Prof. LeRoy, Trib Writer Skewered in Today’s Breitbart

Last week, a Chicago Tribune writer wrote a critical article on the Department of Justice’s move to broadly label all unlawful aliens as “illegal.” This is a political ploy, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 does not use the term "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." The writer, Ted Slowik, called this out, and cited an interview with me.  It's here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-slowik-sanctuary-cities-st-0728-20170727-story.html.  

Today, Slowik and I are the subject of this article in Breitbart. 

BOB PRICE31 Jul 2017Chicago, IL http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/07/31/chicago-tribune-offended-by-dojs-use-of-term-illegal-alien/

Chicago Tribune Offended by DOJ’s Use of Term ‘Illegal Alien’

In a democracy that values the rule of law, word choice is important, especially when those words come from voices of authority,” the Chicago Tribune wrote.

The Tribune is correct in what they said, but not in what they meant. Word choice is important, which is why the DOJ and the attorney general use the most legally accurate term when discussing illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

“Alien” is a term used by the federal government to designate a person in the United States from a foreign country. The Internal Revenue Service defines an alien as “an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.” The same document defines “immigrant,” “nonimmigrant,” and “illegal alien.” Their definition for illegal alien is “an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended or an alien who entered the United States legally but now has fallen ‘out of status’ and is deportable.”

The Chicago Tribune chose to attack the DOJ for its use of the standard language for a person in the U.S. illegally.

“A not-so-subtle shift in word choice by the U.S. Department of Justice this week has largely gone unnoticed,” Chicago Tribune writer Todd Slowik wrote. “I’d like to call attention to it. I think it’s another sign of how quickly a ‘new normal’ is taking hold, regardless of foundation in facts or law.”

A “new normal” is not new at all. The definition of “illegal alien” has not been added to the governmental lexicon by the Trump Administration or Sessions. It has been in place for decades. In fact, while the Obama Administration attempted to apply political correctness to the term in general, they did not change the definition in any government manuals or regulations.

The writer laid out his case by chastising the DOJ’s use of the term he apparently considers offensive during a discussion about new conditions for the DOJ’s awarding of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant programs.

During the announcement of the new restrictions, Sessions said, “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.” The writer pointed out that Sessions used the phrase “illegal alien” not once, but three times.

Slowik wrote:

I thought it was odd that the nation’s top law enforcement agent repeatedly used a phrase that is loaded with implied guilt. For years, government officials, attorneys, media and others have avoided using the phrase — or at least acknowledged its implications — and used wording like “undocumented” or “unauthorized” instead.

For example, in the July 9, 2014, announcement, “Department of Justice Announces New Priorities to Address Surge of Migrants Crossing into the U.S.,” then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole chose such language as “migrants,” “asylum seekers” and “unaccompanied minors.”

Why does this matter? The phrase “illegal alien” plays into assumptions that immigrants living in this country without proper documentation are criminals. In fact, immigration status is often a civil matter, not a criminal one.

That, of course, is simply not true. Whether the illegal alien has committed a criminal offense or not, they are illegally present in the U.S. – hence the term “illegal alien.”

As for some of the other terms illustrated by the writer, “Asylum seekers” and “unaccompanied minors” are simply subsets of the more encompassing term, illegal alien. An “asylum seeker” is often an illegal alien seeking to adjust their status. But an “asylum seeker” can also be a legal immigrant on a temporary visa seeking to change their status to a more protected class. “Unaccompanied minor” is also a subset of illegal alien, but it is not actually the legal phrase for the class. The term used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for this class is “Unaccompanied Alien Children.”

The writer seeks to shore up his argument by quoting a professor from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michael H. LeRoy.

 “He wants to create the impression that all aliens who are in the U.S. without permission are criminals,” LeRoy said in an email to the Tribune. “Aliens have constitutional rights, and to convict them, they must have a trial. Immigration law is set up to provide a much faster process, called removal.”

The interesting point here is, LeRoy also used the apparently offensive term “alien” in his statement [note: alien is the statutory term]. However, the professor is incorrect. The AG is attempting to more accurately define criminal aliens that are being protected by sanctuary jurisdictions.

A perfect example presented itself this week when Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese in Portland, Oregon, exercised his political correctness training over community safety when, in December 2016, he released a criminal illegal alien wanted by immigration officials on felony re-entry charges. Immigration officials previously removed the violent illegal alien from the U.S. 20 times. ICE notified Sheriff Reese of their intent to pick up Sergio Jose Martinez from the county jail on a felony charge of illegal re-entry after removal, Breitbart Texas reported. Despite the immigration detainer, Reese’s jailers released the violent criminal alien. Martinez went on to attack and rape two women in the Portland area, one of whom was 65-years-old.

These are exactly the type of illegal alien and sanctuary city policies Sessions spoke of when announcing the crackdown on Byrne Grants.

LeRoy attempts to shore up his case stating, “In one case, a woman named Paulina flies into the United States, overstays her visa and accrues ‘an unlawful presence.’ In another instance, a man named Jose climbs a fence in Arizona and makes an ‘improper entry’.”

“Culturally, many people accept Paulina’s accrued unlawful presence more readily than Jose’s improper entry because of their ethnicity,” LeRoy said. 
Again, that is not true. “Paulina’s” illegal status is caused by an administrative issue of overstaying a visa – a civil violation. “Jose,” however, entered the U.S. without inspection – a criminal misdemeanor offense. While both of these fictitious individuals are “illegal aliens,” the issue of sanctuary cities focuses on jurisdictions that are ignoring lawful law enforcement requests, sometimes even when accompanied by a warrant for removal from a judge.

Slowik concludes by claiming, “’Illegal alien’ is a loaded phrase, and everyone – especially the president and attorney general – should be careful how they use it.”

