Mediaboss Marketing

A popular post on social media claims businesses in the U.S. cant legally require customers to provide proof of vaccination or deny entry based on vaccination status. But experts say that's not true.

PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols explored those claims with anchor Randol White in this weeks Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

On the origins of the post

This comes from a website called Healthy American. Its run by an anti-mask activist in Orange County. The website has been the source of misinformation in the past.

The claim about businesses not being able to require proof of vaccinations is just not accurate, but it was shared on Instagram and Twitter and received more than 60,000 views within two days last week.

It was flagged by Facebook users, and our PolitiFact California contributor Sasha Hupka examined it through our social media fact-checking initiative.

On how the Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to this false claim

The Fourth Amendment states that Americans have rights against unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.

But legal experts pointed out that asking a person for proof of vaccination does not constitute a search or a seizure. Private businesses are not the government entities addressed in the amendment.

On what freedoms businesses do and do not have with their customers

Under the Civil Rights Act, private businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion and national origin or disability.

But aside from that, businesses generally are able to set their own rules on their private property. Even so, legal experts told us that businesses might have to provide reasonable accommodations at least for those customers who cant be vaccinated because of a disability or religious belief before they can refuse service.

This might include allowing the customer to enter wearing a mask or offering them a virtual, no-contact version of the service that the business provides.

PolitiFact rates this claim as False.

On the incorrect claim that getting vaccinated may jeopardize your life insurance policy

This post was also flagged by Facebook users, and its been circulating online for a while now.

Back in March, the American Council of Life Insurers, a trade group that represents 280 companies, issued a statement calling this claim entirely false information.

We found that life insurance companies, trade groups and state regulatory agencies have all said that the COVID-19 vaccine does not play a role in insurance eligibility or payouts. We rated the claim on Facebook as False.

CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.

See the article here:
Can You Handle The Truth: Fact-Checking Claims About If Businesses Can Require Proof Of COVID-19 Vaccination - Capital Public Radio News

Inside the safe deposit box they rented at U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills, California, Jennifer and Paul Snitko kept the sort of things that any law-abiding American might want to store securely: a will, backup copies of their home computer's hard drive, and some family heirlooms including jewelry, a fancy watch, and a class ring.

The Snitkos are not criminals. They've not been charged with any crimes. During his career as an aerospace engineer, Paul even held several security clearances.

But since March 22, they've been treated like criminals. The Snitkos' valuables have been in the possession of federal prosecutors following an FBI raid that resulted in hundreds of safe deposit boxes being seizeddespite the fact that the warrant authorizing the raid, as Reason previously reported, explicitly forbade federal agents from conducting "a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe-deposit boxes."

But the FBI did not merely seize the safe deposit boxes housed at U.S. Private Vaults. Federal agents then proceeded to search each box, even brazenly tearing open sealed envelopes and rummaging through the belongings found inside. More than two months after the raid at U.S. Private Vaults, the Snitkos and other innocent people who had their stuff taken have no idea when their valuables might be returned.

"When you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't be subjected to an investigation," says Paul Snitko. "That the federal government broke open our safety deposit box was shocking and that we have no idea when we will get our property back is infuriating."

On Friday, just hours after the Snitkos filed a lawsuitwith help from the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian law firmchallenging what they say was the FBI's unlawful seizure of their safe deposit box, they finally got some good news. Sort of. According to IJ, the couple received a phone call from the FBI informing them that they would have their property returned in "about two to three weeks from now."

As of Friday afternoon, two other clients represented in the same lawsuit have not received similar phone calls.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, joins several other legal actions already launched on behalf of anonymous individuals whose property was similarly caught up in the FBI raid of U.S. Private Vaults. Federal prosecutors have charged U.S. Private Vaults with several crimes including conspiracy to commit money laundering and, earlier this week, filed forfeiture motions against roughly 400 of the nearly 1,000 safe deposit boxes seized in the raid.

As Reason previously reported, the unsealed warrant authorizing the raid of U.S. Private Vaults granted the FBI permission to seize the business's computers, money counters, security cameras, and "nests" of safe deposit boxesthe large steel frames that effectively act as bookshelves for the boxes themselves. However, FBI procedure required federal agents to take the safe deposit boxes into custody as well.

What happened after that is what's truly enraging about the situation. Federal agents were supposed to identify the boxes' owners so property taken in the raid could be returned. In many cases, that was as easy as checking the documents that were taped to the tops of the boxesbut, instead, legal filings show that investigators brazenly rifled through the boxes.

