westernjournal--2020-01-19--Denver Officials Refuse To Give ICE Information on Immigrants Arrested for Sexual Assault, Child Abu

Denver Officials Refuse To Give ICE Information on Immigrants Arrested for Sexual Assault, Child Abuse, Domestic Violence

Denver officials said Thursday they would not hand over information requested by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement on four men wanted for deportation .
ICE , the Homeland Security agency tasked with arresting and deporting people in the U.S. illegally , sent four administrative subpoenas earlier this week to law enforcement looking for information on three Mexican nationals and one Honduran who had been in custody in Denver .
It was the first time subpoenas had been sent to a law enforcement agency — an escalation of the conflict between the Trump administration and so-called sanctuary cities .
Henry Lucero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Enforcement and Removal Operations , said Wednesday that the agency doesn ’ t want to get into the business of subpoenaing fellow law enforcement agencies — he called it a last resort .
But because of changes in how municipalities work with ICE , it could be necessary to expand the practice to other cities in order to catch dangerous people and deport them , he said .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' ICE officials believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it under the Immigration and Nationality Act .
If a law enforcement agency doesn ’ t comply , ICE officials said they could work with federal officials to take the subpoena to a judge who could hold them in contempt .
Chad Sublet , senior counsel to the Department of Safety in Denver , noted in a letter to ICE officials that the subpoenas were administrative — not issued by a judge .
There was no verifiable information on the documents to show the purpose was for law enforcement and not civil immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents appear to be a request for information related to alleged violations of civil immigration law , ” he wrote .
“ Based on these facts , we are denying your request.
” Sublet wrote the subpoenas could be “ viewed as an effort to intimidate officers into help enforcing civil immigration law.
” He also disputed that Denver had failed to comply with initial requests by ICE for information on foreign nationals wanted for deportation , attaching documents that showed law enforcement had responded to 88 requests by ICE between October and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men sought by ICE was from Mexico and had been arrested for sexual assault , another for vehicular homicide and a third for child abuse and strangulation assault .
All had been removed from the country previously .
Three were released from custody and one was still in custody .
ICE officers rely on help from local law enforcement .
Over the budget year that ended Sept. 30 , officers arrested about 143,000 people and deported more than 267,000 .
More than 92,000 of the arrests were of people with criminal convictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Denver officials said Thursday they would not hand over information requested by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement on four men wanted for deportation.
ICE, the Homeland Security agency tasked with arresting and deporting people in the U.S. illegally, sent four administrative subpoenas earlier this week to law enforcement looking for information on three Mexican nationals and one Honduran who had been in custody in Denver.
It was the first time subpoenas had been sent to a law enforcement agency — an escalation of the conflict between the Trump administration and so-called sanctuary cities.
Henry Lucero, deputy executive associate director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, said Wednesday that the agency doesn’t want to get into the business of subpoenaing fellow law enforcement agencies — he called it a last resort.
But because of changes in how municipalities work with ICE, it could be necessary to expand the practice to other cities in order to catch dangerous people and deport them, he said.
ICE officials believe they have the legal right to do it under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
If a law enforcement agency doesn’t comply, ICE officials said they could work with federal officials to take the subpoena to a judge who could hold them in contempt.
ICE officials had no additional comment Thursday.
Chad Sublet, senior counsel to the Department of Safety in Denver, noted in a letter to ICE officials that the subpoenas were administrative — not issued by a judge.
Do you think so-called "sanctuary" cities should be forced to cooperate with ICE? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (950 Votes) No: 0% (2 Votes)
There was no verifiable information on the documents to show the purpose was for law enforcement and not civil immigration enforcement, Sublet argued.
“The documents appear to be a request for information related to alleged violations of civil immigration law,” he wrote.
“Based on these facts, we are denying your request.”
Sublet wrote the subpoenas could be “viewed as an effort to intimidate officers into help enforcing civil immigration law.”
He also disputed that Denver had failed to comply with initial requests by ICE for information on foreign nationals wanted for deportation, attaching documents that showed law enforcement had responded to 88 requests by ICE between October and December of last year.
One of the men sought by ICE was from Mexico and had been arrested for sexual assault, another for vehicular homicide and a third for child abuse and strangulation assault.
The Honduran man arrested on domestic violence charges.
All had been removed from the country previously.
Three were released from custody and one was still in custody.
ICE officers rely on help from local law enforcement.
Over the budget year that ended Sept. 30, officers arrested about 143,000 people and deported more than 267,000.
More than 92,000 of the arrests were of people with criminal convictions.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--Democrats’ Convoluted New Rules Could Cause Caucus Night Confusion in Iowa

For the first time , the Iowa Democratic Party will report three sets of results from the party ’ s presidential caucuses — and there is no guarantee that all three will show the same winner .
Each set of results will represent a different stage of the caucus .
The new rules for the Feb. 3 contest were mandated by the Democratic National Committee in a bid to make the process more transparent .
In the past , Iowa Democrats reported only one set of results : the number of state convention delegates won by each candidate through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s eventual White House nominee based on national convention delegates , and the state delegates are used to determine those totals in Iowa .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' The Associated Press will declare a winner in Iowa based on the number of state delegates each candidate wins .
The AP will also report all three results .
Q : What results will Iowa Democrats release out of the caucus ?
A : There will be three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ first alignment ” of caucus-goers , their “ final alignment ” and the total number of State Delegate Equivalents each candidate receives .
This is the first time the party has made public the first and final alignment results .
Q : What do those categories mean , and how will the results be determined ?
A : Caucuses are different from primaries .
In a primary , voters go to the polls , cast their ballots and leave .
At a caucus , voters gather at local precincts and declare support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an opportunity to switch sides .
In Iowa , voters arriving at their caucus site will fill out a card that lists their first choice .
Those results will be tabulated and will determine the results of the “ first alignment.
” But that ’ s not the end of the night .
Caucus-goers whose first-choice candidate fails to get at least 15 percent of the vote can switch their support to a different candidate .
The threshold can be higher at some precincts .
If voters don ’ t choose another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count in the final alignment .
They can choose “ uncommitted ” — but that choice only gets reported if it , too , gets at least 15 percent of the vote .
The results of this stage will be tabulated to determine the caucuses ’ “ final alignment.
” Only candidates who receive at least 15 percent of the vote at that precinct — the so-called viable candidates — will be counted in the final alignment .
Non-viable candidates get zero votes in the final alignment .
The final alignment votes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state convention delegates awarded to each candidate .
The party calls these state delegate equivalents because they represent the number of delegates each candidate will have at the party ’ s state convention in June .
That , in turn , determines how many national convention delegates each candidate receives .
Iowa will award 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention based on the results of the party caucuses .
Q : Who will the AP declare the winner of the Iowa caucuses ?
A : The AP will declare the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives .
That ’ s because Democrats choose their overall nominee based on delegates .
The other results will provide valuable insights into the process and the strength of the various candidates , but the state delegate equivalents have the most direct bearing on the metric Democrats use to pick their nominee .
Iowa and national Democratic Party figures also emphasize this is the number to watch .
Q : Could different candidates top each of the three categories of results ?
For example , Candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first alignment voting .
But Candidate B could get more support from voters who initially voted for non-viable candidates .
After those voters switch to a different candidate , Candidate B could end up with the most votes in the final alignment .
The final alignment votes are used to calculate the state delegate equivalents , so the results should be similar .
However , in a very close race , it is mathematically possible to have different winners there , too .
Q : Why are Democrats making this change ?
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC as part of a package of changes sought by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont following his loss to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential primaries .
The changes were designed to make the caucus system more transparent and to make sure that even the lowest-performing candidates get credit for all the votes they receive .
It ’ s not just Iowa that is affected by the changes .
The Nevada Democratic caucuses on Feb. 22 will also report three sets of results .
The Associated Press contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

For the first time, the Iowa Democratic Party will report three sets of results from the party’s presidential caucuses — and there is no guarantee that all three will show the same winner.
Each set of results will represent a different stage of the caucus.
The new rules for the Feb. 3 contest were mandated by the Democratic National Committee in a bid to make the process more transparent.
In the past, Iowa Democrats reported only one set of results: the number of state convention delegates won by each candidate through the caucus process.
Democrats choose their party’s eventual White House nominee based on national convention delegates, and the state delegates are used to determine those totals in Iowa.
The Associated Press will declare a winner in Iowa based on the number of state delegates each candidate wins. The AP will also report all three results.
Q: What results will Iowa Democrats release out of the caucus?
A: There will be three sets of results: tallies of the “first alignment” of caucus-goers, their “final alignment” and the total number of State Delegate Equivalents each candidate receives.
This is the first time the party has made public the first and final alignment results.
Do you think the new Iowa caucus rules are a good idea? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 16% (16 Votes) No: 84% (84 Votes)
Q: What do those categories mean, and how will the results be determined?
A: Caucuses are different from primaries. In a primary, voters go to the polls, cast their ballots and leave. At a caucus, voters gather at local precincts and declare support for their chosen candidate — then some have an opportunity to switch sides.
In Iowa, voters arriving at their caucus site will fill out a card that lists their first choice. Those results will be tabulated and will determine the results of the “first alignment.”
