Blair's defense secretary says he was told to burn memo saying Iraq war may be illegal

Revelation comes as over 700,000 sign petition to strip former UK premier of his recently awarded knighthood

Karim El-Bar |06.01.2022

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, U.S. President George W. Bush, 

May 28, 2002, Italy, Rome

(ANADOLU AGENCY-CHRIS WARDE-JONES)


LONDON

Former British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, who was in office during the Iraq War, claimed he was told to burn a memo from the attorney general that said the invasion of Iraq could be illegal, local media reported Wednesday.

Hoon served as defense secretary between 1999 and 2003 under former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Iraq was invaded in 2003 by a coalition led mainly by the US and the UK.

Hoon made the claim in his recently published memoir See How They Run.

The Daily Mail was the first to report the story and said that then Chief of Defense Staff Mike Boyce wanted legal backing that British troops could fight in Iraq.

Hoon in turn received a “very long and very detailed opinion” from the attorney general that essentially said the invasion of Iraq could be seen as lawful if the prime minister believed it was in the UK’s national interest.

“It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the chief of the defense staff was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him,” Hoon wrote in his memoir.

“Moreover, when my principal private secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”

Hoon said he did not end up burning the document.

“I agreed that we should lock the document securely into an MoD safe to which only he had access. For all I know, it is probably still there.”

Separately, Powell, who was Blair’s chief of staff, denied to the Daily Mail that he demanded the legal advice be burned, instead saying he told Hoon to destroy a separate document from months earlier.

Blair was awarded a knighthood by the Queen in her New Year honor’s list – but over 700,000 people have signed a petition calling for it to be rescinded.

The petition on Change.org reads: “Tony Blair caused irreparable damage to both the constitution of the United Kingdom and to the very fabric of the nation’s society. He was personally responsible for causing the death of countless innocent, civilian lives and servicemen in various conflicts. For this alone he should be held accountable for war crimes.”

For his part, current Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer told local media: “I don’t think it’s thorny at all. I think he deserves the honor. Obviously I respect the fact that people have different views.”

Pentagon spending stuck in neutral even as lawmakers back budget boost

House Democrats plan to shine a light on the dire budget situation next week when top Pentagon officials testify on the impact of temporary funding on the military.


"We can stand here … and declare our unwavering support for our troops and their families. We can claim to support a strong national defense,” Senate Appropriations Chair Patrick Leahy, seen here on Wednesday, said last month. “But until we put our money where our mouth is and provide the funding we say we support, then those words ring hollow." | Elizabeth Frantz/Pool via AP


By CONNOR O’BRIEN and JENNIFER SCHOLTES

01/05/2022 

Congress has overwhelmingly backed a $25 billion increase to President Joe Biden's Pentagon budget, but the battle over defense spending is far from over.

Biden last week signed annual defense policy legislation that calls for significantly boosting his $715 billion Pentagon blueprint to $740 billion. But the just-enacted National Defense Authorization Act doesn’t actually provide any money, and lawmakers have until mid-February to reach a deal to fund the Pentagon and other federal agencies for the rest of the fiscal year.

There are, however, signs that Congress is inching toward a deal, after POLITICO first reported that House Democratic appropriators are preparing to agree to a larger defense budget than either they or Biden wanted.

In the meantime, though, the Defense Department — and all other federal agencies — are stuck at even lower budget levels agreed to during the Trump administration because they are funded through a temporary measure.

"We can stand here … and declare our unwavering support for our troops and their families. We can claim to support a strong national defense,” Senate Appropriations Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a floor speech last month. “But until we put our money where our mouth is and provide the funding we say we support, then those words ring hollow. It's only rhetoric."


Final defense bill shakes up military prosecutions, boosts Indo-Pacific fund
BY CONNOR O’BRIEN, PAUL MCLEARY, LEE HUDSON AND BRYAN BENDER

The government is now operating under a continuing resolution that runs out on Feb. 18. Lawmakers need to pass spending legislation before then or risk trapping agencies at last year’s levels, a prospect that’s particularly unpopular in the halls of the Pentagon.

House Democrats plan to shine a light on the dire budget situation next week when top Pentagon officials testify on the impact of temporary funding on the military.

While Democrats appear ready to accept a defense boost, top Republicans are also insisting on “parity” between spending on the Pentagon and non-defense programs as well as ground rules for handling contentious policy riders — including whether to renew the Hyde Amendment that bars federal funds for abortion.

The top Senate Appropriations Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), spoke with Leahy about a spending deal on the floor Wednesday, and said negotiations are headed in the right direction.

“We're still talking, and we're not there yet. We also are aware that we've got a Feb. 18 deadline,” Shelby told POLITICO. “Could we meet it? Probably not, but I'd like to see us do it."

A full-year spending package is within reach, he added, if Democrats and Republicans can agree on the balance of defense and domestic spending along with policy riders.

"If we could cut a deal, and it's something we could live with, that's what this place is about,” Shelby said. “And that's what we have to do sometimes. But it has to be something that would be palatable to our caucus and theirs too — maybe not everything everybody wants.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell underscored the framework of “basic traditional riders, no poison pills and parity for defense and non-defense” for a spending deal on Tuesday.

“To the extent that the Democrats are willing to meet those conditions, then I would think we’d have a chance of getting an omnibus appropriation Feb. 18,” McConnell told reporters.

The Pentagon side of the ledger may well be the least contentious part of the deal to clinch. Signs so far point to more defense cash if a full-year spending deal emerges.

