theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Friday, June 30, 2017

Feds To ARREST PARENTS Who SMUGGLED KIDS Into US



Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration plans to arrest parents and other relatives who authorities believe smuggled their children into the United States, a move immigrant advocates said would send a wave of fear through vulnerable communities.
A new “surge initiative” aims to dismantle human smuggling operations, including identifying and arresting the adult sponsors of unaccompanied minors who paid coyotes or other smugglers to bring young people across the U.S. border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed Thursday.
That marks a sharp departure from policies in place under President Barack Obama’s administration, during which time tens of thousands of children fleeing gang and drug violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador crossed the border and were placed with sponsors in communities nationwide. Sponsors — typically parents, close relatives or family friends — have been expected to care for the children while they go to school and seek legal status in immigration court.
“Arresting those who come forward to sponsor unaccompanied children during their immigration proceedings, often parents, is unimaginably cruel,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids In Need of Defense, a nonprofit that has matched thousands of unaccompanied minors with pro bono attorneys in the last eight years. “Without caregivers to come forward, many of these children will languish in costly detention centers or be placed in foster care at great expense to states.”
ICE officials did not respond to questions Thursday seeking details on the number of sponsors who would be targeted or already had been arrested, or what charges would be applied. Immigrant advocacy groups said they were investigating three arrests in Texas, New Jersey and Virginia that may involve sponsors.
Children whose sponsors were arrested would be placed with another verified relative or guardian, or under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the federal agency that takes custody of unaccompanied minors, said ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez.
“ICE aims to disrupt and dismantle end-to-end the illicit pathways used by transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling facilitators,” Rodriguez said. “The sponsors who have placed children directly into harm’s way by entrusting them to violent criminal organizations will be held accountable.”
Since October 2013, nearly 170,000 unaccompanied minors have been placed with sponsors in all 50 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and many are still awaiting their day in court, according to federal data. ICE officials said they were intervening after three incidents in Texas in recent years in which unaccompanied minors had been injured, sexually assaulted or locked into tractor trailers.
Last year, an Associated Press investigation and a bipartisan congressional probe found that the agency’s own inadequate screening had endangered more than two dozen migrant youth in the government’s care, including six Guatemalan minors who were placed with traffickers and forced to work on egg farms. The office later made numerous internal changes to strengthen its safeguards, but the program again came under fire recently after some unaccompanied minors were recruited by gangs in the U.S.
President Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority and has vowed to continue a crackdown on those living in the U.S. illegally and sneak into the country.
Leon Fresco, a former Obama administration Justice Department official, said Trump’s recent move likely would be challenged in court, given limits on the amount of time children can be detained.
“This sends a signal to young people who would cross the border not to cross, or your relatives will be placed in removal proceedings,” said Fresco. “This is a policy change to say a minor is no longer to be treated as a person worthy of our sympathy, but instead to be treated as another unlawful entrant whose entrance must deterred at all costs.”
Source>http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/feds-plan-to-arrest-parents-who-smuggled-kids-into-us/

Can the CIA and NSA Be TRUSTED With Cyber Hacking Tools?

Image: An undated handout photo shows the National Security Agency headquarters building in Fort Meade, Maryland