But that’s not the end of the night.
Caucus-goers whose first-choice candidate fails to get at least 15 percent of the vote can switch their support to a different candidate. The threshold can be higher at some precincts. If voters don’t choose another candidate, their vote won’t count in the final alignment. They can choose “uncommitted” — but that choice only gets reported if it, too, gets at least 15 percent of the vote.
The results of this stage will be tabulated to determine the caucuses’ “final alignment.” Only candidates who receive at least 15 percent of the vote at that precinct — the so-called viable candidates — will be counted in the final alignment. Non-viable candidates get zero votes in the final alignment.
There’s one more step.
The final alignment votes are then used to calculate the number of state convention delegates awarded to each candidate. The party calls these state delegate equivalents because they represent the number of delegates each candidate will have at the party’s state convention in June. That, in turn, determines how many national convention delegates each candidate receives.
Iowa will award 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention based on the results of the party caucuses.
Q: Who will the AP declare the winner of the Iowa caucuses?
A: The AP will declare the winner of the Iowa caucuses based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives.
That’s because Democrats choose their overall nominee based on delegates. The other results will provide valuable insights into the process and the strength of the various candidates, but the state delegate equivalents have the most direct bearing on the metric Democrats use to pick their nominee.
Iowa and national Democratic Party figures also emphasize this is the number to watch.
Q: Could different candidates top each of the three categories of results?
A: Yes.
For example, Candidate A could beat Candidate B in the first alignment voting. But Candidate B could get more support from voters who initially voted for non-viable candidates. After those voters switch to a different candidate, Candidate B could end up with the most votes in the final alignment.
The final alignment votes are used to calculate the state delegate equivalents, so the results should be similar.
However, in a very close race, it is mathematically possible to have different winners there, too.
Q: Why are Democrats making this change?
A: The new rules were mandated by the DNC as part of a package of changes sought by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont following his loss to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential primaries.
The changes were designed to make the caucus system more transparent and to make sure that even the lowest-performing candidates get credit for all the votes they receive.
It’s not just Iowa that is affected by the changes. The Nevada Democratic caucuses on Feb. 22 will also report three sets of results.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--Fisherman Pulls Orange Box from Seafloor, US Navy Calls Shortly After He Posts a Pic

A fisherman got a big surprise after discovering that a mysterious orange box pulled from the ocean depths was no mere piece of trash , but surveillance equipment belonging to the United States Navy .
Croatian fisherman Darko Kunac Bigava and his crew pulled the object aboard after it shredded their fishing nets on Jan. 6 , according to Forbes .
This box was obviously out of place in the Adriatic Sea , especially since it still had a DHL shipping label that revealed the device ’ s origins in America .
One thing was clear — the mystery cube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up off the coast of Croatia .
Bigava posted photos to Croatian social media , and speculation about the device raged as the pictures spread far and wide .
Shortly after posting the photos , Bigava received a phone call that put an end to the mystery surrounding his Adriatic discovery .
On the phone was someone from the U.S. Navy , who told Bigava that the world ’ s largest naval force would like their property back .
After the phone call , Bigava handed the device over to the USNS Bruce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In exchange , he was compensated for his destroyed nets and other damaged equipment .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' Of course , this took a bit of haggling on Bigava ’ s part .
It ’ s unclear whether the Navy has a way to find the devices if discovered by less ethical people or foreign governments .
Judging by posts from the Naval Oceanographic Office , the device appears to be part of an environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acoustic data from its position in the ocean , which is then available for official analysis .
One application is to monitor ambient noise and its effects on local marine life .
A picture of a Navy ship deploying one of these systems can be seen below .
RELATED : Angela Merkel Argues Freedom of Speech 'Has Its Limits ' and Government Should Regulate It Luckily for Bigava , his haul was only a technical instrument .
Had he pulled up a relic from one of Europe ’ s many wars , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damaged nets would be the least of this fisherman ’ s concerns .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A fisherman got a big surprise after discovering that a mysterious orange box pulled from the ocean depths was no mere piece of trash, but surveillance equipment belonging to the United States Navy.
Croatian fisherman Darko Kunac Bigava and his crew pulled the object aboard after it shredded their fishing nets on Jan. 6, according to Forbes.
This box was obviously out of place in the Adriatic Sea, especially since it still had a DHL shipping label that revealed the device’s origins in America.
One thing was clear — the mystery cube had flown out of Louisiana before ending up off the coast of Croatia.
Bigava posted photos to Croatian social media, and speculation about the device raged as the pictures spread far and wide.
Shortly after posting the photos, Bigava received a phone call that put an end to the mystery surrounding his Adriatic discovery.
On the phone was someone from the U.S. Navy, who told Bigava that the world’s largest naval force would like their property back.
After the phone call, Bigava handed the device over to the USNS Bruce C. Heezen, an oceanographic survey ship. In exchange, he was compensated for his destroyed nets and other damaged equipment.
Do you think there are more Navy secrets on the ocean floor? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (3748 Votes) No: 1% (30 Votes)
Of course, this took a bit of haggling on Bigava’s part.
It’s unclear whether the Navy has a way to find the devices if discovered by less ethical people or foreign governments.
Judging by posts from the Naval Oceanographic Office, the device appears to be part of an environmental acoustic recording system. The system records acoustic data from its position in the ocean, which is then available for official analysis.
One application is to monitor ambient noise and its effects on local marine life.
A picture of a Navy ship deploying one of these systems can be seen below.
Luckily for Bigava, his haul was only a technical instrument.
Had he pulled up a relic from one of Europe’s many wars, like a naval mine or a torpedo, damaged nets would be the least of this fisherman’s concerns.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--New York Public Library Abruptly Cancels Event Celebrating Women ‘Silenced by the Authoritarian Left

New York Public Library Abruptly Cancels Event Celebrating Women ‘Silenced by the Authoritarian Left’

The New York Public Library has canceled an event that was set to feature “ canceled women.
” A feminist organization called the Women ’ s Liberation Front had scheduled the event “ Cancelled Women : An Evening with Five Fearless Feminists ” to take place on the evening of Jan. 17 in New York City .
The event promised to “ feature an evening of women who have refused to be silenced by the authoritarian Left.
” “ We are now living in a time of vicious backlash against feminism , ” an Eventbrite page for the event said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Left is celebrating prostitution , normalizing sexual sadism , re-stigmatizing lesbians , and gleefully erasing women in language and law .
The consequences to anyone who speaks out are swift and severe , from deplatforming to death threats.
” The New York Public Library unexpectedly canceled the event , WoLF board member Kara Dansky told The Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ We had applied for space at the library just like any other group would , and we were told for the space of approximately one week that the contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was being held , ” she explained .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' The day before the organization ’ s deposit was due , Dansky said she was told the event would not proceed .
“ They gave us no reason , ” she said , adding that “ it would not be a stretch ” if the event was censored because of the Women ’ s Liberation Front ’ s viewpoints .
“ We stand up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women and girls and we do so unapologetically , ” she said .
“ We say publicly that men are male and that women are female.
” “ The only plausible explanation is that the NYPL fears backlash from trans activists , ” The Federalist ’ s David Marcus wrote in a New York Post Op-Ed .
“ That is , the women are being denied a platform over their objections to trans ideology.
” “ At a time when our society is radically reengineering our conception of sex and gender — with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on women ’ s sports , prisons and homeless shelters , among other issues — the decision to silence these women is flat-out shameful , ” he added .
WoLF said in a statement that it is an “ unapologetically radical feminist organization that is proud to stand up for the rights , privacy , and safety of women and girls.
” “ All of the women who are scheduled to speak at our upcoming event in New York have been silenced or canceled in some way because of their unflinching advocacy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on .
“ Women have fought hard for the right to exercise our First Amendment rights and we refuse to back down.
” The feminist organization will host another similar event in Seattle on Feb 1. called “ Fighting the New Misogyny : A Feminist Critique of Gender Identity ” that will examine whether gender theory breaks down stereotypes of the nature of men and women or reinforces them .
RELATED : Tim Allen Goes on 'The View , ' Tears Into 'Alarming ' Level of Political Correctness The New York Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request for comment .
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The New York Public Library has canceled an event that was set to feature “canceled women.”
A feminist organization called the Women’s Liberation Front had scheduled the event “Cancelled Women: An Evening with Five Fearless Feminists” to take place on the evening of Jan. 17 in New York City. The event promised to “feature an evening of women who have refused to be silenced by the authoritarian Left.”
“We are now living in a time of vicious backlash against feminism,” an Eventbrite page for the event said. “A growing wave of misogyny from the Left is celebrating prostitution, normalizing sexual sadism, re-stigmatizing lesbians, and gleefully erasing women in language and law. The consequences to anyone who speaks out are swift and severe, from deplatforming to death threats.”
The New York Public Library unexpectedly canceled the event, WoLF board member Kara Dansky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“We had applied for space at the library just like any other group would, and we were told for the space of approximately one week that the contract was in process and that a room was being held,” she explained.
The day before the organization’s deposit was due, Dansky said she was told the event would not proceed.
“They gave us no reason,” she said, adding that “it would not be a stretch” if the event was censored because of the Women’s Liberation Front’s viewpoints.
