3350 stories

The Soviets started the "Zionism=Racism" canard in 1965, before "occupation"

1 Share
The Tower has an article that refers to a fascinating 2011 piece by Joel Fishman that shows that the idea of "Zionism is racism" started before "occupation" and was created by the Soviets specifically to fight against any UN resolutions against antisemitism.

 Some relevant parts:

Many assume that UN Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism, originated in 1975. In March 1964, however, this analogy appeared in discussions that took place at the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities (a part of the Third Committee that dealt with social, humanitarian, and cultural matters).6 During these deliberations, Israel was outmaneuvered and never recovered the ground it lost. Yohanan Manor, former director-general of the Jewish Agency’s Information Department, capably recounted how this happened in his pioneering monograph, To Right a Wrong.  Nonetheless, the subject needs to be revisited. What happened in 1964 and 1965 represents an essential piece of the story and therefore merits a careful second look.

In March 1964, the US, which was motivated by the needs of domestic politics, namely the presidential election campaign between Lyndon B. Johnson and Barry Goldwater, proposed that the Third Committee of the UN recognize antisemitism as a form of racism, along with apartheid and Nazism.8 For its part, the Soviet Union was determined to prevent any discussion of the subject, not the least because the Soviets were antisemites. As a matter of official state policy, the Soviet Union used antisemitism to discriminate against, intimidate, and persecute Soviet Jewry. Seeking to remove the subject from the agenda, the representatives of the USSR at the UN warned the US that if the Americans did not drop the matter, they would submit their own amendment condemning Zionism and Nazism. In October 1965, when the final draft of the convention prepared by the Commission on Human Rights again came under discussion in the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities, the US and Brazil introduced an amendment to condemn antisemitism. In turn, the Soviet Union called for the condemnation of “antisemitism, Zionism, Nazism, neoNazism, and all forms of the policy and ideology of colonialism, national and race-hatred, and exclusiveness and shall take action as appropriate for the speedy eradication of those misanthropic ideas and practices in the territories subject to their jurisdiction.” At this point, the delegates of Greece and Hungary proposed an amendment that broke the impasse by moving to drop all reference to any 77 Joel Fishman specific kind of discrimination. This proposal was accepted, and effectively the matter was dropped, despite an unsuccessful effort in 1967 to revive the issue.

Dr. Meir Rosenne, who served as consul of Israel in New York from 1961 to 1967, delivered an important address in 1984 at a World Zionist Organization Information Department seminar held at the US State Department. Later, in 1987, Judge Hadassa Ben Itto went on record with a solid interview. These first-person sources are valuable not only because of the facts they contain but also because the individuals who gave them possessed a broad perspective and understood the importance of this episode. Each of these accounts conveys a sense of the contemporary mood. In view of their significance, they are cited at length. Ambassador Rosenne explained:

Among my duties at the time was to serve as Israel’s observer in New York at various United Nations deliberations on human rights. In the context of human rights, our chief concern then was the plight of Soviet Jewry— which, I must insist, remains a high priority for us. 
One of the UN organs—the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities—after weeks of bitter debate and negotiation drafted a “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.”
That forgotten episode ironically has a serious impact on the subsequent evolution of world opinion and international law regarding Israel and Zionism. This is how it happened.
Early in the discussions [c. March 1965], the Sub-Comission quickly agreed to adopt a special Article condemning apartheid as a form of racism as [were] Nazism and neo-Nazism.
Because the Holocaust was still fresh in the minds of human rights advocates—and also because of an appalling worldwide epidemic of antisemitic incidents in the early 1960s—the American representative [Marietta Peabody Tree] during the debate in the Human Rights Commission proposed the explicit condemnation of antisemitism in this draft UN Convention.
 The Soviet representative, staunchly supported by the other East European experts, countered this move by submitting an amendment that would have added the word “Zionism” to the list of forms of racism to be condemned.
This gave rise to a bitter discussion that culminated in a compromise, to wit: References to all specific forms of racism (except apartheid) were to be dropped from the draft.
The very same exercise was repeated later that year [October 1965] in the Third Committee (the Social Committee) of the UN General Assembly.
With this clever tactic, the USSR for the first time injected its own ideology and propaganda on Zionism and Judaism onto a world stage. In this, Moscow won a double victory:
(1) It prevented the explicit definition of antisemitism as a form of racism— and thus succeeded in downgrading the moral, political, and symbolic weight that a condemnation of Jew-hatred would have carried throughout the world.
(2) It established the precedent for linking Zionism with Nazism, which led to the overwhelming adoption by the UN General Assembly, eleven years later, of the resolution that equated Zionism with racism [UNGA Resolution 3379 of November 10, 1975]. It is essential to remember this history and to keep the record straight: In 1975 it was certainly the Arab states that took the initiative with this resolution. But it is the Soviet Union that is the source of this evil doctrine.

