• Here is a list of anti-2A bills signed by Gavin Newsom of Kommiefornia today. This is NUTS.

    AB 12 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) extends the duration of a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) (AKA "red flag law") to a maximum of five years instead of one year.
    AB 61 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) allows an employer, coworker, employee or teacher to file a petition requesting that your guns be confiscated without due process.
    AB 164 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) holds any person subject to a valid restraining order, injunction, or protective order issued out of state to the same restrictions on buying or possessing firearms in California as they are under in the state where the order or injunction is operative.
    AB 339 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders.
    AB 521 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) requires the University of California to develop a training programs for doctors on the "prevention of firearm-related injury and death."
    AB 645 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires firearms packaging to contain even more redundant warning statements on suicide prevention, increasing the cost to sell the product to the consumer.
    AB 879 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) requires that the sale of firearm "precursor parts" (80% lowers, AK flats etc) be conducted through a licensed firearm precursor part vendor. The author, as judged by prior introduction of a similar bill during the previous session, more than likely intends to have ALL firearms related parts to be classified as "precursor parts."
    AB 893 by Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in the San Diego.
    AB 1297 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) eliminates the existing $100 limit on processing fees for concealed firearm licenses, meaning local sheriffs can charge as much as they'd like.
    AB 1493 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) authorizes a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order to submit a form to the court voluntarily relinquishing their firearm rights.
    AB 1548 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) codifies the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to "improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of violent attacks or hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission."
    AB 1603 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) codifies the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program to "help reduce violence in communities that are disproportionately impacted by violence."
    AB 1669 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) updates existing law by applying the same gun show regulations that already apply to firearms dealers to ammunition vendors as well.
    SB 61 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) prohibits the sale of a semiautomatic centerfire rifle to any person under 21 years of age.
    SB 376 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) limits the number of personally-owned firearms an individual can sell without a license.
    Here is a list of anti-2A bills signed by Gavin Newsom of Kommiefornia today. This is NUTS. AB 12 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) extends the duration of a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) (AKA "red flag law") to a maximum of five years instead of one year. AB 61 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) allows an employer, coworker, employee or teacher to file a petition requesting that your guns be confiscated without due process. AB 164 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) holds any person subject to a valid restraining order, injunction, or protective order issued out of state to the same restrictions on buying or possessing firearms in California as they are under in the state where the order or injunction is operative. AB 339 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of gun violence restraining orders. AB 521 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) requires the University of California to develop a training programs for doctors on the "prevention of firearm-related injury and death." AB 645 by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) requires firearms packaging to contain even more redundant warning statements on suicide prevention, increasing the cost to sell the product to the consumer. AB 879 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) requires that the sale of firearm "precursor parts" (80% lowers, AK flats etc) be conducted through a licensed firearm precursor part vendor. The author, as judged by prior introduction of a similar bill during the previous session, more than likely intends to have ALL firearms related parts to be classified as "precursor parts." AB 893 by Assemblymember Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in the San Diego. AB 1297 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) eliminates the existing $100 limit on processing fees for concealed firearm licenses, meaning local sheriffs can charge as much as they'd like. AB 1493 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) authorizes a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order to submit a form to the court voluntarily relinquishing their firearm rights. AB 1548 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) codifies the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to "improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of violent attacks or hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission." AB 1603 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) codifies the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program to "help reduce violence in communities that are disproportionately impacted by violence." AB 1669 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) updates existing law by applying the same gun show regulations that already apply to firearms dealers to ammunition vendors as well. SB 61 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) prohibits the sale of a semiautomatic centerfire rifle to any person under 21 years of age. SB 376 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) limits the number of personally-owned firearms an individual can sell without a license.
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.facebook.com/TheCJPearson/videos/384777272417379/?v=384777272417379
    https://www.facebook.com/TheCJPearson/videos/384777272417379/?v=384777272417379
    Piers Morgan BLASTS The BBC For What They Are Teaching Children

    Piers Morgan is EXACTLY RIGHT in this epic rant! 🔥 [video by The Scoop]

