As it doesn't often snow where I live, it made my day
This is a fan forum to discuss Darren Criss\'s career and his public activities, including his theater, film, and TV projects, his music and musical performances, charitable work, interaction with fans, and interviews.
San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
US judge bars deportations under Trump travel ban
A federal judge issued an emergency order Saturday night temporarily barring the U.S. from deporting people from nations subject to President Donald Trump's travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York issued the emergency order after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition on behalf of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations who were detained at airports across the country as the ban took effect.
[. . . ]
The order barred U.S. border agents from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a valid visa from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. It also covered anyone with an approved refugee application.
It was unclear how quickly the order might affect people in detention.
Under Trump's order, it had appeared that an untold number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency "green cards" or other visas. However, an official with the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump's order had been prevented from entering the U.S.
Some foreign nationals who were allowed to board flights before the order was signed Friday had been detained at U.S. airports, told they were no longer welcome. The DHS official who briefed reporters by phone said 109 people who were in transit on airplanes had been denied entry and 173 had not been allowed to get on their planes overseas.
[. . . ]
The order sparked protests at several of the nation's international airports, including New York's Kennedy and Chicago's O'Hare and facilities in Minneapolis and Dallas-Forth Worth. In San Francisco, hundreds blocked the street outside the arrival area of the international terminal. Several dozen demonstrated at the airport in Portland, Oregon, briefly disrupting light rail service while hoisting signs that read "Portland Coffee Is From Yemen" and chanting anti-Trump slogans. Among the dozens showing support for refugees at Denver's airport were those who sang "refugees are welcome here."
U.S. lawmakers and officials around the globe also criticized the move. Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said while Trump is right to focus on border security, the order is "too broad."
"If we send a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion," Sasse said. "Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom."
[. . . ]
No refugees were in the air when the travel ban was signed Friday, but about 350 people were in transit in Nairobi, Kenya, and were now stuck there, said Melanie Nezer, vice president of policy and advocacy for HIAS, a refugee resettlement aid agency. She said several hundred more people who were booked on U.S.-bound flights in the next week were now stranded around the globe.
"This in effect could be a permanent ban," she said. "Many of these people may never be able to come."
Last edited by Poppy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by Poppy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:31 am; edited 1 time in total
The New Yorker wrote:On Wednesday, around 7 P.M., a Google document entitled “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda” began making the rounds online. Its origin was the Twitter account of Ezra Levin, a thirty-one-year-old associate director at a national anti-poverty nonprofit . . .
[. . . ]
As former congressional staffers—until 2011, Levin was the deputy policy director for Congressman Lloyd Doggett, who represents a district in central Texas—he and his friends could “demystify” congressional influence.
"It's not rocket science," Levin said. “There are specific steps you can take to make change happen.” . . . Experience and research had revealed to Levin and the other authors that, “despite the despair that many progressives may be feeling right now, there really actually is a model for success.” Unfortunately, it belonged to the Tea Party.
The document analyzes the strategic wisdom of the Tea Party, focussing on its local activism and emphasis on defense rather than offense. “We tried to be really clear in the document that, like it or not, the Tea Party really did have significant accomplishments—facing more difficult odds than we face today—and that it’s worth thinking about what parts of their strategy and tactics really enabled that,” Levin said. “We aimed to balance that acknowledgment by being very clear that we’re not endorsing the Tea Party’s horrible and petty scare tactics.”
[. . . ]
“Indivisible” has, in the two days since its release, gone viral. It has been shared by the former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the author and filmmaker Miranda July, and, as Levin said yesterday, . . . George Takei, the helmsman of the Enterprise on the TV show and a liberal activist in real life. Takei tweeted to his two million followers, “Welcome to the resistance. Required reading against the darkening tide.” Another “Star Trek” alum, Wil Wheaton, shared it, too.
“Indivisible” was a hit from the moment it dropped online Wednesday night, earning raves from journalists, artists, former government officials, a candidate for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship, and George Takei.
