Poll: Almost 60% of Votary say Trump Has Encouraged white supremacist groups

From [HERE] President Donald Trump’s response to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia has received a resounding thumbs down from US voters.

Americans overwhelmingly disapproved, 60 per cent to 32 per cent, of Mr Trump’s handling of the situation, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

Almost 60 per cent of voters said Mr Trump’s decisions and behaviour have encouraged white supremacistgroups, while only three per cent say he has discouraged these groups. The majority believe these groups pose a threat to the US.

In the wake of the Charlottesville rally – said to be the largest white supremacist gathering in the US decades – Mr Trump did make scripted remarks condemning white supremacist groups, including neo-Nazis and the KKK. One day later, however, he appeared to walk back those comments.

In a freewheeling press conference at Trump Tower, the President claimed that some “fine people” had attended the rally, defended statues of Confederate generals, and repeated his claim that “both sides” were to blame for the violence at the event.

Despite widespread backlash, Mr Trump defended his comments at a campaign rally this week, calling them "perfect”. The negative response, the President claimed, was engineered by the “fake news” media.

“They only take out anything they can think of, and for the most part, all they do is complain,” he said. “But they don't put on those words. And they don't put on me saying those words." 

But it appears Mr Trump has larger problems than his battle with the media: A record number of voters now say that prejudice against minority groups is a problem in America. Half of all voters say such prejudice is a “very serious” problem, while 31 per cent say it is somewhat serious. [MORE]

NAACP official: NFL should take our [unorganized, uncoordinated, random] boycott threat seriously

From [HERE] Colin Kaepernick, who ignited a national civil rights discussion when he knelt during the national anthem last NFL season in protest of racial injustice, still has no team. No club has signed Kaepernick since he became a free agent in March, the new season starts in two weeks, and the NAACP is outraged.

On Wednesday, the NAACP posted an open letter to the NFL demanding a meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell to discuss Kaepernick’s status. It also held simultaneous rallies in New York City (right outside NFL headquarters) and Atlanta.

To be clear: There is not, at this time, an NAACP boycott of the NFL. But the head of the Atlanta chapter tells Yahoo Finance unequivocally that the group is serious about initiating one if it doesn’t get a Goodell meeting.

“If there’s not a meeting before the start of the season, it’s my belief that the coalition will call for a boycott of the NFL,” says Gerald Griggs, an attorney and VP of the NAACP’s Atlanta chapter. 

Of course, Goodell can’t force a team to sign Kaepernick.

“We know the commissioner doesn’t have that power,” Griggs says, “But the fan bases that are parts of our organizations do. So at the same time we are demanding a meeting with Roger Goodell, we are also requesting meetings with the team owners in our local markets. And we have a branch in every city where there’s an NFL team.”

The NAACP has not officially heard from the NFL, but Griggs says that unofficially, “part of the response we heard was that he’s traveling. Well, we can meet him anywhere. Delta flies to most major cities.”

An NFL spokesperson tells Yahoo Finance, “We have yet to receive a letter.”

Last season, while Kaepernick was protesting, the NAACP “did not get involved vocally,” Griggs says, beyond supporting his First Amendment rights, which is an issue it always promotes. But now, officials feel compelled to act because, “we saw a pattern of preventing him from being employed. And now we are dedicated to the outcome of him pursuing employment.”

White woman was detained for protesting Trump. Here’s what the Secret Service asked her

A detective grabbed my wrist and cuffed me. A gaggle of officers from multiple law enforcement agencies escorted me to a room near the atrium. A few chairs had Trump campaign materials plastered on them. Inside the room with me were more than 10 officers from the NYPD and the Secret Service.

Then the questions began, and they were bananas. A young woman from the Secret Service began the questioning; male NYPD officers tagged in and out. They never asked me whether I understood my rights, and I wasn’t actually sure at that moment what rights, if any, I had. I was focused on not getting put in a car and being whisked away.

