Category Archives: First Amendment

If you listened to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's addressonThursday, you might have thought she was announcing an armed revolution. She opened with "Let us begin where our founders began in 1776. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another."

The good news is that there will be no revolution for now. Thespeaker was just awkwardly trying to equate President Trump with Great Britain's"oppressive monarch" George III and Democrats' impeachment efforts with the founding of our republic.

Pelosi wrapped herself so tightly in our nation's founding documents that in her first 90 words alone, she explicitly mentioned the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and "our founders," while quoting both the Declaration and Article II of the Constitution. She then went on to cite the Constitution'sseparation of powers and its check and balances, as well as thenames and wise words of no less than fourfoundingfathers, allas justification for Democrats' impeachment proceedings.

IAN PRIOR: SCHIFF'S IMPEACHMENT DRIVE SHOWS CONGRESS CAN INVADE YOUR PRIVACY, GETTING PHONE AND OTHER RECORDS

Pelosi even cited "our founders firm reliance on divine providence," a profound irony for the leader of a party that considers a display of the Ten Commandments on public property to be a threat to freedom.

Pelosi's partner in impeachment,Rep. Adam Schiff,and the three anti-Trump law professors who led off the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings on Wednesday were equally eager to blanket theirpassion fordrivingthe president from office with the words of thefounding.Rarely have the leaders of the Democratic party and their allies expressed such reverence for the founding documents and their authors. If only it were genuine.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

What this crowd usually saysaboutthe Constitutionisthat it'sa deeply flawed document,written by an oppressor class of dead white males,that ratified both the institution of slavery and the oppression of women.

Instead of lauding the Constitution as they didlastweek,they typically portray it as a document so obsolete that its text should not be taken literally. They embrace an alternative "living Constitution" which means not what the founders intended it to mean but what the more enlightened activist judges of today think it ought to mean.

They complain bitterly that the founding fathers stuck us with the "undemocratic" Electoral College and a Senate that gives small, deplorable red states the same number of senators as large, enlightened states like California and New York. They bemoan the Constitution's lack of "positive rights" such as rights to healthcare and welfare;find rights to abortion, same-sex marriage and the like in the document's "penumbras";and disparage the unfashionable parts of the Bill of Rights.

Pelosi and company's attempt to tie their impeachment efforts to the founding is part of a larger Trump-era phenomena in which haters of the president wrap themselves in Constitution-evoking clichs while paradoxically displaying an increasing disregard for the actual Constitution.

You'll never hear thespeaker and her allies cite the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms" unless it's to argue that those words don't mean what they say. Similarly, they increasingly distance themselves from the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression and religion, which they see a dangerous enabler of politically incorrect speech and discrimination. And that's just the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Pelosi and company's attempt to tie their impeachment efforts to the founding is part of a larger Trump-era phenomena in which haters of the president wrap themselves in Constitution-evoking clichs"democratic norms," "abuse of power," and "above the law," are some of their favoriteswhile paradoxically displaying an increasing disregard for the actual Constitution.

Two examples of this uneasy relationship with the Constitution are Democrats' unyielding refusal to accept the legitimacy of the last presidential electionunseen since President Lincoln's election triggered the Civil Warand their refusal to recognize the supremacy of federal immigration law in sanctuary cities and states. By thumbing their nose at the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, they evoke memories of the cries for "states' rights" in the Jim Crow era.

Another troubling example is use by the president's opponents of politically motivated legal standardswhat I call "Trump Law." This affront to the rule of law is well illustrated by novel, creatively broad definitions of criminal offenses (concerning bribery, perjury, obstruction of justice and the like) that are intended to apply only to this president and his associates and that threaten the constitutional guarantee of due process.

Equally illustrative is thecreationbyliberal federal judgesofunprecedented,non-deferentialstandards for enjoining presidential actions, thusunderminingthe Constitution'sseparation of powers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Several pages could be filled with additional examples of Democrats' increasingdisregard forthe Constitution. But it should already be clear that the reverencefor the Constitution and its authors displayed byPelosi and her allies this week is,at best, highly selective.