[. . . ]
The response the authors are most satisfied with, though, has been from “people on the ground, all across the country, saying, ‘Oh my gosh, this is what I’ve been looking for, and this is what we need to do. Is there anybody else in name-the-local-town who wants to put this to use?’ ”
[. . . ]
The guide first offers lessons about how the Tea Party was able to get Republicans to resist Obama. They acted locally, organizing in small, dogged groups to get in members’ faces. Critically, they were also purely defensive. They didn’t feel obligated to present alternatives to what was happening in Washington; they just said no. “While the Tea Party activists were united by a core set of shared beliefs, they actively avoided developing their own policy agenda,” the guide says. “Instead, they had an extraordinary clarity of purpose, united in opposition to President Obama.
[. . . ]
The most effective ways for people to resist aren’t through indignant tweets. It’s by taking on their own members of Congress, on their turf. One of the guide’s more useful charts shows what members of Congress care about versus what they don’t . . . They don’t care about “form letters, a Tweet, or Facebook comment.” But they care if you and a group of like-minded individuals show up to their town hall or ribbon-cutting, ask difficult questions or register dissent, and turn their hoped-for sunny 15-second spot on the local news into a longer story about the anger they faced from constituents.
These and other protest actions in the guide are designed to achieve three goals the authors lay forth: stalling the Trump agenda, because members are too busy dealing with their own constituent unrest; “sapping Representatives’ will to support or drive reactionary change”; and reaffirming “the illegitimacy of the Trump agenda.” On the last goal, the authors admit that Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will have the votes to push through what they want to put through. Activists’ goal, even if they can’t prevent something from going into action, is to make their members [their Congressional representatives] own the consequences and lay the groundwork for their repeal. This playbook might sound familiar.
[ . . . ]
“Indivisible” is a more useful document for progressives than all of the online hand-wringing since election night combined.
In early December, a few dozen friends who had been involved in progressive causes — former Congressional staffers, nonprofit employees, union advocates — got together drafted a document they referred to as the Indivisible Guide. It's a set of guidelines for how activists can most effectively push their members of Congress to support causes they care about and to oppose Trump. They published it as a Google Doc on Dec. 14 . . .
By the following morning, so many people had read it that Google Docs was unable to handle the traffic and crashed the document. By the next week, the document's writers launched a website, a Twitter account, and a Facebook page. Just a few weeks later, Dohl said that the Indivisible Guide has more than 275,000 downloads and their website has more than 1.2 million views. Around the country, activists are starting local Indivisible groups and putting into effect the tactics detailed in the guide.
. . . "So, we wanted to show that there is a model for success, that this type of directed local organizing can have a huge impact on national outcomes, and that there are concrete steps people can take to get there."
"We’re getting overwhelmingly positive responses," said Levin. He appeared Wednesday night on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, providing the most high-profile coverage that the nascent movement has gotten so far.
Indivisible is not alone. It's one of many groups that have begun sprouting up in the wake of Trump's victory. Instead of relying on top-down support from the Democratic National Committee, these organizations are turning to grassroots activism in the face of a political agenda they see as unacceptable. Groups like Daily Grab Back, which gives activists a concrete piece of action every day to fight back against Trump, Wall-Of-Us, which suggests four actions weekly, and Flippable, which aims at focusing on vulnerable races Democrats could win, have all seen similar explosions of interest beyond what their founders dreamed.
[. . . ]
. . . the real difference will come in actions that may be less flashy — the group also took some credit for helping the call-in campaign that scuttled Republican efforts to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. . . "When people are actually making the phone calls like we're asking them to, it is making a huge difference, and they need to know that it's making a difference when they do that," Lyman said.
The City Lab wrote:
The former congressional staffers who prepared the Indivisible Guide saw how effective the Tea Party movement was on local and national politics. Its persistent members got lawmakers to hold back legislation . . .
“It wasn't hundreds or thousands of people, it was 5, or 10, or 15 people in the living room. [They were] going to their local events, to their member of Congress's town hall, showing that member of Congress that they're there and they're listening,” says Ezra Levin, one of the guide’s creators. “The Tea Party's laser-like focus on local action, and very, very defensive action—recognizing that they couldn't set the agenda, but they could respond to it—that was what we saw as being crucial to their success.”
So Levin and his colleagues tried to reverse-engineer the Tea Party playbook, to resist the agendas of Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress. When it was complete in mid-December, Levin put it out in the Twitter-sphere; the Indivisible website went live a few days later. Messages from local groups organizing under the Indivisible umbrella started pouring in. As of inauguration week, over 3,450 local groups have registered in blue and red, big and small areas. The document, which is now available in Spanish, has been downloaded around 600,000 times.
