the ball for ourselves. We passed like crazy. This was doubly painful for them because the White boys and Kaja could nail a jump shot from maybe 18 to 20 feet out, no problem. Shaquille would race behind their screen, catch a pass on the leap and dunk unopposed.Our squad was making their squad and the Ass Coach look like idiots. The All-Black squad didn't regroup and create a new plan. No. We were belittling them. First came the fouls. When that wasn't enough to stop us from outscoring them, they brought out on the egregious fouls and still the Ass Coach did nothing.Finally, after the fifteenth time Kaja humiliated the player supposed to be guarding her with a quick feint-step and a basket, he ran her over. He didn't shove her. He threw a powerful shoulder into her chest and followed up by stepping on her stomach. He smiled. His buddies laughed. Mikhail walked over and broke his jaw.Remember, Mikhail was a big, strong, skilled fighter and had a temper. That message hadn't filtered through the mind of the All-Black squad. They rushed him. Their center took a piston kick to the gut (he had pathetic reflexes) and his closest buddy succumbed to a leg sweep. The Ass Coach went apoplectic. Shaquille rallied to Mikhail and Kaja while we went to our gym bags.Out came the two recording devices (it is the freaking Information Age, you morons). Thanks to the internet, we uploaded the files and then we took the damning evidence to Ass Coach. He and most of his team were in deep shit. Their blatant fouls counted as assault in the real world. Mikhail wasn't in trouble. The dumbass who attacked Kaja was standing over the woman he assaulted when my brother intervened.We also promised to show this video to every school on our schedule for the year as well as any and every athletic authority we could think of. Grudgingly he offered we three Samsonovs a place on the roster. We insisted on all five of our squad. He insisted he would never put a girl on the team.I put my arm around his scrawny shoulders and forcefully walked him away for a private chat. I reminded him keeping Kaja off the team solely because she was female was discrimination. My brothers didn't like discrimination. My Mom really didn't like discrimination.Did he want my Mom to come to school and explain to him how much she disliked it? Kaja was on the team. Ass Coach announced the new roster and promptly uplifted our spirits by declaring this season would be a disaster because we had a girl and four White guys on the team. The next day, she and Shaquille received ten kinds of trouble from their racial compatriots.Mikhail gave Kaja a 'First Alert' bracelet and cautioned her to wear it at all times. It was a testimonial to how screwed up this environment was she put it on without question. Shaquille ended up eating lunch with us as well. The razzing was bad enough. The cracks his former friends were making about Kaja made him want to commit violence on their persons.Shaquille found out what comradery was all about as classes let out that first Friday afternoon. Eight big bucks ambushed him as he prepared to walk home, he lived about a mile way. Recall what I said about identifying our tormentors? We figured out who the 'shot-callers' were so when they started texting their plan around, the Samsonovs began taking counter-measures.Darius was the Capo. Since we had a 'home' game tonight, he couldn't attend to this errand personally, nor could his football-playing associates. He had plenty of non-jock lieutenants to command. In turn, those bozos had the rank and file big and average-sized thugs to follow his orders. This wasn't an army. It was a loose vigilante herd.They also were kind enough to joke about their target when they thought we weren't around. We had to keep out of sight until the eight made a move on Shaquille. We hadn't warned our 'buddy' out of concern he might not want to keep his role as bait. We waited for the shoving to end and the desperate grappling to begin before intervening.We had to film them committing their crime to make our crime non-criminal, if you can understand that reasoning. We should have thanked Darius for giving us his eight best 'B-grade' boys to annihilate. Seven of them went down super-quick. The eighth bolted. We couldn't maintain our legal smoke screen if we ran him down.Instead, we settled for stomping the fuck out of the seven we had. Keeping them on their feet was the key. Kicking a man when he's down looks suspect. Shaquille joined in the 'fun'. Our victims pleaded, cursed, threatened and cried like little babies yet we still beat them raw and bloody.Their superior numbers and initiating the conflict pretty much allowed us to do anything we wanted to them, short of murder. Was this a White racist beat-down? You could look at it that way except for the first minute of the video showed eight Black kids surrounding and shoving around another Black kid.Once we vacated the trashing, I leveled with Shaquille about our actions, we had known what was coming his way, used him to give us an excuse to kick ass; and he was pissed with us. After a few minutes, he shook his head, snorted and agreed while we were total bastards, there had been no other way for that encounter to play out that left the four of us in a better position.Those seven guys would be in no shape to bother him or Kaja for a week, or two, and the message of the pummeling those seven went through would reverberate throughout the school.I touched base with Big Bob, who was attending the game, so that Darius and Brandy could see me being a 'good boy' thus foolishly playing my part in their deceptive scheme. That was living proof the worst deceptions was self-deceptions. Come on now, my brothers and I had beat up seven of Darius' flunkies and now they thought I was cowed enough to be led like a calf to the slaughter?(Football Follies)There was only one unexpected event on that nightmare first date. The score of 42-3 made sense. Darius was an epic running-back with all the natural talent and ambition to make the NFL. The rest of the team was pretty good as well and more than enough to manhandle the mixed race team opposing them.The coach running up the score was par for the course as far as unsportsmanlike conduct went. By now, nil human compassion was what we expected from that crowd. They behaved like brutal thugs. The other team was suitably battered, broken and sullen. Every underhanded blow, discourtesy and disrespect our team exhibited reinforced my sense of my brothers' righteousness.A tractor-trailer sized 'Humble Pie' was coming down the pipeline for those assholes and it was so well deserved. 'Our' team even had the gall to molest the other team's cheerleaders before they could exit the arena. A few dust-ups occurred when fathers and boyfriends of the attacked ladies tried to save their womenfolk. Their coach appealed to our coach.Coach's look said it all; 'to the victors go the spoils'. Big Bob's deputies moved in. It took all of five seconds to see whose side the Black deputies were on. They gleefully aided the monsters struggling with the White men whose sole crime was wanting to get their women out with their virtues intact. All of these shenanigans were anticipated by Mom and us.Three members of the defense managed to steal one terrified White cheerleader away from her side of the field. The boyfriend who tried to get to her was held back by a Black deputy. They would have been home-free except for one thing, my Dad's height and instincts. He spotted the trouble and headed those three off. First they blustered. Dad was unfazed.Next they decided two would block Dad while the third dragged the girl away. They didn't know Dad. The second they put hands on him, out came his collapsible baton. He swung it up and into one antagonists' elbow. Trust me, that hurts. Of greater importance, no one saw it coming. Dad got in a blow to the other guy before he knew why the first guy was cursing in pain.Then Dad fell on the third football player. My favorite lawman was finished talking. He shoved a thumb into the bastard's left eye, trust me; that hurts too. I can also assure you it is horribly distracting. Dad corralled the panicked girl and brought her back to her boyfriend, and the deputy who was arresting him. The White boy was freaking out and the Black officer was gloating.I had never been the recipient of what came next, but I'd heard Dad's family talk about it and witnessed