Judge Ben Itto also witnessed this episode. ...In a 1987 interview, Ben Itto recounted the facts

 ...The Russians know that they are anti-Semites, and emphatically didn’t want antisemitism specifically pinpointed, “because they too would have to join that club of racists before the world.”
The Russians wanted not even the merest mention of antisemitism, but they wanted to accomplish this goal without having to vote on the issue.  So they latched onto the idea as a technical maneuver of insisting that if antisemitism was named as a form of racism, then Zionism must also be listed as a form of racism.
…. Behind the scenes the Russians did not at all seriously argue the proposition that Zionism is racism—“it was almost a joke. They said that they were only suggesting the idea to get the Americans off their antisemitism kick.” Clearly, she says, at first the Russians knew full well that the idea that Zionism is racism is an indefensible proposition. 
Here we see a direct, intentional link between the origins of calling Israel racist and unapologetic antisemitism.

(h/t Daled Amos)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read the whole story
1425 days ago
Share this story

"Innocence Is Not A Defense": Young Men On Campus Are Getting An Unexpected Education

1 Share

"Innocence Is Not A Defense": Young Men On Campus Are Getting An Unexpected Education
Male and accused of rape at Harvard? You did it.

The TIME article quoting Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz is behind a paywall, but here's his quote:

"Harvard's policy was written by people who think sexual assault is so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense."

In fact, a defense is not even possible. Here's how it worked at Vassar, from Riversong:

Peter Yu, a Vassar student accused of sexually assaulting a female student last year, wasn't allowed legal representation during the college's investigation of his case, according to his lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney with Nesenoff & Miltenberg in New York. As a non-native English speaker from China, Yu wasn't able to tell his story, according to a suit citing Title IX violations filed against the college.

"If you were a senior in college and had paid $200,000 for your education and were hoping to go to medical school, would you want to put all that on the line without a lawyer?" Miltenberg, who maintains his client's innocence, said in a telephone interview.

Yu was expelled in March. Vassar officials declined to comment.

Here's how it worked for a young wrestler:

Assault on young men on college campuses: a father's perspective 12/18/2014

My son, Corey Mock was accused of sexual assault by a young lady named Molly Morris [she had published her name previously] while at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga in the Spring of 2014. I am not writing this to defend my son; the truth is, no one really cares - that's life. I am writing this because I don't want to ever read about this happening to another wrestler again.

My son asked Molly Morris if she wanted to go into the bedroom; she said "yes". They both lay in the bed and began kissing. He removed her pants and performed oral sex. At some point, he stopped to remove his clothes and she removed her bra. He climbed on top of her and after having some trouble entering her, she reached down and guided him inside her. At NO TIME during this encounter did Ms. Morris communicate in any way that she did not wish to engage in sexual activity, verbal or otherwise. She does not dispute that any of these details happened, she merely says she does "not remember" (a toxicology exam a day later was negative confirming there was no drug in her system). Two days later, after a series of very pleasant text message exchanges between the two of them which are in evidence, she suddenly informs him that she "never gave consent to sex".

At the initial hearing conducted by the school, my son was found innocent of all charges. One week later, with absolutely NO additional evidence or explanation, the judge simply reversed her decision.

There has been a fundamental change on college campuses all over this country. In this current culture of "hookups" in lieu of dating, with women every bit as sexually aggressive as men on campuses, parents, wrestling coaches, and wrestlers heading to college need to understand the extent of this new danger. I am not just the father of a wrestler, I am a Division 1 wrestling coach as well and I am very familiar with the college culture.