Like other victims of the raid, the Snitkos also had identifying information attached to the lid of their safe deposit box. Opening the box, their lawsuit argues, is a clear violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, while the FBI's continued retention of their property represents both Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment violations.

"The government's dragnet search of innocent peoples' private security boxes is the most outrageous Fourth Amendment abuse that the Institute for Justice has ever seen," says Robert Frommer, a senior attorney with IJ. "It is like the government breaking into every apartment in a building because the landlord was dealing drugs in the lobby."

See original here:
The FBI Took Their Safe Deposit Box and Everything Inside It. Two Months Later, They're Still Waiting for It To Be Returned. - Reason

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term. Heres what the court has on its docket:Obamacare (again)Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obamas most significant legislative achievement.The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.Religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and a Philadelphia foster agencyAt issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the courts conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.Arizona voting rights lawThe Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another persons completed ballot to the polling place.Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.Fourth Amendment: Warrants when in hot pursuitThe justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individuals home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.If, for example, an officer is in hot pursuit of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in hot pursuit committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. Its the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the hot pursuit doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.NCAA amateur rulesThe case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for education related benefits because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of education which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.Union organizingThe Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government taking of the land without just compensation.The Biden administration is supporting the unions position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.Dark moneyConservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous Dark Money flowing into the system.The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information, said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road.Cheerleader and off-campus speechThe justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didnt make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, school softball cheer everything. The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team.Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. But that decision concerned speech at school.Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young peoples freedom of expression, said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that intentionally targets specific school functions that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end-of-June deadline, but the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.

Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.

At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term.

Heres what the court has on its docket:

Republican-led states aided by the former Trump administration are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obamas most significant legislative achievement.

The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of COVID-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.

As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.

In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.

At issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.

Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.

Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same-sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.

Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the courts conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.

The Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.

One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials may deliver another persons completed ballot to the polling place.

Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.

Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.

The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.

The justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individuals home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.

If, for example, an officer is in hot pursuit of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.

The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in hot pursuit committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. Its the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the hot pursuit doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.

The case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity for the first time in decades to examine the relationship between NCAA spending limits and student-athletes who are seeking compensation for their talents.

At issue is a lower court ruling that struck down spending caps for education related benefits because, the court held, they violated antitrust laws. The NCAA is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision arguing that it is going to allow money to pour into the system under the guise of education which will destroy the distinction between amateur and pro sports. A lawyer for a class of students said the lower court got it right, and worried about the exploitation of students.

The Supreme Court is again considering the power of union organizers in a case that pits agriculture businesses and privacy rights advocates against big labor and raises questions of when the government can allow access to private property without compensation. A ruling against the union position in the case would come after the Supreme Court in 2018 dealt a blow to the funding of public-sector unions.

The case is brought by agricultural growers challenging a California state law that allows union organizers onto their property to speak to workers unannounced. They say it amounts to a government taking of the land without just compensation.

The Biden administration is supporting the unions position, a change from the Trump administration, which had backed the employers.

Conservative non-profits Americans for Prosperity (a Koch-affiliated group) and the Thomas More Law Center are challenging a California law that requires charitable organizations that solicit donations to disclose a list of their contributors to the state attorney general.

The groups say they want to keep their donors secret and that the state has not shown a compelling reason for the law. They argue that the law will chill contributors from coming forward for fear of harassment in violation of the First Amendment. Although the information is supposed to be confidential, the groups say that the state may make inadvertent disclosures.

In response, California argues that the groups already have to file the same data with the IRS and the state needs the information as it tries to combat fraud related to charities. Three other states New York, New Jersey and Hawaii have similar laws.

The case is being closely watched by those who fear it could lead to more anonymous Dark Money flowing into the system.

The nonprofits are asking the Supreme Court to make it harder for the government to require the disclosure of donor information, said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert on campaign finance at Notre Dame Law School. While the case is about a state Attorney General asking for this information, if the Supreme Court raised the bar here, that would likely also apply to election donor disclosure laws down the road.

The justices are looking at a First Amendment case concerning the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school.

Then-junior varsity cheerleader Brandi Levy, who didnt make the varsity squad lashed out on social media while she was off campus, writing, [expletive] school [expletive] softball [expletive] cheer [expletive] everything. The words were accompanied by a picture of her giving a middle-digit salute.

After the outburst, the girl was suspended from the squad as having violated team and school rules. Lawyers for the girl sued alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. The girl won in the lower courts that held that school could not remove her for off-campus speech. According to the court of appeals, she did not waive her First Amendment rights as a condition of joining the team.