it a few times from a distance, like tonight. Dad, as Senior Deputy, asked the 'plain' Deputy to release the boy. The Deputy said something disrespectful to Dad. My Father grabbed the man's right wrist faster than a rattlesnake. I could almost feel those wrist bones grinding painfully together.Dad, like all the men in our family, was big and bulky, not fat. We packed muscle mass upon muscle mass and I knew that Black man wasn't getting his wrist back until Dad decided to release him. Dad leaned in and whispered a few things to the Deputy. The Black man spat back then nearly crumpled over in pain as my Father ratcheted up the pressure, until the crying man acquiesced.The girl and her boyfriend beat their feet out of there. Dad escorted the rebellious Deputy to a quiet corner to have a chat. That shithead immediately went for the racist angle, White cop picking on rambunctious Black youths. Dad replied that if he ever saw anything like what he saw that night again, he wasn't going to report the deputy, he was going to arrest him on the spot for facilitating an attempted sexual assault.The Deputy made one more stab at the racist smear, proving he had never bother to get to know my Father. Dad's comeback was simple. If the deputy called him a racist one more time, he would bring the Black officer up on State and Federal Hate Crime statutes, creating a racial charged work environment.The Fed would be a 'swing and a miss'. It was the 'Blacks can't be racist' bullshit. The State of Arkansas on the other hand; Dad, Big Bob and the White Deputies would gladly grease the wheels of justice. Nik Samsonov had a flawless 23 year record in law enforcement. All of that was of no surprise.Dad had never come out and said there was a racial divide in the Sheriff's office, but it was clear to us that to a man, the Black Deputies kept the Black power structure in town abreast of all the goings on at the county law enforcement level. Until our arrival, the Black elite had their eyes set on litigating themselves into the office of Sheriff.A man of Dad's background and caliber sort of curtailed those hopes and dreams. This was another reason for them to support Darius and his efforts were to make Dad look bad and even shame him into leaving. Fat chance of that happening. No, none of that was surprising to me. What caught me somewhat off-guard was;‘Why do you hate me?' Brandy asked me out of the blue. We were driving to the lake party site when she finally opened up.‘You've never given me a reason to do anything but hate you,' I replied after some thought.‘That's not so,' she protested. My first thought was to laugh in her face.‘Did it ever occur to you I didn't want to be in a relationship with you either? Did it occur to you that you could have been honest about this and I would have understood? Did you consider my feelings at all before you fed me into Darius' world?' I proffered up my questions.‘You wanted to date me,' she rebutted. ‘I saw the way you looked at me on the deck last Sunday.'‘Nope,' I shook my head. ‘I thought you looked 'hot'. I never wanted to date you. Had my mind ever planned to wander that way, your attitude shut that down pretty quick.'Oh really?' she remained confident in her sex appeal. ‘If you behave tonight, I'll give you a blowjob when you drop me off at home. I'm really good.'‘No thanks,' I shrugged. ‘However Darius and his crowd rate your talent at fellatio is not something I consider reliable. If I want a blowjob, I'll get a pro whom I'm sure is disease-free.'‘You are being such a bastard,' she pouted angrily. I didn't care. ‘You are just jealous.'‘And you are little more than three nameless orifices in a gangbang,' I snorted. ‘If that's what floats your boat; good for you. I prefer to date a girl who doesn't need an orgy to feel erotic and desirable. My problem isn't with how you express your sexuality, Brandy.'‘You deceived me and you don't regret it in the slightest. That's my problem with you.'We rode for a while in silence. Brandy couldn't let the matter rest until I acknowledged she was right; and she was the foxy babe I could never have because my melanin levels weren't high enough.‘You wouldn't have understood Darius and me,' she spouted with certainty.‘Why?'‘What? Why what?' she asked.‘Why would you assume I wouldn't understand you wanting to date the star running back?' I explained.‘He's Black,' she stated.‘So? I don't care about Black and White. Hell, I have cousins who are Native Alaskans, that's Indians to you people,' I responded. ‘The few people of color I did know before coming here were my neighbors and nice people.'‘Liar,' she smirked. ‘White men always get upset when strong, Black men take their women.'‘You are not my woman, so there was never anything to take. Until you and Darius decided to fuck with me and my brothers, we didn't care,' I answered.‘We are not your limp-wristed rich boys, or your rednecks. You both exhibited a painful level of prejudice so here we are.'‘Well; you can watch the party but you can't come down,' she tried a different angle. ‘Darius may send you on a beer-run later.'‘That ain't going to happen,' I chortled.‘You had better do what he says,' she threatened. I gave another amused snort. I drove us to the bottom of the parking lot near the lakeshore. Brandy got out, tried to give me a salacious look. I yawned. There were two other pseudo-boyfriends on the scene and a passel of empty cars most likely belonging to the football crowd.I had taken into account that my family's resistance and Dad's actions had earned me some serious retribution in their minds. That was all part of our strategy. I cut off my headlights then backed my car toward the road. I waited for ten seconds then Alexander appeared at the passenger door of the Mustang.‘Hey Vlad,' he teased me. ‘How are things going on your 'date'?'‘As expected,' I chuckled. I put on the emergency brake and popped the trunk. Five minutes later, Alexander had taken Mom's car and split. I was in a dark maroon ski-mask, the same colored hoody and exercise pants (I already had on Black shoes and socks), night vision goggles and video camera with a really excellent audio system that would allow me to negate things like cricket noises.Dark red and maroon were better than black, or grey, in hiding at night. I was virtually invisible in the darkness. After checking the wireless hook-up, I found my pre-scouted spot to watch and record the festivities. Thirty-two Black football players, ten Black girls and seventeen White girls filled the stage.First came the drinking and pawing. Then came the rough-housing and the screams of the few White girls who were only now realizing they weren't on a 'date' in the classic sense. Then came the orgy. For the Black athletes who didn't bring dates, it didn't matter.Every White girl had three holes, take your pick. Beers, whisky, Red Bulls and Viagra where the diet of choice. The last pleas for mercy were smothered so that only the moaning, groaning and the slapping of hands on flesh and flesh on flesh remained.After an hour, two of the White chicks were fucked up emotionally and mentally. Their obvious distress didn't elicited concern from anyone else in that crowd. They had been turned into Big Black Cock-slaves. The football players gleefully took pictures of their victims and partners in various sex acts.Even for the girls who didn't want to participate, this was a license to shame. After the latest rounds of ejaculations, Darius gathered up some of his niggers and sent them to the parking lot; to find me already departed (my car not being there). The two other White boys hadn't a clue where I had gone.That was their misfortune. They were dragged back down to the lake for Darius to interrogate. Their so-called girlfriends taunted them and added to their degradation. Since BBC's are never homosexually-inclined; the team decided to ass-rape those two saps (yeah, right). Did I pity them?A little, but barring retardation, what did they expect the likely outcome of events to be? Now those two could bask in their home-erotic fantasies while convincing themselves they weren't really gay. Darius and crew didn't view White people as human beings, Whites were subhuman, so the Blacks could do anything to them because sub-humans didn't deserve respect, or have rights.I filmed it all and I wasn't alone in my voyeurism. Undoubtedly, this was blackmail for Darius to use in the future. He also decided to up