If a woman accuses you of sexual assault at UTC, you will immediately be removed from the wrestling team prior to any investigation or determination of guilt. YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN COLLEGE. The colleges have taken the position that you relinquish your rights when you sign the application and the courts have upheld this. This is not just at UTC, this is everywhere. The University or College will do everything in its power to prosecute you and kick you out of school regardless of the evidence and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, and they know it. You can sue the school and the alleged victim as we are doing, but the minimum cost to sue is $50,000 and the NCAA isn't going to give you your year back if you win.

Here's how it works when the case is where it should be -- in the criminal justice system. Mock's father posted this update:

1/11/2015 - We are finally out of "school court" and in a REAL court system with a REAL judge where they require REAL evidence and are not subject to REAL politics. A place where unlike the colleges, the feminists and activists pushing the man-hating agendas have no power or influence. A real judge reviewed the case and SHE ordered him back in school.

By the way, Dershowitz later dialed back on blaming Harvard, and blamed the federal government, and specifically, the Obama administration -- the source of the "Dear Colleague" letter that turned college campuses into very dangerous places for anyone with a penis.

Remember -- this is just like the Salem Witch Hunts. Whether you actually did anything; whether you actually even know the girl who accused you; that's immaterial.

Her accusation is all it takes to, effectively, burn your future at the stake.

Dershowitz via @SteveStuWill

Read the whole story
1428 days ago
Share this story

Government Thug-ocrats Are Forced To Give Back The Money They Stole From One Man Under "Asset Forfeiture"

1 Share

Government Thug-ocrats Are Forced To Give Back The Money They Stole From One Man Under "Asset Forfeiture"
I am someone who is wildly grateful to have been the recipient of a pro bono legal defense -- by Marc J. Randazza after TSA worker Thedala Magee got herself a lawyer and tried to squeeze me for $500K plus a blog take-down and a written apology.

She got none of that -- but it took countless hours worth thousands and thousands of dollars by Randazza and his associates for my defense.

In other words, pro bono is not free.

So while it is just wonderful that the Institute for Justice won the case for "asset forfeiture" victim Ken Quran -- who had $150,000 of his money legally stolen by government thug-ocrats -- it is terrible that this was necessary.

And it was surely costly for the Institute for Justice to bring this case.

Many victims of this government theft -- this disgustingly euphemized "asset forfeiture" -- would have the entire sum stolen from them eaten up by hiring a lawyer to get it back.

And those who are victimized tend not to be the powerhouses of society -- maybe they wouldn't even know how to find the right lawyer.

Let's hope this Institute for Justice case chips away, at least in some small way, at the asset forfeiture programs still in place.

About the current case, John Kramer writes at IJ:

Arlington, Va.--It is a major victory for the individual against the seemingly all-powerful IRS. In a single-page letter, sent this morning by fax, the IRS agreed to return a North Carolina convenience store owner's entire life savings.

The IRS seized $153,907.99 from Ken Quran in June 2014, without any warning or meaningful prior investigation, simply because he repeatedly withdrew cash from his bank in amounts under $10,000.

Ken's money was seized under so-called "structuring" laws. These laws were designed to target criminals evading bank-reporting requirements. But under IRS policy at the time of the seizure, the IRS applied the structuring laws to seize cash from individuals and businesses accused only of frequent under-$10,000 cash transactions.

The IRS changed its policies in October 2014 to prevent such seizures. But those changes came too late for people like Ken, whose property was seized before the policy change.

So, in July 2015, the Institute for Justice submitted a petition to the IRS on Ken's behalf, arguing that the IRS should apply its policy retroactively to Ken's case. The petition argued that the money "would not be seized--much less forfeited--under current government policy" and urged the IRS to "do the right thing and give the money back."

This week, IJ sent a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen following up on the petition--and urging the IRS to act quickly to give Ken his money back.

Today's letter states that Ken's petition is granted "in full."

"I'm so happy," said Ken, "The IRS never should have taken my money in the first place, but I'm so grateful that it has now done the right thing. I worked hard for that money. This is justice."

The Institute for Justice also filed a petition in July 2015 on behalf of Randy Sowers, a Maryland dairy farmer who had $29,500 forfeited by the IRS. There has not yet been any ruling on Randy's petition.