Solet's take that reverence for what it's wortha reminder that the words of the founding fathers are still persuasiveand hope it gives the left just a little bit of pause the next time theyre tempted to disparage the Constitution.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CURT LEVEY

See the rest here:
Curt Levey: Trump impeachment drives Democrats' love of Constitution here's how they really feel - Fox News

The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense, iStock-1006474816

United States -(AmmoLand.com)-When discussing Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren recently, one thing has been very clear: Both of them have been very open about their desire to silence Second Amendment supporters. Yeah, they say it is just the National Rifle Association, but then again, dont they claim that they dont want to take away guns? Well, they used to say that these days, we know that is a lie.

Cuomo began a campaign of financial blacklisting against the NRA, at the urging of Everytown for Gun Safety, while Warren plans to use the IRS whether it means Lois Lerner comes out of retirement (and her six-figure pension) remains to be seen (and hopefully, we never find out) in conjunction with campaign finance reform that is really aimed at shutting up dissent from her anti-Second Amendment extremism.

Warren and Cuomo are trying to silence the voices of Second Amendment supporters. For good reason when Second Amendment supporters can get a fair hearing from their fellow Americans, they win the argument. The facts often shoot down the pretexts that are used to infringe on our rights. If fellow Americans knew how few people were killed with rifles and shotguns, the bans proposed by many on modern multi-purpose semiautomatics would be dead on arrival, and the politicians responsible for pushing for the bans would find their careers dead in the water.

This is why Second Amendment supporters need to defend the First Amendment with just as much vigor. The First Amendment is the first line of defense for our Second Amendment rights it is with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances that we fight.

With freedom of speech and freedom of the press comes the ability to persuade our fellow Americans, whether one-on-one or to millions at a time via mass media or social media. With the right to peaceably assemble, Second Amendment supporters strengthen their voice by uniting for a common purpose, sometimes through formal organizations like the National Rifle Association, sometimes through more informal groups. The right to petition for redress of grievances can be as simple as a letter, phone call or e-mail to an elected official or it could entail hiring a professional to present the case to elected officials.

Just having these rights, which pre-exist the Constitution and the protection of which is codified in the Bill of Rights, is not enough. They are merely tools. Their effectiveness depends on how skillfully they are used. For the most part, Second Amendment supporters have been skillful enough in their use of their First Amendment rights to preserve our freedoms.

That said, we as Second Amendment supporters have to recognize that there is a need to up our game on this front. Those who seek to deprive us of our rights have adjusted in the wake of their failures, and we need to adjust to the adjustments they have made.

This includes the recognition that the fight for our rights has become a full-spectrum fight, one that has to be fought not just in the political and legislative arena, but also in corporate boardrooms, PTA meetings, and even when it comes to our professional life. Yet even in these new areas where we have to fight for our freedoms, it will be our First Amendment rights that will help save the Second Amendment.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Read more:
The First Amendment is the First Line of Defense - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

I applaud the Day's stand in advocating for the children of New London along with the State Office of the Child Advocate's concern. But the view from the outfield for manyof your readers is that you are not consistent in just reporting the news. I am talking about another report released by the State Office of the Child Advocate.

That would be their report on the Newtown shootings at Sandy Hook. The Newtown reportrevealed the tragic path of Adam Lanza and the long list of failed checks and balances that could have prevented the Newtown tragedy. It's an interesting read and has nothing to do with gun manufacturers manufactures and the upcoming civil litigation against them.

What then is its purpose? The answer would be the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the right to carry firearms.

While I would agree that the First Amendment is our most cherished amendment, I have heard said the reason we have the Second amendment is just in case someone tries to remove the First Amendment. The First and Second Amendments are krypton to the socialist progressive leftist and their mainstream media allies.

James L. Miller

Salem

See the article here:
Want to protect First Amendment? Then maintain Second Amendment - theday.com

By Linda Bryant

Many jails across the country, in an effort to reduce costs and offer inmates more opportunities for connection with loved ones and friends, increasingly rely on inmate video visitation. According to the American Bar Association, as of July 2018, over 600 correctional facilities across the country hadimplemented some form of video visitation. Jails invoke laudable justifications for incorporating video visitation into their offerings: to prevent the influx ofcontrabandinto their facility, to free up limited officer time, and to offer family and friends more opportunities to connect with their loved one.

However, there are three inmate video visitation landmines that can create legal challenges for jail administrators. If these landmines exist in your facility, you can expect lawsuits asserting your jail is violating the constitution by unreasonably restricting aninmates First Amendment rightto communicate and associate with others.

