Forget the totally FALSE claims about President Obama's attempt attack your 2nd amendment rights. They didn't exist except in the minds of RWNJs.
THESE ARE VERY REAL ATTACKS on the vital First Amendment.
Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.”
From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.
Some are introducing bills because they say they're necessary to counter the actions of “paid” or “professional” protesters who set out to intimidate or disrupt, a common accusation that experts agree is largely overstated. “You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,” said Republican state senator John Kavanagh of Arizona in support of a measure there that would bring racketeering charges against some protesters.
VIDEO ON LINK
VIDEO ON LINK
Protesters in cities across the nation rallied against President Trump's executive order banning U.S. entry for refugees, migrants and foreign nationals for 120 days. Here's a look at some of the protests that took place in airports and city squares across the U.S. after the order was signed. (Dalton Bennett, Erin Patrick O'Connor, Elyse Samuels, Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Others, like the sponsors of a bill in Minnesota, say the measures are necessary to protect public safety on highways. Still other bills, in states like Oklahoma and South Dakota, are intended to discourage protesting related to oil pipelines.
Democrats in many of these states are fighting the legislation. They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic, the possibility of a chilling effect on protests across the political spectrum, and concerns for protesters’ safety in the face of aggressive motorists.
None of the proposed legislation has yet been passed into law, and several bills have already been shelved in committee.
Critics doubt whether many of the laws would pass Constitutional muster. “The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment] protections are at their most robust,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is by no means the first time in American history that widespread protests have inspired a legislative backlash, says Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. “For instance, southern legislatures — especially in the Deep South — responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult,” he said via email.
“Similarly,” he added, “laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.”
The ACLU’s Rowland says the new bills are not about “creating new rules that are necessary because of some gap in the law.” She points out, for instance, that “every single city and county in the United States” already has laws on the books against obstructing traffic on busy roads.
Rather, Rowland says the laws’ intent is “increasing the penalties for protest-related activity to the point that it results in self-censorship among protesters who have every intention to obey the law.”
Even the accusations of “paid” or “professional” agitators, whichTrump has promoted, have been leveled at protesters before.
“This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents,” Stanford’s McAdam said. “Civil rights workers were said to be ‘outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an ‘AstroTurf’ phenomenon — funded from on high by the Koch brothers and others — rather than a legitimate ‘grass roots’ movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, with the vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.”
But now, social media has made it possible to organize larger protests more rapidly than ever before. “The older laws are becoming less effectual in dealing with these kind of groups,” said Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan, a political sociologist who studies protest movements. On top of that, “the courts have said, ‘Look, the people have a right to protest in this way.’ ” So on some level the new legislation represents an attempt by lawmakers to catch up with new realities of 21st-century protesting.
Here’s a list of laws that have been introduced or voted on since the election.
Arizona
Arizona’s bill, introduced this week, would open up protests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates. It would also allow police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. It recently passed the state Senate on a party-line vote and is now before the House.
Colorado
A bill under consideration in Colorado would strengthen penalties for “tampering” with oil and gas equipment. It’s intended to prevent activists from shutting off pipelines, a tactic that’s been used in other states.
Florida
A bill introduced by Republican George Gainer in the Florida Senate this month would provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt drivers from liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. It was filed this week, and if enacted would take force on July 1.
Georgia
A "Back the Badge" bill recently passed by the Georgia Senateincreases penalties for blocking "any highway, street, sidewalk or other public passage." The bill is sponsored by six Republican senators.
Iowa
A bill supported by nine Republican sponsors would make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison. The bill’s lead sponsor told the Des Moines Register it was introduced in response to a November incident in which a protest Trump shut down part of Interstate 80 in Iowa.
Indiana
An Indiana Senate committee recently toned down a bill that would have allowed police to shut down highway protests using “any means necessary.” The current version allows police to issue fines for such behavior.
Michigan
A Michigan bill voted on late last year would have increased fines for certain “mass picketing” behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.
Minnesota
Bills under consideration in Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports. A separate measure before the legislature would make it possible for jurisdictions to charge protesters for the costs of policing the protests.
Missouri
A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal.
Mississippi
A bill before the Mississippi legislature would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
North Carolina
A North Carolina Republican has pledged to introduce legislation making it a crime to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate against” current or former state officials, in response to an incident involving the heckling of Gov. Pat McCrory. The Senator proposing the legislation, Dan Bishop, confirmed via email that he still intends to introduce the legislation, perhaps as early as next week, after consulting with potential co-sponsors.
