Mediaboss Marketing

Dozens of Democratic politicians and progressives are calling for investigations into Mickey Kasparian, the influential union leader who was accused late last year of sexually harassing one of his employees and retaliating against two others.

In a letter sent to the executive boards of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 135, the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, and the state and county Democratic parties, the group said Kasparian must be suspended from his position at both labor organizationsthrough the duration of the independent investigations.

Separately, the Democratic Womans Club of San Diego wrote a letter to the county Democratic Party asking that Kasparian be suspended from his role as a delegate to the partys state Central Committee.

And Lee Burdick, former legal adviser and chief off staff to former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, likewise urged inthe labor groups and county Democrats to investigate, and to suspend Kasparian in the interim.

If you do nothing and wait for some court or other agency to act, you will do significant harm to your credibility and, consequently, your ability to act on behalf of your members and the progressive Labor movement you purport to represent, Burdick wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.

Kasparian has categorically denied allegations contained in lawsuits that sayhe pressured a subordinate into a lengthy sexual relationship and fired another after he inaccurately suspected she had double-crossed him on a political matter. The letters not only question those denials, but they show a division betweenprogressives.

After the absence of any action by the leadership of these groups to address these issues, it has now become clear that if we do not insist upon it, the complaints of these women may be dismissed and diminished in a manner that does not allow them any due process in their own workplaces, says the letter signed by 46 progressives.

The message from the Democratic Womans Club contains similar sentiments.

A statement from Local 135 said thatpeople whocomplained about Kasparian in lawsuits and interviews withnews mediawere fired for cause.

It is profoundly disappointing that individuals, by signing on to a letter, would choose to ignore the facts, or turn their backs on our members, the union said. We may be living in bizarre times, but facts still matter. Lawsuits are not truth, especially when they are filed by those who have failed to do their jobs.

In late December, Sandy Naranjo and Isabel Vasquez filed lawsuits against Kasparian and their employer, Local 135. Naranjo said she was wrongly fired after her husbands rival union took a position on a San Diego political issue that Kasparian disagreed with. Kasparian said she was fired for falsifying time cards and mileage reports.

Vasquez said she was pressured into a 15-year sexual relationship with Kasparian, her boss. Kasparian said he had no intimate contact with her.

After Kasparian was sued, another woman at Local 135, Anabel Arauz, said she was demoted after she said she would be a good character witness for Vasquez and her boyfriend made critical post about Kasparian on Facebook.Letter signers said that Kasparian needs to be suspended during any investigation because of the potential for retaliation.

Kasparian, who has led Local 135 since 2003, said he has done nothing wrong and that many of his accusers merely disgruntled.

Of the plaintiffs in the lawsuitsonly Naranjo was terminated, but in court documents she said she was not fired for cause but rather as political retaliation. On Wednesday the union that represents Naranjo and other labor organizers at Local 135dismissed agrievance she filed.

Vasquez retired in July. Kasparian said he did not have any intimate contact with her, and other employees at Local 135 said there was no indication of anything other than a friendly professional relationship between the two. Kasparian and his supporters alike all said that Vasquez ended her career on good terms and was not disgruntled when she left the union.

Some of the women who complained in interviews with the media about how Kasparian treated them were fired, but they also said it was not for cause but rather for a slight or minor disagreement with their boss.

The Democratic Party did not return requests for comment and thestate party had not seen the letters, according to a spokesperson.

Among those signing the main letter were San Diego City Councilman David Alvarez, public interest attorney Cory Briggs, former Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, four other members of city councils, elected members of school districts, clergy, and several politically-active Democrats.

The letters come after protests and requests for Kasparian to resign, including demands from former San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye and Irene McCormack Jackson, the former communications director for disgraced ex-San Diego Mayor Bob Filner who was the first woman to step forward and accuse him of sexual harassment.

It is our belief that the appropriate remedy is for Mr. Kasparian to resign, Frye and McCormack Jackson wrote in their Jan. 25 letter. At a minimum, we urge you to conduct an independent investigation regarding these allegations against Mr. Kasparian. We also urge you to take the actions necessary to protect the current employees, such as placing Mr. Kasparian on administrative leave until this is resolved.

Labor boss sued twice, accused of sexual harassment

Women who worked for labor boss said he created a toxic office culture

The letter signers wrote that they need to address allegations of sexual harassment in part to have a moral high ground over President Donald Trump, and the allegations against the commander-in-chief and his own admissions to actions that amount to sexual harassment.

Because of Mr. Kasparians standing in the progressive community, our ability to stand up against cultures of discrimination, bullying and harassment is compromised, unless we are able to resolutely acknowledge that we hold ourselves to the same standard that we demand from the nations President and his supporters, they wrote.

The letter with 46 signatures was organized by Sara Kent, a paralegal who said the allegations against Kasparian upset her, and reminded her of the scandal that consumedFilner. It germinated from a few conversations and social media posts between her friends, and concerns increased with time.

It really sort of became this groundswell of these people who really felt that something needs to happen rather than just let the court process run its course, she said.

Arauzs demotion was the tipping point, and it became clear that more direct action was needed, Kent said.

Hes doubling down, she said. And I think thats really whats making people react and want to act and not wait.

The letter was not widely circulated for signatures, but once it was released more people said that they wish to add their name, Kent said.

Twitter: @jptstewart

joshua.stewart@sduniontribune.com

(619) 293-1841

The rest is here:
Progressives, Democrats demand investigations, suspension of ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune

"We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists," tweeted Occupy Oakland. The tweet came after crowds of protesters-turned-criminals stormed barricades, lit fires, and ignited Roman candles to stop controversial gay conservative and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos from finishing his "Dangerous Faggot" tour at the University of California, Berkeley.

A picture accompanied the tweet showing "demonstrators" with signs that read "This is War" and "Become Ungovernable." Lost in the fog of the Roman candles was the fact that progressive "protestors," by denying the right of a political opponent to speak, were the fascists.

Make no mistake: The rights of free speech and peaceful assembly are among the most precious in our constitutional republic. The ability to tell the emperor he is naked is what separates this nation from so many across the globe. It is a right that must be protected from government encroachment, but it is also a right that must be respected by those seeking to exercise it.

Since the election of President Trump, progressives have confused their First Amendment right to protest with their perceived notion of free rein. After the inauguration, "protesters" took to the streets of D.C., to vandalize for sport. In New Orleans, "protesters" demonstrated their dislike for Trump by defacing historic buildings. When Trump traveled to Philadelphia shortly after the inauguration, "protesters" responded by taking spray paint to police cruisers.

What happened to Yiannopoulos on Wednesday night is only the latest example in this unsettling trend.

As protesters engage in lawless acts of thuggery, mainstream media coverage seems indifferent the trending lawlessness of the demonstrations.

In a feature titled "Ferocious Protests Greet Right-Wing Provocateur," Newsweek senior writer Alexander Nazaryan wrote, "On Wednesday night, several hundred people decided the University of California at Berkeley would reclaim its reputation as a crucible of radical activism."

What radical activism was on hand Wednesday night? According to Nazaryan, "A Walgreens was tagged with graffiti, including one that said 'Kill Trump.' Protesters posed happily in front of it for pictures. Berkeley officers, astride bicycles, watched."

Also from the Washington Examiner

Senate Democrats have little to show for trying to stall President Trump's nominees ahead of a bruising Supreme Court confirmation fight.

02/03/17 4:00 AM

This is not "radical activism." It is a laundry list of felonies committed with the implicit blessing of local law enforcement.

Washington Post writers opened an article about the inaugural protests by explaining, "Protesters made themselves heard in the nation's capital Friday, leaving a trail of damage along some city blocks, disrupting security checkpoints at President Donald Trump's inauguration, and clashing with police as Trump supporters tried to celebrate."

While the sentence seems innocent enough, can we honestly say people who damage and disrupt with a specific intent are protesters? Would they not be criminals?

Imagine if protesters who participated in the March for Life behaved like anti-Trump protesters. Would the media remain indifferent or would the full weight of the press come down on pro-life activism? Because Nazaryan labeled Breitbart a "white-nationalist website" in his Yiannopoulos article, we have a good guess at the answer.

Almost a century ago, Justice Olive Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Holmes went on to rule that criticism of the draft was not free speech because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the country.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Trump administration is committed to a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, Vice President Pence said.

02/03/17 12:09 AM

While the clear and present danger standard penned by Holmes in Schenck v. United States has undergone a constitutional evolution, the common sense wisdom still looms large. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater may not be the same as opposing the draft, it is the same as deliberately starting fires in public.

If Berkeley is unable to teach their students about constitutional rights, it's time law enforcement does.

Joseph Murray (@realJoeMurray) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. Previously, he was a campaign official for Pat Buchanan. He is the author of "Odd Man Out" and is administrator of the LGBTrump Facebook page.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Top Story

Donald Trump's second week as president has been full of surprises and sturm und drang.

02/03/17 5:00 AM

Read the original here:
Berkeley riot shows progressives want free rein, not free speech - Washington Examiner (blog)

Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways Wall Street Journal Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways. The Trump administration should go slowly on taking any action against sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. Feb. 2, 2017 2:12 p.m. ET. Regarding your editorial The Trump Wall Rises (Jan. 26 ...

Read the original post:
Progressives Take Note: Sanctuaries Cut Both Ways - Wall Street Journal

The consternation and outrage weve seen in response to President Trumps executive order on immigration has little to do with the policy as such. Restricting immigration from certain countries is nothing new; President Obama did it, as did presidents Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan.

Rather, it has everything to do with the elevation of progressive politics to the status of a religiona dogmatic and intolerant religion, whose practitioners are now experiencing a crisis of faith.

Forget the executive order itself. Progressives have reacted with moral indignation and hysteria to everything Trump has done since taking office. His inauguration was enough to bring out hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country. In the 12 days since then, we have witnessed yet more demonstrations, boycotts, calls for resistance, comparisons to the Holocaust, media witch-hunts, the politicization of everything from Hollywood awards shows to professional sports, and real tears from New York Sen.Chuck Schumer.

One is hard-pressed to think of something Trump could do that would not elicit howls of outrage from the Left. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats boycotted confirmation hearings for Steven Mnuchins nomination to serve as treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Prices nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services, while continuing to try to block the confirmation of Betsy DeVos for education secretary and Sen. Jeff Session for attorney general. Even before Trump announced his Supreme Court pick on Tuesday night, Democrats had already announced they would filibuster the nomination, no matter who it was.

The obstinacy of Senate Democrats reflects the mood of their progressive base, whose panicked anger is the natural reaction of those for whom politics has become an article of faith. Progressives, as the terms implies, believe society must always be progressing toward something better. Always forward, never backwards. After eight years of Obama, they believed progressive politics in America would forever be on an upward trajectory.

Trump shook that faith. But his election also unmasked the degree to which progressivism as a political project is based not on science or rationality, or even sound policy, but on faith in the power of government to ameliorate and eventually perfect society. All the protests and denunciations of Trump serve not just as an outlet for progressives despair, but the chance to signal their moral virtue through collective outrage and moral preeningsomething that wasnt really possible under Obama, at least not to this degree.

Not that they didnt try. Recall that during the Obamacare debate in 2009 Ezra Klein suggested that Sen. Joe Lieberman was willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score, simply because he threatened to filibuster what would become the Affordable Care Act. This is the language of political fundamentalismpolicy invested with the certainty of religious conviction.

Religious fundamentalism of course rests on immutable truths that cannot be negotiated. For Klein, that meant health care reform. The same rhetoricwilling to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peoplewould crop up again and again during Obamas tenure, every time a Republican governor refused to expand Medicaid or a state attorney general challenged an EPA regulation meant to curb climate change. Policy debates took on a theological significance.