House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and her committee staff have made calls to members over the recess to see if they’d support spending more on the Pentagon than the administration wants. DeLauro has said she’d be open to boosting defense spending to secure a full-year omnibus spending bill.

House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro and her committee staff have made calls to members over the recess to see if they’d support spending more on the Pentagon than the administration wants. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the Capitol joined forces to supersize the price tag of defense policy legislation by $25 billion. 

And while the House Appropriations Committee was the only panel that stuck with Biden’s lower budget request in its fiscal 2022 defense appropriations bill, draft Pentagon spending legislation released by Senate appropriators this fall backed the higher increases called for in the NDAA.

"I think the number on the defense side is pretty well there — everybody understands what that number's going to be, both in the House and the Senate and the White House,” Rep. Ken Calvert of California, the top Republican on the House Defense Appropriations panel, told POLITICO in a December interview. “The negotiation is on how much do they lower non-defense discretionary spending."

Despite the momentum for more military money, congressional leaders have been at odds over Democratic efforts to up spending for domestic agencies.

Republicans have long complained that the Defense Department is singled out in Biden’s budget request, whose original level they contend would be swallowed by inflation and wouldn't keep up with world threats.

With a continuing resolution now poised to consume more than a third of fiscal 2022, the military is losing out on as much as $36 billion in added cash, compared to the level endorsed by the NDAA. The Pentagon is operating at the $704 billion budget level agreed to near the end of the Trump administration, even lower than Biden’s $715 billion proposal that was rejected by Congress.

"You're losing purchasing power under the CR, 100 percent,” explained Mackenzie Eaglen of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “And you're losing it double with inflation. So it's a double whammy."

Stopgap funding also bars the Pentagon from starting new initiatives or ramping up existing ones unless lawmakers grant an exemption.

Initiatives greenlit by lawmakers in the NDAA — such as more than $7 billion aimed at deterring China in the Indo-Pacific region and a $4.7 billion increase to shipbuilding efforts to purchase five more ships than the Navy requested — won’t be fulfilled under a continuing resolution.

Lawmakers, administration officials and the defense industry have also expressed concerns that efforts to field hypersonic missiles will fall behind without increased spending this year, even as policymakers worry about China’s recent gains on the new weapons.

Others have warned that military readiness will be hurt if a 2.7 percent troop pay raise takes effect without increased funding, forcing the Pentagon to raid other accounts to cover the added cost of higher military pay.

"Reality as it is, we're operating on the Trump budget right now,” Calvert said. “And the Dems, it must drive them crazy, but that's what we're operating under."

New York to Spend $500 Million to Fuel Boom in Offshore Wind

David R. Baker, Bloomberg News

The GE-Alstom Block Island Wind Farm stands in the water off Block Island, Rhode Island, U.S., on Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2016. The installation of five 6-megawatt offshore-wind turbines at the Block Island project gives turbine supplier GE-Alstom first-mover advantage in the U.S. over its rivals Siemens and MHI-Vestas. Photographer: Eric Thayer/Bloomberg , Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- New York state will spend $500 million building up ports and manufacturing infrastructure for offshore wind farms in a bid to become home base for the nascent industry.

The investments announced Wednesday by Governor Kathy Hochul will focus on building the supply chain for offshore turbines, which can provide clean power to a densely populated coast with little room for onshore wind farms or solar power plants.

“With this investment, New York will lead the nation on offshore wind production, creating green jobs for New Yorkers, and powering our clean energy future,” Hochul said in the statement.

New York also plans to initiate its next bidding process this year for companies interested in building offshore wind farms. The process is expected to authorize enough turbines to power 1.5 million homes. The state also will begin planning a seafloor cable network to deliver power from offshore turbines directly to New York City.

Nearby states have similar goals: In December, officials in Maryland and Massachusetts approved offshore wind farm projects that will use port facilities in both states as construction hubs.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

• Facebook’s failures with election misinformation contributed to the deadly Capitol insurrection.
  
  A year later, the platform has failed to fix its problems.
  
  Media Matters’ latest analysis has identified hundreds of active posts and Facebook groups still pushing “Stop the Steal” lies
  
  WRITTEN BY KAYLA GOGARTY & CLARA MARTINY
  
  RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CARLY EVANS, NENA BEECHAM & JEREMY TUTHILL
  
  
  PUBLISHED 01/05/22
  
  Following the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Facebook vowed to reduce election misinformation and prevent further incitement of violence by removing harmful content and suspending former President Donald Trump. But Media Matters’ latest analysis found that in the year since the January 6 attack, Facebook has not only repeatedly failed to moderate “Stop the Steal” content, baseless claims of election fraud, and other election misinformation, but its algorithm and other features have enabled such content to flourish.
  
  Key findings:
  Right-leaning pages earned a greater proportion of interactions on election-related posts in the year after the January 6 insurrection than in the year before. In fact, these pages earned over 2 billion interactions -- or 54% of total interactions on election-related content -- on nearly 570,000 posts between January 7 and December 31, 2021.
  There are still at least 484 posts referencing “stop the steal” or “sts” still active on Facebook that were created by right-leaning Facebook pages in the year leading up to the insurrection, earning over 2.6 million interactions
• Since January 7, 2021, another 238 posts with “stop the steal” or “sts” were posted by right-leaning pages and remain on the platform. These posts have earned over 415,000 interactions combined.
• As of January 3, there were at least 203 groups spreading election misinformation and blatant conspiracy theories, with nearly 240,000 combined members; 18 of them specifically include “Stop the Steal” or mention a “stolen election” in their name
  
  On November 17, 2020, just weeks after the presidential election, CEO Mark Zuckerberg boasted that Facebook’s “systems performed well” during the election cycle, ignoring the platform’s litany of failures related to election misinformation before and after Joe Biden was elected. In December 2020, Facebook removed the “break glass” measures it had implemented during the campaign to boost authoritative sources and reduce election misinformation -- a move which seemingly contributed to the insurrection on January 6.
  