KEN DILANIAN

WASHINGTON — In 2015, when the news broke that the Pentagon had mistakenly shipped samples of live anthrax virus around the world, officials immediately faced tough questions from reporters. A review was ordered. The military equivalent of a grand jury investigation was launched into the question of leadership failures.
This week, the fruits of another risky American government experiment wreaked havoc, but the response was much different.
A sophisticated cyber attack disrupted companies and governments in the U.S. and abroad. The malware used in the attack capitalized on vulnerabilities in Microsoft's operating system that had been stockpiled by, and were stolen from, the National Security Agency, former NSA officials told NBC News. Dubbed Petya by some, the attack was similar to the WannaCry virus, which spread in May to 150 countries and was also developed to attack a software flaw revealed in an NSA leak, former officials said.
Image: TOPSHOT-GERMANY-WORLD-CYBER-SECURITY-ATTACKS
A cyberattack affected customer information displays in Germany in May. P. Goetzelt / AFP - Getty Images
At the NSA and the CIA, government hackers secretly collect and store software flaws that they later exploit to spy or inflict damage on America's adversaries. But those same weaknesses can be turned against almost any machine — and are hard to control once loosed on the internet. In that sense, they are the cyber equivalent of biological contagions. And lately, the U.S. government has proven itself unable to keep its cyber weapons secure.
Yet, so far, no one from the NSA or the CIA has said a word in public about the situation. The Trump administration has not addressed the American role in the origin of the malware. And it's unclear whether anyone in the U.S. intelligence community has been held accountable for the latest in what has been a string of breaches that compromised dangerous U.S. hacking tools.
The Petya and WannaCry attacks exploited vulnerabilities made public by a group calling itself the Shadow Brokers, which first released them in April. It's unclear how the software flaws were stolen from the NSA.
That followed a breach in March at the CIA, when WikiLeaks claimed that it had obtained a trove of CIA hacking tools after the vaunted spy agency had lost control of its entire arsenal of cyber weapons. That may have been an overstatement by WikiLeaks, but a number of CIA techniques were made public — and no one has yet explained how that happened or what has been done to prevent it from happening again.
Such thefts leave spy agencies in an untenable position, said Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and the NSA.
Image: An undated handout photo shows the National Security Agency headquarters building in Fort Meade, Maryland
The National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters building in Fort Meade, Maryland. Handout / Reuters
"If American espionage cannot protect the special tools that it possesses, it doesn't matter that they are good people working for good purposes under good oversight," Hayden told NBC News. "If they cannot protect the tools, I just can't mount the argument to defend that they should have them. This is the one that, unless resolved, I think actually could constitute a legitimate argument to do less."
Officials at the NSA, the digital spying agency that is known for its unwillingness to deal with news media inquiries, did not respond to requests for comment. At the CIA, which has never been shy about engaging reporters, spokesman Ryan Trapani obliquely defended the agency's cyber espionage operations, without speaking directly to the leak or its implications.
"CIA's mission is to aggressively collect foreign intelligence overseas to protect America from terrorists, hostile nation states and other adversaries," he said. "It is CIA's job to be innovative, cutting-edge, and the first line of defense in protecting this country from enemies abroad."
He added, "We have no comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents released by WikiLeaks or on the status of any investigation into the source of the documents," but that "the American public should be deeply troubled by any WikiLeaks disclosure designed to damage the intelligence community's ability to protect America against terrorists and other adversaries."
Former senior NSA officials offered a defense of the agency on condition of anonymity, because they are not authorized to discuss their prior work.
One former official told NBC News in May that the NSA releases 90 to 95 percent of the software vulnerabilities it discovers, but it sits on the rest for use in hacking and spying activities. In other words, the agency doesn't tell Americans about software holes that make them vulnerable — so it can exploit those weaknesses to spy on foreigners.
Some people would like the NSA to alert industry to every software hole it finds. But then, the former official said, the NSA would lose avenues for spying and attack. And hackers would still find holes to exploit, because such holes are inevitable.
"We do have software vulnerabilities out there, and why shouldn't the NSA be in the business of helping to protect us by exploiting those things when necessary?" a second former official asked.
But one thing neither former official could answer is why the NSA has continued to experience major breaches of classified material. First former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked some of the most sensitive secrets ever made public. Then another contractor, Harold Martin, was accused of taking home reams of classified documents. Then the Shadow Brokers obtained the software flaws.
Through it all, the same person, Kemp Ensor, has been head of security at the agency, according to his LinkedIn profile. The NSA did not respond to a request to make him available, and he did not respond to a message sent through LinkedIn.
The success of the cyber attacks can't be blamed entirely on the U.S. government. After it learned of the Shadow Brokers leak, the NSA warned Microsoft and other companies, the former officials said. Microsoft released a patch in March designed to fix the flaw.
But many companies and individuals failed to patch their systems. Those running outdated software may not even have been be able to.
After the WannaCry attack in May, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith took direct aim at U.S. intelligence agencies.
"This attack provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem," he wrote in a blog post. "This is an emerging pattern in 2017. We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world."
He continued, "Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage. An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the U.S. military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen."
Source>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/can-cia-nsa-be-trusted-cyber-hacking-tools-n778731