his game in dealing with me. A Black Deputy Sheriff showed up and began calling my name and looking for me, shining his flashlight around.He was pretending to be helpful, encouraging me to come out, so he could take me home. For fifteen minutes I switched my attention between his futile and false efforts and the (non-)rapes going on at the lakeshore camping grounds.The Deputy eventually made his way down to Darius's area. The two chatted a bit, deciding I really had abandoned Brandy, then the cop partook in some of the party favors, ending his sexcapade with Brandy swallowing his load. He even declared it was partial vengeance against Big Bob (the niggahs laughed) and my Dad (since Brandy was theoretically my date).The festivities died down after the second run at an orgy yet Darius was unsatisfied. First came the throwing of all the ladies into the cool lake waters despite their pleading screams. Then they tossed the two devastated White boys in. After some splashing around and some serious begging and pleading through chattering teeth, they let them out of the water so they could dry off on whatever was handy.The wasted girlfriends of the two boys poured their false dates into their cars and drove away to the chorus of slights and general mockery. Darius had Brandy give me a call (actually Alexander) and requested I (he) come pick her up. I (he) said he would be there in forty-five (lie).Darius' trap was simple but effective. He and four of his linemen would be waiting in a sedan parked at the far, upper-hand corner of the parking lot out of sight. Brandy would wait down on one of the bench-tables in the camping ground for me to arrive. Whether I honked my horn, or got out for her, Darius's team planned to roll down on me, block my car and deliver some well-deserved and overly-delayed vengeance.Once again, Darius was behind in the game. We knew his resources and mindset, he believed he could get away with anything, he would always win and he could intimidate anyone he chose to. From my perspective, Alexander hadn't walked the nearly ten miles from school to get here. I secured my gear, put on my helmet, uncovered my motorcycle and rolled it quietly over to Brandy.‘Here,' I surprised her as I stepped out of the darkness to hand her a motorcycle helmet. ‘Put this on.'‘Vlad,' she squeaked. ‘I thought you had left me.' She was also fiddling with her phone.‘If you make that call, I'll leave you here,' I threatened.‘Leave me here and my Daddy will make you pay,' she countered.‘Brandy, try to think for once,' I taunted her. ‘If I didn't leave, what have I been doing all night?' I let that thought sit there, but she wasn't approaching understanding. ‘I filmed this entire party from start to finish. I'm not the one in serious trouble.'Her fingers hesitantly stopped playing with the phone. I pushed the helmet her way again. She set her phone aside to put it on, allowing me to snatch it up. She hadn't called Darius yet. I pocketed the device then cut it off once she could no longer see it.‘Hey, give me that back,' Brandy insisted.‘You didn't call Darius so I'm not going to toss it into the lake,' I informed her.‘I'll return it to you when I drop you off,' I added. That seemed to mollify her, that and the belief I'd be running into Darius soon. No such luck for her. Mom had spent some of her youth around this place and there were several hiking/biking tracks that also led out of the park the lake was situated in.I lied to Brandy, telling her I had to pick up one more thing. That allowed me to push my motorbike far enough away to put a copse of bushes between me and Darius.‘Get on,' I told her as I mounted and started the engine. She hesitated so I started rolling away. I let her jump on and off we went. Brandy held on tight.Some of her death grip was from the dangerous route I was taking to exit this place. I knew part of it was also the combination of fears that she'd disappointed Darius and I would tell, show, her dad what had happened tonight. I was counting on Option A. I wouldn't tell Big Bob the truth until it suited us Samsonovs. What Brandy suffered for her numerous lies wasn't my concern.‘Here we are,' I told her when I stopped in her driveway. She got off, clearly sore and worn out from her duties as a sperm trough. She gave me the helmet back then held out her hand.‘Oh yeah, phone,' I nodded. I hurled it across her yard. ‘You can find it in the morning. After all, I would hate to run across any of your friends on the way home.'‘Bastard,' she snarled. I could see the clever spark in her eyes. ‘I still owe you a blowjob. You held up your end of the bargain.' She would have succeeded in looking incredibly sexy except she'd already leaked fluids and semen from her over-used holes all over the back of my seat and I had the vivid memories of all the guys who had already made her swallow a gallon of cum.‘No thanks,' I shook my head. ‘One of us needs to keep their self-respect and it sure isn't going to be you. Night-night,' and off I went. My call woke up Big Bob. I let him know I'd dropped off his daughter on his doorstep. I didn't want her to find her phone quite yet. 'Us' triplets had already scouted out an overgrown old timber trail I could use to skirt the Sheriff's speed trap and the blind turn in the road the Kingston cops always used.By my estimation, as I walked up my back steps, Darius was just figuring out I'd missed my forty-five minute arrival time and had called Brandy; and received no response because her phone was turned off in a darkened yard. He'd go looking around the camp site on the off chance her phone battery had run out of juice. No Brandy. As planned, I called Mom telling her I was home safe and Darius was probably hideously pissed at the moment.She told me she'd be home in a few minutes. She had a few things she needed to clean up first. It wasn't until later Mom clued us into her part of the plan. Darius' older brother had been a drug conduit in the county and Brandy's dad put him away for seven years. That was why Darius was going after Brandy in such a bad way.Worse for Big Bob, his wife (a taller, more lush, mature model of Brandy) ran off with a Black Senior Sheriff's Deputy, the man Dad replaced. Apparently he'd been porking the old lady behind Bob's back then been caught joking about it. Brandy had been dating Darius and Big Bob had her break it off, so they were sneaking around behind his back as well.If underhanded was how Darius wanted to play it, so be it. The damage had already been dealt by his older brother. Mom got in touch with Uncle Theo. Uncle Theo knew all kinds of disreputable people and not just drug cartel members, mercenaries, arms dealers and other assorted killers. He also knew information brokers.It didn't take too much money, or effort, on Theo's part, to let the DEA know that Darius' Mom was involved in her elder son's illegal enterprise. First, she went through Darius' parent's trash finding containers that could be used to house cocaine that had his mom and dad's fingerprints all over them.Theo would send her some 'contraband' for Mom to place in those containers. Then she'd sneak into the family home and plant/hide the evidence. Then Theo would have some fool in Mexico send her some trinkets, three or four deliveries would do.Then he'd send a few kilos of cocaine that Theo would ‘acquire' and let the DEA swarm in. Mom would also plant evidence to implicate two of Kingston's police officers; to tarnish the whole department in the DEA's eyes. That would lead to a Federal investigation because everyone knew the Black community lied to protect their own.They would be claiming the Black Man couldn't find justice in the White Man's court system. They would blame the 'White Man' and this time they'd be right; and not even know they were right. They always blamed their problems on the White Man. They did lie and discriminate against White people so often that their knee-jerk reaction would ring hollow to anyone who truly mattered.Furthermore, this wasn't the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department who was bending over backwards to undo centuries of judicial failures were Blacks were concerned. It was the DEA and they were a bit more color-blind concerning matters of illegal drugs.They had the pipeline, previous deliveries, drugs arriving in the mail and drugs stashed in their house. Darius' family had a history of doing this very thing. The DEA wasn't go