Back in 1969, the Supreme Court held that public school officials could regulate speech that would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. But that decision concerned speech at school.

Empowering public school officials to censor what students say when they are outside of school would be an epic restriction of young peoples freedom of expression, said Witold Walczak of the ACLU, defending the student.

The Biden administration has weighed in in favor of the school arguing that there is some speech, that intentionally targets specific school functions that warrant discipline even if it occurs off campus.

These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Courts final month Source link These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Courts final month

See the original post:
These are the decisions to watch for during the Supreme Court's final month - Pennsylvanianewstoday.com

Reader responds to letter writers criticisms of views

The recent letters to the PVT criticizing me is just another example of people not hearing what is said. I never once supported or encourage socialism, yet David Jaronik and Linda Delamare kept stating that I did. What I did do was explain the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. But, oh no, they need to try to defeat me by the only way they can: mis-state what I said.

For David, our helping those countries is helping us. We need them to have a strong defense to thwart off the aggression of countries like Putins Russia. By helping them do that we protect democracy in Europe and the whole world. Again, it is the richer helping the poorer, a philosophy of democratic socialism. Please hear that I said, democratic socialism NOT socialism. So, yes, we are helping the economies of their countries which, in turn, helps us.

David took my comments about packing the courts totally out of context. It was a reply to a prior letter which blamed the Democrats for court packing, when, as I pointed out, it is being packed by the Republicans. Please stop twisting my words to your advantage.

As for energy independence, we were 86% to 91% self-sufficient in 2016, BEFORE Trump took office, and moving towards 100%. So, to give Trump credit for us being energy independent is just plain wrong. As for the tax revenues at record levels, that is normal. Revenues go up every year just as salaries, home prices, cost of goods, etc. go up every year, with a few exceptions. I am not sure what your point is. Surely, it cannot be that it should be credited to Trump. Yet, you failed to mention something that we CAN give credit to Trump: the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during Trumps time in office. And the deficit under Trump was the third biggest, relative to the size of the economy, than any other president (Bush and Lincoln being the other who were paying for a civil war and two foreign conflicts). Yet you say I was omitting facts?

To Linda Delamare, democrat socialism has nothing to do with altering our Constitution. In fact, our government is already applying the principles of democratic socialism, ones that you probably enjoy and are taking advantage of. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, food assistance, energy and utilities subsidies for low income and seniors, childcare assistance, the Childrens Health Insurance Program, and many more are just a few examples. Did you accept your Covid checks from the government? Then you participated in democratic socialism: the government helping people during these hard times. Democratic socialists also believe in a strong democracy and are against authoritarian government systems that you and many other Americans associate with socialism (something Trump trumped up to give you another excuse to hate Democrats). Hear this: Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Maybe that better explains it to you. Nowhere did I suggest we live under socialism in fact, I am totally against it. Stop fighting it and learn about it instead of shaping it into something that fits your needs rather than tells the truth. Period!!

Finally, Dave Thomas: Democracy is NOT leading us to Socialism. You need to stop drinking the Fox Kool-Aid. But then again, all of you are just helping the implosion of the Republican party. Fractured, failing and being lead down a rabbit hole. Cheney gets the boot because she tells the truth but Marjorie Taylor Greene is OK? Really? It is clear and it is being led by the Republican leadership: we dont want to hear the truth; we just want to kiss Trumps ring at any cost.

CJ Stevens

Reader responds to critic

Now I am a redneck and a school dropout. Jim Ferrell, you just get better and better. As I stated in my May 2 letter, say all this to my face! But no, you go on and on and on with more B.S. every time you write in. Save time Ferrell, we can watch CNN, MSNBC or the regular channels for all that crap.

Linda Delamare hit the nail squarely on the head in her excellent letter in the May 1st edition, relaying, Liberals can no longer make a cogent argument. They resort to name-calling.

And as usual you spout off about something you know nothing about.

Now, because I was in the military for 21 years, it was a socialist organization. The privates and the generals share the same doctor? All pay grades basically get the same pay? What color is the sky in your world? Any VFW and American Legion members getting a hold of this?

And by the way, I pay taxes also, so I am paying into my pension! And for what its worth, I also retired from the private sector. Not bad for your so-called redneck and school dropout!

Mr. Ferrell, you still have not responded to my original letter no guts! For your sake, this is my final letter. I had and still do not intend to get into a debate with a liberal with the attention span and reasoning of an eight-year-old.

By the way, the Navy has seamen and generals can be referred to as tars.