North Dakota
A number of North Dakota bills have been introduced in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The measure that drew the most attention was a bill that would have removed penalties for motorists who strike protesters with their car in some circumstances. That bill failed to make it out of the House, but a number of other measures increasing penalties for certain types of protest action are advancing through the legislature.
Oklahoma
Inspired by pipeline protests in North Dakota, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of “critical infrastructure” like pipelines and railways.
Oregon
A novel piece of legislation in Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.
South Dakota
A Senate panel in South Dakota recently approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways. It’s a response to pipeline protests in North Dakota, and to the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built.
Tennessee
A Tennessee Republican wants drivers to be protected from liability if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway.
Virginia
A Virginia bill that would have increased penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest died in the state Senate last month. The bill had been requested by law enforcement.
Washington state
Washington lawmakers are considering a bill to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways, acts that the bill's sponsor has characterized as “economic terrorism.”
This story has been updated to include information on legislation pending in Georgia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.8b9ebcd53fbc
link.
Because these money-grubbing thieves CANNOT see beyond the end of their own noses, they are DESTROYING not only special needs children, but school budgets with this sick, evil bill.
----------------------
" “School-based Medicaid programs serve as a lifeline to children who can’t access critical health care and health services outside of their school,” wrote the group, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and theSchool Superintendents Association.
----------------------
" “School-based Medicaid programs serve as a lifeline to children who can’t access critical health care and health services outside of their school,” wrote the group, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and theSchool Superintendents Association.
While Trumpcare would dramatically reduce schools’ ability to provide for their students, it does not change their Americans With Disabilities Act requirement to provide that support. As a result, schools will have to find room in their already cash-strapped budgets to make up the difference, thus diminishing the educational resources for all public school students. "
link.
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-ahca-healthcare-bill-george-stephanopoulos-2017-5?utm_content=bufferd2d22&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi
link.
Members of the US Congress are holding “private conversations” about whether Donald Trump should be removed from office, reports suggest.
After a difficult first 100 days that have seen the US President mired in a string of scandals and mishaps, senators and congressmen are said to be considering whether he will last a full term.
The New Yorker this week published a lengthy analysis of the two ways the Republican could be removed from office: either through impeachment by Congress or via the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows for a president to be removed if he is considered to be mentally unfit.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/members-congress-apos-holding-secret-104617029.html
I’m running for Senate to stop the big, corporate special interests that control Washington and our political system. It’s why I won’t take a dime of PAC money in this campaign, and why it’ll take a large number of us standing together to win this tough race.
PEOPLE power movements, not PACs. Join us today.
Golf writer James Dodson claims Eric Trump told him in 2014 that all the funding for Trump golf courses comes from Russia while the two were at one of the family's clubs.
"As we were setting off, I said, 'Eric, who's funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one's funding any kind of golf construction. It's dead in the water the last four or five years,'" Dodson told Boston public radio station WBUR-FM about golfing with the president's son at Trump National Golf Club in Charlotte, N.C.
"He said, 'Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he said, 'Oh, yeah. We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.' Now that was three years ago, so it was pretty interesting."
The president has faced increased scrutiny over his alleged ties to Russia since U.S. intelligence communities have said Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Shortly before his inauguration, Trump tweeted that "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me."
"I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" he wrote.
Democrats have pushed for Trump to release his tax returns to prove he has no financial connections to Russia.
In a 2008 interview, Donald Trump Jr. called Russia a "really scary place" when discussing the Trump Organization's potential investments in the country.
"After spending half a dozen trips to Russia in the last 18 months, several buyers have been attracted to our projects there and everything associated therewith. But it is definitely not an issue of being able to find a deal – but an issue of 'Will I ever see my money back out of that deal or can I actually trust the person I am doing the deal with?' As much as we want to take our business over there, Russia is just a different world," he said.
He added that Russians "make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets."
"We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia," he said.
VIDEO & ADDITIONAL IMAGES ON LINK
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author-claims-eric-trump-told-him-all-funding-for-trump-golf-courses-comes-from-russia-in-2014/article/2622364VIDEO & ADDITIONAL IMAGES ON LINK
No comments:
Post a Comment