“We stand up for the right to privacy and safety of women and girls and we do so unapologetically,” she said. “We say publicly that men are male and that women are female.”
“The only plausible explanation is that the NYPL fears backlash from trans activists,” The Federalist’s David Marcus wrote in a New York Post Op-Ed. “That is, the women are being denied a platform over their objections to trans ideology.”
Do you think the left has begun to censor even radical feminists? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 97% (317 Votes) No: 3% (9 Votes)
“At a time when our society is radically reengineering our conception of sex and gender — with policy decisions that will have profound ramifications on women’s sports, prisons and homeless shelters, among other issues — the decision to silence these women is flat-out shameful,” he added.
WoLF said in a statement that it is an “unapologetically radical feminist organization that is proud to stand up for the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls.”
“All of the women who are scheduled to speak at our upcoming event in New York have been silenced or canceled in some way because of their unflinching advocacy for women and girls,” the statement went on.
“Women have fought hard for the right to exercise our First Amendment rights and we refuse to back down.”
The feminist organization will host another similar event in Seattle on Feb 1. called “Fighting the New Misogyny: A Feminist Critique of Gender Identity” that will examine whether gender theory breaks down stereotypes of the nature of men and women or reinforces them.
The New York Public Library did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of their original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--WWII Vet, 102, Finally Retiring as Indiana’s Oldest State Employee

Indiana will be losing a piece of its history next month as its oldest state worker retires .
Bob Vollmer will be retiring Feb. 6 at the age of 102 , according to WXIN .
Vollmer , a surveyor for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and a World War II veteran , joined the agency in 1962 , Fox News reported .
“ I guess your body tells you when it ’ s time to go , ” Vollmer told WXIN .
“ Doctors tell me that ’ s one reason I ’ m still going .
I got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good genes help .
His mother lived until the age of 108 .
Vollmer first became interested in surveying during World War II .
“ One of the officers got on a bridge with a sextant , and a wristwatch , ” Vollmer said , explaining that the officer was charting their position .
“ Of course , later on , I just realized that ’ s part of surveying , ” he said , adding that his job has changed tremendously from the days of pencils and paper to held-held GPS units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has surveyed the boundary lines of their property , Vollmer said .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' “ I ’ ve had people shoot at me , I ’ ve had people sic their dogs on me , ” he said .
RELATED : 91-Year-Old Woman Ditches Walker for Dancing Shoes To Celebrate End of Therapy In 2016 , then-Lieutenant Gov .
Eric Holcomb — who ’ s since been elected governor — presented Vollmer with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s top honors , for his service .
At the time , Vollmer recalled being summoned to Holcomb ’ s office , according to a news release from the Indiana DNR .
“ Whenever there ’ s a new governor , they always do something for longtime employees and give them a pencil or something , ” he said .
“ I got into the office , and the meeting was for me .
There wasn ’ t anyone else there .
I still didn ’ t know it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farm once he is retired .
He also wants to see the South Pacific islands he served on and near during World War II .
Vollmer noted that his retirement date is special , because it is the date on which he was married .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Indiana will be losing a piece of its history next month as its oldest state worker retires.
Bob Vollmer will be retiring Feb. 6 at the age of 102, according to WXIN.
Vollmer, a surveyor for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and a World War II veteran, joined the agency in 1962, Fox News reported.
“I guess your body tells you when it’s time to go,” Vollmer told WXIN.
“Doctors tell me that’s one reason I’m still going. I got good lungs.”
Vollmer also noted that good genes help.
His mother lived until the age of 108.
Vollmer first became interested in surveying during World War II.
“One of the officers got on a bridge with a sextant, and a wristwatch,” Vollmer said, explaining that the officer was charting their position.
If you could, would you work until age 102? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 54% (27 Votes) No: 46% (23 Votes)
“Of course, later on, I just realized that’s part of surveying,” he said, adding that his job has changed tremendously from the days of pencils and paper to held-held GPS units.
Some people have been upset when he has surveyed the boundary lines of their property, Vollmer said.
“I’ve had people shoot at me, I’ve had people sic their dogs on me,” he said.
Bob Vollmer, our oldest state employee at 102 years old, has been providing #GreatGovernmentService at the @INdnrnews for decades. I was honored to present him with a Sagamore in 2016 and wish him the absolute best in his retirement! https://t.co/nozxY7T3RM pic.twitter.com/Dk7OSjGf11 — Eric Holcomb (@GovHolcomb) January 15, 2020
In 2016, then-Lieutenant Gov. Eric Holcomb — who’s since been elected governor — presented Vollmer with the Sagamore of the Wabash, one of the state’s top honors, for his service.
At the time, Vollmer recalled being summoned to Holcomb’s office, according to a news release from the Indiana DNR.
“Whenever there’s a new governor, they always do something for longtime employees and give them a pencil or something,” he said.
“I got into the office, and the meeting was for me. There wasn’t anyone else there. I still didn’t know it would be this.”
Vollmer will read and farm once he is retired.
He also wants to see the South Pacific islands he served on and near during World War II.
Vollmer noted that his retirement date is special, because it is the date on which he was married.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--AT&T Under Pressure from US Government for Complying with Socialist Venezuela Censorship

Last April , as a military uprising roiled Venezuela , Nicolás Maduro ’ s socialist government ordered pay TV providers to immediately cease transmission of CNN and the BBC .
DirecTV , which is wholly owned by AT & T , quickly obliged , yanking the two networks off the air as live images of military trucks running over protesters were being broadcast to the world .
Now , pressure is building against the Dallas-based communications giant to stand up to Venezuela ’ s government censors .
In December , officials from the State Department met in Washington with executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help pull the plug on Maduro ’ s propaganda machine , according to five people familiar with the discussion .
The meeting followed months of outreach to AT & T by Venezuela ’ s opposition , according to the five individuals .
TRENDING : UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein 's Pimp on 'Lolita Express' Under a plan being promoted with the Trump administration , DirecTV , Venezuela ’ s largest pay TV operator , would restore to its lineup a half-dozen international news channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , according to the five individuals .
The strategy harkens back to a Cold War playbook of leveraging information to fight anti-U.S. propaganda and undermine authoritarian rule .
But instead of covertly beaming U.S.-government produced content into foreign countries , as Radio Free Europe did in the former Soviet Union , this proposed effort consists of pressuring a private company to bring back access to private , international news outlets that , until recently , Venezuelans took for granted .
AT & T faces a difficult choice : Comply with a Maduro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognizes and has heavily sanctioned , or go along with the opposition ’ s plan and risk seizure of its installations and the loss of its license on which some 700 Venezuelans depend for employment .
According to corporate filings with the Security and Exchange Commission , the company doesn ’ t actually need a physical presence in Venezuela to beam content into the country .
It could instead use broadcast centers in Argentina , Brazil or California .
The U.S. officials and opposition operators are concerned that DirecTV is being used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attack his opponents , who have no way to respond , according to the five individuals , who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the politically sensitive nature of the talks .
Of particular concern , they said , is the private network Globovision , which is carried by DirecTV .
The channel has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department and is accused by the opposition of spreading disinformation .
Globovision is a customer of the AP .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was briefed and expressed initial support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help undermine Maduro , according to two individuals with knowledge of the discussions .
Planning is in the early stages , the two individuals said , and it ’ s just one of several options under consideration to pressure Maduro , who remains firmly in power even in the face of U.S. sanctions aimed at empowering Juan Guaidó , the opposition leader recognized as Venezuela ’ s rightful leader by more than 50 nations .
RELATED : US Bank Employee Reportedly Fired for Helping Stranded Customer Get Home The two individuals said no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much to lean on AT & T , which is pushing back strongly against any initiative that would jeopardize operations in a nation where it has a whopping 44 percent market share — its largest in the region .
The move to open up the airwaves would be significant because DirecTV reaches people who are dependent on the government , such as those in the working-class barrios of larger cities and the interior , said David Smilde , from the Washington Office on Latin America , a think tank .
These groups don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news , he said .
“ This wouldn ’ t pose an immediate threat to Maduro , but it could complicate the longer-term ability of the government to control information , ” said Smilde , who has lived on and off in Venezuela for more than two decades .
“ Maduro could conceivably try to confiscate DirecTV equipment from people ’ s homes , but this would be an extraordinarily unpopular move.
” A key to Maduro ’ s staying power is so-called communicational hegemony : dozens of government-controlled newspapers , social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the once highly confrontational private news outlets with around-the-clock coverage of Maduro .
Further widening the information gap , the country ’ s telecommunications regulator , Conatel , since 2017 has ordered pay-TV platforms , of which DirecTV is the largest , to eliminate 10 international news channels , from CNN en Espanol to Colombia ’ s NTN24 , accusing them of violating the Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television .
The law ’ s stated purpose is to guarantee socially responsible programming , but it has been criticized by press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of its ambiguous language and heavy penalties .
When Conatel banished CNN en Espanol in 2017 , it accused the network of “ direct aggressions that strike against the peace and democratic stability of the Venezuelan people by generating a climate of intolerance.
” The government also removed the channel that broadcast sessions of the National Assembly after the opposition won control of the legislature in 2015 .