    Gepostet von CJ Pearson am Dienstag, 17. September 2019
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/20/san-francisco-hud-employees-trash-ben-carson-for-worrying-about-big-hairy-men-in-womens-shelters/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10100
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/20/san-francisco-hud-employees-trash-ben-carson-for-worrying-about-big-hairy-men-in-womens-shelters/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10100
    San Francisco HUD Employees Trash Ben Carson For Worrying About ‘Big, Hairy Men’ In Women’s Shelters
    Ben Carson is under fire after HUD employees became offended at recent comments he made in San Francisco about transgender women in homeless shelters.
    DAILYCALLER.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hud-secretary-ben-carson-makes-dismissive-comments-about-transgender-people-angering-agency-staff/ar-AAHy9Ye?ocid=spartanntp
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hud-secretary-ben-carson-makes-dismissive-comments-about-transgender-people-angering-agency-staff/ar-AAHy9Ye?ocid=spartanntp
    HUD Secretary Ben Carson makes dismissive comments about transgender people, angering agency staff
    During his visit to San Francisco this week, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary also lamented that society no longer seemed to know the difference between men and women, according to three people who were present. Carson’s remarks, which visibly shocked people at the gathering, are part of a pattern of making dismissive remarks about transgender people. Under his leadership, HUD has moved to weaken Obama-era rules requiring shelters...
    WWW.MSN.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • On Climate Strike Eve, 450+ Activists and Groups Urge United Nations to Back Global Fracking Ban
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/19/climate-strike-eve-450-activists-and-groups-urge-united-nations-back-global-fracking
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    On the eve of a global climate strike and just days before a major United Nations climate summit, more than 450 environmental activists and organizations sent an open letter Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urging him to support a global ban on fracking for fossil fuels, highlighting growing concerns about public health and the climate emergency.

    "As you are aware, man made climate change is the biggest and most comprehensive existential threat humanity has ever faced—apart from a nuclear war," the letter reads. "However, at a time when global forces must be combined to combat the foreseeable and enfolding mass extinction of our planet, the oil and gas industry—backed by many irresponsible governments—bets on a fossil fuels extraction technique that will destroy the joint forces of humanity: hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking."

    Organized by the U.S. advocacy group Food & Water Action, its European arm Food & Water Europe, and Pennsylvania-based air quality group the Breathe Project, the letter lays out the oil and gas industry's contributions to methane emissions, how hydraulic fracturing supports the plastics industry, and the environmental, health, and human rights implications of fracking.

    Food & Water Action @fwaction
    We wrote a letter to the @UN to ask them to finally call to #banfracking everywhere.

    Over 400 people and orgs have signed it, including @MarkRuffalo and Emma Thompson!

    RT pls — it's time to stop endangering our future so oil execs can turn a profit! https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/mark-ruffalo-emma-thompson-among-400-call-un-demand-ban-fracking?ms=some_tw_09182019_letter-UN-landing&oms=some_tw_09182019_letter-UN-landing

    Mark Ruffalo, Emma Thompson Among 400+ To Call On UN To Demand A Ban
    On the eve of the youth-led climate strikes that will pack the streets and cities all across the globe, actors Mark Ruffalo and Emma Thompson and inspiring authors like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben
    foodandwaterwatch.org
    8:57 AM - Sep 19, 2019

    Letter signatory Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology whose research on methane leaks has exposed climate impacts of fracking, explained Thursday that "over the past decade, methane levels have been rising rapidly in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to the unprecedented global climate disruption seen in recent years."

    "Over 60 percent of the increased global methane emissions are from the oil and gas industry, and shale gas development in North America is responsible for one-third of the increased emissions from all sources," Howarth said in a statement. "Fracking for shale gas is a climate disaster."

    As actress and U.N. Human Rights Champion Amber Heard put it: "Every well and every pipeline adds more methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and pushes us closer to the edge of the climate cliff. The science demands, and our children demand, a global ban on fracking."

    Biologist Sandra Steingraber, a longtime critic of fracking, pointed out that "a decade ago, when there were only nine scientific studies on the impacts of fracking, some political leaders suggested that fracking might serve as a bridge to a stable climate. Now there are 1,800 studies, and the science is clear."

    "Fracking is making the climate crisis worse," said Steingraber. "Fracking is destroying drinking water and undermining human rights around the world. Fracking is harming health through toxic air pollution and supporting a polluting plastics industry that is killing our oceans. Our planet is on fire, but fracking is not an evacuation bridge nor a fire extinguisher. Fracking is an arsonist that needs to be stopped everywhere and right now."