It was clear right away that these officials wouldn’t see me the way I see myself: as a reasonably responsible, skilled nonviolent political operative who works on a mix of electoral and issues campaigns. To them, I was clearly a threat to national security. It felt like an interrogation on “Homeland.” Here are my favorite parts of the conversation, as I remember them.

NYPD: “Why would you come to the president’s home to do this?”

Me: “It was wrong for the president to support white supremacy.”

NYPD: “Don’t you respect the president?”

Me: “I don’t respect people who align with Nazis.”

Secret Service: “Do you have negative feelings toward the president?”

Me: “Yes.”

Secret Service: “Can you elaborate?”

Me: “He should be impeached and should not be president.”

They were concerned with who bought my train ticket, once they saw the receipt on my phone. The NYPD officers didn’t seem to believe me that some organizations work for justice and organize these legal protests. Each time they touched my phone, I said I don’t consent to the search of my phone. (They held my phone during the interview, and I can only hope they didn’t poke around it — alhough they wouldn’t have found much to interest them, unless they like Bernie GIFs.)

Secret Service: “Have you ever been inside the White House?

Me: “Yes.”

Secret Service: “How many times?”

Me: “Many. I was a volunteer holiday tour guide for the White House Visitors Center.”

Secret Service, eyes wide: “When was the last time you were there?”

Me: “December.” I explained that I probably wouldn’t be invited back until we have a new president.

The officers ran through a raft of predictable questions about firearms. (I don’t own any, and they seemed puzzled by my commitment to nonviolence as a philosophy.) They asked whether I wanted to hurt the president or anyone in his family. Obviously not. Then came the mental health questions.

[Where’s the best place to resist Trump? At work.]

Secret Service: “Do you have any mental health disorders?”

Me: “No.”

Secret Service: “Have you ever tried to commit suicide?”

Me: “No.”

Secret Service: “Have you ever had suicidal thoughts?”

Me: “No.”

I was trying very hard not to roll my eyes at the repeated questions when an NYPD detective suggested my protest could be charged as a felony. In the next second, the Secret Service agents asked me to sign Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act waivers so they could gather all my medical records. My mind was still focused on the f-word: felony. But I didn’t want to sign the waivers.

I meekly asked whether I should talk to a lawyer. I was told it was my prerogative but also that it might mean I’d be held longer. Being in a room with that many enforcement agents hurt my ability to reason dispassionately, and I was now looking at a criminal record from a basic, even banal, nonviolent protest. I signed the forms.

Click to read more ...

ACLU Challenges CA Voter Signature-Matching Law; Officials w/No Handwriting Expertise Can Discard Votes

From [HERE] The American Civil Liberties Union and Cooley LLP today sued California for invalidating the vote-by-mail ballots of tens of thousands of voters without warning.

At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject a vote-by-mail ballot without providing notice if they feel the signature on the ballot envelope doesn’t match the signature on file for the voter.

“People should not be denied their right to vote because a government official doesn’t like their penmanship, but that’s exactly what is happening in California,” said Michael Risher, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “One disenfranchised voter would be too many, and we’re seeing tens of thousands of wrongly rejected ballots every election cycle in California alone.”

Nothing in the law tells voters they have to sign their ballot envelopes in any particular way, and election officials do not have to inform voters that their ballots are being thrown out or give them a chance to correct the signature problem. In California, thousands of eligible voters’ ballots are discarded each election cycle — with approximately 45,000 ballots discarded in the November 2016 general election alone due to a signature mismatch, disproportionately those of Asian American and Latino voters.

The suit asks that voters be notified of any signature concerns and given an opportunity to fix it before their vote is discarded.

“This disenfranchisement of eligible California voters is unconstitutional. Thousands more Californians stand to lose their vote in next year’s elections if this issue is not rectified now,” said Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.