  While Facebook had claimed victory, the company failed to recognize what it later called “a coordinated effort to delegitimize the election.” Even more embarrassing for the platform, Facebook researchers clearly had access to troves of data evincing the danger these efforts posed -- even while Media Matters and other external researchers and journalists were sounding the alarm. But Facebook still claimed ignorance when pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol on January 6 in an attempt to stop the certification of the election.
  
  The deadly insurrection on January 6 was aided, in part, by Facebook’s litany of failures before, during, and after the election, which include
• Allowing Trump and other right-wing pages to push harmful election misinformation -- and other misinformation and extreme rhetoric -- with impunity. Notably, Trump posted 433 times with election-related keywords between November 3, 2020, and November 2, 2021, earning over 176 million interactions, even as 75% of them featured at least one of Facebook's 18 different labels related to the election. Additionally, roughly a quarter of Trump's 6,081 Facebook posts that were created between January 1, 2020, and January 6, 2021, contained COVID-19 misinformation, election lies, or extreme rhetoric about his critics.
• 
  Failing to enforce its political ad ban and allowing right-wing pages to continue to run political ads with misinformation. Between November 4 and December 8, 2020 -- while the ban was in place -- Facebook enabled right-wing outlet The Daily Wire to earn millions of impressions on 24 political ads before finally removing them. There were another 50 ads that appeared to address social issues, elections, or politics, but ran without a disclaier to circumvent the platform’s ban.
• Failing to moderate “Stop the Steal” content, even after January 6, when the platform announced it would remove content with the phrase. Between Election Day and January 13, “Sedition Caucus” members -- the 147 Republican members of Congress who voted against certifying the election results after pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol -- mentioned keywords related to “Stop the Steal” a total of 193 times on Facebook.
  Earning revenue from ads with election misinformation even after January 6. On November 1 -- nearly 10 months after the January 6 insurrection -- Media Matters found at least 46 ads on Facebook and Instagram calling to “decertify” the 2020 election. The ads earned over 8 million impressions.
  
  In 2021, Facebook failed to effectively tackle election misinformation and penalize bad actors pushing it. Instead, the company has seemingly prioritized profit and positive PR over addressing the problems that made its platform a hotbed for fomenting political violence. One year after the deadly Capitol riot, these failures continue.
  
  FAILURE: Right-leaning pages earned more interactions on election-related posts than other political pages -- including by spreading known election misinformation
  
  Media Matters and other researchers have demonstrated again and again that there is no bias or censorship against conservatives on Facebook, despite right-wing claims to the contrary. In fact, right-leaning pages actually benefit from Facebook’s algorithm, which rewards sensational, divisive, and false content -- and the platform continued to disproportionately benefit right-wing content about voting and elections even after the Capitol attack.
  
  Between January 7 and December 31, 2021, right-leaning Facebook pages that cover U.S. news and politics posted about election-related topics more frequently than left-leaning or ideologically nonaligned pages, making nearly 570,000 posts, or almost 44% of the total. Notably, right-leaning pages also earned the most interactions -- over 2 billion, or 54%. Left-leaning pages earned over 1.1 billion interactions (31%) on nearly 300,000 election-related posts, while ideologically nonaligned pages earned nearly 560 million interactions (15%) on over 430,000 such posts.
  
  A similar pattern occurred in the year before the insurrection, as right-leaning pages earned over 3.2 billion interactions on over 750,000 election-related posts created between January 6, 2020, and January 6, 2021 -- earning roughly 50% of total interactions on just over 40% of such posts. Left-leaning pages earned nearly 32% of total interactions on over 25% of election-related posts during this time, and ideologically nonaligned pages earned almost 18% of total interactions on nearly 25% of such posts.
• 
  
  FAILURE: Facebook continues to platform numerous posts from right-leaning pages about “Stop the Steal”
  
  
  In response to the January 6 Capitol attack, Facebook vowed to remove posts with the phrase “stop the steal” under its Coordinating Harm policy, including retroactive removal. However, Facebook used a very narrow interpretation of its policy, allowing many posts and groups with similar language about a “stolen election” to remain active on the platform. On January 28, 2020, Media Matters reported that over 150 Facebook groups focused on election fraud had avoided removal, including 23 groups that mentioned “stop the steal” or used similar language about a “stolen election” in their name or within posts.
  
  A year after the January 6 attack, there are still posts with the phrase circulating on Facebook. In fact, we found at least 484 posts with “stop the steal” or “sts” that were created by right-leaning pages in the year before the riot -- between January 6, 2020, and January 6, 2021 -- that Facebook has failed to remove. These posts earned over 2.6 million interactions. Notably, the top 10 “Stop the Steal” posts from this time frame with the most interactions were either posted by Trump, his campaign, or right-wing outlet Newsmax. Five of these posts were from Trump and his campaign.
• 

• 

Additionally, between January 7 and December 31, 2021, right-leaning pages made 238 posts mentioning “stop the steal” or “sts,” which earned over 415,000 interactions combined. These include at least 40 posts that push election misinformation, criticize Facebook for banning the phrase, or contain misinformation about the insurrection.