"If the IRS is willing to do the right thing for Ken, they should do the right thing for Randy--and all the other property owners in the same situation," said IJ Attorney Robert Everett Johnson, who represents both Ken and Randy. "Today's decision opens a way for other victims of the structuring laws to get back what's rightfully theirs."

According to data obtained by the Institute for Justice from the IRS via the Freedom of Information Act, the IRS forfeited about $43 million in 618 structuring cases between 2007 and 2013 in which the IRS reported no suspicion of criminal activity other than the mere fact of sub-$10,000 cash deposits.

Here's another example of how this works -- how stacked the deck is against a citizen. From the IJ site:

Rhonda Cox, the Arizona mother whose son was arrested for theft, learned this the hard way. After her truck was seized, she told two police officers that it was hers and that she had nothing to do with her son's crime. Both told her that she would never get her property back. Cox then provided proof of ownership to the county attorney's office and explained that she had no knowledge of the truck's involvement with any illegal activity. The prosecutor rejected her plea and started legal actions to forfeit her truck.

On her own and without a lawyer, Cox filed the paperwork required to challenge the forfeiture as an innocent owner--paying a $304 filing fee for the privilege. But eventually she gave up. The legal process was too convoluted, and--as the prosecutor had warned her--if she lost, not only would she lose the truck, but under Arizona law she would also have to pay the government's legal costs. 19

Cox lost her truck without ever having been accused of a crime and without ever having gotten her day in court. Innocent third-party owners who do make it to court will often face a bizarre and almost impossible task: proving their own innocence.

As shown in Figure 8, innocent owner provisions in federal law and 35 states place the burden of proof on owners, meaning that owners must prove they had nothing to do with the alleged crime. In essence, most civil forfeiture laws presume that people are connected to any criminal activity involving their property and force them to prove otherwise to recover it. This is precisely the opposite of what happens in criminal trials, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government. It also often involves a practical impossibility, as it requires people to prove a negative--that they did not know about or consent to the illegal use of their property.

Only 10 states and the District of Columbia demand that the government prove owners did something wrong before forfeiting their property. In the remaining states, whether the burden of proof falls on the owner or the government generally depends on the type of property involved.

Another case -- from the Freeman:

Willie Jones of Nashville was flying to Houston on February 27, 1991, to purchase plants for his landscaping business. Because Jones was black and paid cash for his plane ticket, the ticket clerk reported him to nearby Drug Enforcement Agency officers, who presumed Jones was a drug courier. DEA officers at the Nashville airport approached Jones, checked his identification, and asked permission to search him. Although Jones refused to grant permission, the officers searched him anyway and found $9,000 in cash. The DEA agents then announced that they were "detaining" the money. Jones observed: "They said I was going to buy drugs with it, that their dog sniffed it and said it had drugs on it." (A 1989 study found that 70 percent of all the currency in the United States had cocaine residue on it.) Jones never saw the dog. The officers didn't arrest Jones, but they kept the money. When Jones asked the officers for a receipt for his money, they handed him a receipt for an "undetermined amount of U.S. currency." Jones objected and asked the officers to count the money out, but the officers refused, claiming that such an action would violate DEA policy.

Federal judge Thomas Wiseman, in an April 1993 decision, concluded that "the officers' behavior at this point was casual and sarcastic . . . /they believed that the seizure of the currency was all but a fait accompli . . . they cared little for Mr. Jones's feelings of insecurity." Judge Wiseman concluded that the DEA officials' testimony on the seizure was "misleading," "unconvincing," and "inconsistent" and ordered the money returned--after a two- year legal battle. Jones observed: "I didn't know it was against the law for a 42-year-old black man to have money in his pocket."

This is absolutely sick. Property rights and the protection of property rights are foundational to a democracy.

Yet here we are: The state can steal your cash or goods by simply saying that you did something wrong. You are forced to "prove" -- at great expense and with great effort -- that you didn't to get your cash or property through criminal activity.

And we are better than unfree countries how?

Welcome to the Confiscation State. That's a lovely watch you have. Proceeds from a drug deal?

