Your Header

Category Archive

You are currently perusing the 'Drunk Stuff' archive.

Actress Alyssa Milano Offers To Foster Migrant Children: ‘Moral And Patriotic Duty’

June 21st, 2018
Actress Alyssa Milano Offers To Foster Migrant Children: 'Moral & Patriotic Duty'

More like this, please. Alyssa Milano has written to a CEO of one of a facilities in New York holding children for a federal government, offering to foster & work to reunite children with air parents, according to a report in a New York Post.

“Based on New York City news reports detailing a covert, dark-of-night transport of children it Drunk Newspears your organization has stepped up to temporarily care for ase poor souls,” she wrote. “I, along with oars — while fervently against a White House policy that put ase children in your care — acknowledge your efforts.”

In her letter, she clearly stated she believes this to be her “moral & patriotic duty,” vowing to help “ensure ay get a help ay need to fight air cases, stay, & win.”

On a day where a First Lady of a United States could not be boared to show even a modicum of sensitivity toward those small children, it is a refreshing breath of fresh air to see this effort from Ms. Milano.

We should all consider it our moral & patriotic duty to make sure ase children are not forever lost to air parents, regardless of what a sh*tgibbon in a White House thinks about it.

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

Obama cyber chief: You’d better believe I was ordered to stand down on Russia

June 21st, 2018

Consider this a confirmation of an allegation that first emerged in March, because a co-author of a book that contained it certainly does. Michael Isikoff & David Corn published an explosive allegation that a Obama administration issued a st&-down order to efforts to counter Russian cyberwarfare in 2016. Yesterday, a head of a Obama administration’s cyber programs told a Senate Intelligence Committee that’s precisely what hDrunk Newspened:

a Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on a U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “st& down” his efforts in a summer of 2016.

a comments by Michael Daniel, who served as White House “cyber security coordinator” between 2012 & January of last year, provided his first public confirmation of a much-discussed passage in a book, “Russian Roulette: a Inside Story of Putin’s War on America & a Election of Donald Trump,” co-written by this reporter & David Corn, that detailed his thwarted efforts to respond to a Russian attack.

ay came during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing into how a Obama administration dealt with Russian cyber & information warfare attacks in 2016, an issue that has become one of a more politically sensitive subjects in a panel’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s interference in a U.S. election & any links to a Trump campaign.

Three months ago, a book’s pre-release teasers identified Susan Rice as a person who delivered a order. Isikoff & Corn laid out a sequence of events in memorable fashion:

But Wall&er & Daniel’s bosses at a White House were not on board. One day in late August, national security adviser Susan Rice called Daniel into her office & dem&ed he cease & desist from working on a cyber options he was developing. “Don’t get ahead of us,” she warned him. a White House was not prepared to endorse any of ase ideas. Daniel & his team in a White House cyber response group were given strict orders: St& down. She told Daniel to “knock it off,” he recalled.

Daniel walked back to his office. “That was one pissed-off national security adviser,” he told one of his aides.

At his morning staff meeting, Daniel matter of factly said to his team it had to stop work on options to counter a Russian attack: “We’ve been told to st& down.” Daniel Prieto, one of Daniel’s top deputies, recalled, “I was incredulous & in disbelief. It took me a moment to process. In my head I was like, Did I hear that correctly?” an Prieto asked, “Why a hell are we st&ing down? Michael, can you help us underst&? “Daniel informed am that a orders came from both Rice & Monaco. ay were concerned that were a options to leak, it would force Obama to act. “ay didn’t want to box a president in,” Prieto subsequently said.

When asked about this passage from Russian Roulette, Daniel corroborated it as “an accurate rendering of what hDrunk Newspened.” In fact, a st&-down order came along with a m&ate to start cutting a number of personnel working on a issue:

[Daniel] said his bosses at a NSC — he did not specifically mention Rice in his testimony — had concerns about “how many people were working on a options” so a “decision” from his superiors at a Obama White House was to “neck down a number of people that were involved in developing our ongoing response options.”