Often, a jail moves towardsupplanting in-person visitation with video visitation. This is the wrong approach unless you want to be an easy target for plaintiffs lawyers. Lawsuits challenging video visitation are increasing against jails that use the technology to justify a decrease in or to eliminate in-person visitation. These lawsuits are ending in settlements requiring in-person visitation, payment of large fees associated with civil litigation alleging a violation of constitutional rights, and state laws clarifying that in-person visitation may not be supplanted by video visitation.

The American Bar AssociationsCriminal Justice Sections Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the ABAs House of Delegates in 2010, warns about eliminating in-person visitation. Standard 23-8.5(e), the standard governing visitation, states:Correctional officials should develop and promote other forms of communication between prisoners and their families, including video visitation, provided that such options are not a replacement for opportunities for in-person contact.[1]

Jail leaders should also heed the 2016 American Correctional AssociationPublic Correctional Policy on Family-Friendly Communication and Visitation, which states:Correctional agencies should promote communication between offenders and their family and friends and adopt family-friendly policies that use emerging technologies as supplements to existing in-person visitation.[2]

The bottom line is to remember the key phrase: SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT!

A common business model for video visitation and large phone contracts between vendors and jails is for the vendor to charge for a call or video visitation session sometimes at an unreasonably high cost and provide some of the revenue earned back to the jail. The 2016 ACA Public Correctional Policy referenced earlier again provides the lodestar:Do not place unreasonable financial burdens upon the offender or their family and friends. The policy goes on to state:Establish rates and surcharges that are commensurate with those charged to the general public for like services any deviation from ordinary consumer rates should reflect actual costs associated with the provision of services within a correctional setting.[2]

Look, this has to be said: Anytime you have a jail profiting off the fundamental human need to communicate with family members and friends, or when exorbitant fees are charged to simply exercise this right, youre going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Its going to appear you are exploiting people and doing so knowingly and unconstitutionally. The incredible responsibility jail leaders have for the care, custody, and control of individuals, many of whom have not been convicted, does not include the ability to profit off of those same individuals, or to charge those same individuals for a lesser-quality form of visitation (where the constitutionally preferred in-person visitation is free).

While reasonable fees are defensible, exorbitant fees and kickback models are viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism by the courts. And no matter what, if you are charging fees for visitation in the absence of any opportunity for in-person visitation, you should talk to your lawyer quickly.

Weve all been frustrated by bad or lost reception during an important phone call or Facetime, Skype, Teams or Zoom session. Now imagine if your only means of communicating with the outside world was limited to a few minutes each week, and through a provider nowhere near as cutting-edge as some of the better-known telecommunications or social media giants. Through no fault of your own, your call (which your loved one paid for while also trying to pay other bills and put food on the table for your kids) is cut short. Or, the video freezes. Or the audio is out of sync with the video.

Any of these technological glitches lead to a horrible user experience. So you end up having to manage your frustrations and concentrate doubly hard to hear half the conversation. You wind up frustrated during the call. Its hard enough for an adult to cognitively piece together sentences and conversations in these instances; imagine if youre trying to communicate with your small child in this manner. That small child will soon lose patience and do something else, wasting the precious few minutes you receive to visit with family.

A study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections foundin-person visits decreased inmate recidivism by 13 percent. [3] Other research has shown thatin-person parent-child visits improve outcomes for children with incarcerated parents as well as for the inmates. [4] All jail professionals know the value of any program that reduces recidivism. Faulty inmate video visitation technology, or a faulty video visitation experience, swallows the visitation session itself and detracts from rather than enhances the purpose of visitation: maintaining strong bonds with loved ones and the community to ensure success upon release.

Jail leaders must remember that being able to connect with loved ones helps reaffirm ones humanity in an otherwise dehumanizing situation and serves to ease an inmates return to the community upon release. Against this backdrop, inmate video visitation is like any technology it can be beneficial or destructive. Avoiding the three landmines listed above will help ensure video visitation enhances your jails visitation offerings without endangering inmates constitutional rights or reducing their chances of successfully transitioning back into society.

References

1. American Bar Association. Standard 23-8.5: Visiting.Standards on Treatment of Prisoners.

2. American Correctional Association. Public Correctional Policy on Family-Friendly Communication and Visitation.Public Correctional Policies(see page 82).

3. Minnesota Department of Corrections.The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism.

4, Poehlmann J, Dallaire D, Booker Loper A, et al. Childrens contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations.American Psychologist. 2010 Sep; 65(6): 575598.