Read the whole story
1432 days ago
Share this story

A Lousy Way to Make Most Decisions

1 Share
(Don Boudreaux)

In my latest Pittsburgh Tribune-Review column, I explain that even the smartest and best-informed voter is inevitably ignorant about most of the matters on which he or she votes.   This The ignorance of voters is caused not by the voters themselves – who might each be Einsteinian geniuses – but, instead, by the range and reach of the decisions now made by voters.  A slice:

Like it or not (and I, for one, do not like it), every election now involves thousands of different issues, almost none of which the voter knows anything about. Each voter, therefore, butts ignorantly into the affairs of countless strangers. In short, voters are ignorant about most of the matters on which they vote.

To say such a thing is to incur the wrath of democracy’s gods. “How dare you call voters ignorant!” scream the gods. Yet the gods are wrong. No one thinks me to be wise enough or well-enough informed to march over to my neighbor’s home, pistol in hand, to command him to raise the pay of his toddler’s baby sitter or to forbid his wife from having her nails manicured by people who I disapprove of.

In our daily lives we naturally recognize that each of us knows far more about our own affairs than we know about the affairs of others. And each of us would unhesitatingly resist the dictates of anyone who presumed to tell us how to go about our own affairs.

Because I’m ignorant of the personal and professional affairs of everyone but myself — and because you’re ignorant of the personal and professional affairs of everyone but yourself — each of us is ignorant of the affairs of others.

This reality doesn’t change when you and I walk into voting booths. Nothing about those booths makes you better informed about my affairs and desires; nothing about those booths makes me better informed about your affairs and desires.

It’s time to recognize that elections are largely about butting ignorantly into other people’s affairs.

Read the whole story
1435 days ago
Share this story

Beware your TV (hi, future!)


Samsung is warning customers about discussing personal information in front of their smart television set.

The warning applies to TV viewers who control their Samsung Smart TV using its voice activation feature.

When the feature is active, such TV sets “listen” to what is said and may share what they hear with Samsung or third parties, it said.

There is more here, via Ted Gioia.

The post Beware your TV (hi, future!) appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
1439 days ago
Share this story

Florida Legislature Votes to Gut Sunshine Law; Bill Would End Open Records Access Advocacy

1 Share

Florida’s famous Sunshine Law is under attack in the state legislature today as a state House Committee has already voted to eliminate the provision that guarantees government agencies must pay citizens’  attorney fees when public records are illegally withheld.

Its companion measure, Florida State Senate Bill 1220, passed in committee today with a 3-0 vote and two abstentions.

Hialeah Senator Rene Garcia proposed the Senate Bill, and maintains offices in both his district – which can be reached by phone at (305) 364-3100 to leave comment -and another office in Florida’s capitol of Tallahassee which can be reached at (850) 487-5038 while the legislature is in session as it is right now. Emails to the legislature can be sent through Garcia’s official page of office as well.

Please call him and ask him what he has to hide.

The senator’s proposed changes make awarding attorney fees discretionary for judges when plaintiffs prevail in public records lawsuits that prove that government agencies have violated the law.

Today, judges must order the state and its covered agencies to reimburse citizens’ attorney fees mandatorily, and this acts as the only enforcement mechanism to keep Florida’s government agencies, school districts, cities, counties, tax districts and town honest about responding to public records requests and providing citizens with the records created at taxpayer expense.

Garcia’s proposed bill 1220 would give judicial discretion to award attorneys fees to Florida citizens who’ve had their civil rights violated under the State Constitution’s much ballyhooed “Sunshine Law”, which is Article 24 of its Declaration of Rights also known as Article I.

“This is without a doubt the worst attack I’ve ever seen on open government in Florida,” said Florida open government activist Joel Chandler, “If it passes, it’s going to be a train wreck.”

“The “shall pay” provision in the Sunshine Law saves taxpayers money in a few distinctly important ways,” says Chandler, whose Sunshine Law advocacy includes lawsuits which he pursues pro se (without a lawyer), “First, it greatly incentivizes agencies to settle public records actions, rather than going the distance.

“Second, it limits the amount of fees these cities and agencies spend on outside counsel defending these actions. Also there’s an immeasurable value to the possibility of official misconduct being discovered, which acts as a check on government abuses.”