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 210 features Cary London, Managing Partner at Shulman and Hill in Greater New York City focusing on Civil Rights, Police Brutality, Excessive Force, Wrongful Convictions, and Personal Injury.  Cary is the Chair of the Civil Rights Division of the Brooklyn Bar Association, and a Board Member of the Brooklyn Defender Services.  Cary is also a Founding Member of Lawyer Stories Connect!  Cary's journey as a civil rights lawyer began during his tenure as a Public Defender in Brooklyn. Cary witnessed, firsthand, the systemic injustices prevalent in the criminal justice system. This experience ignited a fire within him to advocate for change and pursue justice for those who have been marginalized or wronged.  One case at a time, Cary is becoming a voice for those in need, consistently striving to create a more equitable society for all.

The authors of Project 2025 say they'll carry out a hard-right agenda, voting rights advocates raise alarm over Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and conservatives aim to cut federal funding for public broadcasting. 

This week; Chris Wray announces that he will resign as FBI Director before Trump would have to fire him; Trump names Harmeet Dillon to head [upend] the Civil Rights Division at DoJ; DoJ OIG releases its January 6th report; as the plus listener questions.Thanks to GiveWell for sponsoring our showGo to Givewell.org pick PODCAST and enter Jack at checkout. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the arrest of Luigi Mangione in the murder of the UHC CEO, looking at the attempt to extradite him, the use of surveillance cameras to catch him, and the legal status of ghost guns similar to the one used in the crime.  Then, the #Sisters explain clemency, contextualize its recent use by President Biden, and weigh its pros and cons.  They also share their takes on Harmeet Dhillon's appointment to the head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, the importance of the FBI Director's 10-year term, and the Inspector General. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  More From The #Sisters: From Joyce on Pardons, Chris Wray, and DOJ's Inspector General From Barb on The Art of the Counter-Punch From Barb on Why Trump Can't Just End Birthright Citizenship From Jill on Why Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son Hunter From Kim on How Clemency Can Help Save Us All Chris Wray's Resignation The Tree Moat: Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Osea Malibu: Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Thrive Causemetics: For 20% off incredible clean and cause-focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Get Barb's New Book: Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

President-elect Donald Trump signaled his intention this week to make Harmeet K. Dhillon the deputy attorney general, running the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Dhillon is a San Francisco attorney who has long been a supporter of Trump. On this special edition of Political Breakdown, we're sharing an interview from 2018 when Marisa and Scott interviewed Dhillon about Republican politics, being an outspoken conservative living in liberal San Francisco, her time as a board member of the ACLU and her passion for knitting. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Biden carries out the largest ever single-day act of clemency, voting rights advocates raise alarm over Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and election denier Kari Lake is tapped to lead the Voice of America.

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Wyoming Territory SuffrageOn December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory made history by enacting the first law in the United States to grant women the right to vote. Signed into law by Governor John A. Campbell, the legislation represented a bold step toward gender equality in a country where voting rights for women were otherwise non-existent. This groundbreaking decision was influenced by a mix of progressive ideals and pragmatic concerns. Some lawmakers supported the measure as a genuine effort to recognize women's rights, while others believed it might attract settlers to the sparsely populated territory.The law not only granted women the right to vote but also allowed them to hold public office, a rarity even in international contexts at the time. The first woman to serve on a jury in the U.S. would soon do so in Wyoming, and Esther Hobart Morris became the first female justice of the peace in 1870, further cementing Wyoming's legacy as a leader in women's rights.Although Wyoming's population was small and its territorial status meant it didn't have full representation in Congress, the move set a precedent that fueled the broader suffrage movement. When Wyoming sought statehood in 1890, it faced pressure to revoke women's voting rights, but the state stood firm, famously declaring it would remain out of the Union rather than sacrifice women's suffrage. This early commitment earned Wyoming its nickname, the "Equality State."By taking this step in 1869, Wyoming paved the way for the eventual passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which extended voting rights to women across the United States. Wyoming's decision remains a landmark moment in the history of democracy and gender equality in America.President-elect Donald Trump's administration is expected to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in businesses and universities, arguing that such policies violate anti-discrimination laws. The Justice Department under Trump plans to investigate and potentially litigate against these practices, framing them as unlawful discrimination. Trump's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has a record of opposing "woke" corporate policies. The administration may leverage Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to challenge federally funded programs that consider race in decision-making, including university admissions and healthcare equity initiatives. Legal challenges to DEI efforts could also arise from private lawsuits, some of which have already been dismissed due to lack of standing. Conservative groups, such as America First Legal, have intensified pressure on corporations to dismantle diversity initiatives, often citing laws historically intended to protect marginalized communities. Critics argue this approach undermines the mission of civil rights laws, which were designed to address systemic inequities affecting underrepresented groups. Proponents of DEI programs contend they are crucial for addressing structural racism and promoting equitable opportunities. However, the threat of government scrutiny may prompt some companies to scale back their diversity commitments, as seen recently with Walmart and JPMorgan Chase. Legal experts note that while many DEI policies may withstand legal challenges, the broader campaign against them reflects a contentious debate over equity, merit, and the role of government in addressing societal disparities.DOJ v. DEI: Trump's Justice Department likely to target diversity programs | ReutersThe bankruptcy court hearing over Alex Jones' Infowars platform began with heated accusations, including claims of "voodoo economics" from Jones' attorney. The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy has chosen The Onion's corporate parent, Global Tetrahedron LLC, as the preferred bidder with a $7 million offer, which includes waived claims by Sandy Hook families against sale proceeds. Competing bidder First United American Cos., offering $3.5 million in cash and plans to keep Infowars operational, argues its bid is more substantial, calling The Onion's bid inflated and misleading.The sale aims to liquidate Jones' assets to address $1.3 billion in judgments related to his false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The Onion plans to replace Infowars with a new platform by January 2025, in collaboration with Everytown for Gun Safety. The Sandy Hook families' participation in boosting The Onion's bid has been criticized by Jones' team as manipulative.Meanwhile, social media accounts associated with Infowars on X (formerly Twitter) were excluded from the sale after X Corp. asserted ownership of the handles. The court has yet to decide who will take control of Infowars, with testimony expected to continue.Alex Jones Lawyer Accuses Onion of ‘Voodoo Economics' in CourtNew York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione, 26, with murder in the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson, concluding a five-day manhunt. Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after being spotted at a McDonald's. Upon his capture, police found a "ghost gun" matching the weapon used in the crime, along with masks, cash, false IDs, and a handwritten manifesto expressing hostility toward corporate America. Mangione is also facing forgery and gun charges in Pennsylvania, where prosecutors successfully argued to deny him bail.Thompson, 50, was killed outside a Manhattan hotel, in what authorities believe was a targeted attack. Surveillance footage showed the suspect fleeing on a bike, later boarding a bus out of the city. Investigators are probing whether others were also targeted. Shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose," referencing a book critical of the insurance industry.Mangione, a Maryland native and Ivy League graduate, had a documented history of academic excellence but harbored grievances against corporate entities. Thompson's murder has fueled public frustration over the insurance industry, though officials, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, have condemned any glorification of the act. Thompson, a longtime UnitedHealth executive and father of two, was in New York for an investor conference at the time of his death.Suspect in killing of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson charged with murder | ReutersTexas exemplifies the need to condition federal aid on state tax reform, especially as federal debt grows and economic inequities deepen. While Texas touts its business-friendly, low-tax environment, this model relies heavily on regressive taxes that disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income residents. The state's avoidance of personal and corporate income taxes forces reliance on property taxes—among the nation's highest—and sales taxes, both of which hit poorer Texans hardest. Compounding the inequity, Texas receives significant federal funding, partly financed by taxpayers in higher-tax states like California. This dynamic effectively subsidizes Texas' low-tax model at a national cost. The state's tax policies create a paradox: wealthy individuals and corporations enjoy the benefits of Texas' infrastructure and services while avoiding proportional contributions, with federal taxpayers covering the shortfall. This system also distorts interstate competition, incentivizing migrations to low-tax states and exacerbating national fiscal inequities. As population growth and climate challenges strain Texas' regressive tax system, federal policymakers may need to condition aid—such as disaster relief or infrastructure grants—on reforms that promote equity and fiscal sustainability.Texas Shows Why Federal Aid Should Be Tied to State Tax Reform 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