Another law passed by the Maduro-controlled constitutional assembly in 2017 threatens up to 20 years in prison for anyone publishing material deemed hateful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ones giving the orders , but they are accomplices in censorship , ” said Marianela Balbi , executive director of the Caracas-based Institute for Press and Society .
International channels broadcast by DirecTV and other service providers had until recently filled a void left by Globovision , the last open-air network critical of the government , which was sold to a businessman linked to Maduro in 2013 .
Not long after the purchase , the channel softened its anti-government coverage .
Globovision ’ s billionaire owner , Raúl Gorrín , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to an alleged money laundering scheme involving Maduro ’ s stepsons .
Gorrín , who was recently added to the Department of Homeland Security ’ s most wanted fugitive list , did not respond to questions from the AP .
As government censorship has intensified , pressure on private broadcast service providers has increased , especially DirecTV , the only one operated by a U.S. company subject to sanctions imposed by the Trump administration .
Last week , Venezuelan social media briefly lit up after Carlos Vecchio , the Guaidó government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be “ forced ” by the U.S. sanctions to remove “ treasonous ” Globovision from its lineup .
Accompanying Vecchio ’ s tweet was the photo of an order by the Treasury Department giving U.S. companies until Jan. 21 to wind down all operations with Venezuela ’ s largest private TV network .
But in Venezuela , like in the U.S. , DirecTV is required to carry several broadcast networks , including Globovision .
Experts said the U.S. government ’ s options for compelling DirecTV to do its bidding in Venezuela are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney and former Treasury official specializing in sanctions compliance , said media companies typically enjoy broad authorizations and exemptions from sanctions because it has been longstanding U.S. policy to promote the free flow of information worldwide , including into authoritarian regimes .
In the case of DirecTV , it ’ s decision to comply with Maduro ’ s orders to remove channels took place prior to the blocking of the country ’ s government .
“ It ’ s a complex issue , but in general providing any services to the now blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its request or direction — could incur significant sanctions risk , ” Kucik said .
Press freedom groups say censorship is widespread in Venezuela .
A pay-TV industry executive told the AP that Conatel has about 30 people who monitor the airwaves around the clock .
When they see something of a political nature they don ’ t like , they call the company and urge them to remove the content , sometimes in real time , the executive said .
He spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive said , fearing it could lead to heavy fines or the arrest of employees , as has happened to companies in other industries that disobey orders .
Sometimes security forces are deployed to enforce the orders , he said .
Since Maduro took office in 2013 , dozens of newspapers and radio stations have disappeared , leaving outlets that largely mimic the government ’ s line while ignoring such issues as human rights abuses and growing malnutrition .
Meanwhile , Internet speeds are among the slowest in the world and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result , Venezuelans haven ’ t joined the cord-cutting wave seen elsewhere , and pay-TV remains a dominant source of news and information .
But AT & T hasn ’ t made money from its satellite service provider in Venezuela for years , due to strict government controls that keep the price of its packages artificially low — the equivalent of around 15 U.S. cents per month .
The situation has become so dire that DirecTV in 2012 stopped importing set-top boxes , choking its growth .
In 2015 , it wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1.1 billion .
Nonetheless , as the cheapest form of entertainment in a nation ravaged by 2 million percent hyperinflation , its market share remains DirecTV ’ s largest in the world .
Unlike other U.S. companies — General Motors , Kellogg Co. and Kimberly-Clark — that have abandoned Venezuela due to shrinking sales , government threats and the risk of sanctions , AT & T has remained , perhaps biding its time until there ’ s an economic turnaround , or business-friendly government , the Venezuelan telecommunications executive said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satellite broadcast center , which sits atop a verdant hill overlooking Caracas , the executive said .
DirecTV beams about a third of its programming to several parts of South America from this location , according to corporate filings .
The company is wary of being seen as a puppet of U.S. foreign policy and embracing Guaidó , the telecommunications executive said .
One idea being discussed to force its hand is for the National Assembly — which the U.S. and others recognize as Venezuela ’ s only legitimate institution — to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which guarantees access to “ timely , truthful and impartial information , without censorship , ” according to two of the people familiar with the project .
The same individuals pointed out that Guaidó last week took a step in that direction by saying he would soon name his own ad-hoc Conatel board to fight “ the propaganda of a dictatorship that tries to distort reality.
” Some in the U.S. government , however , fear that pushing AT & T too hard could leave it to suspend operations in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical news coverage is hard to come by , other channels offer programming that promotes American values and a view on the world light-years from the day-to-day struggles with collapsing infrastructure and food shortage that Venezuelans face .
Removing them would isolate the country even more , and drive Venezuelans , especially outside major cities , closer to the government , according to even government opponents .
Andres Izarra , a former Venezuelan communications minister who also created the state-funded regional network Telesur , agrees that there ’ s a woeful lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuelans in the dark .
But he ’ s skeptical that any plan to open up the airwaves would weaken Maduro ’ s grip on power .
“ This seems to be a very desperate measure , since nothing else has worked , but it won ’ t have any real effect on the politics on the ground , ” said Izarra , who is now living in exile after breaking with the government .
“ All it will do is allow Maduro to try and portray himself as a victim of U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this report .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Last April, as a military uprising roiled Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro’s socialist government ordered pay TV providers to immediately cease transmission of CNN and the BBC.
DirecTV, which is wholly owned by AT&T, quickly obliged, yanking the two networks off the air as live images of military trucks running over protesters were being broadcast to the world.
Now, pressure is building against the Dallas-based communications giant to stand up to Venezuela’s government censors.
In December, officials from the State Department met in Washington with executives from AT&T to urge them to help pull the plug on Maduro’s propaganda machine, according to five people familiar with the discussion.
The meeting followed months of outreach to AT&T by Venezuela’s opposition, according to the five individuals.
Under a plan being promoted with the Trump administration, DirecTV, Venezuela’s largest pay TV operator, would restore to its lineup a half-dozen international news channels that local regulators have banned in recent years, according to the five individuals.
The strategy harkens back to a Cold War playbook of leveraging information to fight anti-U.S. propaganda and undermine authoritarian rule.
But instead of covertly beaming U.S.-government produced content into foreign countries, as Radio Free Europe did in the former Soviet Union, this proposed effort consists of pressuring a private company to bring back access to private, international news outlets that, until recently, Venezuelans took for granted.
AT&T faces a difficult choice: Comply with a Maduro regime that the U.S. government no longer recognizes and has heavily sanctioned, or go along with the opposition’s plan and risk seizure of its installations and the loss of its license on which some 700 Venezuelans depend for employment.
According to corporate filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, the company doesn’t actually need a physical presence in Venezuela to beam content into the country. It could instead use broadcast centers in Argentina, Brazil or California.
The U.S. officials and opposition operators are concerned that DirecTV is being used to broadcast unfiltered state TV programming by Maduro to attack his opponents, who have no way to respond, according to the five individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the politically sensitive nature of the talks.
Of particular concern, they said, is the private network Globovision, which is carried by DirecTV. The channel has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department and is accused by the opposition of spreading disinformation. Globovision is a customer of the AP.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was briefed and expressed initial support for the plans to enroll DirecTV to help undermine Maduro, according to two individuals with knowledge of the discussions.
Planning is in the early stages, the two individuals said, and it’s just one of several options under consideration to pressure Maduro, who remains firmly in power even in the face of U.S. sanctions aimed at empowering Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader recognized as Venezuela’s rightful leader by more than 50 nations.
The two individuals said no decision has yet been made on how much to lean on AT&T, which is pushing back strongly against any initiative that would jeopardize operations in a nation where it has a whopping 44 percent market share — its largest in the region.
DirecTV Latin America declined to comment.
The move to open up the airwaves would be significant because DirecTV reaches people who are dependent on the government, such as those in the working-class barrios of larger cities and the interior, said David Smilde, from the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank. These groups don’t have other access to outside news, he said.
“This wouldn’t pose an immediate threat to Maduro, but it could complicate the longer-term ability of the government to control information,” said Smilde, who has lived on and off in Venezuela for more than two decades. “Maduro could conceivably try to confiscate DirecTV equipment from people’s homes, but this would be an extraordinarily unpopular move.”
A key to Maduro’s staying power is so-called communicational hegemony: dozens of government-controlled newspapers, social media accounts and TV channels that have replaced the once highly confrontational private news outlets with around-the-clock coverage of Maduro.
Further widening the information gap, the country’s telecommunications regulator, Conatel, since 2017 has ordered pay-TV platforms, of which DirecTV is the largest, to eliminate 10 international news channels, from CNN en Espanol to Colombia’s NTN24, accusing them of violating the Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television.
The law’s stated purpose is to guarantee socially responsible programming, but it has been criticized by press freedom groups as a tool for self-censorship because of its ambiguous language and heavy penalties.
When Conatel banished CNN en Espanol in 2017, it accused the network of “direct aggressions that strike against the peace and democratic stability of the Venezuelan people by generating a climate of intolerance.”
The government also removed the channel that broadcast sessions of the National Assembly after the opposition won control of the legislature in 2015.