FAILURE: There are still hundreds of groups filled with election misinformation on Facebook

Two days after Election Day 2020, it was clear that Facebook was already having problems. The platform took down one of the biggest “Stop the Steal” groups at approximately 300,000 members, and it added labels to posts discussing election results. However, like many of Facebook’s actions to stem misinformation, this was too little too late. By then, groups were proliferating on the platform, finding ways around Facebook’s moderation, and using the platform to organize and prepare for violence on January 6.

A year later, election misinformation continues to spread in private and public Facebook groups as administrators only gained more power to evade content moderation.

In October 2021, we identified 203 active groups dedicated to pushing election misinformation -- and that number has increased since then. As of January 3, there are still 203 groups spreading election misinformation and conspiracy theories, with nearly 240,000 members; 18 of them specifically use variations of “stop the steal” or mention a “stolen election” in their name. Another 15 groups spreading election misinformation during that time have since been archived -- meaning that members have access to posts in the groups but can no longer create new ones.

While some of these groups are still focused on the 2020 presidential election, others have pivoted to combat so-called “election fraud” in state-level elections. For example, “NJ Election Integrity Project” has spread misinformation about the 2021 gubernatorial race. It is perhaps Facebook's biggest failures that it has let misinformation about 2020 election seep into 2021 and beyond.

Methodology


Media Matters used the following method to compile and analyze election-related posts from political pages on Facebook:

Using CrowdTangle, Media Matters compiled a list of 1,773 Facebook pages that frequently posted about U.S. politics from January 1 to August 25, 2020.

For an explanation of how we compiled pages and identified them as right-leaning, left-leaning, or ideologically nonaligned, see the methodology here.

The resulting list consisted of 771 right-leaning pages, 497 ideologically nonaligned pages, and 505 left-leaning pages.

Every day, Media Matters also uses Facebook's CrowdTangle tool and this methodology to identify and share the 10 posts with the most interactions from top political and news-related Facebook pages.

Using CrowdTangle, Media Matters compiled all posts for the pages on this list that were posted between January 6, 2020, and December 31, 2021, related to elections and voting. We reviewed data for these posts, including total interactions (reactions, comments, and shares).

We defined posts as related to elections and voting if they had any of the following terms in the message or in the included link, article headline, or article description: “ballot,” “biden,” “democrats,” “dems,” “election,” “general chatter about voting,” “poll watcher,” “polling place,” “polling station,” “republicans,” “the election,” “trump,” “vote,” “voted,” “your state,” “election results,” “rigged,” “election integrity,” “voter,” “voter fraud,” “electoral college,” “ballots,” “certifying,” “chosen electors,” “corrupt,” “corruption,” “count,” “decertification,” “decertify,” “decertifying,” “democratic process,” “dominion,” “election,” “election fraud,” “election victory,” “electoral college,” “found ballots,” “stolen election,” “stop the steal,” “vote dump,” “vote tabulation,” “voter dump,” “voter fraud,” “voter tabulation,” “voting,” “mail-in ballot,” “mail-in box,” “election box,” “election machines,” “stopthesteal,” “#stopthesteal,” “2020 election,” “election 2020,” “mail in ballots,” “mail-in ballots,” “mail in ballot,” “mail-in ballot,” “integrity hearings,” “integrity hearing,” “fraud hearing,” or “fraud hearing.”

Seattle Jewish Federation Outraged After ‘Inadequate’ Response to Police Official Who Displayed Nazi Insignia

by Algemeiner Staff
JANUARY 5, 2022 


Aerial view of Kent, Washington as of 2021. Photo: Imogen Caroline/Wikimedia

A major Seattle Jewish organization criticized city officials in Kent, Washington — part of the Seattle metropolitan area — for their response to an assistant police chief who posted a Nazi military insignia on his office door and allegedly made jokes about the Holocaust.

Assistant Kent Police Chief Derek Kammerzell was suspended for two weeks and ordered to attend cultural sensitivity training last July for violating city policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination and for unbecoming conduct in violation of police policy, according to the Kent Reporter.

Police Chief Rafael Padilla accepted his subordinate’s claim that he did not know the symbol, which indicated a military rank, was of Nazi origin.

A Dec. 28 statement released by Kent’s municipal communications staff said that two independent law firms had reviewed the case and, “based on labor law and the advice of the employment law firm, the city believes a two-week suspension was an appropriate and defensible response to the conduct identified in the investigation.”

The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle objected, saying, “The City of Kent’s response demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the impact of these acts by one of its assistant police chiefs on our local Jewish community.”

“We call on the City of Kent to immediately revisit the situation, publicly recognize the harm and hurt caused to our Jewish community, and treat the offenses with the seriousness and care they deserve,” they said.

“This is an affront to the entire Puget Sound Jewish community and inexcusable,” the Federation added. “Synagogues, Jewish community centers, and Jewish organizations rely on law enforcement to help protect them from violent, antisemitic attacks.”

“The two-week suspension and sensitivity training given in response are completely inadequate, especially at a time when incidents of hate against the Jewish people are higher than they’ve been in almost 45 years,” they asserted. “The absence of true accountability demanded of Kammerzell and the sheer lack of consequences in this situation are shocking.”

