Mediaboss Marketing

posted at 1:21 pm on February 20, 2017 by John Sexton

Today is Presidents Day so naturally the progressive left is holding rallies to protest President Trump. These Not My Presidents Day rallies are scheduled to take place around the country, including New York, LA, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and a dozen or so other cities. In New York, 15,000 people have said they plan to attend. In LA the figure is just over 4,000 and in Chicago its just under that. Around 1,000 people have said they will attend the Washington, D.C. rally.A description posted on the Facebook page for the New York rallyreads in part:

Donald Trump is literally our President, but figuratively, he has attacked every value New Yorkers embody and does not represent our interests

Donald Trump stands against the progress we have worked hard to enact. He does not represent our interests. He was voted in by a minority of the American public but governs as if theres no resistance. But there is and on February 20th, we will honor previous presidents by exercising our constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest everything Donald Trump stands for.

The organizers for the New York rally also included 3 hashtags associated with the rally. They are #Impeach, #Resist, and #NotMyPresident. Many of the rallies started a short time ago so pictures are already appearing on Twitter. From NYC:

From LA:

Atlanta:

These rallies are just getting started. Ill update this post with some video as it becomes available.

The rest is here:
Progressives holding #NotMyPresidentsDay rallies around the country - Hot Air

HBD aggregator par excellence M.G., over at her blog Those Who Can See, has a good post on the theme Progressives: The New Race Realists.

The rhetoric and the actions emanating from the left as of late show that they have perhaps taken a U-turn a salutary one. People of Color, they are now saying, in fact have little agency, are near-prisoners of their instincts, and thus cant be held to the same standards as other ethnies.

In other words, todays progressives have become de facto race realists.

On what do we base such a claim?

M.G. breaks it down into headings and subheadings:

1. Education

1a) White Liberal Flight

1b) Lower expectations

1c) Educationcollege

2. Employment

3. Crime

3a) Blacks lack agency

3b) White victims and battered wife syndrome

3c) Europe: Our new Diversity has no agency

4. Governance

5. Historical Accomplishment

6. Athletics

7. White Privilege

7a) Doctrine: Whites are Blessed

7b) More than skin deep?Skating close to the truth

Definitely one to bookmark when you need an HBD graph or fact-source.

View post:
Progressives: The New Race Realists - VDARE.com

The U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys Immigration and Customs Enforcementor ICEhas entered into MOUsMemoranda of Understandwith local police departments that will enable Trump to deputize local police to carry out mass deportations. The ICE MOUs are a rent-a-cop arrangement for ICE to use local police for ICEs immigration-enforcement purposes.

The ICE MOUs give Trump a contractual means to circumvent elected local officials from preventing their police from cooperating with ICE. These MOUs not only require local police departments to provide their officers for immigration investigations and joint operations, but they also shift the costs of enforcement from the federal government to local cities, school districts, and counties. Beneath the radar of public scrutiny, ICE has quietly built a nationwide web of these MOUs with local police departments.

But Pasadenas experience this month shows that progressives can thwart ICEs MOUs when sunlight is shined on them. ICE-PD MOUs have fatal defects if local governments simply decide to disentangle their police departments from cooperation with ICE. When progressives unearthed the ICE-Pasadena PD MOU, exposed it to public scrutiny, and organized opposition to it, within fourdays Pasadenas ICE MOU was dead meat. Progressives can and should do the same thing in other immigrant-friendly cities, counties, and school districts.

MOUs are contracts. ICE enters into MOUs with local police departments for rent-a-cop arrangements to enforce immigration laws. The ICE-Pasadena PD MOU is generically titled Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Local, County, or State Law Enforcement Agency for the Reimbursement of Joint Operations Expenses from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Googling the first 11 words of the title will disclose scores of such MOUs across the nation. Some of the MOUs available through Google have generic titles like the ICE-PPD MOU, while some have titles that include the name of the local PD. But all of them have essentially the same language in them except for the substitution of the name of the local PD. The MOUs available on Google are undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg as they are the ones that happened to be publicly disclosed for a variety of reasons.

Despite their titles which suggest they are just for local policing reimbursement purposes, the ICE MOUs uniformly impose a contractual obligation on local PDs to provide officers to ICE to enforce federal immigration law. That obligation is unequivocally spelled out in the MOUs 5-A: To the maximum extent possible, [the local PD] shall assign dedicated officers to investigations and joint operations.

Thus, if the MOUs are properly authorized, signed, and remain in effect, local PDs would be contractually obligated to provide their police to ICE for ICE immigration-enforcement investigations and joint ICE-local PD operations to the maximum extent possible. Cities with such MOUs would be in breach of contract for failing to do so even if the cities elected officials pass resolutions or ordinances intended to disentangle them from ICE.

The ICE MOUs superficially seem to provide federal dollars to local jurisdictions. But the reality is that ICEs MOUs shift much of the funding for federal immigration enforcement to local jurisdictions by their reimbursement formula. The ICE MOUs reimburse local jurisdiction only for the overtime pay of the local officers that ICE rents from the local government. The ICE MOUs do not provide for reimbursement for the base pay of the officers they require local PDs to dedicate to federal law enforcement. Moreover, the MOUs expressly prohibit any reimbursement for fringe benefits and for the taxes on officer salaries.

Because the benefit load for police officers is usually higher than 50% of their base salary, the limited payment of only the overtime pay means that the federal government is paying less than 40% of the cost of each rent-a-cop while the local agencies are paying more than 60% of the officers costs. The ICE MOU rent-a-cop scheme thus shifts most of the costs for local police involvement in Trumps mass deportation plans to local cities, counties, and school districts with police departments.

During the Obama administration, ICEs MOUs were not heavily used. But Trumps plan for massive deportations will require their extensive use. While the Trump administration says it intends to hire 15,000 more immigration enforcement officers, doing so will take years. The last time there was an attempt to get a sudden influx of federal enforcement officers, backgrounds checks were waived and the result was massive corruption and infiltration by drug cartel agents. Its unlikely that experiment will be tried again.

Saturdays Washington Post reported that directives being vetted now by the Secretary of Homeland Security provide for expanding partnerships with municipal law enforcement agencies that deputize local police to act as immigration officers for the purposes of enforcement. The ICE MOUs will be the primary vehicles to implement these partnerships .

The ICE MOUs have basic flaws that can interfere with their being used to implement the intended partnerships with local police that will deputize them to enforce federal immigration laws and that thereby give progressives the opportunity to demand the end of these MOUs:

At least in Pasadenas case, ICE purported to enter into its MOU with the Pasadena PD simply based on the signature of Pasadenas police chief. California law provides that contracts which are not signed by a local governments authorized representative are void. Pasadenas City Charter requires an officer of the City a status that the Police Chief does not have to sign contracts with it in order for the contracts to be effective.

So Pasadenas MOU has never been valid. We dont know to what extent ICE is relying upon the signatures of local police chiefs for its MOUs without getting the legally-required signatures, but that may be its usual practice. After Pasadenas void MOU was publicized, the local ICE representative told the media that it considered the ICE-Pasadena PD MOU still enforceable. It appears ICE is just blowing smoke to avoid admitting that many or most most of its MOUs cannot be enforced.

Pasadena progressives successfully got its ICE-PPD MOU repudiated in just four days. We obtained the ICE MOU through a California Public Records Act request and released it to the media on February 12. Pasadena progressives quickly mobilized to publicize the MOU and its conflicts with Pasadenas stated policy of not having its police officers enforce federal immigration law.

Intending to advocate the termination of the MOU to the City Councils Public Safety Committee meeting on February 15, Pasadena progressives showed up at the meeting to be pleasantly surprised hearing City Manager Steve Mermell inform the public that the City Charter requires him to sign off on the MOU, that he had not signed off on it, and that he was not going to sign off on it.

The success of Pasadena in getting the ICE MOU repudiated arose from a perfect storm that skewered ICE. The existence of the contract with ICE had never been disclosed outside the police department, leaving the City Manager, the Mayor, the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and even Councilmembers who almost always support the wishes of Pasadenas police union outraged at the MOU being hidden from them. In that environment, the clear voice of Pasadena progressive community ensuredthat the ICE-PPD MOU was unacceptable.

Progressives in other cities may not have as fortuitous circumstances as occurred in Pasadena, but this is a fight we can win in most communities. The battle begins by making a public records act request for all MOUs and agreements with ICE; such agreements cannot be suppressed under The California Public Records Act.

If the local MOU does not have the required levels of approvals, recognition of their unenforceability as occurred in Pasadena should be demanded. It the local MOU has the requisite levels of authority, a termination letter from the local governments mayor and/or city manager or a resolution requiring termination by the governing board should be demanded.

The ICE MOUs are inconsistent with the commitment of many of Californias cities, counties, and school districts that their police will not enforce federal immigration law. By shining sunlight on the existence of these MOUs, progressives can win this fight.

Skip Hickambottom and Dale Gronemeier

Excerpt from:
Terminating ICE Rent-a-Cop Contracts: A Fight Progressives Can Win - LA Progressive (press release) (subscription) (blog)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

I am not interested in anarchy, Marcel L. Groen, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democrats, told the Washington Times. It was over the top and I contacted Keith, and Keith tried to stop it, to his credit. I want their enthusiasm and energy, but I do want it harnessed,he said, adding, Lets say you were completely uncommitted. You dont want 300 people calling you and telling you what to do.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Groen saidthe extreme pro-Ellison effort pushed his support in the direction of Tom Perez, a former labor secretary who served under Barack Obama and is seen as the Democratic Partys establishment choice to head the DNC.

Some DNC members are still undecided about whether they will vote for Ellison or Perez. One such member, David OBrien, told the Washington Timesa progressivetold him it would be an injustice if Ellison did not win the seat.

This week, Perez reportedly claimed he had 180 pledged voters out of 224 he needs to win the chairmanship. According to Politico, Ellison pushed back, telling DNC membership in an email that Perez was trying to exert pressure on you.

Part of the email, which does not mention Perez by name, read, You received a voicemail, email and a text message trying to make the race sound like it is over. And the goal is clear: to exert pressure on you.

Ellisons candidacy has not been without controversy.

The majority of American Jews are registered as Democrats. Ellison, a convert to Islam, has been questioned over his views regardingIsrael and for his praise of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan over 20 years ago.

In December, emeritus law professor at Harvard University, author and Orthodox Jew Alan Dershowitz, said if Ellison is elected as DNC chair he would resign from the Democratic Party.Dershowitz said in an interview on Fox Business Networks Mornings with Maria Bartiromo:

If they now appoint Keith Ellison, who worked with Farrakhan, to be chairman of the DNC, youre going to see a lot of people leave. Im going to tell you right here on this show, and this is news, if they appoint Keith Ellison to be chairman of the Democratic party, I will resign my membership to the Democratic party after 50 years of being a loyal Democrat. I will still vote my conscience and mostly I will vote for Democrats, but I will not be a member of a party that represents itself through a chairman like Keith Ellison, and through policies like thatespoused by John Kerry and Barack Obama.

There are seven candidates total in the race for DNC chair, which will take place between February 23-26, 2017. Approximately 450 members of the Democratic National Committee will convene to vote.In addition to Perez and Ellison are New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley; South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jaime Harrison; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana; Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director Sally Boynton-Brown; and television commentator Jehmu Greene.

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter and Periscope@AdelleNaz

See more here:
DNC Chair Race: Progressives' Aggressive Tactics to Elect Keith Ellison Backfire - Breitbart News

New York may be a deep blue state, yet on voting rights it lags far behind other progressive states. Oregon and California, for example, have adopted automatic or automated voter registration, which adds eligible voters to the rolls whenever they interact with certain public agencies. New York, on the other hand, has no early voting, limited absentee voting, frequent elections and arduous registration and party change deadlines. These are made worse by the fact that the states primary elections are closed: Only registered Democrats or Republicans may vote in their respective party primaries.

All that could change with the New York Voters Act, recently introduced by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The legislation would requirethat all primaries be consolidated (which will help people who have inflexible work schedules), implement same-day registration, extend voting hours, allow for no-excuse absentee voting and institute automatic voter registration (AVR). It also includes provisions to increase language access, train poll workers better and restore voting rights for people on parole.

To explore the implications of this legislation, I analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) surveys for the 2012 presidential election and 2014 midterm election. Registration status is difficult to ascertain because respondents often incorrectly remember whether they are registered. To estimate the demographics of the unregistered population of New York as well as possible, I created a measure that includes both those who reported being unregistered and those who were matched into Catalist and were not registered, regardless of their reported registration. Individuals who reported being registered but could not be matched to Catalist were not included in this analysis. To explore the voting population, I explored the matched respondents who also voted. Respondents who reported voting but could not be matched to Catalist were excluded from the analysis.

Who Are the Unregistered New Yorkers?

In 2012, 67 percent of the New York population was white, but 74 percent of voters were white and only 55 percent of the unregistered population was white. While African-Americans made up 14 percent of the population, they made up 20 percent of the unregistered population. Latinos made up 12 percent of the population but 16 percent of the unregistered population. The average age for a New York voter was 50, compared to 41 for an unregistered New Yorker.

Turning to 2014, the gaps were even bigger. The white share of the general public dipped to 66 percent, but 79 percent of voters were white, while only about half of the unregistered population was white. The unregistered population was more likely to identify as independent than voters (21 percent of unregistered people, compared to 10 percent of voters and 13 percent of New Yorkers). While 27 percent of voters were Republicans, 17 percent of the unregistered were. Unregistered New Yorkers were less supportive of domestic spending cuts (30 percent put it as their preferred method of reducing the deficit) than either voters (40 percent) or the general New York population (36 percent). Unregistered New Yorkers were more likely be low-income: 73 percent made less than $60,000 a year and 37 percent made less than $30,000 a year, compared to 56 percent and 27 percent of the general population, respectively.

New York has low turnout compared to the rest of the country, and its diversity is not represented in the voting booth. In 2012, the voting population was seven percentage points whiter than the adult citizen population, and in 2014 the voting population was 14 points whiter. For comparison, between the 1988 election and the 2012 election, the United States electorate became 11 percentage points less white (85 percent white in 1988, 74 percent white in 2012). Given the research on how voting impacts policy outcomes, this could deeply distort the states democracy.

Automatic Voter Registration Could Change the Country

Evidence is still coming in on the impact of AVR, but early evidence is positive. Oregon automatically registered 225,000 people through the state Department of Motor Vehicles, and 43 percent voted in the 2016 election. Other reforms, like same-day registration and looser voting registration deadlines, are shown to bolster turnout. In New York and other states where Democrats have power, progressives should push for the implementation of automatic voter registration, same-day registration and early voting, as well as other reforms to ease access. Of the six states in which Democrats have a trifecta, meaning they control the governors office and both legislative chambers, four still dont have automatic voter registration. In states where they dont have full power, progressives should put automatic voter registration on the ballot. (Alaska, a heavily Republican state, recently passed automatic voter registration by referendum.) Automatic voter registration can ensure that all Americans are represented in the voting booth, and progressives should embrace it.

Read more from the original source:
Automatic voter registration isn't a sexy topic but it's crucial to Democrats and progressives regaining power - Salon