Racist text messages were sent to Black people across the country In the wake of the presidential election. The messages referenced slavery, and appear to be part of a coordinated harassment campaign. We hear from a local mother of a child who received one of these texts and ask Jonathon Smith, Chief of the Civil Rights Division of the State Attorney General's office what people can do to protect themselves. The Maryland Attorney General's Office Hate Crimes Hotline is 1-866-481-8361. You can also report a hate crime online at nohomeforhate.md.gov Other resources: Maryland Commission on Civil Rights: 1-800-637-6247, Maryland Commission on Hate Crime Response and Prevention: stophate@oag.state.md.us Maryland State Police: 1-800-525-5555, FBI Baltimore field office: (410) 265-8080 or tips.fbi.gov Do you have a question or comment about a show or a story idea to pitch? Contact On the Record at: Senior Supervising Producer, Maureen Harvie she/her/hers mharvie@wypr.org 410-235-1903 Senior Producer, Melissa Gerr she/her/hers mgerr@wypr.org 410-235-1157 Producer Sam Bermas-Dawes he/him/his sbdawes@wypr.org 410-235-1472

BigTentUSA hosted a "must listen" special discussion on election protection with Joanna Lydgate, President & CEO of States United, Steve Bullock, former Governor and Attorney General of Montana, and Cisco Aguilar, the Nevada Secretary of State and moderated by Samantha Bee. This dynamic group discussed what to expect during an election season that may be long, how state officials are preparing, and reassured us about the coming weeks.ABOUT OUR SPEAKERSJOANNA LYDGATE is Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting free, fair, and secure elections. Since 2020, States United has provided legal, research, policy, and communications support to state officials who run elections. Before launching States United, Joanna served as Chief Deputy Attorney General of Massachusetts. In that role, she coordinated multi-state litigation and worked with a bipartisan team of colleagues from across the country to uphold shared values, protect civil liberties, and defend the rule of law. She also oversaw criminal enforcement, coordinating daily with local, state, and federal law enforcement partners. Joanna has served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, was a law clerk to Judge Norman H. Stahl on the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and worked in nonprofit legal services in New York City. She is a graduate of Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.STEVE BULLOCK served as Montana's attorney general from 2009-2013. As attorney general, Bullock defended Montana's hundred-year ban on corporate campaign spending, gaining national prominence for leading the challenge to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.Bullock was elected Montana's 24th Governor, serving from 2013-2021. He worked with a Republican-majority legislature to improve access to health care, kick dark money out of state elections, make record investments in education, protect access to public lands, invest in infrastructure, and strengthen Montana's economy. Bullock brought diverse interests together to address challenging issues, from sage grouse and forest management to the Main Street Montana Project. Nationally, Bullock was elected Chair of the National Governors Association, Western Governors Association and Democratic Governors Association.Since leaving public office, Bullock has been involved with a number of corporate and nonprofit boards and organizations, as well as serving as the court-appointed Independent Monitor over Purdue Pharma.  And he opened his own taphouse.FRANCISCO “CISCO” AGUILAR was elected as Nevada Secretary of State in 2022 and assumed office on January 2, 2023. Prior to being elected, Secretary Aguilar served twelve years as General Counsel for Agassi Graf, the management company for Andre Agassi and Stefanie Graf, and the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education. In this role, he was responsible for communications and media, marketing and brand management, strategic partnerships, legal and government affairs. The Secretary also served as Special Counsel to the Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education, Jim Rogers, and as a lawyer for the parent company of the Las Vegas and Reno NBC affiliates, KSNV Channel 3 and KRNV Channel 4, and 15 other NBC affiliates. Secretary Aguilar is the Founding Chairman of Cristo Rey St. Viator College Preparatory High School. Cristo Rey serves students in one of Las Vegas' most vulnerable neighborhoods, and provides an innovative work-study program designed to prepare them for future careers.MODERATORSAMANTHA BEE received global recognition from the success of her weekly late-night comedy series, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, which was nominated for 70 awards and ran for seven seasons on TBS. Bee also served as a correspondent on Comedy Central's The Daily Show Bee from 2003-2015. She is the author of the essay collection I Know I Am, But What Are You? and has been featured in TIME 100: The Most Influential People. She is also the host of Lemonada Media's podcast Choice Words. YOUTUBE RECORDING HEREAnd then Go… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