While isolated from his colleagues as a COVID precaution, Fox's Gutfeld declares “the pandemic is over”

Gutfeld: “This is absolutely great news. This is the double destruction of the pandemic and of the teachers unions”

WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
PUBLISHED 01/05/22 
CitationFrom the January 5, 2022, edition of Fox News' The Five

GREG GUTFELD (CO-HOST): You have to look at this from the positive perspective. This is absolutely great news. This is the double destruction of the pandemic and of the teachers unions happening at exactly the same time, right? We now know that the pandemic is over. The teachers unions pushed us over the cliff. It's going to happen February 1st -- this is all going to be behind us. And it's time now to sever the ties with the least competitive entity on the planet since the Washington Generals. Our education -- educational system is just like the Washington Generals in that we pay them to lose. The only thing worse is that they're teaching our children to lose. They're going to lose in life because they're falling behind. We've learned one really important thing from remote learning -- no one is remotely learning. 

CALIFORNIA

Bill To Make It Easier To Sue Gun Makers and Dealers Introduced in Assembly

‘This has to be airtight to succeed and it is far from airtight’


Assemblyman Philip Y. Ting. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

By Evan Symon, January 5, 2022 2:08 pm

A bill to make it easier for local governments and gun violence victims to sue gun makers was introduced in the Assembly on Tuesday.

Assembly Bill 1594, authored by Assemblymen Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), Chris Ward (D-San Diego) and Mike Gipson (D-Carson), closely follows a New York law in allowing victims of gun violence and governments to sue gun manufacturers or dealers for liability when firearms are used in incidents of shooting deaths or injuries. The specific language of the bill reads as “This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.”

Ting, Ward, and Gipson said that the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a law that protects gun makers and dealers from liability when weapons are used to kill or injure someone, fails to protects them when they break state law. Armed with a loophole, the three Assemblymen wrote the bill for several different reasons.

One major reason is to follow Governor Gavin Newsom’s push to model a law on the recent Texas abortion law to allow private citizens to sue gun manufacturers. Despite Newsom’s idea clearly breaking federal law, AB 1594 would work within the loophole to avoid any federal problems.

The Assemblymen also pushed for greater public safety with the bill, with the hope that greater legal and financial pressure will have gun makers and dealers follow California firearms laws more closely and lead to a reduction in crime.

“We must make our communities safer. Almost every industry in the United States can be held liable for what their products do, but the gun industry is not held to the same standard,” said Assemblyman Ting on Tuesday. “Financial repercussions may finally push them to be more responsible by improving their practices and adhering to California’s strict gun laws.”

Assemblyman Mike A. Gipson. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

The bill is also fighting against ramped up legal pressure by gun rights organizations against California laws. To the embarrassment of many lawmakers, California gun laws were severely challenged by the courts last year, with a federal judge even overturning the state’s 32-year-old ban on assault weapons in June, with it later being halted due to a stay from an Appeals judge while they decide on it.

“A lot of California legislators and higher lawmakers are frustrated as legal challenges against their gun laws keep coming up almost endlessly,” Los Angeles injury lawyer Marco Ruiz told the Globe on Wednesday. “One is finally decided by the courts and three others seem to spring up. And worse yet, they are starting to win some now, forcing the state to appeal. They’re hoping with AB 1594 and others similar to Newsom’s proposal that a new precedent will come up and that they’ll be beleaguered by so many lawsuits that they’ll play ball, or at the very least put the burden more on guns rights organizations. The state wants to win the war over firearms, and passing this, and it coming through the courts unscathed, would be a big part of it.”

Finally, the bill is personal to Assemblyman Gibson, whose son and future daughter-in-law were injured in a Los Angeles shooting in 2020. Gipson even said of the bill on Tuesday that “This is absolutely personal to me. I will not rest until we put an end to senseless gun violence. Part of the solution is focused on how particular guns are manufactured and distributed in California.”
Support, opposition against AB 1594

The bill received much political support on Tuesday and Wednesday with both Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Brady Campaign getting behind the bill.

Gunmakers, dealers, and guns rights organizations quickly announced opposition to AB 1594, arguing that the vast majority of gun owners and businesses who follow the law would be unduly punished as a result of the bill being passed. Many have already promised lawsuits if the law is passed, with some hoping to petition members of Congress to amend the Lawful Commerce law to remove the state law loophole, thus invalidating any attempt to get past it like AB 1594.

“Law-abiding gun owners and businesses are not the cause of criminal misuse of firearms,” said the California Rifle and Pistol Association last year to Governor Newsom’s plan. “Yet Newsom and other anti-gun politicians seem to believe the threat of frivolous lawsuits will somehow address their own failures.”

In a new statement on Tuesday, a representative for the group added “As a matter of policy, to try and shift the blame for the criminal misuse of a lawful product that is used far more often to save lives and protect lives than to take them is a terrible idea.”

Those in law also said that passing the law could lead to a legal minefield of issues.

“These Assembly members have no idea just what they are doing,” attorney Ruiz added. “Good lawyers could easily argue against this law in court. Should someone be able to sue a restaurant for giving someone a heart attack? Should someone sue a knife maker for the same reasons as AB 1594? The list can go on. It’s not even funny how bogged down this law will be for years under the legal system. Every side will fight hard. There will be stays. Appeals. Arguments over every bit of language. This has to be airtight to succeed and it is far from airtight.”

“We’re in for a bumpy ride on this one, and we haven’t even gotten to committee votes yet. We haven’t gotten final legal word on the New York law that could really change the course of this one. This is far from a done deal.”

AB 1594 is expected to be heard in committees in the coming months.

Author
Recent Posts

Evan Symon is the Senior Editor for the California Globe. Prior to the Globe, he reported for the Pasadena Independent, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and was head of the Personal Experiences section at Cracked. He can be reached at evan@californiaglobe.com.