Trump’s Threat to Stop Funding ACA: Map Shows Harm by Congressional District

President Trump’s full-scale temper tantrum elevated late Saturday with a threat to stop funding health insurance companies for deductibles that low-income people cannot pay for their care. How to read the map?

The map shows the number of “ObamaCare enrollees in 2016”— people who had no other or better alternative for health insurance.

Dark red means high levels of enrollment in Republican districts; dark blue, high enrollments in Democratic districts. There is much more dark red than dark blue, meaning there are more Republican districts with high ACA enrollees than the number of Democratic districts.

Here is the skinny from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

“Of the 11.5 million Marketplace enrollees nationally, 6.3 million live in Republican districts and 5.2 million live in Democratic districts. Marketplace enrollees per Republican district range from 10,200 enrollees in West Virginia’s District 3 to 96,300 enrollees in Florida’s District 27, with a median of 24,300 enrollees per district. Marketplace enrollees per Democratic district range from 5,200 enrollees in Hawaii’s District 1 to 94,100 enrollees in Florida’s District 10, with a median of 23,600 enrollees per district. The ten congressional districts with the highest number of Marketplace enrollees are all in Florida. There are 17 congressional districts (8 Republican districts and 9 Democratic districts) with over 50,000 enrollees, located in the following states: Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and Montana.”

In Illinois’s District 13:

State:                  Illinois

District:               13, Springfield-Champaign

Party of Representative: Republican

Estimated Marketplace enrollees in 2016: 14,300

Estimated Marketplace enrollees with advance premium tax credits in 2016: 12,100

Estimated Marketplace enrollees with cost sharing reductions in 2016: 6,600

For more, see http://www.kff.org/interactive/interactive-maps-estimates-of-enrollment-in-aca-marketplaces-and-medicaid-expansion/

RIP: Rocky and Natasha’s Voice, June Foray

Fans of Rocky & Bullwinkle will be saddened to learn of June Foray’s passing at 99.

We should be so lucky to live a life like hers. The New York Times reports, “her output was prodigious. While she was not well known to the general public, the entertainment world called her the First Lady of Animated Voicing. At 94, she became the oldest person to win an Emmy, cited for her Mrs. Cauldron on “The Garfield Show,” and in 2013 she received an Emmy Governors Award.”

More from the NYT (funny stuff!):

No pun was too awful, no malaprop too shameless. Rocky trained at Cedar Yorpantz Flying School. Bullwinkle’s alma mater was Wossamotta U. A jeweled toy boat, the Ruby Yacht of Omar Khayyam, sailed across Veronica Lake. “For a powerful magnate,” Rocky tells a tycoon, “you sure don’t pick up things too quickly.” In one episode, the heroes track a monstrous whale, Maybe Dick.

Besides matching wits with menacing Boris (“Keel Moose!”) and Natasha (“Boris, dollink!”), Rocky and Bullwinkle battle metal-chomping Moon Mice devouring America’s TV antennas. They discover the antigravitational element Upsidasium. And the narrator (Mr. Conrad) solemnly urges fans to tune in for the next exciting episode: “All in Fever Say Aye, or the Emotion Is Carried,” “The Show Must Go On, or Give ’em the Acts,” and “Trans-Atlantic Chicken, or Hens Across the Sea.”

Defective Trojans, Harassing Hawkeyes: How Money Corrupts Campuses

pro·phy·lac·tic: 1. intended to prevent disease.

It’s too late for that at USC (University of Southern California, with Trojan mascot). The dean of the medical school was great at raising money and schmoozing with the rich and famous.

He resigned as dean in March 2016 — three weeks after a 21-year-old woman who told the New York Times she had been working as a prostitute allegedly overdosed in the dean’s hotel room. Police found methamphetamine in the room and talked with the dean but made no arrests. Nice guy that he is, the dean—an eye surgeon— later picked up his college-age hooker from the hospital—only to take her back to the hotel and continue the party.

More than a year later, a video surfaced last week. Taken in 2015 and 2016, they show the dean using drugs with much younger friends at several locations — including in the dean’s office at USC.

If the Trump administration wants to soft-pedal meetings with Russia, maybe they took a cue from the leaders of USC. Trojan leaders ignored an anonymous letter that tipped them off to this scandal. They did not respond until the photos and videos of the defective Trojan went viral. Yesterday, USC president lamely said that officials “could have done better.”

The root problem here is that USC has raised $6 BILLION in its current capital campaign. The medical dean was a fundraising rock star. Why let principles get in the way?

Meanwhile, Iowa has a mess on its hands, too. Two months ago, the University of Iowa agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle discrimination lawsuits filed by former a senior associate athletic director and her partner. 

Just like the USC president, the Iowa AD, Gary Barta, took an aw-shucks approach.

The Des Moines Register, upset with Barta, summed it up this way:

“On July 11, in his first public comments since the agreement was announced, Barta said he doesn’t feel, even in hindsight, that the department did anything wrong — at least nothing that would warrant a $6.5 million cashectomy. ‘We did what we thought was right at the time,’ he said. ‘We still believe that, principally, we were in the right.’”

How We Under-Appreciate Our Military— the Nation’s Laboratory for a Melting Pot Society

Stereotype: The military is stodgy and slow to change. Reality: The military has been America’s melting pot since the Civil War.

Story: When I published a paper on executive orders that changed employment law, I was shocked to learn two things: (1) the executive branch—namely, presidents— were much more influential than Congress in paving the way for antidiscrimination laws, and (2) the military was usually the laboratory for trying out these innovations that pushed social boundaries.

Examples: Civil War: The Union Army had over 200,000 African Americans, 10% of the entire military force (37,000 died at war). Most were escaped slaves. The Union Army was segregated; but the fact that the Union Army accepted African Americans into their ranks was path-breaking at the time.