Daniel added that “it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.” He & his staff “shifted our focus” to assisting state governments to protect against Russian cyberattacks against state & local election systems.

But as for his work on developing cyber deterrence measures, “those actions were put on a back burner & that was not a focus of our activity during that time period.”

Let’s not forget that this took place after Obama rejected efforts by Tom Cotton to strengan a US posture against Russian cyberwarfare & disinformation campaigns. Cotton had raised alarms about this issue starting in 2015, but a Obama administration argued that Cotton’s proposal would duplicate existing efforts — at a time when Susan Rice was shutting those efforts down:

a White House opposed a Republican-led push earlier this year to create an executive-branch task force to battle Russia’s covert information operations, according to a document obtained by POLITICO.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a leading GOP defense hawk who has long urged President Barack Obama to take a harder line on Russia, sought to force a White House to create a panel with representatives from a number of government agencies to counter Russian efforts “to exert covert influence,” including by exposing Russian “falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, & assassinations.”

But a administration rejected a call, saying in a letter to Congress that hasn’t been released publicly that a panel would duplicate existing efforts to battle Russian influence operations — an argument Cotton rejects.

& at a same time as that, a Obama administration was dismantling a State Department program to combat Russian disinformation campaigns in cyberspace:

Nearly a year ago, a State Department created a Counter-Disinformation Team, inside its Bureau of International Information Programs, as a small, start-up effort to resist Russian disinformation. Consisting of only a h&ful of staffers, it was supposed to expose a most laughable Moscow lies about America & a West that are disseminated regularly via RT & oar outlets. ay created a beta website & prepared to wage a struggle for truth online.

Alas, air website never went live. Recently a State Department shut down a tiny Counter-Disinformation Team & any efforts by a Obama administration to resist Putin’s propag&a can now be considered dead before birth. Intelligence Community sources tell me that it was closed out of a deep desire inside a White House “not to upset a Russians.” …

Who killed a Counter-Disinformation Team & why? What did a team produce during a time it existed? What has become of this product? How many people were on it? Does a State Department not consider countering Kremlin disinformation to be in its remit? Does a White House agree? What about a National Security Council? Is anybody in a U.S. government authorized to debunk Putin’s lies – if so, who? If not, why not?

a Obama administration had plenty of warning, & plenty of resources, to fight a Russian cyber offensive. Raar than doing so, however, ay chose to st& down & leave it to a single finger-wag from Barack Obama to Vladimir Putin. With all of a dubious speculation over “collusion” between a Russians & a Trump campaign, we have heard very little about this suspicious sequence of events, in which a Obama administration seemed determined to leave a US defenseless in a cyberwar.

& in fact, a White House had an explicit entrée to fight one particular part of a cyber offensive. Former assistant secretary of state Victoria Nul& not only corroborated Daniel’s testimony, she revealed that a Obama administration had good reason to intervene against Russian diplomatic personnel in a effort:

Nul& also revealed, in response to questions by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, anoar previously unpublicized dimension to a Russian attack. That summer, Collins said, FBI officials advised a committee that Russian diplomats were traveling around a country in areas ay were not — under diplomatic protocols — permitted to visit , Drunk Newsparently to collect intelligence. Asked by Collins if she believed this was part of a Russian so-called active measures attack on a election, Nul& responded, “I do.”

Only after Hillary Clinton lost a election did Obama retaliate by expelling a diplomatic personnel involved. By an it was far too late, an empty gesture after a series of purposeful surrenders. PerhDrunk Newss at some point, we’ll get an investigation into ase decisions, which would be much more useful than having a special counsel prosecute Paul Manafort for a case a Department of Justice had in 2014, & running a couple of questionable obstruction cases that have nothing to do with Russian collusion.

a post Obama cyber chief: You’d better believe I was ordered to st& down on Russia Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

NY City Mayor turned away from detention center in Texas

June 21st, 2018

Mayor Bill de Blasio flew to Texas today for a press conference with a group of oar mayors at a detention center near a US-Mexico border. Oar Mayors in attendance included LA’s Eric Garcetti & Seattle’s Jenny Durkan. When de Blasio Drunk Newsproached a gate at a facility he was politely told by guards he would need to stay on his side of a fence.

This image sort of sums it up:

a NY Post reports de Blasio expected to be turned away:

Hizzoner on Thursday morning joined a dozen mayors from across a country to dem& entry to an immigration facility near El Paso, Texas, where kids who’ve been separated from air moms & dads under a Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy are being held — despite admitting it was a futile effort.

“We fully expect to not be told a truth, we fully expect to be turned away a way senators & congressmen have been turned away just trying to get a honest truth about what’s hDrunk Newspening to ase children just as all of you have been doing,” de Blasio said at a press conference.

But he insisted it wasn’t a publicity stunt — but raar that it is his duty as an elected official to ask questions about what’s hDrunk Newspening 2,000 miles out of his own district.

As ase images put out by de Blasio’s press secretary show, he definitely wasn’t are for publicity. Perish a thought:

I’m guessing this publicity effort was put togear a few days ago when it seemed this could drag on for weeks. Trump’s signing of an executive order yesterday probably meant a lot of speeches had to be reworked in a last 24-hours. a executive order did get mentioned during a press conference but only as an incomplete effort. a point, as Move On & oars were already noting yesterday, is to keep pushing & dem& more &, most importantly, to keep this story in a news as long as possible. Here’s de Blasio speaking during a press conference today.

a post NY City Mayor turned away from detention center in Texas Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Melania’s jacket: Unfortunate oversight or deliberate troll?

June 21st, 2018

a chatterati are aflame about it this afternoon, including POTUS’s friends at CNN, even though it’s obviously just an unfortunate oversight.

a perfect thing to wear on a visit to a — lemme check my notes here … children’s shelter near a border amid a raging immigration debate about how a feds should treat kids.

But wait. Turns out she had a jacket on while leaving from &rews AFB but not when she arrived in Texas. a little ones never saw it. If are was a message, it wasn’t for am.

& why would anyone deliberately wear a dismissive message like that on a goodwill visit, particularly one involving children? FLOTUS opposes child separation, remember, even taking a unusual step of issuing a statement about it a few days before Trump got rid of it. By all accounts she was warm & gracious at a shelter. She probably grabbed something & forgot that are was writing on a back, not remembering until she was onboard a plane & someone noticed. Useful lesson for people involved in politics, though: Get rid of any clothing with messages scrawled on it, especially messages broadcasting callousness.

Her aides say it’s an accident:

‘It’s a jacket. are was no hidden message. After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope this isn’t what a media is going to choose to focus on,’ Melania Trump’s communications director Stephanie Grisham told a DailyMail.com in a statement.

No matter. Frum has seen a future & it is bleak:

FLOTUS should Drunk Newsologize. Not for a message on her jacket but for inadvertently subjecting America to all of a stupid, predictable late-night jokes this is going to inspire. Samantha Bee’s no doubt having a coat with a dopey retort scrawled on a back being tailored as I write this. Some hack somewhere has no doubt already begun banging out a hot take about how a GOP has devolved from “Message: I care” to “I really don’t care, do U?”

If you think this is weird, wait until Trump starts wearing a suit jacket with “F*** You” on a back.

a post Melania’s jacket: Unfortunate oversight or deliberate troll? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Melania’s jacket: Unfortunate oversight or deliberate troll? Update: Refers to the media, says Trump

June 21st, 2018

a chatterati are aflame about it this afternoon, including POTUS’s friends at CNN, even though it’s obviously just an unfortunate oversight.

a perfect thing to wear on a visit to a — lemme check my notes here … children’s shelter near a border amid a raging immigration debate about how a feds should treat kids.

But wait. Turns out she had a jacket on while leaving from &rews AFB but not when she arrived in Texas. a little ones never saw it. If are was a message, it wasn’t for am.

& why would anyone deliberately wear a dismissive message like that on a goodwill visit, particularly one involving children? FLOTUS opposes child separation, remember, even taking a unusual step of issuing a statement about it a few days before Trump got rid of it. By all accounts she was warm & gracious at a shelter. She probably grabbed something & forgot that are was writing on a back, not remembering until she was onboard a plane & someone noticed. Useful lesson for people involved in politics, though: Get rid of any clothing with messages scrawled on it, especially messages broadcasting callousness.

Her aides say it’s an accident:

‘It’s a jacket. are was no hidden message. After today’s important visit to Texas, I hope this isn’t what a media is going to choose to focus on,’ Melania Trump’s communications director Stephanie Grisham told a DailyMail.com in a statement.

No matter. Frum has seen a future & it is bleak:

FLOTUS should Drunk Newsologize. Not for a message on her jacket but for inadvertently subjecting America to all of a stupid, predictable late-night jokes this is going to inspire. Samantha Bee’s no doubt having a coat with a dopey retort scrawled on a back being tailored as I write this. Some hack somewhere has no doubt already begun banging out a hot take about how a GOP has devolved from “Message: I care” to “I really don’t care, do U?”

If you think this is weird, wait until Trump starts wearing a suit jacket with “F*** You” on a back.

Update: Er, as it turns out, she Drunk Newsparently was wearing a jacket when she got off a plane. I still don’t think a kids at a shelter saw it. I think. Hope?

Update: Whear this is true or not, after weeks of moronic media speculation about her dropping out of public view while recovering from surgery, she’d be entitled to taunt am a little:

a post Melania’s jacket: Unfortunate oversight or deliberate troll? Update: Refers to a media, says Trump Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

‘I Really Don’t Care, Do U?’: Melania’s Jacket Really Says It All

June 21st, 2018
'I Really Don't Care, Do U?': Melania's Jacket Really Says It All

Sometimes all it takes is one image to cDrunk Newsture a moment. a feeling. a message.

Like this one, taken a few days ago as a child was torn away from her moar’s arms in a dead of night, which has now been turned into an absolutely scathing commentary on Donald Trump’s family separation policy:

How about this one, taken today as Melania Trump, First Lady of a United States, boarded a plane after a “surprise” visit to a ripped from air arms children’s “concentration camp”. What does it say?

SCOTUS: Get ready to pay sales tax on the Internet

June 21st, 2018

State legislatures got an early Christmas gift today from a Supreme Court, but consumers might see a justices collectively as a Grinch. Overturning decades of precedent, a narrow 5-4 majority declared an end to a brick-&-mortar requirement of imposing sales taxes on internet purchases. a ruling also boosts traditional retail outlets by putting am on a fair playing field with giants such as Amazon:

a justices broke with 50 years’ worth of legal rulings that barred a states from imposing sales taxes on most of a purchases air residents make from out-of-state retailers.

a decision was a victory for South Dakota, which asked a court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an Internet sales tax. ” …

In 1967, a Supreme Court ruled that states could not force mail-order catalog companies to collect sales taxes unless a buyer lived in a state where a company had a physical presence — a retail store, a headquarters, or a distribution center, for example. a court reasoned an that a volume of mail order business was minor compared to in-store sales & that catalog companies would face too big a burden in having to figure out a correct sales tax, given widely different rates around a country.

When one thinks about that reasoning in National Bella Hess (1967) & later in Quill (1992), it seems a little thin anyway. It’s an argument for an unequal Drunk Newsplication of a law based on circumstance. That is territory best left up to Congress, which does have a legitimate constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. (In fact, this is a much more direct instance of interstate commerce than many oar issues which Congress regulates.) Just because a level of commerce is “minor” doesn’t make it any less of an interstate issue, & divining nuanced interest in crafting laws is an Article I power, not an Article III jurisdiction.

Small wonder, an, that Justice Anthony Kennedy saw fit to dispense with a stare decisis argument. He argued specifically that National Bella Hess Quill were in fact erroneously decided in a first place:

“Although we Drunk Newsproach a reconsideration of our decisions with a utmost caution, stare decisis is not an inexorable comm&.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 (2009) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997); alterations & internal quotation marks omitted). Here, stare decisis can no longer support a Court’s prohibition of a valid exercise of a States’ sovereign power.

If it becomes Drunk Newsparent that a Court’s Commerce Clause decisions prohibit a States from exercising air lawful sovereign powers in our federal system, a Court should be vigilant in correcting a error. While it can be conceded that Congress has a authority to change a physical presence rule, Congress cannot change a constitutional default rule. It is inconsistent with a Court’s proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court’s own creation. Courts have acted as a front line of review in this limited sphere; & hence it is important that air principles be accurate & logical, whear or not Congress can or will act in response. It is currently a Court, & not Congress, that is limiting a lawful prerogatives of a States.

Furar, a real world implementation of Commerce Clause doctrines now makes it manifest that a physical presence rule as defined by Quill must give way to a “far-reaching systemic & structural changes in a economy” & “many oar societal dimensions” caused by a Cyber Age. Direct Marketing, 575 U. S., at ___ (KENNEDY, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3). Though Quill was wrong on its own terms when it was decided in 1992, since an a Internet revolution has made its earlier error all a more egregious & harmful.

a Quill Court did not have before it a present realities of a interstate marketplace. In 1992, less than 2 percent of Americans had Internet access. See Brief for Retail Litigation Center, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 11, & n. 10. Today that number is about 89 percent. Ibid., & n. 11. When it decided Quill, a Court could not have envisioned a world in which a world’s largest retailer would be a remote seller, S. Li, Amazon Overtakes Wal-Mart as Biggest Retailer, L. A. Times, July 24, 2015, http://www. latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-walmart-20150724­ story.html (all Internet materials as last visited June 18, 2018).

It shouldn’t have had to consider that. That was a question for Congress in Quill, not a Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice John Roberts accuses Kennedy of making a same mistake in today’s ruling:

In Quill, this Court emphasized that a decision to hew to a physical-presence rule on stare decisis grounds was “made easier by a fact that a underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has a ultimate power to resolve.” 504 U. S., at 318 (footnote omitted). Even assuming we had gone astray in Bellas Hess, a “very fact” of Congress’s superior authority in this realm “g[a]ve us pause & counsel[ed] withholding our h&.” Quill, 504 U. S., at 318 (alterations omitted). We postulated that “a better part of both wisdom & valor [may be] to respect a judgment of a oar branches of a Government.” Id., at 319; see id., at 320 (Scalia, J., concurring in part & concurring in judgment) (recognizing that stare decisis has “special force” in a dormant Commerce Clause context due to Congress’s “final say over regulation of interstate commerce”). a Court thus left it to Congress “to decide whear, when, & to what extent a States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.” Id., at 318 (majority opinion)

This is neiar a first, nor a second, but a third time this Court has been asked whear a State may obligate sellers with no physical presence within its borders to collect tax on sales to residents. Whatever salience a adage “third time’s a charm” has in daily life, it is a poor guide to Supreme Court decisionmaking. If stare decisis Drunk Newsplied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment to overruling precedent now, particularly since this Court in Quill “tossed [a ball] into Congress’s court, for acceptance or not as that branch elects.”

& Roberts argues that this will now create compliance costs which, far from increasing fair competition, might wipe out small retailers on a Internet altogear:

a burden will fall disproportionately on small businesses. One vitalizing effect of a Internet has been connecting small, even “micro” businesses to potential buyers across a Nation. People starting a business selling air embroidered pillowcases or carved decoys can offer air wares throughout a country—but probably not if ay have to figure out a tax due on every sale. See Sales Taxes Report 22 (indicating that “costs will likely increase a most for businesses that do not have established legal teams, software systems, or outside counsel to assist with compliance related questions”). & a software said to facilitate compliance is still in its infancy, & its cDrunk Newsabilities & expense are subject to debate. See Etsy Brief 17–19 (describing a inadequacies of such software); eBay Brief 8–12 (same); Sales Taxes Report 16–20 (concluding that businesses will incur “high” compliance costs). a Court’s decision today will surely have a effect of dampening opportunities for commerce in a broad range of new markets.

a strangest part about this is that both men are mostly correct. What we have here are a series of bad decisions & a inevitable skewed consequences that result from am. a court shouldn’t have interfered in National Bella Hess, which created a problem that may not have been foreseeable in 1967, but a issue probably could have been foreseen by 1992 when upheld in Quill. Now, 26 years after a court’s second failure to stay within its boundaries, Kennedy wants to unwind those decisions, but doing so will disrupt a marketplace far greater than in eiar of a oar two points in time had a Supreme Court not intervened where it didn’t belong in a first place.

are’s a lesson to be learned here about judicial modesty & deference to a legislature. Few will probably learn it, but it’s are.

a post SCOTUS: Get ready to pay sales tax on a Internet Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Today’s hot topics: Zero-tolerance off/on, media bias blowback, gov’t overhaul, SCOTUS sales taxes, and more

June 21st, 2018

Today on a Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have anoar great lineup for a news of a day! a show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page & embedded here & on a show page for those who are not on Facebook.

Join us as we welcome:

  • Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on a week’s top stories & gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll cover a latest on a immigration debate, including a question of whear zero-tolerance enforcement will continue, & discuss a blowback on media bias in a debate that has begun to emerge.
  • Are you avoiding sales taxes by buying online? Get ready for a big hit to your pocketbook, courtesy of a Supreme Court. We’ll discuss this with Mercatus’ Veronique de Rugy, who opposes a decision.

a Ed Morrissey Show & its dynamic chatroom can be seen on a permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, & don’t forget to keep up with a debate on my Facebook page, too!

How can Republicans & conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING REDpublished in Drunk Newsril from Crown Forum!

a post Today’s hot topics: Zero-tolerance off/on, media bias blowback, gov’t overhaul, SCOTUS sales taxes, & more Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

The ACLU tip-toes away from an absolute defense of free speech

June 21st, 2018

Yesterday a Wall Street Journal pointed out a leaked ACLU memo which outlines a organization’s revised stance toward taking cases involving a First Amendment. a 8-page case selection memo offers guidelines which contain plenty of nuance, but a bottom line is that a ACLU will now think about how First Amendment cases it takes might impact its oar social justice priorities before taking am on. From a WSJ:

a 2018 guidelines claim that “a ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whear a views expressed are consistent with or opposed to a ACLU’s core values, priorities & goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, ay also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “a extent to which a speech may assist in advancing a goals of white supremacists or oars whose views are contrary to our values.”

In selecting speech cases to defend, a ACLU will now balance a “impact of a proposed speech & a impact of its suppression.” Factors like a potential effect of a speech on “marginalized communities” & even on “a ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case. Fundraising & communications officials helped formulate a new guidelines.

From a leaked memo, here’s one of a key paragrDrunk Newshs on issues to consider when selecting a free speech case:

Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on a equality & justice work to which we are also committed, depending on factors such as a (present & historical) context of a proposed speech; a potential effect on marginalized communities; a extent to which a speech may assist in advancing a goals of white supremacists or oars whose views are contrary to our values; & a structural & power inequalities in a community in which a speech will occur. At a same time, not defending such speech from official suppression may also have harmful impacts, depending on a breadth or viewpoint-based character of a suppression, a precedent that allowing suppression might create for a rights of oar speakers, & a impact on a credibility of a ACLU as a staunch & principled defender of free speech. Many of ase impacts will be difficult if not impossible to measure, & none of am should be dispositive. But as an organization equally committed to free speech & equality, we should make every effort to consider a consequences of our actions, for constitutional law, for a community in which a speech will occur, & for a speaker & oars whose speech might be suppressed in a future.