Nearly 60 percent of the votes cast in the 2016 general election were cast by mail, and more than half the state’s voters are registered to vote by mail permanently. This number has been steadily increasing and will likely increase even more in 2018, when some California counties will begin mailing every registered voter a ballot under a new state law.

“The principle that all votes should be counted is the cornerstone of democracy,” said William Donovan Jr., a partner at Cooley. “This is not a partisan issue, but rather the goal is to ensure that every voter gets his or her vote counted as more and more people vote by mail.”

The lawsuit, La Follette v. Padilla, was filed in the California Court of Appeals/First Appellate Division.

The complaint is at: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/la-follette-v-padilla-complaint

This statement is at: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-californias-voter-signature-matching-law

New Bill Would Force Arrested Protesters to Pay Police Overtime, Other Fees

The Intercept

A new bill introduced by seven Pennsylvania Republican state lawmakers could force protesters arrested at demonstrations to pay for police overtime and other fees related to the action.

The bill, SB 754, has been introduced by Rep. Scott Martin of Lancaster County; his district has been the site of anti-pipeline protests aimed at the Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline.

Under the terms of the bill, “a person is responsible for public safety response costs incurred by a State agency or political subdivision as a result of the State agency’s or political subdivision’s response to a demonstration if, in connection with the demonstration, the person is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor offense.”

In other words, they could be on the hook for costs, such as police overtime, medical or emergency response, or other basic public services associated with protests. Whatever felony or misdemeanor offense the protester was convicted of would come with its own independent penalty.

Elizabeth Randol, the legislative director at the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union, raised two separate concerns about the bill. First, she warned, it could end up punishing protesters for acts they didn’t commit. “People can be fined and charged, liable for costs associated with a particular crime they committed. That’s normal,” she noted. “What’s different is that it expands it … to allow the government entity, like say, a state or it could be the National Guard, it could be the police department, to determine, to leave it up to them as to whether or not they want to attempt to recover additional costs that are associated with the protest but that are not necessarily related to the specific crime that the individual was convicted of.”

She also warned that the legislation singles out protesters. After all, police and emergency personnel respond to all sorts of situations. “Public protests are very strictly protected in constitutional law,” Randol noted. “We’re all sensitive to costs and to what that does to a tax bill or the kind of stress and strain it puts on our first responders. But you can’t have those costs be borne on the back of people who are protesting and engaging in their First Amendment protected rights to speech and assembly.”

The text of the legislation is not subtle about being inspired by anti-pipeline protests. It includes a lengthy section laying out the costs associated with the demonstrations against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota — citing specific figures, such as the “331,721 hours of response support” by local police and National Guard and a $38.2 million price tag for local and state taxpayers.

DeSmog Blog notes that Martin has close ties to pipeline lobbyists. Prior to joining the Pennsylvania Senate, Martin worked for a firm called Community Networking Strategies. CNS is a subsidiary of the lobbying firm, McNees, Wallace & Nurick — which lobbies for Gulf Oil Ltd, Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania, and Sunoco Logistics.

Sunoco Logistics is a company working on the Mariner East 2 pipeline, another Pennsylvania-based project that demonstrators have besieged. The company involved with the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline, Transco, hired the Pennsylvania Advocacy Group last year for consulting work; the Pennsylvania Advocacy Group was created in part by two lobbyists who worked at CNS.

Martin didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Top photo: A sign at the entrance to a small chapel built in the path of the proposed Atlantic Sunrise natural gas pipeline by the Adorers of the Blood of Christ, a group of Catholic nuns that support environmental justice, in Columbia, Pennsylvania, July 30, 2017.

Racist Newt Gingrich: The left's opposition to Trump is "almost verbatim" reaction slave newspapers had to Lincoln

Media Matters

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, look, I think a very good friend of mine teaches Civil War history at Gettysburg College and he has made the case that the parallels between Trump's inaugural and Lincoln's inaugural and the reactions to them are amazing.