[. . . ]
As the Obama era dimmed, progressive grassroots organizations like the Working Families Party, MoveOn.org, and People's Action began to assemble the framework for this Tea-Party-esque countermovement in communities nationwide, organizing small bands of people to attend or host emergency meetings. Together, they registered over 500 such meetings on last count in 40-plus states—from Bellingham, Washington, to St. Petersburg, Florida. The size of these gatherings might range from 10 people huddled together in a living room to 1,000 in an auditorium.
Citizens aren’t just organizing in liberal urban hubs. Smaller towns and rural areas are also playing host. . . All these women have all either hosted or attended events for the first time, resolving to carve out time for activism.
[. . . ]
The changes to policy, many warn, will come fast in the Trump era. On one hand, a barrage of new policies and legislation has the potential to keep the outrage flowing, pushing citizens to the doors of their local legislators. But it can also become overwhelming and demoralizing. “You feel like you're facing the Death Star,” Fuentes says.
But, she adds, it’s helpful to remember that there’s space for different kinds of activism. Not everyone needs to protest on the street or proselytize someone from the opposing side. Less dramatic actions—like making a phone call or sending a letter—matter. Incremental progress, especially towards a greater goal of a more political engaged society, has critical value.
This would encourage insurers to drop abortion coverage from their policies, because there’s no incentive to offer a plan that so many people could not or would not buy.
“With Trump in the White House and anti-woman majorities in the House and Senate, there’s a chance this bill could become law,” she said. “That’s why we’re mobilizing activists—many of whom are fresh off the weekend’s Women’s Marches—to take the next step and contact their Senators.” It would take only a handful of Republican senators rejecting the bill, or a contingent of Democrats willing to filibuster it, to derail Republicans’ plan to permanently restrict abortion access.
The New York Post wrote:
January 31, 2017
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired on Monday for refusing to defend President Trump’s immigration ban, was questioned by Sen. Jeff Sessions in what now appears to be a remarkable moment during her 2015 confirmation hearing.
Sessions, Trump’s current nominee for attorney general, had warned Yates during his grilling that she might face a crucial decision when confronting the president.
“Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say ‘no’ to the president if he asks for something that’s improper?” Sessions asked Yates in the hearing.
“If the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or deputy attorney general say ‘no’?”
Yates replied that she was bound by the Constitution to do what is best for the country.
“I believe that the attorney general or deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates replied.
Yates was faced with that very decision on Monday.
She was tasked to mount a legal defense for Trump’s executive order which bars immigrants from seven Muslim-dominated countries. She refused.
In a statement, Yates said she did not believe the order was lawful, setting off a firestorm of accusations of political bias.
Trump quickly fired Yates . . .
via gleektolettersfromtitan wrote:
Make calls to stop Steve Bannon
(Originally posted 1/31/2017)
For those that don’t know, Steve Bannon is the former editor of Breitbart, a white supremacist, and an anti-Semite who is also a close adviser to Trump. He is also likely the architect of the Muslim ban EO and one of the people responsible for saying it applied to green card holders and should not be run through typical legal channels EOs are run through. In the midst of this weekend’s chaos Trump appointed him to the National Security Council, which is just terrifying.
There is, however, some sliver of good news. Despite everyone acting like this isn’t the case, he actually requires a confirmation hearing for this to be allowed. But we have to (as a first step) make this hearing happen.
1. Call Senate Homeland Security Committee to protest Bannon’s installation on the NSC. 202-224-4751.
2. When someone answers, say your version of “I’m a U.S. citizen and President Trump should not be allowed to install Stephen Bannon on National Security Council without Senate approval. We are a nation of laws. Anyone not at cabinet level must be Senate approved under US Code under Section 3021(a)(6). I hope that the senate committee on homeland security will exert their role as elected representatives and uphold that rule of law.” (script taken from https://twitter.com/TPol2017/).
3. Your call will be acknowledged or you may be asked you zip code or something similar for tracking of the broadness of opposition, states in play, etc. But basically you’re done. Yay!