    Dr. Sandra Steingraber @ssteingraber1
    Proud to be a signatory on this letter to UN Secretary General. #Fracking is incompatible with climate solutions and is a public health menace. #AsktheSG: There's #NoRoomForGas in the Carbon budge. To stop the #ClimateCrisis we must #BanFrackingNow https://twitter.com/ssteingraber1/status/1174693879779643392
    Dr. Sandra Steingraber @ssteingraber1
    On the Eve of Global Climate Strikes and Summit, Celebrities, Advocates and Grassroots Groups Call on UN to Endorse Worldwide Fracking Ban https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/pressreleases/on-the-eve-of-global-climate-strikes-and-summit-celebrities-advocates-and-grassroots-groups-call-on-un-to-endorse-worldwide-fracking-ban/
    9:40 AM - Sep 19, 2019

    Concerned Health Professionals of New York—which Steingraber co-founded—and Physicians for Social Responsibility in June published a comprehensive analysis of nearly 1,500 scientific, government, and media reports detailing the various health and climate consequences of fracking. The analysis noted with alarm that U.S. oil and gas production, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, "has spurred a massive build-out of fracking infrastructure."

    Without increased public opposition and government regulation, that build-out is only expected to continue throughout the United States. A first-of-its-kind report released in June by Food & Water Watch showcased more than 700 recently built or proposed facilities across three industries that benefit from and help fuel the U.S. fracking boom: the petrochemical and plastics industries, gas exporters building liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and natural gas-fired power plants.

    Wenonah Hauter—founder and executive director of Food & Water Watch, Food & Water Action, and Food & Water Europe—noted in a statement Thursday that U.S. opponents of fracking have had some success in reining in related industries.

    "In more than a decade of fighting fracking in the U.S., we've banned it in multiple states and made great progress elevating the issue globally. But there is much more work to do," she said.

    "The fracking surge in the U.S. has been a boon for the polluting petrochemical industry, which turns fracked gas into plastics. Our planet and our oceans are drowning in plastic and fracking companies are profiting," Hauter added. "This needs to stop once and for all. We need a global ban on fracking."

    The letter to Gutteres makes the case that "directly affected regions and communities all over the world rely on a strong and bold public position of the United Nations on this significant and existential issue." Signatories call on the U.N. chief "to accept this climate champion role" and vocally support a worldwide fracking ban.

    Groups backing the letter include the Break Free From Plastic Movement, Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking, Support Centre for Land Change South Africa, and SumOfUs. Individuals include activists Karenna Gore, Naomi Klein, and Bill McKibben; human rights attorney Jennifer Robinson; children's singer Raffi; fashion icons Vivienne Westwood and Joe Corré; and actors Emma Thompson and Mark Ruffalo.