Another law passed by the Maduro-controlled constitutional assembly in 2017 threatens up to 20 years in prison for anyone publishing material deemed hateful.
“The pay-TV operators aren’t the ones giving the orders, but they are accomplices in censorship,” said Marianela Balbi, executive director of the Caracas-based Institute for Press and Society.
International channels broadcast by DirecTV and other service providers had until recently filled a void left by Globovision, the last open-air network critical of the government, which was sold to a businessman linked to Maduro in 2013. Not long after the purchase, the channel softened its anti-government coverage.
Globovision’s billionaire owner, Raúl Gorrín, has been indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami in connection to an alleged money laundering scheme involving Maduro’s stepsons. Gorrín, who was recently added to the Department of Homeland Security’s most wanted fugitive list, did not respond to questions from the AP.
As government censorship has intensified, pressure on private broadcast service providers has increased, especially DirecTV, the only one operated by a U.S. company subject to sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.
Last week, Venezuelan social media briefly lit up after Carlos Vecchio, the Guaidó government’s envoy in Washington, said DirecTV would be “forced” by the U.S. sanctions to remove “treasonous” Globovision from its lineup.
Accompanying Vecchio’s tweet was the photo of an order by the Treasury Department giving U.S. companies until Jan. 21 to wind down all operations with Venezuela’s largest private TV network.
But in Venezuela, like in the U.S., DirecTV is required to carry several broadcast networks, including Globovision.
Experts said the U.S. government’s options for compelling DirecTV to do its bidding in Venezuela are limited.
Peter Kucik, a Washington attorney and former Treasury official specializing in sanctions compliance, said media companies typically enjoy broad authorizations and exemptions from sanctions because it has been longstanding U.S. policy to promote the free flow of information worldwide, including into authoritarian regimes.
In the case of DirecTV, it’s decision to comply with Maduro’s orders to remove channels took place prior to the blocking of the country’s government.
“It’s a complex issue, but in general providing any services to the now blocked Maduro government — including taking actions at its request or direction — could incur significant sanctions risk,” Kucik said.
Press freedom groups say censorship is widespread in Venezuela.
A pay-TV industry executive told the AP that Conatel has about 30 people who monitor the airwaves around the clock. When they see something of a political nature they don’t like, they call the company and urge them to remove the content, sometimes in real time, the executive said. He spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation.
Companies rarely resist, the executive said, fearing it could lead to heavy fines or the arrest of employees, as has happened to companies in other industries that disobey orders. Sometimes security forces are deployed to enforce the orders, he said.
Since Maduro took office in 2013, dozens of newspapers and radio stations have disappeared, leaving outlets that largely mimic the government’s line while ignoring such issues as human rights abuses and growing malnutrition. Meanwhile, Internet speeds are among the slowest in the world and the government frequently blocks anti-government content.
As a result, Venezuelans haven’t joined the cord-cutting wave seen elsewhere, and pay-TV remains a dominant source of news and information.
But AT&T hasn’t made money from its satellite service provider in Venezuela for years, due to strict government controls that keep the price of its packages artificially low — the equivalent of around 15 U.S. cents per month.
The situation has become so dire that DirecTV in 2012 stopped importing set-top boxes, choking its growth. In 2015, it wrote down its assets in the country by $1.1 billion.
Nonetheless, as the cheapest form of entertainment in a nation ravaged by 2 million percent hyperinflation, its market share remains DirecTV’s largest in the world.
Unlike other U.S. companies — General Motors, Kellogg Co. and Kimberly-Clark — that have abandoned Venezuela due to shrinking sales, government threats and the risk of sanctions, AT&T has remained, perhaps biding its time until there’s an economic turnaround, or business-friendly government, the Venezuelan telecommunications executive said.
The company may also be committed to its satellite broadcast center, which sits atop a verdant hill overlooking Caracas, the executive said. DirecTV beams about a third of its programming to several parts of South America from this location, according to corporate filings.
The company is wary of being seen as a puppet of U.S. foreign policy and embracing Guaidó, the telecommunications executive said.
One idea being discussed to force its hand is for the National Assembly — which the U.S. and others recognize as Venezuela’s only legitimate institution — to pass legislation ordering it to uphold the constitution, which guarantees access to “timely, truthful and impartial information, without censorship,” according to two of the people familiar with the project.
The same individuals pointed out that Guaidó last week took a step in that direction by saying he would soon name his own ad-hoc Conatel board to fight “the propaganda of a dictatorship that tries to distort reality.”
Some in the U.S. government, however, fear that pushing AT&T too hard could leave it to suspend operations in the country — an outcome nobody wants.
While critical news coverage is hard to come by, other channels offer programming that promotes American values and a view on the world light-years from the day-to-day struggles with collapsing infrastructure and food shortage that Venezuelans face. Removing them would isolate the country even more, and drive Venezuelans, especially outside major cities, closer to the government, according to even government opponents.
Andres Izarra, a former Venezuelan communications minister who also created the state-funded regional network Telesur, agrees that there’s a woeful lack of diversity of opinion on television that keeps Venezuelans in the dark.
But he’s skeptical that any plan to open up the airwaves would weaken Maduro’s grip on power.
“This seems to be a very desperate measure, since nothing else has worked, but it won’t have any real effect on the politics on the ground,” said Izarra, who is now living in exile after breaking with the government. “All it will do is allow Maduro to try and portray himself as a victim of U.S. aggression.”
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--Even in NYC, Anti-Trump Women’s March Draws Lackluster Crowd

The 2020 edition of the Women ’ s March in New York City proved to be a pale shadow of the original .
in 2017 , the New York Daily News estimated that 400,000 marchers descended upon Trump Tower .
On Saturday , The Associated Press reported that the New York City crowd numbered in what it termed “ hundreds.
” The crowd for the Washington march was reported as “ several thousand ” by the AP , well below last year ’ s reported 100,000 .
In 2017 , march organizers reported that their crowd numbered 500,000 , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held around the country , with anti-Trump protesters citing a variety of issues .
TRENDING : Suspected Neo-Nazi Arrested Before VA Gun Rally Is Actually an Illegal Immigrant “ It ’ s all about Donald Trump , ” said Laurie Kaczanowska , 66 , of Doylestown , Pennsylvania , said during the Washington march on Saturday , according to The New York Times .
“ This march is about the many issues that face women and families , so climate change , of course , is up front .
But here and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our republic ’ s democracy .
Because I think that ’ s in danger , ” she said .
The Women ’ s March has been shadowed by the anti-Semitism of past leaders .
“ There are 16 new women leading the Women ’ s March as a volunteer board , ” Rinku Sen , a co-president of the Women ’ s March board of directors , told The Times .
“ We ’ ve fixed what we could fix on the anti-Semitism front .
We ’ ve acknowledged the mistakes we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have felt.
” But in its coverage of the march , the Washington Times noted , “ In many ways , however , the Women ’ s March has been its own worst enemy , beset by shrinking support amid criticism over alleged anti-Semitism that culminated in September with the resignations of three of four co-chairs : Bob Bland , Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour.
” Writing for The Federalist , Erielle Davidson said the event is nothing more than a glorified anti-Trump protest .
“ I have always been tremendously critical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my experiences today added a new layer of disappointment with the entire enterprise , ” she wrote .
“ The radical political positions the organization espouses are obviously tangential to the Trump hatred that has become the group ’ s raison d ’ être .
Look no further than where the march itself ended — right in front of Trump International Hotel .
The significant gap between the march ’ s purported mission and its actual focus is not lost on me.
” Then she got to the point of her piece .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s obsession with Trump , there would have to be some noticeable reduction of women ’ s rights under the Trump administration , but such a reduction simply doesn ’ t exist .
“ It ’ s possible that former marchers realize that , which might explain why today ’ s numbers were a pitiful showing compared to 2017 ’ s attendance .
There was so much anger in 2017 , motivated by frankly hysterical predictions that never actually came to fruition , predictions peddled by the Women ’ s March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s dresses , and we ’ re not marching around in chains .
In other words , the sky never fell , but Chicken Little is still hollering — albeit , as today showed , fewer people are listening , ” she wrote .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The 2020 edition of the Women’s March in New York City proved to be a pale shadow of the original.
In 2017, the New York Daily News estimated that 400,000 marchers descended upon Trump Tower.
On Saturday, The Associated Press reported that the New York City crowd numbered in what it termed “hundreds.”
The crowd for the Washington march was reported as “several thousand” by the AP, well below last year’s reported 100,000. In 2017, march organizers reported that their crowd numbered 500,000, according to The Washington Post.
Marches were held around the country, with anti-Trump protesters citing a variety of issues.
“It’s all about Donald Trump,” said Laurie Kaczanowska, 66, of Doylestown, Pennsylvania, said during the Washington march on Saturday, according to The New York Times.
“This march is about the many issues that face women and families, so climate change, of course, is up front. But here and now we have to pay attention to protecting our republic’s democracy. Because I think that’s in danger,” she said.
The Women’s March has been shadowed by the anti-Semitism of past leaders.