About the author

Linda Bryany, JD, CJM, was appointed by the Governor of Virginia to the Virginia Parole Board. Parachutist-qualified, she served as a Captain on active duty in the U.S. Army and a Major in the Army Reserves. For over 17 years, she prosecuted violent crime and homicides for the city of Norfolk, VA, rising through the ranks to become a Deputy Commonwealths Attorney. In 2013, Linda was appointed to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Division of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, where she oversaw the litigation of all lawsuits against the Virginia Department of Corrections. She has also served as the assistant superintendent and compliance attorney for a mega-jail that houses special management inmates. Currently, Linda is a consultant for Lexipols Corrections solutions and a consultant and instructor for the American Jail Association.

Link:
Inmate video visitation and the First Amendment: 3 landmines to avoid - CorrectionsOne

A woman tries out a rifle at a National Shooting Sports Foundation's Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas.

Getty Images

Matt Post is too young to remember the last time the Supreme Court heard a case over gun control.

But the 20-year-old college student is hoping the nine justices think of him and other members of the so-called mass-shooting generation when they consider the scope of the Second Amendment during arguments in a landmark dispute next week.

"The shooting in Sandy Hook happened when I was in sixth grade, and I think it's hard for people who didn't grow up with this to learn how it weighs on you," Post, an activist with March for Our Lives, said in a recent interview.

"Someone can just come in and slaughter your classmates," he said. "The Constitution guarantees you a better childhood than that."

On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear its first major Second Amendment case since 2010.

The dispute, over a since-repealed New York City handgun regulation, comes amid heightened criticism of the nation's uniquely permissive gun laws. A decision is expected by July, in the midst of the 2020 presidential election.

Gun-control advocates worry that a ruling could spell doom for measures that have been considered lawful by appeals courts in the past nine years, like assault weapon bans and restrictions on gun use outside the home.

For gun-rights supporters, the case is a welcome return to the Second Amendment for a court that they see as having abandoned such cases for too long.

While the top court has repeatedly taken cases featuring other aspects of the Bill of Rights, some conservatives, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have lamented what they see as the justices treating the Second Amendment as a "second-class right."

With a divided Congress unlikely to reach a deal on gun legislation any time soon, the most important vote on the issue for the foreseeable future is likely to come from the justices.

The case has already spurred fighting among lawmakers. After a group of Democratic senators led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., filed a brief in connection with the case warning the court it could be "restructured," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate told the justices that they would protect them.

The composition of the court has shifted since the court last heard a case involving gun legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy has since departed, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have joined it, forming a reliable conservative majority. Kavanaugh in particular has expressed an expansive view of gun rights.

The court established a loose framework for gun legislation in a pair of cases decided in 2008 and 2010. In the 2008 case, D.C. v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protected gun ownership unconnected with service in a militia. In 2010, the court applied that ruling to the states, in McDonald v. Chicago.

Hannah Shearer, who researches Second Amendment litigation at the Giffords Law Center, an anti-gun violence group, said that since 2010 lower courts have treated the provision similarly to the First Amendment.

"They consider whether the law burdens Second Amendment rights, and whether there is a compelling public safety reason that is supported by evidence," Shearer said.

The worry among gun-control proponents, Shearer said, is that the court could do away with considerations of public safety, known as a balancing test.

"It would mean that judges couldn't consider the public safety need for any given gun law and would only be looking at whether the law is supported by early American history," she said.

Kavanaugh is on record as an opponent of the balancing test, having laid out his views in a 2011 dissent issued while a federal appeals court judge in Washington.

"Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny," he wrote.

Thomas, who has been vocal about gun rights, and Gorsuch, whose approach to the law focuses heavily on how the Constitution was understood in the 18th century, are also likely votes in favor of broadening the reach of the Second Amendment.

So, too, with fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who were part of the Heller and McDonald majorities, though their records are less certain.

A sliver of hope for those on the left is that the court could drop the case altogether, due to a recent move by New York.

The suit was brought by a group of gun owners living in New York City and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, an NRA-affiliate group, which challenged a New York City regulation barring the transport of handguns outside the home, including to a second residence.

But that rule, which was believed to be the only such regulation of its kind in the nation, no longer exists. After the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, New York rushed to do away with the rule, seeking to avoid a ruling that could weaken gun control laws around the country.

Attorneys for New York argued that the city's move made the case "moot," or no longer active, and urged the court to dismiss the matter. But the court has not done so, and the gun owners argue that their case is still live because the city could still penalize them for past violations.