    "The climate emergency is a casting call for heroes, and we need everyone to show up," said Ruffalo. "Step one is to stand up and say, loudly and clearly, that there is no place for fracking on a climate-destabilized planet."
    On Climate Strike Eve, 450+ Activists and Groups Urge United Nations to Back Global Fracking Ban https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/19/climate-strike-eve-450-activists-and-groups-urge-united-nations-back-global-fracking Jessica Corbett, staff writer On the eve of a global climate strike and just days before a major United Nations climate summit, more than 450 environmental activists and organizations sent an open letter Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urging him to support a global ban on fracking for fossil fuels, highlighting growing concerns about public health and the climate emergency. "As you are aware, man made climate change is the biggest and most comprehensive existential threat humanity has ever faced—apart from a nuclear war," the letter reads. "However, at a time when global forces must be combined to combat the foreseeable and enfolding mass extinction of our planet, the oil and gas industry—backed by many irresponsible governments—bets on a fossil fuels extraction technique that will destroy the joint forces of humanity: hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking." Organized by the U.S. advocacy group Food & Water Action, its European arm Food & Water Europe, and Pennsylvania-based air quality group the Breathe Project, the letter lays out the oil and gas industry's contributions to methane emissions, how hydraulic fracturing supports the plastics industry, and the environmental, health, and human rights implications of fracking. Food & Water Action @fwaction We wrote a letter to the @UN to ask them to finally call to #banfracking everywhere. Over 400 people and orgs have signed it, including @MarkRuffalo and Emma Thompson! RT pls — it's time to stop endangering our future so oil execs can turn a profit! https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/mark-ruffalo-emma-thompson-among-400-call-un-demand-ban-fracking?ms=some_tw_09182019_letter-UN-landing&oms=some_tw_09182019_letter-UN-landing … Mark Ruffalo, Emma Thompson Among 400+ To Call On UN To Demand A Ban On the eve of the youth-led climate strikes that will pack the streets and cities all across the globe, actors Mark Ruffalo and Emma Thompson and inspiring authors like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben foodandwaterwatch.org 8:57 AM - Sep 19, 2019 Letter signatory Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology whose research on methane leaks has exposed climate impacts of fracking, explained Thursday that "over the past decade, methane levels have been rising rapidly in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to the unprecedented global climate disruption seen in recent years." "Over 60 percent of the increased global methane emissions are from the oil and gas industry, and shale gas development in North America is responsible for one-third of the increased emissions from all sources," Howarth said in a statement. "Fracking for shale gas is a climate disaster." As actress and U.N. Human Rights Champion Amber Heard put it: "Every well and every pipeline adds more methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and pushes us closer to the edge of the climate cliff. The science demands, and our children demand, a global ban on fracking." Biologist Sandra Steingraber, a longtime critic of fracking, pointed out that "a decade ago, when there were only nine scientific studies on the impacts of fracking, some political leaders suggested that fracking might serve as a bridge to a stable climate. Now there are 1,800 studies, and the science is clear." "Fracking is making the climate crisis worse," said Steingraber. "Fracking is destroying drinking water and undermining human rights around the world. Fracking is harming health through toxic air pollution and supporting a polluting plastics industry that is killing our oceans. Our planet is on fire, but fracking is not an evacuation bridge nor a fire extinguisher. Fracking is an arsonist that needs to be stopped everywhere and right now." Dr. Sandra Steingraber @ssteingraber1 Proud to be a signatory on this letter to UN Secretary General. #Fracking is incompatible with climate solutions and is a public health menace. #AsktheSG: There's #NoRoomForGas in the Carbon budge. To stop the #ClimateCrisis we must #BanFrackingNow https://twitter.com/ssteingraber1/status/1174693879779643392 … Dr. Sandra Steingraber @ssteingraber1 On the Eve of Global Climate Strikes and Summit, Celebrities, Advocates and Grassroots Groups Call on UN to Endorse Worldwide Fracking Ban https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/pressreleases/on-the-eve-of-global-climate-strikes-and-summit-celebrities-advocates-and-grassroots-groups-call-on-un-to-endorse-worldwide-fracking-ban/ … 9:40 AM - Sep 19, 2019 Concerned Health Professionals of New York—which Steingraber co-founded—and Physicians for Social Responsibility in June published a comprehensive analysis of nearly 1,500 scientific, government, and media reports detailing the various health and climate consequences of fracking. The analysis noted with alarm that U.S. oil and gas production, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, "has spurred a massive build-out of fracking infrastructure." Without increased public opposition and government regulation, that build-out is only expected to continue throughout the United States. A first-of-its-kind report released in June by Food & Water Watch showcased more than 700 recently built or proposed facilities across three industries that benefit from and help fuel the U.S. fracking boom: the petrochemical and plastics industries, gas exporters building liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and natural gas-fired power plants. Wenonah Hauter—founder and executive director of Food & Water Watch, Food & Water Action, and Food & Water Europe—noted in a statement Thursday that U.S. opponents of fracking have had some success in reining in related industries. "In more than a decade of fighting fracking in the U.S., we've banned it in multiple states and made great progress elevating the issue globally. But there is much more work to do," she said. "The fracking surge in the U.S. has been a boon for the polluting petrochemical industry, which turns fracked gas into plastics. Our planet and our oceans are drowning in plastic and fracking companies are profiting," Hauter added. "This needs to stop once and for all. We need a global ban on fracking." The letter to Gutteres makes the case that "directly affected regions and communities all over the world rely on a strong and bold public position of the United Nations on this significant and existential issue." Signatories call on the U.N. chief "to accept this climate champion role" and vocally support a worldwide fracking ban. Groups backing the letter include the Break Free From Plastic Movement, Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Alianza Mexicana contra el Fracking, Support Centre for Land Change South Africa, and SumOfUs. Individuals include activists Karenna Gore, Naomi Klein, and Bill McKibben; human rights attorney Jennifer Robinson; children's singer Raffi; fashion icons Vivienne Westwood and Joe Corré; and actors Emma Thompson and Mark Ruffalo. "The climate emergency is a casting call for heroes, and we need everyone to show up," said Ruffalo. "Step one is to stand up and say, loudly and clearly, that there is no place for fracking on a climate-destabilized planet."
    On Climate Strike Eve, 450+ Activists and Groups Urge United Nations to Back Global Fracking Ban
    "Our planet is on fire, but fracking is not an evacuation bridge nor a fire extinguisher. Fracking is an arsonist that needs to be stopped."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • How Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous People [Our Sock-Puppet Regime Doing Like His Bosses.]
    World leaders are calling for the protection of the Amazon as massive fires continue to scorch the world’s largest rainforest, which produces about 20% of the oxygen on the planet.