Women’s March Leaders Won’t Acknowledge Last Year’s Anti-Semitism Read @JennieSTaer’s latesthttps://t.co/RFCGjooMq1 — Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) January 17, 2020
Has the Women's March become irrelevant? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (3083 Votes) No: 2% (56 Votes)
“There are 16 new women leading the Women’s March as a volunteer board,” Rinku Sen, a co-president of the Women’s March board of directors, told The Times.
“We’ve fixed what we could fix on the anti-Semitism front. We’ve acknowledged the mistakes we’ve made, and the harm people have felt.”
But in its coverage of the march, the Washington Times noted, “In many ways, however, the Women’s March has been its own worst enemy, beset by shrinking support amid criticism over alleged anti-Semitism that culminated in September with the resignations of three of four co-chairs: Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour.”
Writing for The Federalist, Erielle Davidson said the event is nothing more than a glorified anti-Trump protest.
“I have always been tremendously critical of the Women’s March, and my experiences today added a new layer of disappointment with the entire enterprise,” she wrote. “The radical political positions the organization espouses are obviously tangential to the Trump hatred that has become the group’s raison d’être. Look no further than where the march itself ended — right in front of Trump International Hotel. The significant gap between the march’s purported mission and its actual focus is not lost on me.”
Then she got to the point of her piece.
“In order to justify the march’s obsession with Trump, there would have to be some noticeable reduction of women’s rights under the Trump administration, but such a reduction simply doesn’t exist. “It’s possible that former marchers realize that, which might explain why today’s numbers were a pitiful showing compared to 2017’s attendance. There was so much anger in 2017, motivated by frankly hysterical predictions that never actually came to fruition, predictions peddled by the Women’s March.
“We’re not wearing handmaiden’s dresses, and we’re not marching around in chains. In other words, the sky never fell, but Chicken Little is still hollering — albeit, as today showed, fewer people are listening,” she wrote.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--Twitter Suspends Anti-Semite Farrakhan ‘in Error’, Allows Him Back Hours Later

The Twitter account of Louis Farrakhan was suspended Saturday , but the Nation of Islam leader was back on the social media giant in just a few hours as Twitter announced the action had been a mistake .
On Saturday morning , anyone looking for the latest tweets from Farrakhan would have found instead a message that the account was suspended , and an admonition from Twitter that it suspends accounts that violate its rules .
A few hours later , the account was back TRENDING : Senate Dems Running for President Must Recuse Themselves from Impeachment Trial A Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ error , adding that “ the account was caught by our spam filter in error and has been reinstated , ” according to the Washington Examiner .
Farrakhan ’ s Twitter account had been in the news earlier last week when Twitter announced that its new rules barring tweets that dehumanize religious groups would include a 2018 Farrakhan tweet that likened Jews to termites .
Farrakhan has long been criticized for anti-Semitic and homophobic comments .
Twitter took away Farrakhan ’ s “ verified ” status for a tweet that talked about “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Satan.
” RELATED : Cory Booker Refuses To Condemn Louis Farrakhan , Floats Possible Sit Down “ It ’ s against our rules to dehumanize others based on religion , ” a Twitter representative said , according to CNN .
“ That tweet is now unavailable.
” The 2018 tweet had long been a bone of contention , with Farrakhan ’ s critics saying it was blatant anti-Semitism , while Twitter insisted the comment did not violate its rules .
In a blog post Tuesday , Twitter said it was acting to enrich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion after an extensive time of researching the issue .
“ [ A ] fter months of conversations and feedback from the public , external experts and our own teams , we ’ re expanding our rules against hateful conduct to include language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion , ” the blog post said .
Twitter noted it will be lenient with offenders .
“ If reported , Tweets that break this rule sent before today will need to be deleted , but will not directly result in any account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule was set , ” the blog post said .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Twitter account of Louis Farrakhan was suspended Saturday, but the Nation of Islam leader was back on the social media giant in just a few hours as Twitter announced the action had been a mistake.
On Saturday morning, anyone looking for the latest tweets from Farrakhan would have found instead a message that the account was suspended, and an admonition from Twitter that it suspends accounts that violate its rules.
Louis Farrakhan has been suspended ??? pic.twitter.com/xI3E2LskIM — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) January 18, 2020
A few hours later, the account was back
A Twitter representative said sending the suspension was an error, adding that “the account was caught by our spam filter in error and has been reinstated,” according to the Washington Examiner.
The episode, naturally, made Twitter users take notice.
I’m against the hate Louis Farrakhan stands for but muzzling him is the wrong solution, especially when Twitter chooses to platform other, arguably more hateful people. There’s zero consistency in the way the rules are applied. Unless he’s breaking the TOS, don’t suspend him. — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) January 18, 2020
For those who think removing the Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan from a social media platform harms his work, consider he has been reforming people now for 65 yrs. You have a long way to catch up to him, His good is deeply rooted in the people; long before social media & long after. pic.twitter.com/PRKJJ8VEDl — Brian E. Muhammad (@GlobalPeeks) January 18, 2020
He’s a monster, but I prefer to let him remind us of that instead of silencing him. — Hacker Holdings LLC ?? (@HoldMyGlencairn) January 18, 2020
Farrakhan’s Twitter account had been in the news earlier last week when Twitter announced that its new rules barring tweets that dehumanize religious groups would include a 2018 Farrakhan tweet that likened Jews to termites.
Farrakhan has long been criticized for anti-Semitic and homophobic comments. Twitter took away Farrakhan’s “verified” status for a tweet that talked about “the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan.”
Should Twitter ban Louis Farrakhan? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 84% (179 Votes) No: 16% (35 Votes)
“It’s against our rules to dehumanize others based on religion,” a Twitter representative said, according to CNN. “That tweet is now unavailable.”
The 2018 tweet had long been a bone of contention, with Farrakhan’s critics saying it was blatant anti-Semitism, while Twitter insisted the comment did not violate its rules.
In a blog post Tuesday, Twitter said it was acting to enrich the rule about dehumanizing people based on religion after an extensive time of researching the issue.
“[A]fter months of conversations and feedback from the public, external experts and our own teams, we’re expanding our rules against hateful conduct to include language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion,” the blog post said.
Twitter noted it will be lenient with offenders.
“If reported, Tweets that break this rule sent before today will need to be deleted, but will not directly result in any account suspensions because they were Tweeted before the rule was set,” the blog post said.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--PA Dems Pushing To Release Violent Criminals, Putting Community at Risk

Thanks to the current wave of criminal justice reform , plenty of people who would normally be in jail aren ’ t .
The vast majority of these individuals are either drug offenders or accused criminals who no longer have to meet bail in states like New York .
All of these have raised their attendant issues , but they generally tend to be popular with voters — which is why , of course , elected officials are more than willing to sign off on the initiatives .
For the life of me , then , I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s latest push to offer release to inmates who normally wouldn ’ t be eligible for release , period .
Drug offenders ?
Sure , I can see it .
Murderers , however , remain justly unpopular among the electorate at large .
So are repeat violent offenders who earn life in prison without the possibility of parole .
These are generally not your folk-hero types or offenders who would be considered “ low-risk.
” That ’ s what makes Pennsylvania Lt. Gov .
John Fetterman ’ s call to offer parole to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone ’ s life genuinely head-scratching .
Fetterman ’ s already done quite a bit of the heavy lifting .
Back in September , according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star , Fetterman , who also chairs the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons , made a big to-do about his panel hearing 23 clemency applications from prisoners serving life without the possibility of parole .
Fetterman said it was the most applications in a single day in at least 40 years .
TRENDING : Senate Dems Running for President Must Recuse Themselves from Impeachment Trial Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Tom Wolf to sign off on their commutation .
( Wolf and Fetterman , in case you even had ask , are both Democrats . )
Four more appeals for clemency were held under advisement .
Only 10 were denied , meaning the majority of the offenders still likely have a good chance of being let out .
“ Pennsylvania believes in second chances , ” Fetterman said after the hearings , according to the Capital-Star .
“ This was a big lift .
But we want to continue to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second chances.
” While Corey Maeweather wasn ’ t one of the people appealing for clemency back in September , he ’ s one of the people who could realistically end up getting one of those second chances .
Maeweather ’ s case was unearthed when the Washington Free Beacon obtained the records of Pennsylvania inmates who could be released thanks to Fetterman ’ s push .
“ In August 1996 , 13-year-old Richezza Williams was found dead in a Pennsylvania cemetery , her burned and beaten body dumped in a cardboard box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including a heated clothes hanger , cleaning chemicals , and a turkey baster , ” Collin Anderson wrote in a piece published in the Free Beacon on Jan. 9 .
“ Corey Maeweather admitted to authorities that he participated in the brutal crime , appearing ‘ void of emotion ’ in a video as he described the victim ’ s screams and cries for help .
Maeweather said he was not directly involved in the young girl ’ s death , instead confessing to retrieving the torture devices for two co-conspirators .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ kidnapping and was sentenced to life without parole .
“ More than two decades later , top Democrats are seeking to ease the process for criminals like Maeweather to walk free.
” According to records obtained by the Free Beacon , there are more than 1,500 criminals convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole who could see their sentences reduced under Fetterman ’ s push .
“ If you didn ’ t take a life , the state shouldn ’ t take your life through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September , after that bonanza day with the Board of Pardons , according to a state news release issued at the time .