Feds To ARREST PARENTS Who SMUGGLED KIDS Into US



Associated Press


SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration plans to arrest parents and other relatives who authorities believe smuggled their children into the United States, a move immigrant advocates said would send a wave of fear through vulnerable communities.
A new “surge initiative” aims to dismantle human smuggling operations, including identifying and arresting the adult sponsors of unaccompanied minors who paid coyotes or other smugglers to bring young people across the U.S. border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed Thursday.
That marks a sharp departure from policies in place under President Barack Obama’s administration, during which time tens of thousands of children fleeing gang and drug violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador crossed the border and were placed with sponsors in communities nationwide. Sponsors — typically parents, close relatives or family friends — have been expected to care for the children while they go to school and seek legal status in immigration court.
“Arresting those who come forward to sponsor unaccompanied children during their immigration proceedings, often parents, is unimaginably cruel,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids In Need of Defense, a nonprofit that has matched thousands of unaccompanied minors with pro bono attorneys in the last eight years. “Without caregivers to come forward, many of these children will languish in costly detention centers or be placed in foster care at great expense to states.”
ICE officials did not respond to questions Thursday seeking details on the number of sponsors who would be targeted or already had been arrested, or what charges would be applied. Immigrant advocacy groups said they were investigating three arrests in Texas, New Jersey and Virginia that may involve sponsors.
Children whose sponsors were arrested would be placed with another verified relative or guardian, or under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the federal agency that takes custody of unaccompanied minors, said ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez.
“ICE aims to disrupt and dismantle end-to-end the illicit pathways used by transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling facilitators,” Rodriguez said. “The sponsors who have placed children directly into harm’s way by entrusting them to violent criminal organizations will be held accountable.”
Since October 2013, nearly 170,000 unaccompanied minors have been placed with sponsors in all 50 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and many are still awaiting their day in court, according to federal data. ICE officials said they were intervening after three incidents in Texas in recent years in which unaccompanied minors had been injured, sexually assaulted or locked into tractor trailers.
Last year, an Associated Press investigation and a bipartisan congressional probe found that the agency’s own inadequate screening had endangered more than two dozen migrant youth in the government’s care, including six Guatemalan minors who were placed with traffickers and forced to work on egg farms. The office later made numerous internal changes to strengthen its safeguards, but the program again came under fire recently after some unaccompanied minors were recruited by gangs in the U.S.
President Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority and has vowed to continue a crackdown on those living in the U.S. illegally and sneak into the country.
Leon Fresco, a former Obama administration Justice Department official, said Trump’s recent move likely would be challenged in court, given limits on the amount of time children can be detained.
“This sends a signal to young people who would cross the border not to cross, or your relatives will be placed in removal proceedings,” said Fresco. “This is a policy change to say a minor is no longer to be treated as a person worthy of our sympathy, but instead to be treated as another unlawful entrant whose entrance must deterred at all costs.”
Source>http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/feds-plan-to-arrest-parents-who-smuggled-kids-into-us/

WHY We Want To KILL EACH OTHER Over Politics

What drives people to invest ordinary politics with such vitriol that they fantasize about murdering people on the other side?