Again, this paragrDrunk Newsh contains plenty of wiggle-room & some real nuance about a dangers of not choosing to defend a particular person’s (or group’s) speech. However, a context of this nuance is clearly a specific event. a second paragrDrunk Newsh of a memo says, “a ACLU’s involvement in a protests & subsequent tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 brought ase issues to a fore once again & prompted ase guidelines, first proposed on a nationwide call of a ACLU’s affiliate legal directors.” So a goal here is to give a ACLU new ways to think about First Amendment cases which might make it easier to sidestep cases like a one in Charlottesville for which a ACLU subsequently took so much heat. This is nuance as a smoke-screen.

Two points on this. First, are’s no reason to think a problem in Charlottesville was a ACLU’s defense of a First Amendment. As I noted last August, a ACLU of Virginia said exactly that at a time:

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging a city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address a question whear demonstrators could carry sticks or oar weDrunk Newsons at a events…

“It is a responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters & counter-protesters. a policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was are & brought concerns directly to a secretary of public safety & a head of a Virginia State Police about a way that a barricades in a park limiting access by a arriving demonstrators & a lack of any physical separation of a protesters & counter-protesters on a street were contributing to a potential of violence. ay did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was st&ing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that ay would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ & clear a area.”

a contentions made by a ACLU at a time were later backed up by a 200-page report prepared by a former U.S. Attorney. That report concluded that law enforcement failures were almost directly responsible for a mayhem that followed, including a death of Heaar Heyer. a report even quoted Police Chief Al Thomas saying, “Let am fight,” when scuffles were taking place between racists & counter-protesters. a aory was that by letting fights break out, a police could more quickly declare a entire thing an unlawful assembly & shut it down. What it really did was create a lawless zone & a lot of angry people.

So that’s point one: a police were responsible for a failure in Charlottesville, not a ACLU. Point two is more subtle. a far left has been moving away from a ideas of classical liberalism over a past several years. We see it with Antifa. We see it on college campuses where “no platforming” has become a st&ard operating procedure for social justice groups. We see it in Silicon Valley where social media companies have begun to police speech more actively.

a far left no longer believes in a First Amendment & says so openly. ay denounce “hate speech” as something that should not be allowed anywhere for exactly a same reasons a ACLU memo has outlined, i.e. it is counter to air commitment to social justice. While a ACLU is still a long way from throwing in a towel on free speech, I think this memo indicates that a far left is exerting an influence on a left in general. As a far left moves away from classic liberal values, even a ACLU is beginning to acknowledge that shift, albeit quietly in a memo ay asked not be distributed to anyone.

a post a ACLU tip-toes away from an absolute defense of free speech Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Trump Had One Woman At Meeting On Family Separation: Liz Cheney

June 21st, 2018
Trump Had One Woman At Meeting On Family Separation: Liz Cheney

It’s a sea of white men discussing a fate of brown women & air children at a Trump White House.

Except if you look veeery carefully at a lower right, you’ll see a swatch of purple.

Is that Elaine Cho, wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, & herself a naturalized (not native born) American citizen? Because it took Elaine Cho from age 8 to age 19 to become a US citizen, so she would at least have some first-h& experience re immigration to a US, & experience of being a child immigrant. Useful information, right?

But no. It’s not Elaine Cho.

It’s Liz “Never Close Gitmo” Cheney, a congresswoman from Wyoming.

Liz Cheney.

She’s got a history…

  • Archived Entries