The Trump administration, which is supporting the gun owners before the court, has argued that the case is still worth hearing because the gun owners could theoretically seek financial damages, though they haven't done so yet.

In any case, the justices have decided to move forward with oral arguments. They have warned the attorneys who will be arguing on Monday that they should be prepared to debate whether the case is still active.

"We hope and expect that the court will dismiss this case as moot," Shearer said.

If it does so, the legal landscape for gun legislation will likely be unchanged, at least for now.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280.

Read the original:
The Supreme Court is about to hear its biggest gun-control case in a decade - CNBC

Eric Rasmussens critics thought they were going to silence him. Instead, in a repeat of similar misadventures in would-be censorship in the past, they expanded his platform to express opinions they find vile.

The Indiana University business professor reported that the number of my Twitter followers has risen from less than 400 to 833 from November 18th to 21st and my web log still exists and has over 10 times the number of readers it used to have.

The lesson: Intimidation can backfire, he said.

The veteran professor doesnt seem too rattled by his negative experience in the national spotlight. He described his widely reported battle with IU administrators as a kerfuffle defined as disorder, uproar, confusion.

But that snickering description only emphasizes an obvious fact the professor has the hide of a rhino.

Rasmussen was denounced by the IU administration for what were described as racist, sexist and homophobic remarks on social media. News reports of the controversy generated a huge public reaction, to the point that IUs provost complained that various (university officials) have been inundated in the last few days with demands that he be fired.

IU officials did not dismiss Rasmussen because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids us to do so.

That is not a close call, said Lauren Robel, vice president and provost.

But Robel responded to Rasmussens speech with statement of her own. She described his opinions as wrong and immoral and stunningly ignorant.

Rhetorically speaking, Professor Rasmussen has demonstrated no difficulty in casting the first, or the lethal, stone, she said.

Lethal? Thats what the provost said in an obvious overstatement. But her rhetoric is consistent with the current leftist stance that being exposed to opinions they do not share constitutes acts of violence that cause physical and/or psychological wounds.

Rasmussens sin came when he posted an article written by Lance Welton that raised a dubious assertion, Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably. A number of news outlets reported that Rasmussen, not Welton, wrote it, further fanning the flames of outrage.

If the media cant get the simplest facts right, dont trust their summaries or conclusions. Read original sources. Be suspicious of articles that dont give links to their sources, Rasmussen warned on his blog.

Theres no question Rasmussens views are out of step with current campus political orthodoxies. Rasmussen has raised questions about the propriety of affirmative action, womens roles in society and homosexuality, all of which received a thorough and hostile airing in the recent controversy.

In addition to the vigorous denunciation of Rasmussen, IU announced that no one will be forced to take a class from Professor Rasmussen and that, in the future, he will use double-blind grading on assignment, an apparent attempt to blunt his alleged hostility to certain kinds of students.

Rather than roll into a fetal position, Rasmussen fired back at his critics, including the provost.

She lies about my opinions or, at least, she carelessly attributes specific opinions to me that I have never held, without evidence (no links) and without confirming with me first, he replied.

Rasmussen also challenged the double-blind grading. He said administrators are sending a clear message to the student body.

Having seen the Provost and Dean down on a professor who does not share their views, students will feel more comfortable in expressing their own views that is, they will know what to expect if they speak freely in the classes of the 99 percent of professors who are (a) leftwing, and (b) exempt from blind grading, he said. Indiana University is not discouraging bias, but encouraging it, even requiring it, as a condition of teaching.

God help the conservative student whose professor checks Facebook and Twitter before grading term papers.

Jim Dey, a member of The News-Gazette staff, can be reached at jdey@news-gazette.com or 217-351-5369.

Follow this link:
Free-speech controversies not exclusive to the UI - Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette

Terrorism is an age-old concept.

Some people think the first attack happened in the first century against Roman collaborators.

But modern terrorism is thought to come out of mid-19th century France, when good-quality, affordable explosives hit the market and radical political movements became more prominent.

It came to the U.S. during the same time frame.

Today, the terrorism landscape is much different, and so is the response.

The FBI says its No. 1 priority is protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks, regardless of motivation.

Terrorism investigations fall into two categories at the FBI: international terrorism and domestic terrorism.

The first is when an attack is inspired by or associated with foreign organizations or nations.