Why We Want To Kill Each Other Over Politics

 Robert Tracinski

Political violence has seemingly come back into fashion this year, in part because of the so-called “resistance” against President Trump—itself a metaphor for violent guerilla warfare, in the absence of a tyranny that requires resistance.
But it’s not actual violence that is in vogue so much as fantasizing about violence. Just in the past few weeks, we’ve had Kathy Griffin doing a photo shoot with her chopping off the head of a Donald Trump mannequin and New Yorkers flocking to see Trump as Julius Caesar getting stabbed to death in a Shakespeare play. (Yes, the play is deep and explores complex issues, but who are we kidding? Stabbing Trump to death in front of a bunch of Upper West Side liberals is an obvious form of fanservice.)
Just in the past week, we’ve heard Johnny Depp fantasizing about being the second actor to assassinate a president. Great company he’s got there. Then my favorite: a drawing circulating around on the Internet in response to the Republicans’ Obamacare “replacement” bill—depicting Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a blood-spattered killer gleefully holding up a knife.
It’s not that different from the targets they sell at the shooting range that are meant to represent the scary intruder you’re practicing to gun down.
During the middle of all of this, in totally unrelated news, an angry man who spent way too much time on anti-Republican Facebook groups, showed up at a practice for a congressional charity baseball game and shot at a bunch of Republican politicians, seriously wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, as well as a congressional aide, a lobbyist, and a Capitol policewoman.
I’m not saying that any of the celebrities playing around with assassination fantasies are directly responsible for the actions of the congressional baseball shooter. Shooting off your mouth is not the same thing as shooting off a gun. There will always be angry people who locate the source of their troubles in some unsuspecting public figure, whose violent death is the supposed solution for the wreck they’ve made out of their lives. This wouldn’t stop if we all suddenly just decided to talk nicely to each other about politics. People would find some other reason to shoot someone, like shooting the president to impress an actress.
But that’s not really the point. The point is: why do normal people want to behave this way? Why can’t they restrain themselves from playing around with the tropes and trappings of the political killer? What drives them to invest ordinary politics with such vitriol that they fantasize about murdering people on the other side?
That drawing of McConnell as a bloodthirsty killer who must be stopped is the giveaway. Why is he portrayed that way? Because he wants to alter the rules by which the government subsidizes health insurance. He’s not even trying to repeal Obamacare; the current bill is a messy compromise that mostly just tinkers with Obamacare. The only way this makes McConnell into a cold-blooded killer is if you project way too much importance and efficacy onto the activities of government—if you think that government policies, particularly those that involve more government spending and regulation, are the very wellspring of life, which your political opposition is arbitrarily cutting off.
If government power is the people’s best and only hope, then to deny the use of that power, or even to exercise it in the wrong way, is just like killing people. So you are naturally going to long to see the political malefactors behind such a policy struck down, for the same reasons we love the scene in the action movie when the bad guy finally falls off the skyscraper and gets what’s coming to him.
This attitude is not strictly limited to the provinces of the Left where we currently see it so flamboyantly displayed. As we have recently discovered, some on the Right also look to government for salvation, hoping that the right kind of limits on trade and immigration, the right deals made by the right dealmaker, will solve all of our problems—and anyone who doesn’t support that leader is a traitor.
But the basic idea of government as salvation is associated more with the Left, because expanding the power of government is their primary political cause. Not only that, in idealizing the power of government, they also idealize the methods or instruments of government: force, coercion, violence.
What has been running through my mind over the past few weeks is an essay written in 1894 by a long-forgotten defender of liberty named Auberon Herbert: “The Ethics of Dynamite.” Dynamite was a new technology then, the first modern high explosive, and Herbert was specifically referring to a European craze of mad bombers who adopted this new weapon as their tool for lashing out at the rest of society and trying to terrorize people into adopting their half-baked political programs. Basically, it was Ted Kaczynski, The Early Years.
The good citizens of the world were quite scandalized by this trend of dynamite bombers, but what Herbert pointed out was that the dynamiter was simply the most consistent form, the reductio ad aburdum, of the increasingly influential new theory of government. Dynamite, he wrote, “is a purer essence of government, more concentrated and intensified, than has ever yet been employed. It is government in a nutshell.” In other words: do what I say, or die. He hailed it as the ultimate product of the “doctrine of deified force.”
We are living now in this new world of dynamite. No wonder our political rhetoric is so explosive.
All of our politics today is a threat to coerce, or resentment against coercion, or a plan to coerce people in a different and supposedly better way. If the end goal is coercion, no wonder people fantasize about using force or violence as the means. No wonder they grow so livid when the wrong person gets into office and dares to control the apparatus of coercion they created. And it’s no wonder they fantasize about bumping him off.
There’s a reason there is not merely a legal but a cultural taboo against threatening to assassinate the president, no matter who he is, or against killing political leaders. We don’t want a political system that is ruled by force. But if we want to lower the stakes of politics and pull people back from the edge of quasi-murderous rage, we need a much stronger taboo against the threat of coercion against anyone. We need to defuse the “doctrine of deified force.”
Source>http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/29/why-we-want-to-kill-each-other-over-politics/

Mad GENIUS of Trump Drives SCHOOLMARMS of POLITICAL Press Crazy





 ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Oh, the mad genius of Donald Trump!
On the cusp of one of the biggest victories of his administration, cracking down on illegal aliens who commit vicious crimes inside our country, President Trump took to Twitter.
“I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”
The only thing missing from this electronic presidential address was the Marine Band playing “Hail to the Chief.”
She was bleeding badly. Face-lift. Low I.Q. Psycho Joe.
It is all so delicious. Mercilessly inventive. Joyously vicious. Like an entire season of pro wrestling drama, all sewn up into two little Twitter messages.
The Trump presidency is a little like having a dog. Every day that passes, you love the dog more and more until it seems impossible to love her any more.
But — sadly — every day also brings that nagging dread that one day she will be gone, seven times sooner than she should. What will we do when it is all over? There will never be another dog like her (sad face).
Of course, the puritanical schoolmarms of the political press went absolutely bonkers over Mr. Trump’s broadside of their fellow travelers. They scolded him that his Twitter missives were beneath the office of the president.
Really, you mean like molesting an intern in the Oval Office? “Presidential” like that?
MSNBC — the afterthought cable channel that airs “Morning Joe” — responded on Twitter: “It’s a sad day for America when the president spends his time bullying, lying and spewing petty personal attacks instead of doing his job.”
But the funny thing about it is that nobody actually disproved anything that Mr. Trump alleged. Just like Russia and obstruction of justice and everything else, there is not one single shred of evidence that Mr. Trump is not 100 percent in the right.
“The Amazon Post” — the paper-of-record for Never Trumpers — rushed to the defense of Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough with a laughably illogical and twisted explanation.
“The notion that Brzezinski and Scarborough were desperate to hang out with Trump on New Year's Eve but were rebuffed seems dubious, at best,” reporter Callum Borchers wrote on the paper’s website.
“For one thing, the New York Times spotted the co-hosts at Trump’s New Year's Eve party at Mar-a-Lago.”
So, wait a minute? The proof that Mr. Trump is lying about Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve is that — well — Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough were slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve?
Oof. Mr. Borchers probably learned this in journalism school. He should have gone to logic school instead.
But the correspondent was still not finished changing diapers for Ms. Brzezinski and Mr. Scarborough.
“For another,” Mr. Borchers writes, “Scarborough followed the report of their appearance [of Brzezinski and Scarborough slumming around Mar-a-Lago around New Year's Eve] by angrily protesting any suggestion that he and Brzezinski were trying to cozy up to the president-elect.”
Let’s put this in terms the young reporter might understand: O-M-G.
Then Mr. Borchers goes on to accuse Mr. Trump of a “blatantly sexist attack” on Ms. Brzezinski because the president called her “unintelligent.”
Whoa! You mean that accusing someone of being “low I.Q.” is the equivalent of calling them female?
You might want to get a little “woke” to modern times.
Ms. Brzezinski (that would be she of “low I.Q.” and “crazy”), meanwhile, proved herself entirely worthy of Mr. Trump’s tirade by attacking the size of his manhood on Twitter.
I wish I were making that up, but that is what she did.
She posted a picture of a Cheerios box with a small child reaching a tiny finger out for a little toasted Cheerio. The box reads: “Made for Little Hands.”
Get it?
Such classy people. And they have been a respected part of the establishment for years. Donald Trump just got here.
Oh, one last thing. What about the bloody face-lift? No one seems to be addressing the issue of her traipsing around Mar-a-Lago bleeding from a face-lift.
Either way, Mika, you should ask for your money back.
Source>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/donald-trumps-mad-genius-drives-schoolmarms-of-pol/

Frankfurt First GERMAN CITY Where GERMANS Are MINORITY

Frankfurt


 VIRGINIA HALE

For the first time, more than half of Frankfurt residents now have a migrant background, according to official data from the city’s Office of Statistics and Elections.

Presenting the figures, which show that 51.2 per cent of people living in Frankfurt have a migrant background, the city’s secretary of integration Sylvia Weber said: “We have minorities with relatively large numbers in Frankfurt but no group with a clear majority.”
Representing 13 per cent of the population, Turks are the city’s largest non-German minority, and 61 per cent of residents who were born abroad are citizens of other European Union (EU) countries.
Entitled Frankfurt Integration and Diversity Monitoring, the 200-page report is to provide a basis for the city to respond to inequalities, for example with regards to employment, education, or housing.
Economically, the report shows big disparities between foreigners and Germans, with the income of 49 per cent of people with roots outside Germany falling below the poverty line compared to 23 per cent amongst natives.
In terms of employment rates, 83 per cent of German men and 78 per cent of German women are in work, figures which drop to 73 per cent and 59 per cent amongst men and women with foreign backgrounds, respectively.
Weber hailed the rate of single motherhood amongst women of foreign origin, which the report showed was significantly higher than that of native Germans in the city, as “a possible sign that female migrants are emancipating themselves”, and called for more research into the subject.
A book published last year which predicted native Germans would soon be reduced to a minority in Frankfurt, Augsburg, and Stuttgart — joining other “majority minority” cities in Europe which include Amsterdam, London, Brussels, and Geneva  — celebrates the demographic transformations as providing greater opportunities for “social justice”.
Noting that two-thirds of young people in many of Western Europe’s major cities are of foreign origin, the authors of Super-Diversity: A New Perspective on Integration slammed politicians’ calls for newcomers to assimilate, stating: “If there is no longer an ethnic majority group, everyone will have to adapt to everyone else. Diversity will become the new norm.”

Immigration researcher Jens Schneider and his co-authors Maurice Crul and Frans Lelie admit “this will require one of the largest psychological shifts of our time”. But the authors assert that “soon, everyone living in a large European city will belong to an ethnic minority group, just as they do in New York”, a city they describe as a “vibrant metropolitan melting pot”.
Source>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/29/frankfurt-german-city-natives-minority/

The Coming CRASH of the LAWLESS Media

Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow      Associated Press photo