South Carolina has experienced 10 earthquakes since late December, confounding experts


The earthquakes may be a long-lasting aftershock following a 3.3 magnitude quake in December

Graig Graziosi
5/01/2022


Related video: 3.5-magnitude quake rocks San Bernardino County

A series of 10 earthquakes have shook the region surrounding South Carolina's capital city Columbia over the past two weeks, and geologists are unsure of what – if anything – the quakes might mean for the area.

The seismic activity began on 27 December, after a 3.3 magnitude earthquake shook the border region between Richland and Kershaw counties.

Geologists believe that quake set in motion an extended period of aftershocks, which explains the recent spate of smaller quakes around the region.

South Carolina is no stranger to earthquakes. The state averages about 20 each year, as part of the state sits atop the Easter Piedmont fault system, which extends from Alabama north into Virginia. The fault system is ancient and likely formed around 480 million years ago, the same time the Appalachian Mountains rose.

While the ancient fault systems in the southeastern US have been largely inactive, Steven Jaume, an associate professor at the College of Charleston, told WYFF that the recent spate of earthquakes may indicate those faults are becoming active.

"The question is are those faults being reactivated," he said. "Are they starting up again in that particular area? That's what we're investigating."

In addition to the number of the quakes, the location is also unusual. Most of the state's earthquakes occur near the coasts, particularly near the Charleston region. The recent group of quakes is much further inland, all occurring around Columbia.

Mr Jaume said that so long as the quakes continue to be minor, there is not likely cause for concern.

The last time the state suffered a major earthquake was 1886. That year, Charleston suffered the largest earthquake ever recorded in the southeastern US when a quake of at least a 7 magnitude rocked the city, leaving dozens dead and hundreds of buildings destroyed.

Most watched

Prior to the quake, several smaller tremors occurred in the region over the course of several days. There was no way to know at the time that the quakes were foreshocks indicating a much large event to come.

Unfortunately, seismologists are still unable to forecast earthquakes. Unlike meteorology, which allows researchers to see storms and other weather events coming, there is no means of measuring data that could foretell the coming of an earthquake.

"You can't see it coming," Mr Jaume told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "There isn’t anything obvious moving or changing that you can put your finger on that you can say, ‘This is leading to this.'"

More about South CarolinaEarthquakes

Don’t Care About the Build Back Better Act? 

Hearing People’s Personal Stories Might Change That

When U.S. Sen. Joe manchin, D-W.VA., said that he wouldn’t support President Joe Biden’s signature build back better act, he set off a wave of breaking news alerts.

January 5, 2022 by Pressenza

Editorial note: The need for constructive information is critical in our decision-making process. When information becomes tainted with special interests, spin, myopic visions for power & control from divisive factions, the intensity shifts from interests of good governance to the politics of street-game “winner or loser” and nowhere near are “for the people” Constitutional claims. A quote from the 13th century Persian poet Rumi starts, “The quieter you become, the more you will be able to ‘hear’…and I would add, to ‘see’. Human perception is being altered, channeled for control. Media din capitalizes on the sensational, the outrageous, with the result being much more emotion-commotion than clarity..of mind, of heart. This article by Professor Angela Bradbery suggests that a focus of people-to-people interest rather than a pay-to-play media machine may be key to reclaiming direction. J.Jill


When U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said that he wouldn’t support President Joe Biden’s signature Build Back Better Act, he set off a wave of breaking news alerts.

It was fitting. For months, media coverage has breathlessly focused on the behind-the-scenes wrangling and hour-by-hour negotiations around the legislation. How much has been slashed from the bill today? What does it mean for the future of the Democratic and Republican parties?

The roughly US$2 trillion proposal is designed to bolster what is widely seen as a frayed social safety net. But most Americans don’t think it will benefit people like them, a recent NPR/Marist poll shows. And a quarter of Americans can’t even say whether they like or dislike the legislation.

It’s no wonder the nation is so indifferent about the sweeping bill, which would change the country’s tax system, increase social services and ramp up efforts to combat climate change.

Largely omitted from news coverage – and consequently, from the national conversation – are the voices and stories of individuals who would be affected by the legislation.
Focusing outside D.C.

What if daily media coverage instead featured those voices? What if reporters and talk show hosts ditched the pundits and issue experts and instead explored the problems that led to the proposed policies – through the eyes and voices of those living with those problems?

That means we would hear from parents who need help paying for child care and elderly people who can’t afford medicines or hearing aids.

We would hear from people who can’t afford health care, people living in their cars or on the streets, and yes, those who earn more than $400,000 a year. Multimillionaires, billionaires and corporations would pay more under the new tax plan.

What if news stories shined a spotlight on these voices, rather than just throwing in an occasional anec
Research shows that they likely would. And that would be good for democracy.
Real stories can spark real engagement

It’s well documented that horse-race journalism – which treats politics as a sport, focusing on who’s ahead or behind, rather than the substance of issues – is associated with an uninformed electorate and elevates public cynicism about politics. Such coverage doesn’t help people understand what proposals could mean to them.

Policy overviews filled with large numbers don’t engage people, either. When discussing the Build Back Better Act, proponents understandably focus on the scope of the problem: 2.2 million low-income Americans couldn’t get health insurance subsidies in 2019 but also weren’t eligible for Medicaid.

Just 23% of civilian workers can take paid family leave, and more than 800,000 seniors and disabled people seeking home health care are on state Medicaid waiting lists.

But science tells us that discussing large-scale suffering makes people turn away. The phenomenon is called psychic numbing. It means the problem is so big that people disengage, because they feel powerless to help. And individuals find it hard to understand the scale of large numbers.

The way to combat this? Journalists can tell stories about real people. Personal stories quickly bring big issues into focus and make them relatable. They make people care.

In 2015, for example, the Syrian refugee crisis had been raging for four years. But it took a picture of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi, whose corpse washed up on a Turkish beach after his family fled Syria by boat, to generate international horror.

After the photo of the young Syrian boy went viral, donations to refugee organizations skyrocketed. The story and photo engaged people who had not yet paid attention to the crisis.

Research backs up the notion that including real people in news stories can spark reader engagement.

A 2012 study compared people’s reactions after they read two versions of a news story detailing how the lack of health care affected one of three groups: immigrants, prisoners or the elderly.

One version presented the issue using quotes from experts. The other version included a story about a specific person’s experiences dealing with that health care issue.

The news pieces that featured people’s stories elicited emotions in readers that the policy pieces did not. That led the participants to be more willing to help the people they read about.

Including real people in news stories doesn’t mean that engaged readers will only feel sympathy for the characters profiled. Engagement could produce support or opposition to proposed policies.
Looking beyond the political play-by-play

The Build Back Better Act – which the U.S. House of Representatives passed in November – comes as civic engagement in the U.S. is low.

Considering the scope and potential impact of this bill, it’s a disservice to the country for news coverage to focus on the play-by-play in Washington, D.C.

If the press eases up on the machinations occurring in the marble halls of Washington, D.C., and instead focuses on real people, the U.S. could perhaps build back something else: civic engagement, a necessary part of our democratic system.

—

This post was previously published on pressenza.com and under a Creative Commons license CC BY-ND 4.0.

With child tax credit stance, Manchin runs afoul of former faith allies
The senator’s support for work requirements puts him at odds with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals, among other faith groups.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sept. 30, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

January 5, 2022
By Jack Jenkins

WASHINGTON (RNS) — As Democrats struggle to revive talks over the stalled Build Back Better bill, Sen. Joe Manchin is facing pushback from a spectrum of religious groups frustrated by his position on the child tax credit — including conservative-leaning faith organizations whose concerns he has championed in the past.

Debate over the Build Back Better Act, a sweeping social programs proposal and a core part of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, ground to a halt in December when Manchin declared he wouldn’t vote for the bill.

According to The Washington Post, negotiations broke down after the West Virginia Democrat floated an alternative proposal to White House officials, which maintained elements of the original legislation but omitted an expansion of the child tax credit, a popular provision that provides financial assistance to parents with children.

This week, Manchin told reporters he supports a child tax credit, which advocates say helps prevent child poverty — but only if it includes a work requirement for parents wishing to receive the benefit.

“I think there should be a work requirement,” Manchin told Business Insider. “I’ve been very, very direct on that.”

RELATED: Faith leaders arrested while protesting in support of Build Back Better bill

The plan would bar some of the poorest families from accessing the benefit, which was expanded last year under Biden’s stimulus law to allow most families to receive monthly payments of up to $300 per child. But the expansion expired last month, and if Manchin’s proposal for a work requirement — which he has suggested for months — were to become the new norm, families that do not pay federal income taxes due to lack of income would not receive the checks.

Manchin, a Catholic Democrat, is now at odds with religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group whose positions he has promoted in the past: When the USCCB, National Association of Evangelicals, Orthodox Union and other faith groups raised concerns about a provision of the Build Back Better bill requiring faith-run prekindergarten and child care programs to comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes, the West Virginia senator reportedly advocated for a change.

But when asked about the child tax credit, USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi pointed to a Sept. 7 letter from bishops voicing support for the benefit expansion. The authors argued “it is especially important that the credit remain fully refundable to ensure the most economically vulnerable children benefit from this family support.”

Noguchi said the USCCB is “concerned that work requirements would undermine this goal and put the credit out of reach for those neediest children and their families.”

Manchin’s proposal has also pitted him against the National Association of Evangelicals. While the group has not taken a position on the Build Back Better Act as a whole, Galen Carey, the group’s vice president for government relations, has appeared at faith-themed events to express support for the bill’s child tax credit provision.

Asked this week about tying work requirements to the child tax credit, Carey was quick to express disapproval.

“We support making the child tax credit fully available to the families who need the help the most,” he said in a statement. “Work is critically important to human dignity but having a particular level of earned family income should not be a prerequisite to accessing support for their children. Full CTC refundability is what makes it such a powerful anti-poverty tool.”

In a previous statement sent to Religion News Service in December, Carey noted the benefit has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past and “has been expanded by both Republicans and Democrats.”

“Congress should act urgently to extend the Child Tax Credit, whether as part of a larger package or as a separate bill,” the statement read.

RELATED: As Biden’s agenda navigates Congress, faith groups lobby Manchin

Representatives for Manchin did not immediately respond to questions about the religious pushback, but faith groups have condemned Manchin’s position for months. Chief among them: the Poor People’s Campaign, a faith-led activist group that often advocates for liberal-leaning legislation. Poor People’s Campaign leaders staged large protests decrying Manchin throughout 2021 for several reasons, including opposition to his stance on the child tax credit.

While discussing Manchin’s suggestion of work requirements during a September news conference, the Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, described the idea as a “regression back to the tired debate of deserving and undeserving poor.”

She noted some Republicans have justified work requirements in other contexts by invoking a New Testament Scripture passage, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, which reads: “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.” She insisted the passage, when taken in context, “does not blame the poor for moral failures that lead to poverty, nor does it suggest that work requirements should be attached to social programs.”