WW II: Executive Order 8802: FDR signed this path-breaking order in 1941. It prohibited the federal government from discriminating in hiring based on their race, color, creed, or national origin. It also prohibited defense contractors— businesses that supplied the military— from discriminating. This ended segregation in shipbuilding and aircraft plants.

Cold War/Korean War: President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, abolishing race discrimination in all branches of the U.S. military. He also signed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act.

President Eisenhower desegregated military schools, hospitals, and bases.

Post-Persian Gulf War/9-11: "President Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT) allowed gays, bisexuals, and lesbians, to serve honorably in the military. President George W. Bush continued the policy. President Obama removed the secrecy requirement in 2011; and expanded the policy in 2016 to allow transgender troops to serve.

Today marks the first time since the time of President Lincoln that a U.S. President has marched the military backward.

The lesson I learned from my research is that American society tasks military leaders and troops with the really hard job of figuring out how to integrate when we want to segregate, come out when we want to hide, transition when we are pressured not to … all while fighting wars to defend our ideals and principles. 

The military worked these things out before the rest of us could go there. And then, a tweet changed all of this.   

Sanctuary Cities: Today's Interview

A newspaper reporter contacted me, asking: “Hi, I’m an opinion writer working on a piece about the newly announced Department of Justice guidelines regarding "sanctuary cities" and federal grant funding. I'm interested in your thoughts about the attorney general's repeated use of the phrase "illegal alien" in yesterday's announcement.” ....
Maybe a sentence or two will be quoted. If you want more, here are my replies (not lengthy):

1.) In your opinion, what is the significance of the attorney general's repeated use of the phrase "illegal alien" in this week's Byrne grant announcement?  2.) Why does it matter whether people say or write "illegal alien" instead of "undocumented immigrant" or similar phrase?
He wants to create the impression that all aliens who are in the U.S. without permission are criminals. Consider two such individuals, Paulina and Jose. Paulina flew to the U.S. and spent time with relatives, but has overstayed her visa. Jose crossed the border by climbing a fence in Arizona. Applying the immigration law to these situations, Paulina has “accrued an unlawful presence,” while Jose has made an "improper entry." Both can be prosecuted criminally, but there is a big catch: Aliens have constitutional rights; and to convict them, they must have a trial. Immigration law is set up to provide a much faster process, called removal. Even these deportation hearings require an administrative hearing, and the system is backed up for months with these cases. Returning to your question 1: Culturally, many people accept Paulina’s accrued unlawful presence more readily Jose’s improper entry because of their ethnicity. Mr. Sessions wants us to ignore these legal fine points and view the matter with our cultural cues.
3.) Briefly explain, please, what Justice Kennedy meant when he wrote in the 2012 majority opinion for Arizona v. United States, "“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”

See above. More specifically, it is a crime, of itself, for a removed alien to return within ten years. And there are tens of thousands of these people, if not more—but they are not nearly a majority of people who are in the U.S. without permission of the government. But Justice Kennedy was referring to all the other aliens who are in the U.S. without permission—for example, Paulina and Jose (above).
4.) How does the difference between criminal and civil violations explain the historic separation of local police jurisdictions and immigration law enforcement authorities?

Consider this: In 2014 (the last year for which I have figures from ICE), 56 percent of all ICE removals, or 177,960, were individuals who were previously convicted of a crime. In other words, federal immigration law uses local law enforcement and the courts to prioritize removals. Both President Obama and President Trump have done this. They are much closer on this enforcement priority than we are led to believe. Again, generally speaking, federal resources are not heavily devoted to criminally prosecuting aliens for illegal entry or presence. A major exception, where federal criminal prosecutions occur, involves drug gangs, organized distribution, and related violence.
5.) Finally, in your opinion, do so-called "sanctuary city" declarations contradict the rule of law?

There is a curious inversion of politics here. Sessions is a strong states’ rights advocate but his position contradicts the idea of local control. Liberals are also inverted here— they favor federal regulation, but not as Sessions wants to use it with federal authority. The bottom line is that sanctuary cities are doing what they always have: Enforcing their laws with their criminal justice system. This is not a violation of any law. That’s why the federal government is threatening to withdraw local funding—a clear sign of the limits of their power.

Are You This Lucky? I Hope Not

Suppose someone 1,200 miles away from you gave your name to the police when he was arrested. The police fall for this deception. Next, your boss reads that you were arrested for grand larceny and worse, you failed to appear for a court hearing. Your boss summarily fires you.

A couple of problems here. One, you were not arrested. Two, you were never scheduled to appear in court. Three, your employer never verified the information that developed 1,200 miles from you. Four, your employer never asked for your side of the story. Five, you lost your job anyway.

This sorry turn of events happened to a Dallas Cowboy receiver, Lucky Whitehead (photo, above).

The NFL players union is looking into this and is all but certain to file a grievance. 

The CBA allows teams to cut players for many reasons— performance, run-ins with the law, drug violations, and others— but the contract doesn’t allow a team to cut a player based on false reporting of his arrest. 

No, the CBA has a “just cause” standard. There are seven key tests for just cause—pertinent here are (1) did the employer investigate (no)?, (2) did the employer investigate fairly (no)?, and (3) did the employer have proof of a rule violation (no)?

The Cowboys refuse to undo the termination but acknowledge the mistaken identity.
Lucky is lucky, however. He is not named Donald. 

Memo to Employees: Court Upholds “Positive Work Environment” Rule

Even in great workplaces, occasions arise when we are unhappy with our work—and we may show it, depending on circumstances and job security.

T-Mobile USA Inc. had a requirement that employees maintain a “positive work environment.” That sounds fuzzy, of course, but everyone at T-Mobile—supervisors and hourly workers— understood this to mean, “Don’t support the union’s organizing drive.” 

The NLRB (Obama’s, not Trump’s) ruled that the the company policy was a thin gauze to hide its opposition to the union and employee support for that group.

A Mississippi judge—graduate of Ole Miss in 1959— voted with two other judges to strike down the NLRB ruling.

Striking a note of gentility, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in New Orleans) said the NLRB’s ruling ignored “common sense civility guidelines.”

By the way, in the 24 hours that has elapsed since this ruling, our humble President has been a model of civility, tweeting, “Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!,” and “ObamaCare is torturing the American People. The Democrats have fooled the people long enough. Repeal or Repeal & Replace! I have pen in hand,” and this morale building tweet, "Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!"

  

Make America Uneducated Again

For most of my wife’s 30+ years as a teacher, she—like all teachers—has endured comments about being overpaid and getting three months off. GOP lawmakers have made a lot of hay by pandering to this false stereotype.

In the heart of “red” country, schools have reached a crisis point in trying to hire teachers.

Facts: In rural Texas districts, teachers with 13 years of experience earn an average of $34,858.

The Fox News account would probably say this isn’t bad for a nine-month gig in a rural town, where the cost of living is low. On the surface, they'd be right.

While that line of thinking might appeal to some people, new teachers are having none of it. In the 2015-16 school year, 96 rural districts reported no first-year teachers.

Concluding Thought: Desperate schools in Texas are managing the crisis by “live-streaming” a remote teacher into rural classrooms. That’s a bleak future for educating our children. 
On the other hand, some politicians thrive by adding to the nation's ranks of the uneducated.

Should Boy Scouts Lose Tax-Exempt Status? (No, But....)

Boy Scouts of America is a tax-exempt organization. For advice on deducting your Boy Scout donations and expenses, see this official BSA blog: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2011/03/03/tax-time/.

Does one Donald Trump speech mean that BSA should lose its tax-exempt status?

No, it would be silly, foolish, and extreme to make this argument.

But it is silly, foolish and extreme to say that last night’s speech was not political—to the contrary, it was likely his most political speech since becoming president, filled with political pressure and threats on the eve of a huge Senate vote, and also featuring several Cabinet members.

It is also silly, foolish, and extreme to overlook the fact that many, if not most, of the 30,000 teenage boys in attendance will be eligible to vote in 2020.

And, it would be silly, foolish, and extreme to overlook the fact that Trump’s audience was overwhelmingly white and male. See photo.

So, let’s start paying attention to BSA speeches and other events to make sure that we can still donate to this worthy 501(c)(3) organization with confidence.

Obscure Labor Law Case Would Affect AG Sessions Replacement

Over the past 30 years, it’s become harder for presidents to get confirmation hearings and enough votes for their executive branch appointees. Example: Merrick Garland, nominated for the Supreme Court, didn’t get a hearing from Mitch McConnell. (Yes, neither has the AHCA.) Democrats have played this card a lot, too. It’s gotten out of hand.

In 2010, President Obama named Lafe Solomon to serve on the NLRB. Obama used a “recess appointment”—that is, he waited till Congress adjourned and put Solomon in office. He did this because Solomon’s nomination would not get out of a Republican-controlled committee.

This plays into President Trump’s apparent strategy of embarrassing AG Sessions into quitting. 

If Congress takes a vacation but someone in the Senate comes into the chamber and bangs the gavel within every 10 days, there is no recess-- and the president can make the appointment. That might explain why Trump is browbeating Republicans to give him more cover.

Rewind to a small labor dispute involving an ambulance company and a union. The company changed its method for paying employees; the union filed a complaint, and the National Labor Relations Board ruled 3-2 against the company.

The crucial vote was cast by the recess appointee, Lafe Solomon.

The Supreme Court ruled on March 21, 2017 that every case in which Solomon voted, and his vote decided the outcome, was nullified. Bottom line: Presidents cannot name outsiders to recess appointments.

Would McConnell not let someone come in to bang the gavel? That would be standing up to Trump. He could not then make an appointment. Again, if there is an actual recess (10 days or more), a president cannot name a replacement without going through the confirmation process.

PS: Why the picture of Fred Thompson? The actor/later senator was the main sponsor of this vacancy law, called the Federal Vacancy Replacement Act (FVRA). He wanted to end the shenanigans around recess appointments. 
Nagging Question: If the intent of the law was to end with the subterfuge of recess appointments, how does having a junior senator bring the Senate to order and dismiss it 30 seconds later accomplish the purpose of the law?

Boo Scouts of America

Having earned Eagle Scout, having been inducted in the Order of the Arrow, and having been selected by my peers as Senior Patrol Leader of Troop 287 in Barrington, Illinois, I have earned the right to dress down BSA.

When many of you booed at the mention of President Obama, you brought back memories of why I wanted to leave this overrated, underachieving organization. 

I had two wonderful leaders—in my second troop—a United pilot, Bill Rushing Sr., and a banker, Walt Heckelman Sr.

My first troop was run by racists and homophobes. They openly admired George Wallace; they loved guns—the larger and more destructive, the better; and they constantly joked about buttf*cking. 

They used intimidation and violence to instill camp discipline in the far-north woods of Wisconsin by the Namekogen River. 

If a Scout screwed up, we were all assembled around the camp’s fire bucket. This was a large garbage can filled to the top with water, like a ready-hydrant if a tent (or Scout) caught fire. The bad Scout was lifted hysterically off his feet by two grown slobs of men; the kid was turned upside down, and thrust head first into the water—and he was kept there for some time.

I couldn’t make this up if you paid me. But it was chilling, even for this 11-year-old boy who cried every night in his sleeping bag.

And I understood where waterboarding came from after 9/11. It came so naturally to my sadistic Scout leaders.

When we weren’t terrorized or terrorizing, we were engaged in stupid but harmless hazing rituals, such as snipe hunting. Yes, I fell for this trap. It was no big deal, just a waste of time that could have been much better spent. It taught me to grow a thicker skin.

I’d say one out of four men I encountered in Scouts were really decent, caring people. The other three out of four … they’d have fit in great at tonight’s Boo Scout Jamboree.

Post-Script: I made Eagle by age 13 not because I was special but because my parents would not tolerate my quitting. I learned quickly the only way out was up, so I accelerated my advancement. Certainly, I learned valuable lessons—but they weren’t the lessons that Lord Baden Powell, founder of BSA, had in mind.

Trademark Protection for the N-Word and Swastika? More Normalization of Racism

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional. The case involved an Asian-American rock group named The Slants. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cited the law’s so-called “disparagement clause” as grounds to deny their application.

A month later, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has received nine applications seeking to register racially charged words and symbols for their products, including the N-word and a swastika. One application included an epithet for people of Chinese descent.

The Obama administration’s brief argued that if the Supreme Court struck down the “disparagement clause,” the PTO would be forced to trademark “the most repellent racial slurs and white-supremacist slogans.”

Trademark attorneys expect more filings by the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazi groups.

My thoughts? This is heartbreaking. 

Be that as it may, it is high-time to apply registration laws to hate groups. Example: Labor unions were viewed as Communist collaborators in the 1940s. A major labor law was amended to make unions suable in federal courts, and hold them responsible for damages.

If the KKK and their ilk want federal protection of their identities, fine— let’s pass a law that makes them suable in federal courts for damages they cause, similar to this labor law (Labor-Management Relations Act, Section 301). 

For now, only individuals can be sued, not organizations. This explains why hate groups almost always avoid lawsuits, judgments, and restraining orders. 

Is August KKK Revival Month?

As we approach August, it’s a good time to recall some of the Klan’s most momentous events that occurred in August.  

The federal government used troops to crush a KKK rebellion in the 1870s. The Klan re-emerged after several books and a movie romanticized the terror group (Thomas Dixon’s best selling trilogy, The Leopard’s Spots (1902), The Clansman (1905), and The Traitor (1907); and a popular movie in 1915, The Birth of a Nation).

The Klan enjoyed a major revival in the 1920s, capped by a march of 35,000 robed Klansmen in Washington D.C. on August 8, 1925 (captured in this Washington Post article, above).

The Midwest—not the South— was the focus of the KKK’s second life. In Our Town: A Heartland Lynching, a Haunted Town, and the Hidden History of White America, Cynthia Carr chronicles a lynching of two black teenagers in her hometown of Marion, Indiana on August 7, 1930 (photo here). 

Thomas Shipp and Abe Smith were accused of rape, murder, and robbery; but they never had a trial, as provided in the Sixth Amendment.

Carr writes: “When I first learned that my grandfather had been a Klansmen I didn’t want to know more and I didn’t talk about it. The news was not just shameful it was frightening. It suggested that someone I loved wasn’t who I thought he was, that maybe I’d never really known him." 

How Teamsters Union Is Fighting Opioids

What can a labor union do to combat opioids? We will find out soon.

McKesson is a major manufacturer of opioids. They face lawsuits in several states for failing to control the distribution of their products. As reported in the New York Times and Charleston Gazette-Daily, McKesson paid $150 million in a fine to the U.S. Justice Department for failing to report suspicious orders of their drugs.

To illustrate: the company received 1.6 million opioid orders from a single Colorado distribution center, but the company reported only 16 as suspicious.

McKesson’s CEO John Hammergren’s pay is the root cause of the problem, says a Teamsters leader. 

Hammergren’s pay is tied to company performance. He has been paid $692 million since 2008. In other words, when opioid sales flourish, so does Hammergren’s pay—and so does the incentive not to monitor excessive ordering.

The Teamsters represent some of McKesson’s employees. They have had a long-running dispute with the company. A company spokesperson says the Teamsters are simply grandstanding to put pressure on the company for a better contract.

The Teamsters administer a large pension fund. They have a financial position in the company. Now, the Teamsters have a proposal in front of the board of directors to name an independent director to monitor CEO and other executive pay, which they say is excessive.

The Teamsters are led by Ken Hall. He lives in West Virginia. The company’s response to his proposal doesn’t surprise him. But he said that opioids are destroying lives of union members and their families in his community and state.

The company spokesperson never explained how an independent director on McKesson's board who reviews executive pay will cause the company to make a better contract offer to Teamsters members. That's because there is no relationship between corporate governance and negotiating a labor agreement.   

Speaking of RICO: Chicago Teamster Leader Indicted

ProfLERoy’s views on labor are positive … but not when it comes to corruption. Meet John T. Coli Sr. (above). He is one of Chicago’s most powerful labor leaders. 

Last week, Coli was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of extortion and one count of attempted extortion from a local film production company. Prosecutors allege that Coli received cash payments from the firm totaling $100,000, threatening economic retaliation if money was not forthcoming.

In 1989, his union settled a civil RICO suit with the Justice Department. At the time, various Teamster affiliates in the Chicago area were closely scrutinized by a federal monitor, including Local 727.

John Coli Sr.’s father, James Coli, headed that local. The son was elevated after the father encountered legal trouble. He's held the post ever since-- until he resigned last week.

Whether it’s the Trump Enterprise or the Teamsters Enterprise, federal investigators need to do their work without political interference.

The Dons—Corleone and Trump

It seems increasingly possible that Robert Mueller will bring RICO charges against Trump associates—for example, Paul Manafort.

RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. It’s a federal law that was passed in 1970 to go after Mafia enterprises—and later, Mexican drug lords and others.

The Mafia ran prostitution, drugs, gambling, and union corruption schemes. 

To launder their money— and evade taxes— they also operated great restaurants, real estate companies, and other legitimate businesses. 

Business losses helped write-off income that would have been due for taxes.

RICO works like this: When a person commits “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period, they can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related to an “enterprise.”

Notice the lengthy statute of limitations and also Mueller’s keen interest in tax returns from several years ago.

Federal crimes that might apply to the Trump Enterprise would be computer crimes and tax evasion. Again, prosecutors need at least two federal crimes to make it a “racket.”

Rudy Giuliani made his fame convicting 11 Mafia leaders, including the heads of New York’s five dominant crime families, in February 1985. The case took down La Cosa Nostra—not by convicting one person (who was replaced)— but by dismantling entire chains of command.

Not only has RICO has been used against American enterprise but also those involving Russians, Mexicans, Japanese, and Israelis.

Along the way, prosecutors make suspects “an offer you can’t refuse” and acquire evidence by flipping key members of the enterprise.

When you look at Mueller’s legal team, they seem well-versed in RICO prosecutions.

Union Builds, Staffs Health Clinic—Members and Kids Get Free Care

The New York Times reports on a genius health care solution. The union for 30,000 hotel maids and staff at NYC hotels used its pension fund to buy a garage in Brooklyn. The union tore that down and replaced it with a building in a high-rent district of Brooklyn.

They lease out five floors; the rest are for a free health and dental clinic for members and their families-- plus workout facility. 

Members pay nothing for visits—the union has hired physicians, dentists and other health care professionals.

The fund contributed $120 million but regards it as a sound business investment.

Las Vegas has a similar clinic for its members and children.

Bad Robot News Gets Worse

Adding to my post yesterday about robotic sex, now comes news that robots might soon make decisions to use warfare without direct human input. CNN and other outlets report testimony from America’s second-highest ranking military officer, Gen. Paul Selva, who advocated Tuesday for "keeping the ethical rules of war in place lest we unleash on humanity a set of robots that we don't know how to control." (Not a joke.)

According to CNN: “Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, asked about his (Gen. Selva’s) views on a Department of Defense directive that requires a human operator to be kept in the decision-making process when it comes to the taking of human life by autonomous weapons systems. Peters said the restriction was due to expire later this year."

…

For baby boomers, we have seen “The Jetson’s” cartoon parody come to life-- for example, Rosie, a domestic robot who had a platonic but testy relationship with George. 

The Jetsons lived in Orbit City, with robot servants and moving sidewalks. George was employed by Spacely’s Space Sprockets, a manufacturer of high tech equipment, as a “digital index operator.” His boss, Mr. Spacely, often fired George.  All sounds familiar.    

And by the way, George and Mr. Spaceley communicated via Skype.

Robotic Sex Nightmares

My friend (also uncle) Jim Schultz recently posted an article about robotic sex, and now the New York Times has another story on this. It’s horrifying—but if you missed it, a robotic woman will soon be on the market to indulge men.

The creepy part is that the dolls are engineered with artificial intelligence to simulate love and eroticism. In other words, this is not an improved blow-up doll. It is a substitute for wives.

I pass along some questions and welcome yours, please.

1. Will this intensify religious fundamentalism? Bin Laden’s Wahhabi critique of the West emphasized our licentious sexuality. Christian fundamentalists cannot accept anything that differs from husband-wife procreative sex. Will men hooked on female robots deepen fundamentalist reactions?

2. Will robotic sex increase global conflict? Many conflicts are set up by stark inequalities in birth rates and wealth. ISIS, for one, preys on these inequalities as justification for striking Paris and London—targets as notable for their wealth as for political capitals. These robots are going to cost about the price of a used car—a lot to pay for sex, but a bargain compared to a wife and kids. Robotically-sexed men will have much more discretionary wealth if freed from the social requirements of marriage and raising a family. Inequality will widen-- a frightening leading indicator of social conflicts.

3. How will men with robotic partners age? The premise of a robotic sex doll is perfection. People in long-term relationships routinely confront the realities of aging. Donald Trump is a good example of a man who idealizes sex as something that is superficially perfect and suspended in time—and his emotional development is arrested, as a direct result. Is this the future for our grandsons?

4. What’s in this for women? Fewer mates, and no alternative robot, yet. Comments on the NYT article snicker that women already have a battery-powered substitute. But this misses the danger in these robots—the allure of mechanized attachment, driven by an engineer's algorithms.

5. A lot of procreation occurs in a laboratory. If sex robots catch fire like cell phones, will society arrange for a robotic womb? What does that mean for humanity?

We probably underestimate the magnitude and importance of human sexuality, even if we talk about it constantly. It's nothing to mimic with our advanced technology. We may soon find out what we are taking for granted.      

Photo Credit: New York Times

TWATE! & RHATE! New Vocab Words

Lots of hate today, near and far: 

Illinois’ Republican governor fired a newly hired aide after the aide tweeted homophobic and racist slurs; and a leading Nevada Republican tweeted that she hopes John McCain dies soon. She disagrees with his hawkish policy positions. 

A few days ago, a Republican county official wished publicly that all Muslims would die. Given the chance to retract his statement, he doubled down. Nothing like following our President.

So, today I propose a new word: TWATE. It is a noun or a verb.

Noun: A tweet that expresses hate toward a group of people, or an individual.

Verb: To hate on someone in 140 characters or less.

It is closely related to this new word: RHATE.

Noun: An expression from a Republican that expresses hate toward a group of people, or an individual.

Verb: To hate on someone like President Trump and so many other Republican leaders who have lost emotional self-control and see their political fortunes rise in their party by trying to out-rhate each other.

Democrats and independents are not immune from intolerant messages; but for the time being, Republicans lead the way on vocalizing RHATE and TWATE. 

Want proof? Look at the party’s electoral popularity and the coarseness of appeals to voters that prove to be winning strategies.

Made in America: Your Employment Rights Were Taken-- Forcing You into Arbitration

President Trump will spend this week promoting “Made in America” products. This is long overdue, and I thank him.

This week, I am promoting “Made in America: How Your Employment Rights Were Taken from You.”

Case 1: Robert Gilmer was fired as a stock broker/sales manager at age 62. At the time, he was among the top performers in his firm. He believed he was fired due to age discrimination.

Gilmer sued his employer in federal court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. His employer countered that he signed an arbitration agreement in which he waived his right to sue.

Gilmer argued that Congress created a right of employees to sue for age discrimination in court—thus, no one could take that away. 

He argued that he had no power to negotiate out of this mandatory arbitration agreement. 

He argued that large brokerage firms selected the arbitrators and therefore the forum was biased.

Gilmer lost his case in the Supreme Court in 1991. See Gilmer v. Interstate/Lane Johnson.

In civics, we learn that courts apply or interpret the laws. At work, we learn that we must choose between signing away our rights to a court hearing or being unemployed. Today, civil lawsuits are increasingly for the wealthy, not the average person.

Made in America? The illusion of justice.

“So much we left behind, but the most valuable thing I lost was my freedom.”

Three pictures of Japanese internment camps in WW II.

Picture 1: This beautiful Japanese American girl had been ordered by the federal government to leave Oakland to be interned at a camp. Later, she wrote: “So much we left behind, but the most valuable thing I lost was my freedom.”

Picture 2: This is a travel permit to “allow” a Japanese American to travel on a specific day from Ellensburg to Yakima.

Picture 3: “Many thanks for your patronage. Hope to serve you in the near future. God be with you till we meet again. Mr. and Mrs. K. Isarai.”

The desert of eastern Oregon was a site of a major “relocation camp” for Japanese Americans in WW II. Janet and I visited a simple but powerful museum in Ontario, Oregon (Four Rivers Cultural Center). We saw heartbreaking images— many that brought to mind two things: (1) America's current downward spiral of intolerance, the mindset that leads to “camps” for outcast groups, and (2) the history of my family (and virtually all European Jews) in Nyirmada, Hungary.

To friends of ProfLERoy, thank you for the many small ways you speak out against hate. Small acts are crucial; silence is unacceptable. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue-- it is human decency.

Sex Is Confusing: Or, Employment Discrimination: Does It Apply to LGBT?

A federal law called Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” In the past three months, one federal appeals (7^th Circuit) has ruled that “because of sex” covers discrimination against LGBTs. Boiling this court’s reasoning down to a sentence, the 7^th Circuit said: “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.’” Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017).

The Second Circuit, in a March 2017 decision, said that Title VII pertains to some forms of sexual orientation discrimination— namely, to the extent that it is gender nonconformity discrimination. That case involved a claim by a male employee that he was humiliatingly harassed because of his “effeminacy and sexual orientation.” Anonymous v. Omnicom Group Inc., 852 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2017).

Also in March, the 11^th Circuit made a similar ruling. Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017).

So, the courts disagree about the meaning of “because of sex” as it relates to complaints on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s time for the Supreme Court to resolve this “circuit split.”

Did you know? When Title VII came to the floor for a vote, a segregationist named Howard Smith tried to block Title VII, which at that point only prohibited race discrimination. He proposed the addition of “because of sex” thinking that this much broader version of the law would doom the legislation. He miscalculated—the law passed with his amendment. But that has created an interpretive problem for courts. Usually, courts view words in a statute as reflective of the intent of lawmakers. Here, however, the intent was the opposite—to deny coverage for women (and now, LGBT). 

Picking Up Trash and Normalizing Racism

These “friendly” people are performing a salute for the International Keystone Knights of Georgia. A variant of the KKK, this group applied to participate in Georgia’s Adopt-a-Highway Program. Citing the Klan’s long history of racial intimidation and violence, the highway department denied the group’s petition. In 2016, the Georgia state supreme court held that the agency violated the KKK’s speech rights by impermissibly singling out the Klan (my question: what other group has applied for the program with this unique history of violence?). This follows similar rulings in Arkansas and Missouri.

The Missouri case is interesting. After the state was ordered by the court to post the group’s sponsorship sign, the state renamed this stretch of I-55 the Rosa Parks Highway. The Klan stopped participating … but someone expressed their feelings on this Rosa Parks sign. Do you suppose that vandalizing this sign is protected speech under the First Amendment?

Lynchings and Cotton Prices: Painful Lesson for Today

Did you know that lynchings increased as cotton prices dropped? That’s the important lesson in this economic study, E. M. Beck & Stewart E. Tolnay, The Killing Fields of the Deep South: The Market for Cotton and the Lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930, 55 AM. SOCIOLOGICAL REV. (1990) 526, 537.

When cotton prices were high, lynchings declined but mob violence against blacks soared.

There are several implications.

One is that freed slaves and their descendants were too valuable to kill when the economy was strong, and exploitable labor was needed.

Beck and Tolnay also conclude: “Given the Deep South’s racial caste structure, whites could harass and assault blacks with virtual impunity. Blacks were considered legitimate, and even deserving, objects for white wrath. White workers were in more direct economic competition with black laborers than with the white elite.”

Given the poor times experienced by many lower-class whites, the lessons from the 1890s help to explain the surge in racism today.

PHOTO CREDIT: Circa 1890s, Georgia (Gary Doster)

“Travel Ban” After Civil War: How Southern States Trapped Freed Slaves

Question: Were freed slaves free after the Civil War? Surely you sense that this is a trick question. You’re right. The answer is yes as a formality but no as a matter of experience.

Many freed slaves and their descendants, facing terror from the KKK and an oppressive labor system known as peonage, hired agents to get them out of states such as Georgia. By the late 1800s, this led to such an exodus of exploitable labor that states began to tax the transaction between the African Americans and their agents.

As explained by Prof. David Bernstein, these “freedom workers” were called emigrant agents. He explains that these agents “played a key role in encouraging and financing African-American migration within the United States. Because many rural African-Americans were too poor to go very far without aid and because they lacked ready access to information about opportunities in distant places," they had little choice but to rely on labor recruiters.”

Take a look at how this law was ironically phrased in Georgia in 1898:

“An act to levy and collect a tax for the support of the state government and the public institutions; for educational purposes in instructing children in the elementary branches of an English education only; to pay the interest on the public debt, and to pay maimed Confederate soldiers and widows of Confederate soldiers such amounts as are allowed them by law for each of the fiscal years 1899 and 1900; to prescribe what persons, professions, and property are liable to taxation….”

When R.A. Williams was arrested for failing to pay the annual $500 tax, he challenged the law. 

The Supreme Court denied his challenge to the law. He argued that it has the effect of restricting the right of travel of African Americans. One Justice agreed (Justice John Harlan)—all the others viewed it as a legitimate tax, concluding: “Nor was the imposition in violation of § 2 of article 4, as there was no discrimination between the citizens of other states and the citizens of Georgia.”

This law and court ruling acted like a travel ban on African Americans who wanted to come to the North in search of jobs and freedom.

When Executive Orders Unified US

Donald Trump is not the first president to stretch the powers of president by issuing executive orders. Consider Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (a speech with an attendant order) and Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 8802. Stripped to its essentials, Lincoln's proclamation legislated slavery out of existence. No one can reasonably argue that this was not a usurpation of legislative powers; Congress had been deadlocked for years in legislating this matter. More than that, Lincoln’s fiat violated the Constitution, because that document institutionalized slavery. History proved it was a wise order.

And take a quick look at Executive Order No. 8802. Workplaces were heavily segregated by race. This order required defense contractors to integrate whites and blacks in their workplace.

6 FR 3109, Exec. Order No. 8802, 1941 WL 41288(Pres.)

EXECUTIVE ORDER 8802

REAFFIRMING POLICY OF FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFENSE PROGRAM BY ALL PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED, COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTION IN FURTHERANCE OF SAID POLICY

June 25, 1941

WHEREAS it is the policy of the United States to encourage full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin, in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the Nation can be defended successfully only with the help and support of all groups within its borders; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that available and needed workers have been barred from employment in industries engaged in defense production solely because of considerations of race, creed, color, or national origin, to the detriment of workers' morale and of national unity:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes, and as a prerequisite to the successful conduct of our national defense production effort, I do hereby reaffirm the policy of the United States that there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and I do hereby declare that it is the duty of employers and of labor organizations, in furtherance of said policy and of this order, to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in defense industries, without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

And it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. All departments and agencies of the Government of the United States concerned with vocational and training programs for defense production shall take special measures appropriate to assure that such programs are administered without discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

2. All contracting agencies of the Government of the United States shall include in all defense contracts hereafter negotiated by them a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin;

3. There is established in the Office of Production Management a Committee on Fair Employment Practice, which shall consist of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the President. The Chairman and members of the Committee shall serve as such without compensation but shall be entitled to actual and necessary transportation, subsistence and other expenses incidental to performance of their duties. The Committee shall receive and investigate complaints of discrimination in violation of the provisions of this order and shall take appropriate steps to redress grievances which it finds to be valid. The Committee shall also recommend to the several departments and agencies of the Government of the United States and to the President all measures which may be deemed by it necessary or proper to effectuate the provisions of this order.

FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 25, 1941.

Marriage Equality Denied in Texas Workplaces

 

On June 30^th, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are not necessarily entitled to government-dispensed spousal benefits. This is a setback to marriage equality.

As reported by Reuters’ Jon Herskovitz, the “Republican-dominated court said the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, did not resolve issues such as payments of municipal employees’ spousal benefits.

"The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages," the Texas court wrote, "but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons."

Who brought the case? Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, a pastor and an accountant. They said the Obergefell did not mean that same-sex couples were entitled to spousal employment benefits.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an anti-LGBT state court ruling. Arkansas had refused to list both same-sex spouses on birth certificates. Clarifying Obergefell, the high court said that Obergefell means states cannot deny male-male or female-female listings as parents on a child’s birth certificate.

My thought: Given President Trump’s selection of Neil Gorsuch and preference for Heritage Foundation nominees, Obergefell is not a safe precedent (meaning it might be overruled). 

Don’t Dismiss the “Mark of the Beast”

As I recently blogged, a coal miner refused to put his hand on his employer’s scanner, a device that recorded his time in and out of work for payroll. The miner refused due to his sincerely held religious belief in the “mark of the beast.”

What is the mark of the beast? According to GotQuestions.org, the “main passage in the Bible that mentions the ‘mark of the beast’ is Revelation 13:15-18. Other references can be found in Revelation 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, and 20:4. This mark acts as a seal for the followers of Antichrist and the false prophet (the spokesperson for the Antichrist). The false prophet (the second beast) is the one who causes people to take this mark. The mark is literally placed in the hand or forehead and is not simply a card someone carries.”

Returning to the miner, he was convinced that the hand scanner “marked” his hand, and therefore, conflicted with his religious beliefs. A jury awarded him over $400,000.

GotQuestions.org further explains: “The recent breakthroughs in medical implant chip and RFID technologies have increased interest in the mark of the beast spoken of in Revelation chapter 13. It is possible that the technology we are seeing today represents the beginning stages of what may eventually be used as the mark of the beast. It is important to realize that a medical implant chip is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be something given only to those who worship the Antichrist. Having a medical or financial microchip inserted into your right hand or forehead is not the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast will be an end-times identification required by the Antichrist in order to buy or sell, and it will be given only to those who worship the Antichrist.”

…

While my research is inconclusive, I see evidence in social media of sincere believers in the mark of the beast who reject bar codes and other RFID uses that “read” or “imprint” on the body—like a scanner. Where this is heading no one knows—but these technologies are becoming an everyday reality. The miner’s $400,000 jury award is a sign that this religious belief cannot be ignored or dismissed as nonsense.