And it ’ s not as if he ’ s just looking for outlier cases — individuals who may have gotten railroaded and given a life without parole sentence even though the facts of the case didn ’ t warrant it .
RELATED : Turns Out 'Regretful Trump Voter ' in Swing State Ad Never Even Voted in 2016 “ Fetterman is particularly interested in commutations for 2nd-degree murder cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a life , ” according to a Pennsylvania state news release from December .
Such convictions would include cases in which an inmate participated in a crime resulting in a homicide but didn ’ t “ pull the trigger.
” Those charged with second-degree murder often serve more time than a convict who physically killed someone .
“ Fetterman said his main concerns are giving people a chance to reestablish lives and contribute to their communities and righting the inequity of sentences that result in killers serving less time than accomplices who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December released stated .
The Free Beacon report included some other examples of inmates who could be released by Fetterman ’ s initiative .
“ In addition to Maeweather , other criminals who meet Fetterman ’ s standard for commutation include Don Hogue , a repeat offender who stabbed a man in the neck with a kitchen knife in a dispute over a cigarette lighter , and Orin Turner , another repeat offender found not guilty of attempted murder in the first degree but guilty of nine other violent felonies , including assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm during the commission of a felony , ” Anderson wrote .
But forget about convincing voters .
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer , Fetterman seems a bit more concerned with convincing prisoners they ought to apply to the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons .
“ If you ’ re cynical about the commutation process , ” Fetterman told an audience of 180 in a Luzerne County prison gym in October , “ you have good reason to be , because nothing was really done about it in the last 40 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of men and women to die in prison .
But we have the best opportunity in 40 years to get people out.
” Well , at least the best opportunity in the last 25 years or so .
That ’ s roughly when the spigot of early release was turned off thanks to Reginald McFadden .
McFadden had been in prison for a homicide related to a robbery but was let out thanks to a decision by the Board of Pardons in 1994 .
Within 90 days , he ’ d killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 55-year-old woman , was kidnapped and “ repeatedly raped , beaten and robbed , ” according to The New York Times .
Fetterman thinks McFadden case looms too large over the clemency process , it seems .
“ What McFadden did was an unthinkable tragedy for the victims and the victims ’ families , ” Fetterman said .
“ It was also an injustice to people who do deserve a second chance .
We can ’ t stop believing in second chances for everyone.
” It ’ s not just dangers like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fetterman ’ s push .
Lindsay Vaughn , head of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association , told the Free Beacon that the decision is a slap in the face to victims and their families .
“ Blanket commutation for any category of crime or crimes would unavoidably circumnavigate current law , ” Vaughan said .
“ PDAA supports critical , individual review of each petition that is filed for someone convicted of murder .
Depending upon the specific circumstance of each case , there may be individuals appropriate for commutation consideration .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surviving victims of these murders must be given the opportunity to be heard at the hearing and their opinions must be given significant weight … Regardless of their opinions , the process of showing them the respect they deserve is paramount.
” At the very least , this is something that the legislature should be considering .
My assumption is that this wouldn ’ t be the first place lawmakers would start — and there ’ s a reason for that .
This is an ill-considered gambit that releases violent criminals who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , goes around established sentencing guidelines at the time of the crime and disrespects the families of victims .
This is not how prison reform should work .
If we want to be more lenient — which I would argue isn ’ t quite as desirable as liberals might think — we need to start with non-violent offenders .
Release enough Corey Maeweathers and I can almost guarantee you that you ’ ll end up with at least one Reginald McFadden .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Thanks to the current wave of criminal justice reform, plenty of people who would normally be in jail aren’t.
The vast majority of these individuals are either drug offenders or accused criminals who no longer have to meet bail in states like New York. All of these have raised their attendant issues, but they generally tend to be popular with voters — which is why, of course, elected officials are more than willing to sign off on the initiatives.
For the life of me, then, I’m not sure what to make of Pennsylvania’s latest push to offer release to inmates who normally wouldn’t be eligible for release, period. Drug offenders? Sure, I can see it. Murderers, however, remain justly unpopular among the electorate at large. So are repeat violent offenders who earn life in prison without the possibility of parole. These are generally not your folk-hero types or offenders who would be considered “low-risk.”
That’s what makes Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman’s call to offer parole to criminals who didn’t directly take someone’s life genuinely head-scratching.
Fetterman’s already done quite a bit of the heavy lifting. Back in September, according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Fetterman, who also chairs the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, made a big to-do about his panel hearing 23 clemency applications from prisoners serving life without the possibility of parole. Fetterman said it was the most applications in a single day in at least 40 years.
Of those, nine were passed on to Gov. Tom Wolf to sign off on their commutation. (Wolf and Fetterman, in case you even had ask, are both Democrats.) Four more appeals for clemency were held under advisement. Only 10 were denied, meaning the majority of the offenders still likely have a good chance of being let out.
“Pennsylvania believes in second chances,” Fetterman said after the hearings, according to the Capital-Star. “This was a big lift. But we want to continue to advance the frontier of granting those deserving inmates second chances.”
While Corey Maeweather wasn’t one of the people appealing for clemency back in September, he’s one of the people who could realistically end up getting one of those second chances. Maeweather’s case was unearthed when the Washington Free Beacon obtained the records of Pennsylvania inmates who could be released thanks to Fetterman’s push.
“In August 1996, 13-year-old Richezza Williams was found dead in a Pennsylvania cemetery, her burned and beaten body dumped in a cardboard box after she was tortured with household items, including a heated clothes hanger, cleaning chemicals, and a turkey baster,” Collin Anderson wrote in a piece published in the Free Beacon on Jan. 9.
Do you think these prisoners should be eligible for early release? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (6 Votes) No: 99% (872 Votes)
“Corey Maeweather admitted to authorities that he participated in the brutal crime, appearing ‘void of emotion’ in a video as he described the victim’s screams and cries for help. Maeweather said he was not directly involved in the young girl’s death, instead confessing to retrieving the torture devices for two co-conspirators. He pleaded guilty to criminal homicide and kidnapping and was sentenced to life without parole.
“More than two decades later, top Democrats are seeking to ease the process for criminals like Maeweather to walk free.”
According to records obtained by the Free Beacon, there are more than 1,500 criminals convicted of serious crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole who could see their sentences reduced under Fetterman’s push.
“If you didn’t take a life, the state shouldn’t take your life through unending incarceration,” Fetterman said in September, after that bonanza day with the Board of Pardons, according to a state news release issued at the time.
And it’s not as if he’s just looking for outlier cases — individuals who may have gotten railroaded and given a life without parole sentence even though the facts of the case didn’t warrant it.
“Fetterman is particularly interested in commutations for 2nd-degree murder cases in which the inmate didn’t take a life,” according to a Pennsylvania state news release from December.
Such convictions would include cases in which an inmate participated in a crime resulting in a homicide but didn’t “pull the trigger.” Those charged with second-degree murder often serve more time than a convict who physically killed someone.
“Fetterman said his main concerns are giving people a chance to reestablish lives and contribute to their communities and righting the inequity of sentences that result in killers serving less time than accomplices who didn’t kill,” the December released stated.
The Free Beacon report included some other examples of inmates who could be released by Fetterman’s initiative.
“In addition to Maeweather, other criminals who meet Fetterman’s standard for commutation include Don Hogue, a repeat offender who stabbed a man in the neck with a kitchen knife in a dispute over a cigarette lighter, and Orin Turner, another repeat offender found not guilty of attempted murder in the first degree but guilty of nine other violent felonies, including assault in the first degree and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,” Anderson wrote.
But forget about convincing voters. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Fetterman seems a bit more concerned with convincing prisoners they ought to apply to the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons.
“If you’re cynical about the commutation process,” Fetterman told an audience of 180 in a Luzerne County prison gym in October, “you have good reason to be, because nothing was really done about it in the last 40 years. A catastrophic bottleneck has doomed hundreds and hundreds of men and women to die in prison. But we have the best opportunity in 40 years to get people out.”
Well, at least the best opportunity in the last 25 years or so. That’s roughly when the spigot of early release was turned off thanks to Reginald McFadden.
McFadden had been in prison for a homicide related to a robbery but was let out thanks to a decision by the Board of Pardons in 1994. Within 90 days, he’d killed two people. A third victim, a 55-year-old woman, was kidnapped and “repeatedly raped, beaten and robbed,” according to The New York Times.
Fetterman thinks McFadden case looms too large over the clemency process, it seems.
“What McFadden did was an unthinkable tragedy for the victims and the victims’ families,” Fetterman said. “It was also an injustice to people who do deserve a second chance. We can’t stop believing in second chances for everyone.”
It’s not just dangers like McFadden that should make Pennsylvanians wary about Fetterman’s push. Lindsay Vaughn, head of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, told the Free Beacon that the decision is a slap in the face to victims and their families.
“Blanket commutation for any category of crime or crimes would unavoidably circumnavigate current law,” Vaughan said.
“PDAA supports critical, individual review of each petition that is filed for someone convicted of murder. Depending upon the specific circumstance of each case, there may be individuals appropriate for commutation consideration.