Wesley Pruden


ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The so-called Sullivan rule, which largely freed the media from pursuit by libel lawyers, is the gold standard in American newsrooms. Gold doesn’t collect tarnish. Nevertheless, thoughtful publishers, editors and libel lawyers warn that when anything goes and irresponsibility is regarded as a virtue, the media will eventually see its checks returned marked “insufficient funds.” It takes a clever man or institution to overdraw an unlimited checking account.
Sniping and rock-throwing at Donald Trump, a game that any number can play and nearly everybody does, has become a game with no rules and no referees, and worse, no editors to restrain obstreperous children breaking up the furniture.
CNN, once a fairly reliable source of news, with a weakness for trivia and given to peddling old news as the new thing, is now an inviting target for imaginative libel lawyers. Three of its most prominent editors and “producers” were sacked this week after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story it made up about a confidant of President Trump, that he and his hedge fund was being investigated by the U.S. Senate for colluding with the Russians for nefarious purpose. Mr. Trump predictably crowed “Fake news!” in his usual capital letters. This time he had a point.
Sarah Palin, once upon a time the Republican candidate for vice president, sued The New York Times this week for accusing her in an editorial of “inciting” the attack on Gabby Giffords, an Arizona congresswoman, that left her gravely wounded and six others dead. The New York Times said in an editorial that Mrs. Palin incited murder, because her political-action committee circulated a map with crosshairs imprinted over the districts of 20 Democratic congressmen targeted for defeat — not death — in the congressional elections of 2012. The newspaper retracted the editorial, without apology, the next day.
The editorial was published June 14, the very day a gunman opened fire on a Republican baseball practice, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise, the Republican whip in the House, and several others. The Times tweeted a “sorry” to its readers, but not to Mrs. Palin, and her lawyers noted that the newspaper “violated the law and its own policies” when it accused her of inciting the Giffords shooting.
Inciting a crime is serious business, and in the atmosphere of mayhem created by the left and the liberals in the wake of the election of Donald Trump, anything goes in pursuit of the man whose only proved “crime” so far is having defeated Hillary Clinton. Kathie Griffin’s bloody severed “head” of the president, and Johnny Depp’s call for an assassin to relieve the nation of its duly elected president was an inevitable consequence of seeding the land with toxin and deadly venom.
But winning libel suits against television networks and famous newspapers that have clearly contributed to this atmosphere of lawlessness will not be easy, the result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s shield protecting the media from the consequences of even shoddy work.
The high court held, in the 1964 case titled New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, that “the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with the knowledge what when they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).” A public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with “actual malice.” In the legal context the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather the common understanding of “malicious intent.”
In a concurring opinion in the case, the late Justice Hugo Black wrote that “malice, as defined by the court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment.”
This was a valuable and needed shield, not just for the press, but for everyone but corrupt public officials. But was in a very different time, when the press was far more responsible than now. Editors were armed with blue pencils the size of clubs to whack irresponsible reporters. One and all were warned at pain of death to keep themselves and their opinions to themselves. Opinion belonged only on the editorial page, where rant was the unpardonable sin. Not so much now. Too many layers of editing, as one famous editor said, can obstruct the story.
Indeed it can. But some stories, as we have seen at CNN and at The New York Times, should be obstructed. “Anything goes” eventually invites correction, and what looks like “actual malice” lies everywhere abundant.
Source>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/media-bias-may-be-immune-to-libel-laws/

Thursday, June 29, 2017

DHS Chief: Members of Congress 'THREATENED ME' Over Immigration Enforcement

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 6, 2017. (Associated Press) **FILE**

Stephen Dinan


Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly said Thursday that members of Congress have tried to “threaten” him over his department’s stepped up enforcement of the immigration laws they wrote, and called for even stiffer laws to punish sanctuary cities and repeat-illegal immigrants.
Mr. Kelly said he was “offended” by those lawmakers — who he didn’t name — who he said “often threaten me and my officers” when they try to enforce laws that call for the deportation of illegal immigrants.
It’s the latest blunt criticism from the retired Marine general, who has previously told members of Congress to “shut up” rather than criticize him over the laws they wrote.
He appeared Thursday on Capitol Hill with Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other Republicans, hours before the House was slated to vote on two new crackdown laws.
One would increase penalties on illegal immigrants who have been deported yet snuck back into the U.S. and later committed other crimes. That bill is named Kate’s law, after Kathryn Steinle, the woman killed by an illegal immigrant two years ago while walking the San Francisco waterfront with her father.
The other new bill would punish so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to let authorities cooperate with federal immigration officers trying to deport illegal immigrants.
Mr. Kelly said sanctuary cities aren’t actually sanctuaries, but rather make their communities more dangerous by shielding illegal immigrants.
Source>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/dhs-chief-members-congress-threaten-me-immigration/