Id like to thank Mr. Meehan for allowing me to submit my letters.

Dave Thomas

Some states are using unconstitutional red flag laws

Just as many of us were having grave doubts about the integrity and standing of the Supreme Court, due to the side stepping of election laws being changed by unconstitutional authority in some states, we get great news that they are back in business! Gun grabbers and major funders like Bloomberg, the Biden administration, and their ilk received a giant setback on April 17th by a unanimous decision to rebuff warrantless searches and seizures of guns under the red flag laws using the community caretaking doctrine to justify gun confiscations.

The Fourth Amendment means that in order for a police officer to search and arrest someone, he or she will need to get permission or a warrant to do so from a judge,yet confiscations have continued taking place in every jurisdiction.

We have all wondered how so many states were able to use the unconstitutional red flag laws to seize thousands of guns. Today there are 19 states and the District of Columbia that enacted some form of red-flag law.

Hopefully, they will now take a different view of their gun confiscation agendas.

Aileen Fisher

Double-digit inflation hurts the poor most of all

Were being told inflation is low and theres nothing the FED cant handle, and even some financial institutions are minimizing inflation as a serious problem, like the Bank of America saying we may experience hyperinflation, but it will only be transitional.

Some facts look different, like a year ago the average house framer could frame and sheet about 14.2 houses for about $50,000 worth of lumber and sheeting, today theyre lucky to do two houses for that same $50,000.

Anyone whos bought fuel for vehicles has seen double-digit inflation there. Many grocery items have jumped and even if the prices are the same, the quantities have decreased.

Make no mistake, inflation is a government tax. It relies on workers making more money, which in turn gives them a greater tax burden and may put them in a higher bracket without actual legislative increases. They represent the greatest pool of money with the least politically organized influence of the government.

The people who are hurt the worst by inflation are the very poor (particularly when the government can no longer afford to provide for them and those on fixed incomes that have little opportunity to increase their incomes. And those who claim businesses pay their fair share are B.S., smaller businesses are competitive and if they cant pass their costs (including taxes) on to their customers, they will go out of business.

For all the real big boys who are also big political donors, there will always be ways they will get protections. The only question is how long can this house of cards stand?

David Jaronik

Another possible lesson to be learned from the past

I recently read from a reader of the PV Times about a message from 60 years ago that seems to depict where we are headed today. I would like to expand on that with a warning from 1919, over 100 years ago.

1. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion, get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.

2. Get control of all means of publicity, and hereby get peoples minds off their government by refocusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities.

3. Divide people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.

4. Destroy peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.

5. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.

6. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation, rising prices and general discontent.

7. Ferment strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorder, and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government toward these disorders.

8. By specious argument cause a breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

9. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view of confiscation of them, leaving the population helpless.

Where did these words of wisdom come from? Who was able to predict in 1919 what is seemingly going on now in our nation?

These nine rules were seized in a raid in Dusseldorf, Germany in 1919. The seized files were marked Communist Rules For Revolution.

Every one of these rules are happening to some extent. Much of our government and citizens are no longer concerned about the country. We see marches in the street and are bombarded by the news media to support their agenda, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the country overall.

George Cross

View original post here:
Letters to the Editor - pvtimes.com

Wont somebody please think of the police dogs? On Saturday, the Associated Press ran the latest example of a genre of news story thats become a regular accompaniment to marijuana legalization: the fate of now-superfluous drug-sniffing dogs.

Drug-sniffing dogs are notoriously unreliable at detecting drugs, and yet many American police ... [+] departments still insist on using K9 units.

Virginia is set to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of cannabis beginning in July. That means the early retirement of at least 15 drug-sniffing dogs throughout the state, as the AP itempicked up by outlets across the countryreported, because these dogs are trained to alert to the scent of cannabis.

Any alert is interpreted by police (and prosecutors, as well as most courts) as probable cause to effect a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since the dog cant discern between a large amount of cannabis and a single joint, and because a dog trained to detect both cocaine and marijuana cant inform its handler what was detected, the only path forward for police narcotics units is to retire their drug-sniffing dogs and acquire new hounds trained only to suss out cocaine, heroin, MDMA, or other substances still part of Americas war on drugs.

For civil liberties advocates as well as anyone concerned with criminal justice, this is a good development. Drug dogs should retire, because drug dogs are extremely bad at detecting drugs.

As Reason reported last month, drug dogs are often about as useful as a coin toss to determine whether a school locker, vehicle, or individual has drugs. In other cases, drug dogs simply respond to commands from its handler and ignores whatever scents are actually out there.