“However the process plays out, the surviving victims of these murders must be given the opportunity to be heard at the hearing and their opinions must be given significant weight … Regardless of their opinions, the process of showing them the respect they deserve is paramount.”
At the very least, this is something that the legislature should be considering. My assumption is that this wouldn’t be the first place lawmakers would start — and there’s a reason for that. This is an ill-considered gambit that releases violent criminals who were put behind bars without parole for a reason, goes around established sentencing guidelines at the time of the crime and disrespects the families of victims.
This is not how prison reform should work. If we want to be more lenient — which I would argue isn’t quite as desirable as liberals might think — we need to start with non-violent offenders.
Release enough Corey Maeweathers and I can almost guarantee you that you’ll end up with at least one Reginald McFadden.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-01-19--Multiple Media Outlets Smear TN Religious Liberty Bill as ‘Anti-LGBT’

When does the act of refusing to compromise the tenets of your religion become “ anti-LGBT ” ?
And when does passing a law that protects organizations that refuse to compromise those tenets become homophobic ?
Those , to Washington Examiner opinion columnist T. Becket Adams , are the questions we ought to be asking when considering how Tennessee ’ s religious freedom bill , which is soon to become law , is being covered .
Here ’ s Adams ’ characterization of the measure , which GOP Tennessee Gov .
Bill Lee confirmed last week he ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely not much different from how its supporters would respond if asked to characterize their intentions in three sentences : “ The legislation in question allows faith-based foster and adoptive groups to receive taxpayer funds even if they decline to work with members of the LGBT community , ” Adams wrote on Thursday .
“ The bill ensures that religious organizations won ’ t also be asked to violate their convictions to receive public funding .
It is the same basic principle behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , which was signed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” TRENDING : Suspected Neo-Nazi Arrested Before VA Gun Rally Is Actually an Illegal Immigrant There are two bedrock assumptions undergirding the legislation .
The first is that these religious organizations do good work in terms of foster care and acting as adoption agencies .
The second is that these organizations are faith-based and that , in almost all of the holy books used by major monotheistic religions that might run these organizations , “ marriage ” is defined as being between one man and one woman .
Regardless of whether critics view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vestigial remnant of a different time , no one would deny it ’ s there .
Tennessee is merely codifying those organizations ’ freedom to operate with taxpayer funds without sacrificing their constitutionally guaranteed religious principles .
Instead , Adams notes , headlines in stories regarding the bill took a very noticeable stand .
The Associated Press — putatively a sober , serious , “ just-the-facts-ma ’ am ” wire service — titled its story on the legislation , “ Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-LGBT adoption bill.
” Yahoo News : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will sign anti-LGBT adoption bill.
” A PBS cross-post of the AP story : “ Anti-LGBT adoption bill heads to Tennessee governor.
” The Tennessean ’ s original headline : “ Senate passes anti-LGBT adoption bill.
” ( It ’ s since been changed to the far more ecumenical “ In first bill of the year , Tennessee Senate passes legislation allowing adoption agencies to deny gay couples . )
You know the bias is showing when none of these headlines are substantively different from a tweet from a liberal LGBT lobbying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Transgender Pronouns , Says They 're a Courtesy , Not a Right for People Before the Court “ The bill does not represent an attempt by the state to deny members of the LGBT community the opportunity to adopt , despite what the news headlines suggest , ” Adams wrote .
“ The bill allows only for faith-based organizations to receive public funding without also asking them to violate their religious convictions .
To the national news media , however , ‘ religious liberty ’ is the same thing as ‘ anti-gay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in particular , the AP ’ s story on the legislation .
Second paragraph : “ The bill was sent to the Republican governor amid warnings by critics of possible negative consequences for Tennessee ’ s reputation.
” The third paragraph mentions that the governor had been unsure whether he would sign the legislation before it passed the state Senate in part because he hadn ’ t read it .
The fourth paragraph deals with the lone GOP dissenter , state Sen. Steve Dickerson .
“ We are off to a fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s quoted as saying .
It ’ s not until the seventh paragraph that we actually get to hear from the sponsor of the legislation .
“ This bill is solely about freedom , ” GOP state Sen. Paul Rose said .
The next paragraph notes that “ Rose conceded he thought the bill wasn ’ t necessary , pointing out that President Donald Trump ’ s administration is currently proposing a rule that would impose the same protections .
Yet he said he advanced the bill this year because there was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year.
” In terms of direct quotes , Rose gets one line in the story .
Far more space is given over to direct quotes from the aforementioned state Sen. Dickerson , the lone GOP dissenter .
Dickerson said the bill would limit where children could be sent by certain organizations , saying “ I expect that waiting list to increase somewhat.
” “ This will have a direct fiscal impact on the state , not to mention the humanitarian impact and emotional impact on those children who … will now be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added .
Except , again , this doesn ’ t exclude anyone from working with other adoption agencies .
There isn ’ t any exclusion here .
What the bill does is allow faith-based agencies that would potentially opt out of the system to have their religious liberties protected .
That ’ s not anti-LGBT — and stating otherwise is dangerous smear against faith-based organizations .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

When does the act of refusing to compromise the tenets of your religion become “anti-LGBT”? And when does passing a law that protects organizations that refuse to compromise those tenets become homophobic?
Those, to Washington Examiner opinion columnist T. Becket Adams, are the questions we ought to be asking when considering how Tennessee’s religious freedom bill, which is soon to become law, is being covered.
Here’s Adams’ characterization of the measure, which GOP Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed last week he’d be signing into law. It’s likely not much different from how its supporters would respond if asked to characterize their intentions in three sentences:
“The legislation in question allows faith-based foster and adoptive groups to receive taxpayer funds even if they decline to work with members of the LGBT community,” Adams wrote on Thursday.
“The bill ensures that religious organizations won’t also be asked to violate their convictions to receive public funding. It is the same basic principle behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.”
There are two bedrock assumptions undergirding the legislation.
The first is that these religious organizations do good work in terms of foster care and acting as adoption agencies. The second is that these organizations are faith-based and that, in almost all of the holy books used by major monotheistic religions that might run these organizations, “marriage” is defined as being between one man and one woman.
Regardless of whether critics view that definition as being sacrosanct or a vestigial remnant of a different time, no one would deny it’s there. Tennessee is merely codifying those organizations’ freedom to operate with taxpayer funds without sacrificing their constitutionally guaranteed religious principles.
Instead, Adams notes, headlines in stories regarding the bill took a very noticeable stand.
The Associated Press — putatively a sober, serious, “just-the-facts-ma’am” wire service — titled its story on the legislation, “Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-LGBT adoption bill.”
Yahoo News: “Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee says he will sign anti-LGBT adoption bill.”
A PBS cross-post of the AP story: “Anti-LGBT adoption bill heads to Tennessee governor.”
The Tennessean’s original headline: “Senate passes anti-LGBT adoption bill.” (It’s since been changed to the far more ecumenical “In first bill of the year, Tennessee Senate passes legislation allowing adoption agencies to deny gay couples.)
You know the bias is showing when none of these headlines are substantively different from a tweet from a liberal LGBT lobbying organization:
Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-LGBT bill allowing adoption agencies to deny same-sex couples #NOH8 https://t.co/pUhKxO0xVy — NOH8 Campaign (@NOH8Campaign) January 17, 2020
“The bill does not represent an attempt by the state to deny members of the LGBT community the opportunity to adopt, despite what the news headlines suggest,” Adams wrote.
“The bill allows only for faith-based organizations to receive public funding without also asking them to violate their religious convictions. To the national news media, however, ‘religious liberty’ is the same thing as ‘anti-gay.'”
It’s worth dissecting, in particular, the AP’s story on the legislation.
Do you support this religious liberty bill? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (372 Votes) No: 2% (7 Votes)
Second paragraph: “The bill was sent to the Republican governor amid warnings by critics of possible negative consequences for Tennessee’s reputation.”
The third paragraph mentions that the governor had been unsure whether he would sign the legislation before it passed the state Senate in part because he hadn’t read it. The fourth paragraph deals with the lone GOP dissenter, state Sen. Steve Dickerson. “We are off to a fine start this session,” he’s quoted as saying.
It’s not until the seventh paragraph that we actually get to hear from the sponsor of the legislation.
“This bill is solely about freedom,” GOP state Sen. Paul Rose said.
The next paragraph notes that “Rose conceded he thought the bill wasn’t necessary, pointing out that President Donald Trump’s administration is currently proposing a rule that would impose the same protections. Yet he said he advanced the bill this year because there was no guarantee Trump would be reelected later this year.”
In terms of direct quotes, Rose gets one line in the story. Far more space is given over to direct quotes from the aforementioned state Sen. Dickerson, the lone GOP dissenter. Dickerson said the bill would limit where children could be sent by certain organizations, saying “I expect that waiting list to increase somewhat.”
“This will have a direct fiscal impact on the state, not to mention the humanitarian impact and emotional impact on those children who … will now be in a foster setting for a longer time,” he added.
Except, again, this doesn’t exclude anyone from working with other adoption agencies. There isn’t any exclusion here.
What the bill does is allow faith-based agencies that would potentially opt out of the system to have their religious liberties protected. That’s not anti-LGBT — and stating otherwise is dangerous smear against faith-based organizations.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.