#STSNation, Welcome to Surviving The Survivor the podcast that brings you the best guests in true crime. Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of the grisly 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez, at the family's sprawling Beverly Hills mansion. They've been in prison ever since. But, do they have a new shot at freedom? A major press conference is set for Wednesday October 16th about resentencing the brothers. #BestGuests: Gen. Mark Davidson started his career as a prosecutor straight out of law school in 1994 as an Assistant District Attorney in Tennessee He began prosecuting cases in Tipton County, and within a year became the one and only prosecutor in Lauderdale County. Gen. Davidson later went to work for the Tennessee Attorney General's Office handling criminal cases on appeal and eventually death penalty cases. He was able to return to the District Attorney's Office in 2011. He was then elected District Attorney in August of 2018. Chris Lomax is the Managing Attorney at Lomax Legal. He began his career with the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice over a decade ago, and soon established a stellar reputation for taking on and winning complex, difficult cases in jurisdictions across the nation. Chris investigated and successfully prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated people's Constitutional rights, as well as individuals who committed hate crimes and human trafficking offenses. Josh Ritter is a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, host of Courtroom Confidential and an Award Winning Former Prosecutor. Support the show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeJoel's Book: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.comAll Things STS: https://linktr.ee/stspodcast  #MenendezBrothers #TrueCrime #LyleMenendez #ErikMenendez #Menudo #BoyBand #PrisonLife #TrueCrimeCommunity #DomesticViolence #LosAngeles #GeorgeGascon #DistrictAttorney #truecrimecommunity #truecrimepodcast #truestory #justice #criminaljustice #crimestory #breakingnews #newsupdate  

#STSNation, Welcome to another episode of Surviving The Survivor, the podcast that brings you the #BestGuests in all of True Crime… Sean “Diddy” Combs made his first appearance before the judge who is expected to preside over the hip-hop powerbroker's trial on sex trafficking charges. Combs was taken to Manhattan federal court from a Brooklyn jail for a Thursday afternoon appearance before Judge Arun Subramanian. The hearing resulted in deadlines being set for lawyers on each side to submit arguments that will establish the boundaries for a trial that Combs' lawyers want to start in April or May. Prosecutors have not expressed a preference for when the trial might occur. #BestGuests: Chris Lomax is the Managing Attorney at Lomax Legal. He began his career with the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice over a decade ago, and soon established a stellar reputation for taking on and winning complex, difficult cases in jurisdictions across the nation. Chris investigated and successfully prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated people's Constitutional rights, as well as individuals who committed hate crimes and human trafficking offenses. he law office of Jessica Mishali, P.A. in Boca Raton Florida, representing client all over south Florida started my own practice after about a decade of representing the indigent, and took over a family practice from former state representative Stephen J Press in 2018. I've successfully handled many high profile cases, most recently Marcia Thompson, a not guilty verdict last month on a first degree murder case. I've been commenting on court TV regularly ever since. I handle all criminal and Family law cases but My niche is where family law and criminal Law meet: domestic violence, self defense, injunctions, etc. (grew up in Miami, FIU, Touro law in NY) Sierra One Consulting Robert D'Amico has served his country for thirty-nine years. Over the course of a unique, hybrid career in law enforcement and military service, covering counterterrorism and cyber security, Rob has worked tirelessly to help keep America safe. Rob joined the FBI as a Special Agent and was quickly assigned to infiltrate an organized crime family as an undercover agent  Support the show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeJoel's Book: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.comAll Things STS: https://linktr.ee/stspodcast #Diddy #FreakOff #SeanCombs #Cassie #TrueCrime #Rap #RapGame #CassieVentura #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #Rapper #ThugLife #SugeKnight #JustinBieber #Usher #AshtonKutcher #criminaljustice #crimestory #truestory #podcast #newsupdate #news #prison

This week, we are back with the WIS Courage Campaign to discuss a recent event with Lila Wall, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Bureau of Oregon Labor and Industries, and Sonia Montibano, an employment lawyer representing employees. Together, we discussed the avenues available to keeping employers accountable for pay equity. Get in touch! Email us at podcast@womeninsciencepdx.org and follow @women_in_science_pdx on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1957On August 29, 1957, the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, marking the first federal civil rights legislation enacted since the Reconstruction era. This landmark act aimed to address racial discrimination and was a significant step in the ongoing struggle for civil rights in America. The law established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan body tasked with investigating voter discrimination and other civil rights violations. Additionally, it created the Civil Rights Division within the U.S. Department of Justice, empowering federal prosecutors to seek injunctions against those who violated voting rights. Although the act faced significant opposition and was weakened by compromises, it paved the way for future, more comprehensive civil rights legislation. It also symbolized the federal government's renewed commitment to addressing racial inequality, setting the stage for the civil rights movements of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 is often viewed as a foundational moment in the modern civil rights era, reflecting the nation's evolving attitudes toward race and justice.Lawyers who successfully challenged Elon Musk's $56 billion Tesla pay package are seeking a record $6 billion in fees, but Delaware's top court has cautioned against awarding "windfall" fees. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware's Court of Chancery, who is overseeing the case, must decide on the fee amount and whether a shareholder vote restored Musk's pay, which could reduce the fee. The lawyers argue that their fee request is justified by their significant victory and years of unpaid work. However, the court has signaled that extremely high fees should be carefully scrutinized to avoid excessive compensation. If the pay package is considered restored, Tesla's liability for a large fee might be reduced.'Windfall' fees now less likely for lawyers who sued to cut Musk's Tesla pay | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep President Joe Biden's student-loan relief plan on hold, maintaining the pause imposed by a federal appeals court. This decision prolongs uncertainty for around 8 million borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and provide other benefits. The Department of Education expressed disappointment, highlighting the plan's potential to ease financial burdens.The Supreme Court's action follows its earlier rejection of a separate Biden debt relief plan, which it deemed unauthorized by Congress. Missouri and other Republican-led states argue that the SAVE plan is similarly flawed, as it would eliminate up to $475 billion in debt, making it even more expansive than the prior initiative. The Biden administration insists that the states lack legal standing and that Congress granted the Education Department the necessary authority to implement such plans.The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to deliver a ruling soon, but for now, new enrollments in the program are halted, and borrowers face the possibility of penalties once the current payment grace period ends next month.Supreme Court Keeps Biden Student-Loan Relief Plan on Hold (2)US Supreme Court declines to revive Biden's student debt relief plan | ReutersIn a piece for Forbes I wrote a bit about the unrealized gains tax, or wealth tax, that has engendered much consternation among people not worth $100m. By way of background, the Biden administration's FY 2025 budget proposes a 25% wealth tax on unrealized gains for individuals owning over $100 million in assets. Unrealized gains are the increase in an asset's value that hasn't been sold or converted into cash, meaning the gains exist only on paper. This proposal largely affects the ultra-wealthy, with the average taxpayer not impacted.To illustrate, consider someone who invests $250,000 in a stock, and its value increases 40 times within a year. Even with this substantial gain, the investor wouldn't face the unrealized gains tax unless their shares appreciated another ten times, reaching a value of $100 million. At that point, they would owe $24.9 million in taxes, requiring them to sell a portion of their shares. Despite the hefty tax bill, they would still retain significant wealth.Critics worry that such a tax might lead to a stock market downturn if large shareholders sell off assets to cover their tax obligations. However, selling shares to fund other projects is common, and similar concerns about market instability aren't typically raised in those cases. In sum, you almost certainly needn't worry about an unrealized gains tax if you are listening to this–and should be more concerned about what kinds of services you can expect to receive from the revenue raised from such a tax. If I may briefly editorialize: think about the earlier story, where student debt relief has been shelved–or possibly killed entirely. The only time the national discourse revolves around what a policy will cost–the cost would be borne by the ultra-wealthy and benefits would flow to low and middle-income households. Keep an eye on that, it may be important. Unrealized Gains Tax—Visualizing $100m And When To Be Concerned 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