If the attack or attacks are meant to further a domestic influences goals, its domestic terror.

The FBIs examples of domestic terror motivations include politics, religion, race and social issues.

Domestic terror remains persistent overall, according to the FBI.

The FBI says people cross the line from exercising First Amendment freedoms to committing crimes in hopes of furthering violent agendas.

Terrorism has evolved immensely since 9/11.

The FBI says lone offenders and the internet have accelerated that evolution.

According to the FBI, lone offenders are tougher to identify and stop because they arent always clearly tied to a group.

And the internet social media, in particular helps terrorists connect with potential recruits more easily.

To meet the evolving threat, law enforcement is constantly changing its approach.

The rest is here:
The Race 2020 How terrorism started and how it's evolved Scripps National 9:55 AM, Nov - 10News

December is a month for all sorts of different holidays for several different religions.

But what you might not know about December is that its also home to more than 100 other holidays and national days.

Tomorrow, you can eat some of that leftover pie from Thanksgiving on National Pie Day.

The day is actually the second Pie Day of the year, the first is on Jan. 23. Theres also National Pi Day on March 14.

So while the day isnt that special, it gives you another occasion to stuff your pie hole.

Dec. 3 is National Roof Over Your Head Day. The day wascreated as a day to be thankful for what you have, starting with the roof over your head.

The day this year also happens to be Giving Tuesday, the day after Cyber Monday, in which people are encouraged to donate, or give, to their favorite cause. The day was created in 2012 as a way to bring focus on charitable giving in the wake of the commercialized Black Friday and Cyber Monday.

National Bathtub Party Day is on Dec. 5. The day is simply meant to enjoy a bath instead of a shower, but it also encourages group participation. Do with that what you will.

The first Saturday in December is apparently National Rhubarb Vodka Day. The website that aggregates national holidays, nationaldaycalendar.com, states the day was created because ofthe popularity of Rhubarb Vodka and its quick rise as a popular beverage.

I dont think thats true at all, but I guess heres to trying new things.

Dec. 8 is Pretend to be a Time Traveler Day. The day, which began in 2007, encourages people tospend the entire day in costume and character. The only rule is that you cannot tell anyone youre a time traveler.

If acting isnt your thing, you could just watch a movie or TV show, or read a book, about time travel, of which there are many.

A few months ago, we had National Noodle Day and National Pasta Day, but in December, theres National Noodle Ring Day on the 11th. I cant say Ive ever cooked with little ring-shaped noodles, but I might have to try it that day.

Now we must take a special moment to recognize my birthday on Dec. 15. This is my favorite day of the year, as its all about me.

I was born at 12:40 a.m. I thought everyone knew what time they were born, but Im just now learning thatnot many people know this about themselves.

I know I share my birthday with others, like a guy I met on the train to Chicago last year, and a set of twins that are related to me somehow, but I also share the day with National Cupcake Day and National Lemon Cupcake Day. Ill pass on the latter.

The day is also Bill of Rights Day, as designated by presidential proclamation in 1941 by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The day was proclaimed on the 150-year anniversaryofthe first10 amendments, the great American charter of personal liberty and human dignity, becomingpart of the Constitution.

The first amendment gives me the freedom of speech and press that allows me to write this column for you.

To speed through the rest of the month, we haveNational Roast Suckling Pig Day on Dec. 18, National Date Nut Bread Day on Dec. 22, and, of course,National Eggnog Day on Dec. 24.

National Candy Cane Day is Dec. 26, and National Fruitcake Day is Dec. 27.

Dec. 31 is not only New Years Eve, its also National Champaign Day, No Interruptions Day and Make Up Your Mind Day. The last one there is meant for you to pick a New Years resolution.

If you have a holiday youre passionate about, let me know at anewman@TheHP.com. If you celebrate ones of these holidays, tweet me a picture @HPANewman.

Alexandra Newman is a staff writer for The Herald-Palladium.

Read the original:
The holiday season is a lot bigger than you think - Herald Palladium

Netflix and When They See Us writer-director Ava DuVernay are fighting back on a lawsuit filed against them and the figurative punches are formal.

As The Root reported in October, police interrogation firm John E. Reid and Associates filed a lawsuit against DuVernay and the production company/streaming platform in regards to the hit miniseries, claiming defamation. The lawsuit specifically cited a particular scene where an investigator refers to the controversially coercive method, the Reid Technique, as universally rejected.