She added: “There is a moral critique, there is a constitutional critique, of the wealthy benefiting off the work of others, and other ways that the rich punish and oppress the poor.”

Can Biden's child tax credit be revived?


Mike Bebernes
·Senior Editor
Wed, January 5, 2022

Biden, Manchin set to resume talks over Build Back Better Act

What’s happening

The expanded child tax credit, a groundbreaking social program that gave millions of American families monthly checks from the federal government, expired at the end of the year.

The U.S. has had a child tax credit since the 1990s, but when Democrats passed their $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package in March, they made three major changes that transformed it from a typical end-of-year tax write-off to the closest thing the country has ever had to a child allowance. The bill increased the size of the credit from $2,000 to up to $3,600, issued checks monthly and changed eligibility rules so low-income parents who had been left out under the previous system could receive the full benefit.

The first checks, for either $250 or $300 depending on the age of the child, went out to about 35 million families in July. Democrats were hoping to include a long-term extension in President Biden’s Build Back Better legislation, but the program expired when they weren’t able to reach an agreement on the sweeping social spending plan before the end of the year. Even though it lasted for only a few months, studies suggest that the monthly checks helped keep struggling families afloat and significantly reduced child poverty.

Disagreement over the child tax credit is reportedly one of the thorniest issues that have prevented a deal from being reached. Conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, whose vote is needed to pass any version of Biden’s agenda, appears to be particularly opposed to the credit — even reportedly saying that parents would spend the money they received on drugs. In late December, Manchin reportedly presented Biden with a $1.8 trillion package that he’d be willing to support. The expanded child tax credit was not part of that plan.
Why there’s debate

Manchin’s apparent opposition to the expanded child tax credit is considered by many as a signal that the program is gone for good. But there’s some optimism that he could be convinced to include it in a final version of Build Back Better, if a deal is reached at all.

Some political analysts say it’s possible that pressure from his Democratic colleagues and his constituents could push Manchin to drop his objections. Others believe he could be convinced to accept a trimmed-down version of the credit that potentially includes smaller checks, targets support only to the neediest families or imposes other restrictions like a work requirement.

There is also hope for alternative paths to support parents outside of the Build Back Better framework, some say. Specific attention has been paid to a proposal from Republican Sen. Mitt Romney that would create a more direct child allowance system to provide monthly benefits to families through the Social Security Administration rather than as a tax credit. In theory, Romney could give Democrats the 50th vote needed to pass a plan without Manchin’s support. Enthusiasm for the short-lived federal program could also prompt some states and cities to create their own versions, others say.
What’s next

Monthly checks have stopped, but parents can still expect one boost from the expanded child tax credit. The program ran for only half the year, meaning families can claim the other half — up to $1,800 per child — when they file their taxes.
Perspectives

A smaller, more targeted version of the credit might be acceptable to Manchin

“The child tax credit itself should be more targeted and last longer. … The child tax credit increases could also be focused on younger children by retaining the full increase for children under 3 but scaling it back for older children. Finally, the credit could be phased out more rapidly as incomes rise, focusing help on those who need it most.” — Jason Furman, Wall Street Journal

Manchin may be more susceptible to pressure on the child tax credit than other policies

“Normally, Manchin gets pressure on social issues from the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. This criticism from the wider party is fuel for his positioning and policy goals within the state. On such issues, the more criticism he receives from the left, the better. … The public pressure on child tax credits is not the norm and does not offer the same pivot for Manchin. West Virginians value programs like the child tax credit.” — Samuel Workman, Conversation

It may be impossible to sell Manchin on supporting the child tax credit

“Manchin’s various rationales just don’t add up. Unless his bottom line is that he just doesn’t want to extend the policy no matter what — or even worse wants to kill all of BBB — and is just looking for an excuse to do so.” — Greg Sargent, Washington Post

Lack of full-throated public support limits how much pressure Manchin will feel

“When the policy first passed in March, many experts hailed its potential to cut child poverty and hunger, and many Democrats hoped regular cash in families’ pockets would prove wildly popular. But the public’s appraisal has been less glowing. … As the party continues to debate whether and how to resurrect the expanded credit, polls generally suggest that Americans have reservations about making it a more lasting fixture of the social safety net.” — Ian Prasad Philbrick, New York Times

Romney could prove to be the savior of Biden’s family-benefit agenda

“With Manchin clearly out on child tax credit, it’s time to separate the plan from Build Back Better and work to get it passed with bipartisan support. Romney, to his credit, already has a plan which closely mirrors that of the Democrat party. This option is a clear win-win-win.” — Toph Cottle, Salt Lake Tribune

Replacing the credit with Romney’s plan would be a win for American families

“To be sure, the Romney plan is not perfect. … But even with these flaws, it’s still quite a good benefit that is better than the status quo and, in my view, even better than the CTC the Democrats were trying to pass in the BBB legislation. Democrats should work with Romney to pass this plan.” — Matt Breunig, People’s Policy Project

States could create their own programs

“Frustrated on a national level, some lawmakers are shifting their focus to state-level child tax credits to offer families a safety net.” — Ursula Perano, Daily Beast

The country will be better off if the expanded credit is gone for good

“Why aren’t they making those bigger monthly checks permanent, as President Joe Biden and other key Democrats have said they intend? It’s simple: It would come at a staggering cost.” — Matt Weidinger, Washington Examiner

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered in “The 360”? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Getty Images