Chandler says that he will only settle with a government agency that agrees to ensure future compliance with the Sunshine Law as part of its terms, including remedial training and/or to place and maintain a printed copy of the Florida Attorney General’s Government in the Sunshine Manual (free download) in the publicly accessible areas of their government offices.

“Keeping the Sunshine Manual available is intended to avoid future litigation,” said Chandler, “so that if I or anyone were to show up in the future and have a dispute about the Sunshine Law, the reference is right there for our public servants to use.”

Additionally, changes proposed in Garcia’s bill would force citizens to put their governments on further notice of non-compliance and crucially, the changes would require citizens to list all documents for which they wish to sue and deliver those formal notices five days before the lawsuit.

How can a citizen who is denied access to public records, know all names of the records to which they’re denied?

Present Florida statute 119 known as the Public Records Act recognizes that delay of delivery constitutes an illegal imposition on Floridians’ right to records by allowing an “immediate hearing” which can take weeks to obtain in practice, or more, and cost nearly $500 in legal filing fees and service of process alone.

It seems like this kind of prior notice requirement and discretionary fee system would create a system whereby insiders have access to remedies, but lawyers who aren’t favored with judges will be denied fees, or to those shouted down by crowds of government employed attorneys, without any standards or reason since the rest of the Sunshine Law gives no reason for payment other than actual violation.

A federal Constitutional challenge to the equal protection of this key Florida law is sure to follow if this rancid piece of legislation is passed.

And if it passes, just kiss Florida Man goodbye too.

It’ll become nearly impossible to obtain any sorts of public records in a reasonable amount of time when governments face zero penalty for stonewalling the public.

Corruption will flourish in Florida without the Sunshine Law’s already expensive and time prohibitive, but ultimately available remedy of the attorney fees and costs paid back to citizens who’ve been denied public records access.

The Sunshine Law is actually a three-part combination of civil rights protections for Floridians aimed at keeping “government in the Sunshine” which include the Open Meetings Law, the Public Records Law and a listing in the Florida Constitution’s Bill of Rights which gives citizens, “the right to inspect or copy any public record” subject to a few limited exemptions.

Pushed by the Florida League of Cities, legislators in both the Florida House and Senate filed bills this session to gut provision of the law which awards attorney’s fees to citizens only when state law is broken, and records are unlawfully withheld.

The relevant portion of the Public Records Law, which is Chapter 119 of Florida Statutes reads thusly:

119.12 Attorney’s fees.If a civil action is filed against an agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter and if the court determines that such agency unlawfully refused to permit a public record to be inspected or copied, the court shall assess and award, against the agency responsible, the reasonable costs of enforcement including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The word “shall” is underlined, because as you’re about to see, it’s the heart of this problematic legislative proposal. Changing it to “may” as shown below is enough to gut the law of any power of enforcement for citizens.

Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 9.54.56 AM

Currently, most lawsuits for public records in Florida are pursued by citizens on a “contingent fee” basis. Without a guarantee of payment, lawyers require hefty up front fees when suing for public records because of the difficulty of encountering a municipal corporation’s legal department and bottomless, tax-money filled pockets.

I am also currently pursuing a case in civil court under Florida’s public records act. Thousands of pages related to a local zoning decision were withheld by that municipality, and many of the withheld documents have been delivered since the start of the lawsuit in November 2015, but still to this day key documents which are known to exist remain entirely missing.

The case is being handled on a contingent fee basis, because that is the only way this author could afford to pursue the claim.

“Elimination of the mandatory fee provision would significantly undercut Florida’s constitutional guarantee of access to public records, and only the wealthiest citizens could afford to enforce the public’s rights to obtain records about what the government is doing,” said Florida lawyer Sam Dubbin whose Coral Gables, Florida practice includes representing clients filing suit to obtain records.

 “Even now, it is all too common for local governments ignore the law and place the burden on the citizen to hire a lawyer and go to court.  Any change that further incentivizes local governments to stonewall their citizens would be catastrophic.”

The post Florida Legislature Votes to Gut Sunshine Law; Bill Would End Open Records Access Advocacy appeared first on PINAC News.

Read the whole story
1457 days ago
Share this story
Next Page of Stories