That is, the drug-sniffing dog isnt there to sniff out drugs at all. The drug-sniffing dog is just there to give the police probable cause to searchand to impound vehicles and detain people who later turn out to be innocenton demand.

Reason offered the story of Karma, a drug dog in Republic, Washington, as a parable. A K-9 unit handled by former Republic police Chief Loren Culp, Karma had a perfect record: he detected drugs every time he did a search. The problem was that Karma detected drugs when there were no drugs present.

When he had the chance to stop the impound of an innocent owners vehicle, his success rate was zero percent, Reason reported. That didnt stop Culp from employing Karma in searchesand that also didnt stop Culp from boasting on Facebook about Karmas perfect record.

A drug dog in action in Turkey in 2014.

Criminal-justice scholars and observers have known for years that the problems with Karma are found throughout the United States wherever drug dogs are employed.

As Jane Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, wrote in an article published in 2013, dogs are often wrong, alerting where no drugs can be found. Worse, dogs can be biased, she added, picking up on subtle cues from their handlers.

Bambauers analysis followed a 2011 study from the University of California, Davis, which found that police dogstrained to detect explosives as well as drugsare affected by human handlers beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues.

If the police dogs handler wants the dog to alertconsciously or otherwisetheres a good chance the dog will alert.

Marijuana legalization isnt the only reason why drug dogs value and purpose are being re-evaluated. Courts are becoming increasingly aware that drug dogs just arent good at finding drugs. In a reversal from the position of the Supreme Court 30 years ago, when drugs were considered such a scourge that drug dogs unreliability wasnt a concern, courts are now openly questioning police dogs merit.

As TechDirt.com noted, in a decision published last year, a federal court in Utah granted a defendants motion to suppress a drug dog search and dismissed his indictment, after noting serious concerns about the dogs training and reliability.

The court questioned the reliability of every drug dog in the statewhere cannabis is not legal beyond medical applications. This is an enormous boon to defense attorneys handling cases where a dog alert was the probable cause. If Utah thinks that drug dogs arent reliable indicators of the presence of drugs, what about other jurisdictions?

So far the nations highest court has affirmed law enforcements use. In Florida vs Harris, a decision issued in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that if a drug dog has recently passed a training program, an alert from that dog is sufficient probable cause.

But as the record of Karma and other drug dogs with perfect training scores demonstrates, probable cause is a fait accompli. If the handler wants it, the handler can get it. Drugs need not be present.

So if drug dogs cant be relied upon to detect drugs, if drug dogs are often wrong, and if the courts think drug dogs are unreliable, whats the point? Why have them at all?

The real application of police dogs is psychological. The presence of a dog grants its police handler a sense of power and authority. If a search is desired, a search is granted. With a record like that, the sight of a dogor the chance that a dog will be encountered, at an airport, at a border crossing, or at a school, whateverwill deter and discourage the public from flouting the law. The approach of a drug dog might even compel a wavering lawbreaker to give himself up.

Thats not very fair or just, but in an era where all drugs were illegal, you could argue that this was at least legally defensible. Today, when cannabis is legal in some form for more than 200 million Americans, drug dogs snare innocent people in the criminal justice system.

Drug dogs are a vestige of the drug war. If a vast majority of Americans think cannabis should be legaland they doand if legal scholars and the courts think drug dogs are bad at their jobsand they do, and they arethen police departments probably should have been prepared for this moment, rather than providing grist for gauzy news items. But people love dogseven dogs that are civil-rights violation machinesand so here we are.

A Colombian policeman from an anti-drug unit walks with a sniffer dog amidst marijuana packages on ... [+] display for the press on August 24, 2012, at the anti-drug air base in Tulua, department of Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Four tons of marijuana "red dot" type allegedly belonging to the Sixth Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were seized from a truck in the town of Buga, Valle del Cauca department, while being transported from the town of Corinto bound for the department of Norte de Santander. AFP PHOTO/Guillermo LEGARIA (Photo credit should read GUILLERMO LEGARIA/AFP/GettyImages)

So what about the dogs? The retired drug dogs in Virginia are all being adopted going home with their police handlerswhere, if so desired, they will alert to the presence of drugs every day, for the rest of their days.

The rest of us should wish them a happy and healthy retirementand encourage every other drug-sniffing dog currently in police employ to join them as soon as possible.

See the article here:
Marijuana Legalization Is Retiring Police Dogs. Why Thats GoodAnd Why All Drug K9 Units Should Go. - Forbes