That if you go and you look at how South Carolina's slave newspapers responded to Lincoln and then you look at how the left responded to Trump. They are almost verbatim parallels. 

And you know, I wish we could all sing Kumbaya and come together but I don't think that's going to happen. I think what's going to happen is the left is going to get crazier and crazier.

U.S. police, cities have faced at least 435 wrongful death suits involving Tasers

Reuters

U.S. police departments and municipalities have faced at least 435 wrongful death suits involving Tasers, leading to at least $172 million in publicly funded payouts to estates and families of those who died, a Reuters examination found.

As Taser International Inc has issued increasingly expansive warnings about the risks associated with its weapons, a rising percentage of the liability claims has focused exclusively on police, while litigation against the manufacturer has grown rare. Behind the legal battles lies a troubling truth: Many police officers remain unaware that Tasers have the potential to kill.

Taser, which changed its name this year to Axon Enterprise Inc, says its product safety warnings are “strong and unambiguous” and that its advisories protect both the company and its police clients from liability.

DOJ drops Facist request for IP addresses from Trump resistance site

The Hill 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is dropping its controversial request for visitor IP addresses related to an anti-Trump website. 

The government said in a brief released Tuesday that it has "no interest" in the 1.3 million IP addresses related to the website disruptj20.org. It says it is solely focused on information that could constitute evidence related to criminal rioting on Inauguration Day. 

“The Warrant — like the criminal investigation — is singularly focused on criminal activity,” the reply brief states. “It will not be used for any other purpose.” 

Privacy and civil liberties advocates were up in arms last week when the web hosting company DreamHost publicized a July 12 search warrant for information related to disruptj20.org, which was used to organize protests on Inauguration Day. 

DreamHost said complying with the request would amount to handing over roughly 1.3 million visitor IP addresses and other information about visitors to the site.

Lawyers for DreamHost opposed the warrant, arguing it raised First and Fourth Amendment concerns. 

“In essence, the Search Warrant not only aims to identify the political dissidents of the current administration, but attempts to identify and understand what content each of these dissidents viewed on the website,” the company’s lawyers said in a legal argument opposing the request.

In response, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., on Monday moved to amend the search warrant to DreamHost so that it specifies that the company should not disclose records that constitute HTTP request and error logs related to the website disruptj20.org. 

“What the government did not know when it obtained the Warrant — what it could not have reasonably known — was the extent of visitor data maintained by DreamHost that extends beyond the government’s singular focus in this case of investigating the planning, organization, and participation in the January 20, 2017, riot,” the reply brief states.  

The modified attachment to the search warrant also states that information requested from DreamHost should be limited to all records and information from between July 1, 2016, and Jan. 20, 2017. This information does not include content of unpublished draft publications for the website or records that constitute HTTP request and error logs that would reveal the IP addresses.

The brief also specifies that the information is being requested in connection with the ongoing investigation into the rioting that occurred on Inauguration Day. More than 200 people have been indicted on rioting charges related to the protests. 

“The government values and respects the First Amendment right of all Americans to participate in peaceful political protests and to read protected political expression online. This Warrant has nothing to do with that right,” the government states in the reply brief.

“The Warrant is focused on evidence of the planning, coordination and participation in a criminal act — that is, a premeditated riot. The First Amendment does not protect violent, criminal conduct such as this.” 

A lawyer for DreamHost celebrated the development as a win in a statement Tuesday evening, but said that the company still has First and Fourth Amendments concerns that it plans to address in a separate filing and at an upcoming hearing. 

"The government has now withdrawn entirely its unlawful and highly problematic request for any data relating to the visitors of the website and any unpublished data subject to the Privacy Protection Act," said Raymond Aghaian, the DreamHost counsel. "This is a tremendous win for DreamHost, its users and the public. There remains, unfortunately, other privacy and First and Fourth Amendment issues with the search warrant."

The government is asking the Superior Court of D.C. to compel DreamHost to produce the information requested in the warrant. A hearing on the issue has been schedule for Thursday morning before Chief Judge Robert Morin.

Congressional Black Caucus Tells Trump to Cancel the HBCU summit

CharlottePost

The White House has no plans to reschedule its conference for Historically Black Colleges and Universities scheduled for next month, despite calls from lawmakers and other leaders to postpone the event.

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, slammed the Trump administration in a call with reporters on Monday, noting that nothing has changed since HBCU leaders went to the White House in February.

“They brought all those HBCUs to town. They took a picture in the Oval Office and then they did nothing,” said Richmond. “If you look at President Trump’s budget he has a number of actions in it that actually hurt HBCUs.”

Instead of a conference, Richmond called for “substantive policies” to help HBCUs.

“I don’t think you need a conference in D.C. in order to do that,” Richmond told reporters. Further, he said, “This White House is not serious about improving our HBCUs, our institutions of advancement.”

President Trump signed an executive order in February establishing a White House Initiative on HBCUs. But despite fanfare surrounding the order and the White House-HBCUs listening sessions (at which there was “very little listening,” according to a subsequent blog post by Dillard University President Walter M. Kimbrough), no progress has been made, and Trump has not yet assigned someone to be in charge of the initiative.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last month that the Trump administration is struggling to find someone willing to lead the effort. A spokesperson for the White House reportedly told the outlet that there are several finalists in the running for the position.

Meanwhile, Trump’s budget released in March proposed a 13.5 percent budget cut for the Education Department, going from $68.2 billion in 2017 to $59 billion in 2018. HBCUs and the Pell Grant Program were promised no additional funding, and the Pell Grant was set to lose its $3.9 billion reserve fund. Various programs that provide funding for students from low-income and disadvantaged backgrounds to attend school were scheduled for severe budget cuts or eliminated entirely.

Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, suggested in a letter to White House officials that substantive action be taken rather than hosting a conference, according to HBCU Digest.

“If the event is postponed, we request that the administration use the intervening period to hire an executive director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs and appointing the membership of the President’s Advisory Board on HBCUs; these appointments are necessary first steps for this administration to show its commitment to advancing the HBCU agenda,” the publication reported the letter as saying.

Citing “recent events” and inaction from the White House regarding HBCUs, U.S. Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), chair of the North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus Foundation, said in a press release the event should not take place yet:

“Earlier this month, my colleagues and I asked the administration for an update on their progress regarding HBCUs. In February, the president signed an executive order outlining greater investments and additional resources for HBCUs. It has become painstakingly clear that these promises are not being kept. In this current environment, and with zero progress made on any of their priorities, it would be highly unproductive to ask HBCU presidents to come back to Washington.”

Adams did not explicitly mention Charlottesville in her statement. Following the violent rally that left a 32-year-old counter-protester dead at the hands of a 20-year-old white supremacist, Trump insisted there were “very fine people” on the neo-Nazi side of the rally and described violence “on both sides.”

According to Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, Lezli Baskerville, president and CEO of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, directly addressed Trump’s remarks after Charlottesville in a letter to HBCU leaders.

Baskerville “made it clear that President Trump’s response to the ‘national disgrace that was Charlottesville and the false equivalency he made between the Nazis/white supremacists and those who opposed them’ have many people questioning his competence as president,” the publication reported.

Omarosa Manigault, director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison for the president, confirmed in a statement to BuzzFeed News that the conference would go as planned.

“President Trump’s commitment to the HBCU community remains strong and unwavering,” Manigault told the outlet. “Registration is currently at capacity and we are looking forward to welcoming HBCU presidents, students, and guests.”

“Though Manigault-Newman’s statement indicated that the White House would roll out announcements on the board and advisory committee during the conference, a source advising the White House on HBCUs said he’s talked to ‘multiple people’ in HBCU circles who have privately slammed Trump’s comments with disgust,” BuzzFeed reported.

The conference is scheduled for Sept. 17-19 in Arlington, Virginia.