President Trump’s executive order suspending resettlement of refugees and banning the entry of nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries is a Muslim ban wrapped in paper-thin national security rationale.
Many senators have said so – but many others have stayed silent. We need every voice on the record now – demand that your senators publicly oppose Trump’s Muslim ban.
On Saturday night a federal judge granted the ACLU’s request for an order blocking the deportation of people stranded in U.S. airports under President Trump’s new executive order. We worked with our partners – including International Refugee Assistance Project, National Immigration Law Center, and Yale Worker and Immigrants’ Rights Advocacy Clinic – to protect hundreds of refugees and immigrants from being deported.
But there’s more to be done. The order is temporary, and we need to keep fighting to ensure the courts decisively strike down the Muslim ban. Thousands headed to airports across the country to protest the ban this weekend. Now we need our senators to take the protest to Congress – and immediately denounce, oppose, and fight the discrimination and harm of this Muslim ban.
Trump’s executive order banning all refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries is not only bigoted and xenophobic – it is unconstitutional and illegal. Our elected representatives must say so, in no uncertain terms and on the record.
We the people will not stand for prejudice by executive order.
Tell your senators to stand on the right side of history and stand against a Muslim ban.
Thanks for raising your voice,
Anthony for the ACLU Action team
via slaydiestelumish wrote:
Things are awful.
Things are awful and you feel like you’re going to drown.
Take a breath.
Take another breath.
Drink some water. Take your medicine, if you need to. Eat, if you need to.
Take another breath.
Figure out what you can do to help. Not what someone else thinks you should do. What you can do. Do what you can. Donate money, if you have it. Donate time, if you have it. Donate energy, if you have it. Donate support if you have nothing else. Donate a kind word, a message of support. A smile. Tell people that they are worthy, that they are important, that they are loved. You are not bad for not having time or money or energy.
Then take a breath.
Hold on to as much anger as gives you purpose, but not so much that you will burn from it. Do not drown yourself in your hatred. It will help nobody.
Take a breath.
And start again.
President Trump's Disapproval Rating Has Shot Up in the Past 4 Days
January 29, 2017
More Americans than ever disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president, a recent Gallup poll shows.
Trump's disapproval rating has increased 6 points in the last 4 days, according to the poll. As of Jan. 28, about 51% of Americans polled disapproved of Trump, up from 45% on Jan. 22 — six days prior to the most recent results. By contrast, about 42% approve of the job he's doing, a more moderate change compared to the 45% who approved of him on Jan. 22.
[ . . . ]
Trump's ratings are well below those of his two most recent predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. According to a previous Gallup poll, at the beginning of February of 2001, 57% of people polled approved of Bush, and 25% disapproved. In the first few days of his presidency in Jan. 2009, Obama had a 68% approval rating, and a modest 12% disapproval rating.
The most recent results come after Trump set the record for receiving the lowest initial job approval rating and the highest disapproval rating just days after his inauguration—making him the first U.S. president to begin with a rating below 50% in the history of Gallup surveys. At the time, about 90% of Republicans surveyed approved of Trump, while 81% of Democrats disapproved, according to previous report.
dusty wrote:The world's going mad. Have you guys seen what's happening in Romania? The mind boggles.
Justice Department to Challenge Washignton Judge's Temporary Halt of President Trump's Travel Ban, White House Says
February 3, 2017
The White House is preparing to fight for President Donald Trump's immigration order after a federal judge on Friday halted it nationwide.
[. . . ]
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP] then alerted airlines the U.S. government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of U.S. visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
But the White House quickly countered, first calling the order "outrageous" and then dropping that word minutes later in a second statement.
[. . . ]
The ruling may have stung even more for the Trump administration because it came on the heels of its first legal victory over the travel ban. Hours earlier, a federal judge in Boston issued a more limited ruling that declined to renew a temporary restraining order in Massachusetts, which would have prohibited the detention or removal of foreign travelers legally authorized to come to the Boston area.
But it was the sweeping Seattle ruling that had the federal government scrambling.
Trump's executive order that he signed last week suspended immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, the U.S. refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely halted Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.
"This is exactly what we were looking for," Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told CNN's Anderson Cooper shortly after Robart's order, adding that "we have a bucket of Constitutional claims."