According to Vulture, Netflixand DuVernay have now formally responded to the lawsuit, claiming the aforementioned dialogue, which was a stated opinion, in the award-winning miniseries is protected by the First Amendment and literary hyperbole.

Vulture reports:

In a Chicago district court filing, Netflix said the lawsuit is both unconstitutional and dangerous. The dialogue at issue is fully protected speech under the First Amendment and is not actionable as a matter of law, reads the filing. Permitting this case to go forward would not only be contrary to law, it would have a profoundly chilling effect on core First Amendment speech.

Speaking of appropriately seeing someone as a fully realized human being, Hollywood is continually having an issue with that when it comes to black people. DuVernay recently took to Twitter, noting that she had been mistaken as the director of Harriet and Queen & Slim by non-black people 11 different times so far. 11. Different. Times.

Ive now been congratulated by non-black folks in Hollywood 11 different times about my direction of Harriet and Queen and Slim, DuVernay tweeted on Tuesday. When I share that I didnt direct those films, that they are made by black women directors who are not me? Nervous chuckles. Apologies. This place.

As we know, the directors of those films are actually Kasi Lemmons and Melina Matsoukas, respectively. Neither of these three women look alike nor are their names remotely similar, so people washing their hands of this as an honest mistake certainly isnt an option. It is lazy, racist and ignorant, especially in an era that is afforded with ample Google. Ugh

That said, well keep our eyes peeled on the progression of the lawsuit and will keep you posted on pertinent updates as they arise.

Visit link:
Ava DuVernay and Netflix Formally Respond to When They See Us Lawsuit, Claim Dialogue Is Protected Under First Amendment - The Root

Nov. 28 To the Editor:

I read with interest Mr. Pokoskis satirical diatribe about holiday names and observances. He -seems- to be completely oblivious to the point that (Fosters,) regular posting of the First Amendment is the premise for local governments to opt out of religious holiday observances. See http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/ for a full list of these. Find out how many states have decided to observe religious holidays, despite the First Amendment.

Yes, our schools, public and private, would observe a plethora of days we have marked for decades, if not centuries. The point is that no specific religion is to be promoted, by word or deed, by our government.

Some of these holidays are only observed because of commercial interests. (Indeed, Lents Friday Fish observances were advanced by fishermen promoting their product which, incidentally, the Twelve Apostles gave up as employment to become followers of Christ.) Valentines Day is now seen as an adaptation of one of Aesops Fables. Look it up. Greeting card companies lobbied for this and other sentimental holidays. (Like Mothers and Fathers Days, our countrys sole recognition of the importance of procreation and raising future citizens.)

Easter, and Saint Patricks Day, are religious holidays not honored by the government for days off, but as with Ash Wednesday, all religious persons are entitled to time off to observe their holy day of obligation when it is requested, or the institution, (faith,) provides alternatives for those who must work, regardless. (Early services, Saturday Mass, etc.) If your employer does not consider your request seriously, then remind him/her they must allow unpaid time off for Federal Service obligations, like Reservist assemblies and week-long exercises, and that the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and that freedom of worship is also promoted by non-discrimination laws.

Thanksgiving and Christmas are religious holidays, hands-down. Because of a majority of Christian persons in our population, and, in the case of the latter; worldwide respect, these are Federally sanctioned days off. It would lead to widespread chaos if all specific religions had such government backing in our supposed non-theistic government. The anti-discrimination laws are a compensation for this to people of all faiths and those espousing none.

Many local governments and companies do not recognize several others above, including Patriots Day, and of course, Halloween, our unique custom, (also a pagan observance,) and which precedes All Saints and Souls Day. Im not going to touch the Fourth of July. Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day, to commemorate the end of the War to End All Wars, the First World War.

Presidents Day, (Federal except 11 States,) and Columbus Day, (Federal except 17 States,) are likewise become less observed by any but retailers, along with Christmas, Thanksgiving, and many others.

Truthfully, Christmas is an arbitrary date celebrating Christs birth. By dedicated study, many theologists have determined that Jesus was born around September or early October of the present calendar. It seems to have been one religious leaders attempt to undercut pagan Winter Solstice celebrations.

All these commemoration days are attempts at reminding our citizens that we have a past.

Yes, Mr. Pokoski, there really is a Santa Claus(e.)

Diane M. Starkey

Rochester

Link:
Yes, Mr. Pokoski, there really is a Santa Claus(e.) - Seacoastonline.com