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Headlines and Sound Bites! 28 Mins In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  56 Minutes Colby Hall is the Founding Editor of Mediaite.com. He is also a Peabody Award-winning television producer of non-fiction narrative programming, became a media contributor to NewsNation in March of 2023. He is also  a former Creative Director who launched iHeartRadio's original video offering. Check out his pieces at Mediaite  The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete

Today we are celebrating our 200th Episode with the return of a special friend of the podcast, Judge Tanya Acker. Acker serves as one of three judges on Amazon Freevee's Tribunal Justice, created by Judge Judy Sheindlin. Acker also hosts "The Tanya Acker Show" podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Overcast, and Pocketcasts. Most recently, Acker was a judge on the Emmy-nominated series, "Hot Bench." Acker is also the author of "Make Your Case: Finding Your Win in Civil Court," published by Diversion Books. In the book, Acker provides readers with curated, targeted information about what people want to know: what happens during court proceedings and why, how to best prepare for it — and how to avoid court entirely and find out if there is a better way. Acker is an experienced civil litigator who has represented a wide array of clients, from major automobile manufacturers in high-stakes product liability litigation to media companies in hotly contested trade secret disputes. She has been a featured commentator on "Good Morning America," "The View," "Entertainment Tonight," "Wendy Williams," "The Talk," "Inside Edition," "Banfield," "The O'Reilly Factor," "Larry King Live," "CNN Reports," "Anderson Cooper 360," "Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell," "Extra," "Your World With Neil Cavuto," "HLN's Special Report," "CNBC Reports," Great Britain's "GMTV" and Sky News, and various other broadcasts. She also guest co-hosted CNBC's "Power Lunch," and "C Magazine" included her in an election season profile on noteworthy California women in politics. Acker also has contributed to the Huffington Post and served as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court Temporary Judge Program. While a student at Yale Law School, Acker represented low-income women in family law cases and served as a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure courses. She also worked at the Office of White House Counsel, the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice and the private law firms Irell & Manella, O'Melveny & Myers and Williams & Connolly. At Williams & Connolly, she assisted President Clinton's personal lawyers with press interviews, worked on the preparation of Congressional testimony for pending product liability legislation and researched First Amendment issues. After graduating from Yale, Acker served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Dorothy Wright Nelson on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After her clerkship, the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice awarded Acker a Bristow Fellowship. While working as a Bristow Fellow, Acker drafted Supreme Court briefs and helped prepare the Solicitor General for oral argument before the High Court. Among the cases on which Acker worked was Clinton v Jones, where she assisted both the Solicitor General and President Clinton's personal attorneys in preparing for oral argument. In private practice, Acker's legal work spanned a broad variety of matters, from civil litigation involving public and private entities, to various constitutional cases, to providing constitutional cases, to the provision of business counseling and advice. She also maintained a commitment to pro bono work, receiving the ACLU's First Amendment Award for her successful representation of a group of homeless individuals against the City of Santa Barbara. Acker later worked in entertainment industry outreach for the Kerry/Edwards presidential campaign and as Deputy Campaign Manager for the Los Angeles mayoral campaign of City Councilman Bernard C. Parks. After that, she worked as the General Counsel of a company that manufactured emissions control products. Acker received her B.A. degree at Howard University in 1992, where she graduated summa cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She was awarded a Luard Scholarship for study at St. Anne's College at Oxford University and served there as the co-editor-in-chief of the Oxford University Women's Magazine. At Yale Law School, she was awarded an Earl Warren Scholarship by the NAACP and a Coker Fellowship by the Yale faculty. Acker maintains an active involvement in various philanthropic, civic and business organizations. A volunteer with Love Takes Root, she has traveled to Haiti to work in a clinic and orphanage founded by that organization. She is a member of the Beverly Hills West (CA) chapter of The Links, Incorporated, and additionally serves on the boards of Public Counsel, the Western Justice Center, the Boy Scouts of America (the National and Western Los Angeles County Council Boards); PacWest Bancorp; and as trustee of the Pacific Battleship Center, which operates the Battleship USS Iowa Museum. She is also a member of the Yale Law School Executive Committee and the Yale Law School Fund Board. ON THE KNOWS with Randall Kenneth Jones is a podcast featuring host Randall Kenneth Jones (bestselling author, speaker & creative communications consultant) and Susan C. Bennett (the original voice of Siri). ON THE KNOWS is produced and edited by Kevin Randall Jones. TANYA ACKER Online: Web: www.TribunalJustice.TV  Web: www.TanyaAckerShow.com ON THE KNOWS Online:    Join us in the Podcast Lounge on Facebook. X (Randy): https://twitter.com/randallkjones  Instagram (Randy): https://www.instagram.com/randallkennethjones/ Facebook (Randy): https://www.facebook.com/mindzoo/ Web:  RandallKennethJones.com  X (Susan): https://twitter.com/SiriouslySusan Instagram (Susan): https://www.instagram.com/siriouslysusan/ Facebook (Susan): https://www.facebook.com/siriouslysusan/ Web: SusanCBennett.com LinkedIn (Kevin): https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-randall-jones/  Web: www.KevinRandallJones.com    www.OnTheKnows.com

On June 13, the U.S. Department of Justice released a long-anticipated report on its investigation into the city of Phoenix and its Police Department.  Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division laid out the results of the 126-page report after a nearly three-year investigation. Thus far, the reaction from the majority of Phoenix City Council has been fairly muted. Police union officials categorically denied those allegations. In this episode of The Gaggle, hosts Ron Hansen and Mary Jo Pitzl sit down with The Republic's criminal justice reporter Miguel Torres and Phoenix reporter Taylor Seely to dig further into the report and what the political reaction has been so far. Read the full story on the DOJ report on The Arizona Republic at azcentral.com. Episode transcript can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of the podcast we're taking about the Corporate Transparency Act and why it comes with a Beneficial Ownership Information report. Spoiler alert: you'll need to fill out the BOI form this year if you haven't already. When Congress makes new laws, they set a day when the law becomes effective. It's a heads up that they're changing the rules and that starting on that day-you'll be expected to obey. That delay gives everyone time to • read the new law, • ask questions about what the new law means, and • organize resources in preparation for the new law. In 2021 Congress passed a bundle of laws as part of the annual defense budget which came into effect on January 1st of this year called the Corporate Transparency Act. The Corporate Transparency Act requires most businesses to disclose certain information to the federal government. We'll cover: • whether or not your business is exempt from reporting,• whose information gets reported, and • how to report that information if you're required to do so. The Corporate Transparency Act is for helping law enforcement agencies find, prevent, and prosecute financial crimes. Financial crimes can look like a lot of different things. A popular example you see in movies is money laundering, when people get money from illegitimate sources but can't just go deposit it in a bank or use it to buy a car or a new house with it so they disguise it as other assets and run it through their business. People have been doing this for a very long time and proving it can be difficult. Back in 1970 Congress gave us the Bank Secrecy Act, which said banks have to actually help law enforcement identify and prosecute financial crimes. The reason was because banks didn't care where the money was coming from, they were getting paid and it wasn't their job to ask whether money was coming from a legitimate or criminal enterprise. Congress said banks don't get to turn a blind eye and have to report suspicious activity or really huge transfers. While this helped a lot, there was still plenty they couldn't catch. In 1990, Congress gave us a sub-department of the United States Treasury called the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN. FinCEN lets law enforcement agencies talk to each other about that information that banks have to report, like suspicious activity or huge transactions. They compare notes, so even if a single blip on the radar didn't raise any alarms at the FBI, they might talk to state law enforcement and compare notes and find out about criminal activity they couldn't see before. FinCEN even gives awards every year to different agencies that successfully use FinCEN's data to prevent or prosecute crimes. For example, in 2023- • The Drug Enforcement Administration used FinCEN data to find and seize 4.5 metric tons of cocaine• The Secret Service and U.S. Postal Inspections Service used FinCEN data to shut down a scheme to compromise emails• And the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division used FinCEN data to protect hundreds of victims of a human trafficking ring. But there was a huge absence of information for FinCEN that still made it really hard to crack down on financial crimes. FinCEN knew what the banks were telling them about suspicious activity and big transactions and what other agencies noticed about that information but they didn't know who was behind these semi-legitimate businesses. That's what this new law, the Corporate Transparency Act is for. Businesses affected by the law will have to complete a Beneficial Ownership Information report to FinCEN. While it's not a ton of information they require from you, it's information from a ton of people, and that tells them more than you might think and helps them discover a lot more criminal activity that they couldn't know about just from the banks or by talking to each other. By collecting a small amount of information about a lot of people, you can make connections in their interests, and gain insight into their activities. Congress says we're now going to use that method of data interpretation to catch financial crimes and the people who benefit from them. To comply with the law and tell them you aren't commiting financial crimes, you need to file a Beneficial Ownership Information report on FinCEN's website. I really doubt you fall under an exception, because basically the only companies that don't have to file are businesses that already have to give FinCEN a bunch of information, like banks. If your business was formed by filing with a secretary of state, you've got to dish your deets. LLC's, Corporations, whatever. If you created it by sending a piece of paper to your Secretary of State, you gotta tell FinCEN who you are. If you have an ownership interest in a business, same deal, dish the deets. Important note here: It doesn't matter to them if you have a controlling interest in a business, like the majority of shares or whatever. You are a quote “Beneficial Owner” as long as you have an ownership interest that you benefit from. If your name is going to be on a form to create a business like an LLC or corporation either this year or in the future, then you're what they're calling a Company Applicant, and you need to fill out a report. Whatever reason you have for filing a report, whether you formed a business or you're a beneficial owner, or your name is going on the paperwork for a new business-we're all going to the same place for this report. You go to FinCEN's website and they have a big ol' button on the front page that'll take you to file at https://www.fincen.gov/boi I recommend taking a minute to gather your info before you start, like, the same papers you would if you were jumping on a tax strategy or business entity formation call with me. We need stuff both for your business and for you personally, since you're a beneficial owner. For your business, you'll need to report: • Your full legal name• Any Doing Business As (DBA) or trade names• Your complete current U.S. address The State, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation (wherever you sent the papers to create your company)• If it was formed abroad: the State or Tribal jurisdiction of first registration• And your IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (including Employer Identification Number) For each beneficial owner or company applicant, you'll report: • Full legal name• Date of Birth• Complete current residential address (except if you filed on behalf of a business, like if you're a paralegal)• Unique identifying number, issuing jurisdiction AND image of one of the following documents:• U.S. Passport• State driver's license• Identification document issued by a state, local government, or tribe. Great. Love it. Let's talk due dates. If your business creation documents were filed prior to January 1, 2024 then you have until January 1, 2025. Amazing. That date feels pretty far off, but we want to treat it like a tax deadline and make sure we have all our information in so we can file ahead of schedule and spend Deadline Day relaxing at the pool. For new businesses being formed this year, you've got less time. If your business creation documents were filed/will be filed after January 1, 2024 then you have 90 days from the date of notice that the filing is effective. So you get an email from the secretary of state saying yes you can be a company, and you'll have 90 days to tell FinCEN that it's official. Starting January 1, 2025, they really pick up the pace. If your business creation documents are filed after January 1, 2025 then you will have 30 days from the date of notice that the filing is effective. I know this might sound scary but don't panic. Just follow rules and file your report. When they passed this law, Congress kind of interrogated FinCEN about how harsh they were going to be about the reports. FinCEN isn't looking for gotcha moments. They only want to prosecute willful violations. You are a pinpoint of data on a map of every business in America. They're looking to trace the path of money from point to point and see when it cycles back or if it's headed to something bad.

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.  This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump's many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.  On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate's senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States. In today's bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump's hush money trial.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.  This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump's many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.  On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate's senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States. In today's bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump's hush money trial.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.  This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump's many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.  On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate's senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States. In today's bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump's hush money trial.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

GET TICKETS TO SUPD POD JAM IN LAS VEGAS MARCH 22-23 Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete

On the day that Ron DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary and endorsed his personal bully, Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew cover two stories that could impact the 2024 presidential election. First, we tackle the centrist group "No Labels" request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department begin a criminal RICO investigation into... people who don't like the centrist group "No Labels." Neat! Then, we break down all of the pending actual law stuff going on in Trump's civil defamation suit in New York -- since precious little of that is going on in the courtroom itself. What's the rule of completeness? When are defenses waived? Who has a duty to mitigate? And so much more! Notes Habba Letter Brief re: Mitigation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.272.0.pdf No Labels https://www.nolabels.org/documents/59546/DOJ%20letter%201.11.24.pdf Co-founder of No Labels resigns https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-may-re-elect-donald-trump-third-party-independent-galston-rematch-f2e7697d Semafor article on No Labels https://www.semafor.com/article/12/19/2023/the-plot-against-no-labels -Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com