"It's Keystone Cops, the way that thing (the order) was put together," added Ferguson, who said he was prepared to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
This suit was brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota against the travel ban enacted by Trump's executive order. A federal official told CNN DOJ lawyers were not expected to file an appeal Friday night.
A Customs and Border Protection [CBP] spokesman told CNN the agency will review the order and comply with all court orders. The State Department is working with the Department of Homeland Security to determine the effect of the stay, a State Department official said.
[. . . ]
CBP told major U.S. airlines Friday night that the government is reinstating visas and is "back to business as usual" prior to the situation that was in place before last week's executive order, the airline executive told CNN.
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/11/coretta-scott-king-in-1986-letter-jeff-sessions-would-irreparably-damage-the-work-of-my-husband-martin-luther-king-jr/Dear Senator Thurmond:
I write to express my sincere opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson B. Sessions as a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Alabama. My professional and personal roots in Alabama are deep and lasting. Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts. Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.
I regret that a long-standing commitment prevents me from appearing in person to testify against this nominee. However, I have attached a copy of my statement opposing Mr. Sessions’ confirmation and I request that my statement as well as this be made a part of the hearing record.
I do sincerely urge you to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Sessions.
9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban
February 9, 2017
Donald Trump's travel ban will remain blocked, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.
"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."
It is a significant political setback to Trump's new administration and raises questions about how the courts will view his apparent vision for an expansive use of executive power from the Oval Office on which he is anchoring the early weeks of his presidency.
[. . . ]
"Bottom line, this is a complete victory for the state of Washington," said state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision effectively granted everything we sought."
[. . .]
The legal drama over the immigration executive order was the first episode in what could be a series of legal challenges to Trump's governing style and agenda and represents the first confrontation between his White House and the checks and balances of the American political system.
The judges rejected the Trump administration's sweeping claims of executive power, saying, "There is no precedent to support this claim of unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."
"Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution," the judges wrote.
Court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban
February 9, 2017
A US appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to reinstate his ban on visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries.
[. . . ]
But the unanimous 3-0 ruling said the government had not proved the terror threat justified the ban.
"The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States," the ruling said.
It also rejected the argument that the president had sole discretion to set immigration policy.
"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the executive order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all," said the ruling. "We disagree, as explained above.''
[. . . ]
Rather than explaining why the temporary travel ban was needed, the administration argued that the president's authority on immigration was so sweeping that they didn't have to explain why the order was necessary.
Americans Are Split on Whether They Want Trump Impeached--And More Revealing Polls
Trump’s overall approval rating varies by the source of the poll. A new national poll from Quinnipiac University has his approval rating at 38 percent, down from 42 percent just after his inauguration.
His post-inauguration approval rating is a record low compared to his recent predecessors: After his inauguration, Barack Obama’s approval rating was at 76 percent, and George W. Bush’s was 57 percent, according to CNN. Ronald Reagan was the closest to Trump, at 51 percent.
The lowest current numbers have Trump at 35 approval (Monmouth) and the highest at 52 percent (Rasmussen Reports).
[. . . ]
Another McClatchy-Marist poll says that 58 percent of Americans are embarrassed by the Trump administration, while 33 percent say his activity in office makes them proud.
[. . .]
As for Trump’s more controversial actions as president, 6 in 10 oppose the building of Trump’s much-talked about wall along the Mexican border, with 37 percent in support, according to a Quinnipiac poll.
. . . The same poll reports: 54 percent oppose repealing Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, and 43 support its repeal.
[. . .]
In nearly every poll, a majority of respondents say the country is not heading in the right direction. In a Monmouth poll, just 27 percent of people support the way the country is headed — and 67 percent don’t approve of the direction the country is heading. Rasmussen Reports, a conservative-leaning poll group, according to Time, currently has 46 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval.
[. . . ]
On Trump’s controversial travel ban, which has since been blocked by a federal judge and later, an appellate court, 48 percent do consider it to be a “Muslim ban,” and 65 percent of people oppose it.
45 percent of respondents support Trump’s executive orders on immigration. However, among that 45 percent, 51 percent of them think the fictional Bowling Green Massacre is evidence for a need in Trump’s new immigration policy.
72 percent of people do not approve of Trump’s favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum