Mediaboss Marketing

"People are going to be surprised," Rep. Adam Schiff promised us, preceding the first primetime televised hearing of the January 6 committee. "The American people know a great deal already," he said, but there is a "great deal they haven't seen yet."

If the tantalizing promise of juicy evidence sounds familiar, it's because Adam Schiff is a one-trick pony. How many times did Schiff promise "proof" of Trump-Russia collusion only to produce... nothing?

Any inquiry that boasts Rep. Adam Schiff as a member should be outright rejected.

"Our goal is to present a narrative of what happened in this country," Schiff continued. "How close we came to losing our democracy. What led to the violence."

Which is it, Mr. Schiff? Will your committee serve up evidence to bolster your outrageous allegations? Or are you weaving a political "narrative" to serve your party's agenda?

The Jan. 6 committee under the helm of Chair Bennie Thompson, flanked by Schiff and pseudo-Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, among others, is more dangerous than Jan. 6th itself. We're less than two weeks into their televised kangaroo courtduring which they've already admitted they do not plan to make any criminal referrals to the Department of Justiceand they've given us at least five reasons to suspect they pose a greater threat to our country than the events of Jan. 6th ever did.

The first reason is the abuse of power wielded by the committee in its targeting of Trump adviser Peter Navarro. When the committee subpoenaed Navarro, he refused it, citing executive privilege on behalf of President Trump. Navarro has a legal right to make this claim. The Jan. 6th committee can contest it, but the appropriate venue to do so is in the courts. Schiff, Thompson, Cheney, Kinzinger, and the rest have no legal authority to simply dismiss Navarro's claim because they don't like it. Yet the DOJ indicted Navarro and the FBI arrested him at the airport without the due process necessary to adjudicate his claim.

So much for the Jan. 6th committee's claim to care about democracy.

Second, many of the Jan. 6th defendants who have been rotting in jail for the past year are being charged under 40 U.S. Code 5104, which says no one may "parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings" and 18 U.S. Code 1512, which bans protest that "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."

Yet consider the protesters circling the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Their demonstrations continue even in the wake of the attempted assassination of the Justice, and despite the fact that a federal law with nearly identical language prohibits this activity. That law, 18 U.S.C. 1507, bans "picket[ing] or parad[ing] in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" when the protests have the intent "of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice."

Does the Jan. 6th committee care about selective application of the law, based on the political beliefs of those charged? No, it doesn't.

How can a congressional committee focused on Jan. 6th not care about what actually happened that day? This is the third reason. The real questions about Jan. 6th, 2021 remain:

Did cops open doors at the Capitol to allow protesters to enter?

Did somebody move barriers for people to enter the restricted zone around the Capitol? If so, who?

Did police beat anyone in the tunnel?

Did FBI informants encourage and/or organize violence or lawbreaking?

How extensively were federal agencies geotracking people in connection to Jan. 6th?

Why does the committee refuse to subpoena and release 14,000 hours of video footage from Jan. 6th?

Why won't the committee subpoena the communication between Nancy Pelosi, the FBI, the DCCP, and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser?

Why was the Capitol left unprotected?

How long will the Jan. 6th defendants be subject to solitary confinement and deprivation of due process rights?

(Will Schiff's narrative include this information? If not, why not?)

Most dangerous of all, and our fourth reason, the Jan. 6th committee is trying to criminalize free speech. Dubbing concerns about election integrity "the big lie," and accusing those who voice them of inciting an insurrection, is part of a blatant attempt to label any speech that contradicts radical leftist ideology as "actual" violence. This is the criminalization of free speech at the hands of partisan, dishonest politicians. Free speech is a bedrock value of our constitutional republic, without which our nation will certainly fall.

This is and always has been the goal of the Jan. 6th committee. Criminalize free speech, convict President Donald Trump of a crime so he can't run in 2024, and use the whole spectacle as a vehicle to push their own anti-American agenda through "voting" legislation like the For The People Act.

The federalization of elections is a sinister, calculated move, and our fifth reason. The Jan. 6th committee fully understands that federalizing our election system, mandating early voting, online voter registration, no-fault absentee ballots, and removing protections against ballot harvestingall while prohibiting voter ID laws, witness signature verification, and the cleanup of state voter rollswill empower Democrats to win elections in perpetuity and effectively snuff out the chances of a Republican ever winning elections again.

The Jan. 6th committee is far more dangerous to our democracy than what happened on Jan. 6th. If you're not yet convinced, keep watching.

Liz Wheeler is host of The Liz Wheeler Show.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read the original:
The Jan. 6th Committee is More Dangerous to Democracy Than Jan. 6th | Opinion - Newsweek

"A More Perfect Union" is a media project that explores the complexities of our democracy in order to help strengthen it. Through radio programs, podcasts, and oral histories, the collaborative project examines American democracys founding documents: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, through a cross-cultural lens.

"A More Perfect Union" invites all of us to reflect on our shared history and the American ideals that have animated our republic since its founding. How have different communities been included or excluded from our democratic systems? How have Washington cultural communities defined liberty based on their unique social circumstances? What challenges have these communities faced in their quest for liberty, and how have they tried to overcome them? How can we work to build a more just, inclusive, and sustainable democracy?

The project is presented by KUOW, Spokane Public Radio, Humanities Washington, and Northwest Public Broadcasting.

The first episode of "A More Perfect Union," explores concepts of civic engagement and participation in our region.

Reporters dive into civic education standards and share insight into the ways educators make civic education interesting, both in and outside the classroom.

Then, they'll explore the lives of some of Washington's early agricultural immigrants through a tour of the first museum dedicated to Chicano/a and Latino/a culture in Washington state, exploring how communities immigrated and reshaped our civic lives, and also how museums can tell the story of civic engagement.

Finally, they'll speak to a Washington activist about rights for people who are under-represented in many conversations about unalienable rights.

Hear the full episode by clicking the audio above.

See the rest here:
Exploring the complexities of our democracy - KUOW News and Information

BY WEALTH DICKSON OMINABO

Democracy in West Africa is in crisis, it is threatened by insecurity, human rights violation, digital repression, electoral fraud, institutional weakness and state capture. The region is becoming a flourishing ground for unconstitutional transfers of power, compounding the security challenges of the region. Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea are now governed by military leaders and ECOWAS has for the last two years been searching for a sustainable solution to the political impasse in the countries.

At the foundation of the issue of democratic reversals is the crisis of governance. The inability of states to function effectively; the lack of capacity of institutions to carry out their functions, and the inability of political leaders to safeguard and protect the lives and properties of citizens are also seen as a major threat to the survival of democracy. Peace and security are the primary responsibilities of a state, and the governments relevance is to the extent to which it can guarantee the basic rights of the people. The crisis of governance is better explained in the context of the current reality in many countries, where citizens are daily confronted with miseries such as poverty, unemployment, insecurity and hunger. This has created a trust deficit between the government and the citizens. Trust is the threshold upon which the legitimacy of a government is built and sustained and the deficit of trust portends a crisis of legitimacy.

Democratic sustainability is tied to adherence to democratic principles which include the rule of law, separation of powers, credible elections, access to justice, equality and inclusive governance. These virtues help to reinforce the wheel of governance and maintain the state on the path of stability and national cohesion. Dictatorial instincts by political leaders have made many citizens lose faith in democracy, making citizens resort to the search for hope by all means even outside the constitutional democracy. In Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso, citizens trooped out to the street to celebrate when democratic governments were overthrown. In some instances like Mali, civil society groups and political party leaders were reported to have endorsed the actions of the putschist.

ECOWAS and the crisis of governance

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is threatened with legitimacy and governance crises this impacts its ability to deliver on its mandate and enforce its protocols. Democracy and security are major areas of interest for ECOWAS. Regrettably, the region has been a melting pot for insecurity and a flashpoint for democratic decline in recent years. Part of the challenge lies in the lethargy of presidents from member states to uphold democratic principles in their countries. Another factor lies in the absence of strong institutions in many countries which has made many presidents manipulate the state institutions for their interests.

The inability of ECOWAS leaders, especially those within the ranks of the authority of heads of state and government, the highest decision organ of the body comprising serving presidents to enforce its laws and protocols, has created a crisis of governance for ECOWAS. In recent times, most presidents of ECOWAS nations have defaulted on ECOWAS protocol on democracy and good governance through electoral malpractice and tenure elongation.

Some leaders have also captured democratic institutions in their countries subjecting state institutions to act according to their whims and caprices. President Alpha Condes decision to seek a third term has always been cited as the major reason for the coup in Guinea. ECOWAS today faces a legitimacy issue because many citizens in member states do not see the body as representing their interests because of their silence on the illegality of sitting presidents. For example, ECOWAS maintained sealed lips when Alassane Ouattara amended the Cte dIvoires constitution and sought a third term.

This practice by ECOWAS signals a departure from the old tradition when ECOWAS used to be assertive on issues of democratic principles involving member states. In 2009, ECOWAS suspended President Mamadou Tandja of Niger after the expiration of his two terms despite orchestrating a referendum and conducting a sham election to validate his third term. In 2010, ECOWAS also asserted its power and compelled President Laurent Gbagbo to vacate office after he was defeated by Alassane Ouattara in the 2010 presidential election of Cte dIvoire. Also in 2016, ECOWAS restored the presidential mandate of Adama Barrow of Gambia after Yahya Jammeh refused to vacate office after he was defeated in the presidential polls.

The deviation from this time-tested practice is what has created a legitimacy gap for ECOWAS among citizens of member states. Today, ECOWAS finds it difficult to enforce its policies and protocol on dissenting members. The failure and refusal of military authoritarians in Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso to abide by the ECOWAS timeline of political transition despite sanctions imposed on them signal the irreverence of the body in the region.

The way forward

For democracy to flourish in the region, presidents from member states must commit to democratic principles in their own countries. This will translate to wider democratic gains in the region. One way to achieve this is through the strengthening of democratic institutions in a way that they can withstand pressures from African strong men and authoritarians. Strong institutions are the bulwark upon which democracy is preserved. The ECOWAS Commission and ECOWAS itself are in need of urgent reforms that will guarantee its independence from internal and external influences, so it can enforce its protocols without fear or favour.

Lastly, West African nations need to improve their level of statecraft, such that the government is able to deliver basic social goods to its citizens; this will help ensure trust and build faith in the hearts of citizens on the benefits and relevance of democracy.

Ominabo is the communications officer at the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation

Originally posted here:
ECOWAS: Democratic reversals and the crisis of governance in West Africa - TheCable

WISCONSIN In the fourth hearing of the January 6th Select Committee, we learned more about the pressure campaign of Trump and his MAGA allies to overturn the results of the election. An all-Republican panel first detailed Trump and his officials harassment, and an election worker and her mother described their experiences after they were falsely accused by Trump of meddling in the election.

Trump pressured state officials to overthrow the will of the people in order to stay in power, and exposed election workers to threats and harassment by publicly and falsely accusing them of crimes, said Defend Democracy Project Communications Director Nicole Haley. There is no depth that Trump will not sink to, including attacking innocent people for just doing their jobs. The threat is ongoing, and those involved must be held accountable no matter if they are former presidents, members of Congress, or other officials.

1. Officials described Trump and his allies campaign to pressure officials to overturn the results of the election they lost.

2. Officials found no evidence of voter fraud in Arizona and Georgia.

3. At least one U.S. congressman and one senator participated in the conspiracy by pressuring state officials and trying to deliver fake elector certificates to Vice President Pence.

4. President Trumps blatantly illegal actions directly resulted in threats of violence against people doing their jobs and carrying out their oaths to the Constitution.

Excerpt from:
Defend Democracy Project: Jan 6th hearing takeaways - WisPolitics.com

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. (President Franklin D. Roosevelt)

The recent controversies about the Amity Regional School District budget demonstrate the poignancy of these words. Indeed, in this era of unlimited sources of information and ideas, we and our children need to be educated on how to discern facts from misleading or false statements and how to identify reliable sources of information. This is crucial and increasingly difficult.

One budget-related topic where confusion about the facts was widespread concerned surplus in the Amity budget. Some were critical that there were yearly surpluses and others focused on the purported cost to taxpayers of the surpluses. Amity Board of Education members explained various reasons for surpluses, including the unpredictability of special education costs and variability in state grants.

As to the cost of carrying a surplus, the oft-repeated claim that Amity had a $3M surplus for each of the last 4 years and that the cost to taxpayers was $12M was blatantly wrong in two respects. Amity Board of Education members explained why. First, it confuses a surplus with an expense. It is the same $3M that gets carried over year to year. Likewise, the cost to taxpayers of carrying a surplus is at most the interest lost on the money. Generously estimating a 3% interest rate over those years, the cost would be $90,000 per year (for all 3 towns) approximately $6-$10 per year per household.

What we learned from this: there needs to be clearer, accessible information made widely available concerning how the Amity budget is developed, why some amount of surplus may be necessary and whether it has been the correct amount, and why funding the schools to assure a top-notch education is so important for our children and to our community.

Another controversy about the budget centered on hiring a part-time Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) instructional coach. Opponents claimed that this would foster an us versus them culture in the school, and worse. Here again, Amity Board of Education members explained their commitment to addressing inclusion and equity in a way that is positive for everyone[and] makes ALL children feel like they belong at school. Equity is about allowing EVERY child to reach their full potential.

What we learned from this: some in the community are not as committed as others to providing an inclusive and affirming environment for all members of our school community; others are confused about the goals and importance of DEI principles; and the majority of us are firmly committed to the goals of DEI. DEI reflects our increasingly diverse Town and nation and expresses the values that make our community robust, welcoming and healthy. We must continue to educate our neighbors about the need for and goals of DEI.

We in Woodbridge have long demonstrated the high value we place on education through our budget: approximately 2/3 of our spending goes to supporting our schools. Yet even this fundamental community commitment appeared to be under attack during the recent Amity Budget controversy.

What we learned from this: there is a large group of committed Woodbridge residents who are ready to step up and come together to ensure that our already fine schools are even stronger, more supportive, and more inclusive places of learning. These are the future leaders of Woodbridge, and with their engagement, our Town will continue to thrive as the vibrant, welcoming community we all call home.

If you are interested in learning more about the Woodbridge Democratic Town Committee, please get in touch with us by email: woodbridgeCTdems@gmail.com or visit our website: woodbridgeCTdems.org.

See more here:
Education: The Safeguard of Democracy Woodbridge Town News - Woodbridge Town News