Conservatives sometimes invoke religion in policy debates, but its usually not because theyre trying to make a religion out of politics. Most often, its in reaction to progressives insistence that religious beliefs be cast aside when they impede the political agenda of the Leftlike when Obama tried to fine the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, $70 million for refusing, on religious grounds, to participate in a government scheme to distribute birth control.

That progressive politics should carry the force of religious belief should not come as a surprise.For the Left, politics holds the promise of paradise on earth. Through the instrument of government, progressives believe they can right the worlds wrongs, punish the wicked, feed the hungry, outlaw bigotry, and perhaps even save the earth from climate change. All they need is control of government and sound policies. If everything that matters is at stake, then everything is justified in the pursuit of political power.

Unfortunately, this faith in progress is built on a lie. In his 2002 book, Straw Dogs, the philosopher John Gray argued that secular humanism, and the corresponding faith in human progress it assumes, is an illusiona leftover from Christianity. Most people today think they belong to a species that can be master of its destiny. This is faith, not science.

Gray argues that human progress, apart from science, is a myth. Among progressives, he writes, this observation seems to have produced a moral panic. Surely, they ask, no one can question the central article of faith of liberal societies? Without it, will we not despair? Like trembling Victorians terrified of losing their faith, these humanists cling to the moth-eaten brocade of progressive hope. Progressives are in the grip of unexamined dogmas about their ability to improve human nature and harness technology for the perfection of society.

Such a faith necessitates an obsession with politics, and provokes a burning desire for control over the levers of government power. If we are consumed by politics in the age of Trump, it is not because of Trump. It is because progressives have made politics into a god, and their god is failing them.

See the original post here:
Why Are Progressives So Angry? Trump Defeated Their Messiah - The Federalist

Republicans were forced to reschedule votes for key cabinet picks after Democrats intensified their opposition to President Trump's nominations. (Alice Li,Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)

On Tuesday morning, the war room at the progressive group American Bridge was working away at opposition research on President Trumps Cabinet nominees. Steve Mnuchin, Trumps pick for the Treasury Department, had been damaged by a Columbus Dispatch investigation into how, despite denials, his OneWest Bank frequently used robo-signers in foreclosure cases. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, was dinged by the latest Wall Street Journal story into his stocks.

Both were expected to be moved ahead in Senate committees Tuesday. But as the war room watched from afar, Republican committee leaders angrily reported that Democrats had boycotted the markups, delaying the votes.The researchers burst into cheers.

[Democrats boycott confirmation hearings for Price and Mnuchin, blocking votes]

Tuesdays delays, which are unlikely to stop final confirmation votes, were welcomed by a left that had become increasingly angry about the Senate Democrats strategy. They were especially potent on a day that will end with the president nominating his pick for a Supreme Court seat, one that progressives consider stolen from former president Barack Obama.

I certainly applaud the Democrats who stood up and performed their advice and consent responsibilities in an admirable fashion, said Nan Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice, which is gearing up a campaign to stop Trumps court pick. Weve seen the Republicans intent on rubber-stamping Trump Cabinet appointees as quickly as possible to avoid public scrutiny. Around our office, people were thrilled to see the Democrats standing up.

The Senate Democrats move scratched the same itch that House conservatives had eight years earlier, when they surprised the majority by denying even a single vote to the 2009 stimulus package. Then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) celebrated that vote with a video set to Aerosmiths Back in the Saddle, a message to the partys disgruntled base that Republicans would fight whatever they could. Then, Republicans had gotten even moderate members to vote no; on Tuesday, even Finance Committee members from states won by Trump joined the boycott.

Still, there was little 2009-style triumphalism from Democrats on Tuesday morning. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of the planners behind the committee boycott, said in an interview that he had worked phones until 11 p.m. Monday before the plan cohered. But on Tuesday, swarmed by reporters, he pushed back on the idea that Democrats had a new opposition strategy.

You guys are all assuming this is delay and tactics and politics, Brown said. They lied to the committee. You can write your story however you want, but they lied to the committee about things that affect peoples lives in a direct way. Were just saying, bring em back in, let them explain themselves.

But to the left, the delays represent the first real effort by Democrats to trip up Trump and Republicans. Activists celebrated as Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) denounced the hissy fit and Senate Finance Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) called the effort stupid. It mirrored what they had watched Democrats do for eight years,sputtering in the vain hope that voters would punish Republicans.

I think its a good move, hopefully foreshadowing a far more assertive role for congressional Democrats going forward, said Norman Solomon, a left-wing writer and activist who leads the progressive Bernie Delegates Network of 2016primary veterans.If they act like doormats, theyll keep getting rolled and the country will descend further into a pit of dominant intimidation from Trump and his wrecking crew.

Since Jan. 20, Democrats who had enjoyed strong relationships with their base, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), had been surprised by protests at their votes for Trump nominees. The court fight, coupled with Monday nights firing of the acting attorney general who refused to defend the administrations executive orders, was another rationale to oppose everything Trump did.

Republicans have broken all kind of norms in their pursuit of power and we must check them, said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) in a Tuesday afternoon statement. By blockading an accomplished, centrist jurist in Merrick Garland, Senate Republicans disregarded the norms that sustain American democracy. But instead of invoking the so-called nuclear option or making a recess appointment to the court, Democrats dithered while Republican won a major victory.

But Gallego would have no say in the court fight; Senate Democrats who would, generally, were cautious about how they described it. The 11-month blockade of Garlands nomination had led to some confusion in how Democrats ranked their responses to a Trump pick. There had been encouragement from the left after a Politico story about how Democrats would filibuster the pick; there had been rage when CNN reported that Democrats were cracking.

[On the death of the Senate and its long history as the worlds greatest deliberative body]

By Tuesday afternoon, what was clear was that Democrats would frame their opposition to a Trump pick as more considered than Republican opposition to Garland. After some criticism for saying she wanted hearings and votes on the nominee, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) clarified that the votes she was referring to were cloture votes i.e., that she supported a 60-vote threshold for any nominee. (No hearings, no votes was a slogan for the Garland impasse, made real by Senate Republicans.)

Why would anyone think that because I support confirmation hearing and [a] 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominee, that means Im folding to Trump? McCaskill asked on Twitter.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters Tuesday that he would consider any Trump nomineebased on the merits, which was hardly as volcanic as the language from the left. But when he clarified what that meant, he opened the door to a four-year filibuster.

One of the unfortunate consequences of the Garland obstructionism has been to show that, in fact, the Supreme Court can function with eight members, Blumenthal said.

His colleague, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), was less cryptic about his willingness to stop Trump nominees.

What happened today is exceptional, Murphy said of the committee-vote boycott. I think we are rising to what is a truly exceptional moment. We dont have 50 votes; theres only so much to do. But I am prepared to shatter precedents to make it clear we are not going to stand for what Trump is doing.

In a memo sent to Democrats on Tuesday, the Center for American Progress Action Fund urged Democrats to argue that there was a precedent a precedent to demand a consensus nominee.

The Senate should refuse to act on any Supreme Court nominee that does not have the broad, bipartisan support of a supermajority of upwards of 66 senators, wrote CAPAFs president Neera Tanden. Justice Anthony Kennedy was unanimously confirmed, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received 96 votes. If Trump refuses to offer a consensus nominee that could secure a strong supermajority, Democrats would do well to remember that Republicans paid no price for past obstruction.

Thoseideas had not been part of the discussion on Monday night, when Democrats rallied with supporters outside the Supreme Court. At 9 p.m. Tuesday, a coalition of liberal groups will hold their own rally at the court with a more direct theme.

This Administration has already shown how dangerous it is, taking fundamentally unconstitutional actions within the first 10 days, the organizers wrote to supporters. Weneed to be ready to immediately raise our voices in opposition and call on senators to reject Trumps nominee.

Read more here:
Progressives cheer Democratic obstruction and aim at Supreme Court - Washington Post