Under Trump, white evangelicals show their true racist colors

LATimes

The statistics tell one story: 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. The deafening silence from leaders of the religious right in the wake of the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville, Va., points to an even larger one, which places racism at the very heart of the movement.

On the face of it, evangelical support for Trump is anomalous. How can a movement ostensibly concerned about “family values” support a twice-divorced, thrice-married man who said that his “personal Vietnam” was avoiding sexually transmitted diseases? How could evangelicals vote for someone who flaunted his infidelities and who boasted about his tawdry behavior toward women?

The standard rejoinder is that evangelicals were so concerned about abortion and, therefore, judicial appointments that they were prepared to ignore Trump’s indiscretions to advance the one cause — opposition to abortion — that lay at the core of their political movement. That argument collapses, however, on historical examination.

Several evangelical leaders and evangelical organizations applauded the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. The late Paul Weyrich, architect of the religious right, was emphatic that abortion had nothing whatsoever to do with the genesis of evangelical political activism in the 1970s, a sentiment echoed by other conservative leaders, including Richard Viguerie and Grover Norquist. [MORE]

UN condemns Donald Trump for not 'unequivocally rejecting racist violent events' in Charlottesville

The Independent 

The United Nations has criticised Donald Trump for failing to "unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes in Charlottesville" and throughout the US.

“There should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality," the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said.

While the committee's statement stopped short of criticising the US President by name, it said it was calling on the US Government, as well as high-level politicians and public officials, “to address the root causes of the proliferation of such racist manifestations.” [MORE]

Charlottesville: United Nations warns US over 'alarming' racism

Guardian 

A UN committee charged with tackling racism has issued an “early warning” over conditions in the US and urged the Trump administration to “unequivocally and unconditionally” reject discrimination.

The warning specifically refers to events last week in Charlottesville, Virginia, where the civil rights activist Heather Heyer was killed when a car rammed into a group of people protesting against a white nationalist rally.

Such statements are usually issued by the United Nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination (Cerd) over fears of ethnic or religious conflict. In the past decade, the only other countries issued with early warnings have been Burundi, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.

The United States has been warned under the procedure in the past when Cerd raised the issue of land rights conflicts with the Western Shoshone indigenous peoples in 2006. [MORE]

Charlottesville Episode on VICE News: Race and Terror

Dick Gregory RIP

From [NYTimes] Dick Gregory, the pioneering black satirist who transformed cool humor into a barbed force for civil rights in the 1960s, then veered from his craft for a life devoted to protest and fasting in the name of assorted social causes, health regimens and conspiracy theories, died Saturday in Washington. He was 84.

Mr. Gregory’s son, Christian Gregory, who announced his death on social media, said more details would be released in the coming days. Mr. Gregory had been admitted to a hospital on Aug. 12, his son said in an earlier Facebook post. 

Some of his lines became classics, like the one about a restaurant waitress in the segregated South who told him, “We don’t serve colored people here,” to which Mr. Gregory replied: “That’s all right, I don’t eat colored people. Just bring me a whole fried chicken.” Lunch-counter sit-ins, central to the early civil rights protests, did not always work out as planned. “I sat in at a lunch counter for nine months,” he said. “When they finally integrated, they didn’t have what I wanted.” [MORE]

Rep. Gutiérrez arrested at White House immigration rally commemorating the 5th anniversary of DACA

TheHill

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) and about 30 other protesters were arrested Tuesday outside the White House during a rally commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Gutiérrez, a vocal advocate for immigrant rights, was arrested after he and other protesters sat on the White House sidewalk. The rally was being held at Lafayette Square across Pennsylvania Avenue.

Doug Rivlin, a spokesman for Gutiérrez, said the congressman was taken by U.S. Park Police, who have jurisdiction over the area surrounding the White House. Those arrested Tuesday were taken to Park Police headquarters in Anacostia Park, Rivlin said. [MORE]