    Andrew Miller, advocacy director for the conservation organization Amazon Watch, says the fires are worse now than in previous years as a direct result of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s policies, which encourage exploitation of the Amazon for mining, logging and agricultural activity.

    “The people who feel the impacts directly are local indigenous communities,” Miller says.

    #ArsonistBalsonaro #AmazonUpInDollars #IndigenousTargeting #USPROFITProxy #DemocracyNow #AmyGoodman
    https://youtu.be/OrE_w8j5sT0
    Democracy Now! 8/25/19
    How Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous People [Our Sock-Puppet Regime Doing Like His Bosses.] World leaders are calling for the protection of the Amazon as massive fires continue to scorch the world’s largest rainforest, which produces about 20% of the oxygen on the planet. Andrew Miller, advocacy director for the conservation organization Amazon Watch, says the fires are worse now than in previous years as a direct result of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s policies, which encourage exploitation of the Amazon for mining, logging and agricultural activity. “The people who feel the impacts directly are local indigenous communities,” Miller says. #ArsonistBalsonaro #AmazonUpInDollars #IndigenousTargeting #USPROFITProxy #DemocracyNow #AmyGoodman https://youtu.be/OrE_w8j5sT0 Democracy Now! 8/25/19
    How Jair Bolsonaro Emboldened Brazilian Agribusiness to Torch the Amazon & Attack Indigenous People
    World leaders are calling for the protection of the Amazon as massive fires continue to scorch the world’s largest rainforest, which produces about 20% of th...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/24/trump-administrations-assault-fair-housing
    Olatunde Johnson, Michelle Aronowitz

    This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States.

    The re-reading of the Fair Housing Act urged by the President and his Cabinet Secretary Ben Carson appears to eliminate the possibility of challenging systemic discrimination—which is often subtle and embedded in government and industry practices—and risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities.

    The proposal would gut the core of the Act’s disparate impact method of proof. This is despite the Supreme Court’s affirmance of this approach in a 2015 decision authored by Justice Kennedy in Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (ICP).

    The disparate impact method of proof has been used to challenge loan practices that exclude or charge higher prices to minorities or target them for subprime loans; it has also been used to address practices that displace minority communities to further gentrification and to combat discriminatory zoning practices that exclude minorities from majority-white communities.

    The proposal "risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities." An example of disparate impact involves a challenge to actions taken by St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, a majority-white community outside of New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The parish had adopted a number of measures to prevent blacks displaced by the Hurricane from relocating to the Parish. One such measure was a “blood relative ordinance,” which prohibited rentals to those without blood ties to existing St. Bernard Parish residents. A court ruled that the Parish’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act under intent and impact theories, and Justice Kennedy in ICP cited this case in making clear that the Act reached disparate impact claims.

    The single question presented in ICP was whether the statute permits disparate impact claims. The Court therefore did not decide what standard should be used to analyze those claims.

    HUD’s current disparate impact rule, adopted in 2013 by the Obama administration after an extensive regulatory process, formalizes the longstanding understanding that the Act prohibits policies and practices by the housing industry that cause segregation or adverse disparate effects on protected groups, and that lack sufficient justification.

    The 2013 rule applies the traditional three-step burden shifting approach for proving disparate impact claims, embodied in other civil rights statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination). The Title VII disparate impact standard was codified by statute in 1991, and the current HUD standard aligns closely with that. As in employment, HUD’s 2013 rule made clear that a statistical disparity alone is not enough to prove disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

    The Trump Administration’s proposed rule would tear through that careful structure by piling on new requirements for plaintiffs and creating broad defenses for the housing industry.

    First, HUD’s proposal perverts the concept of a prima facie case by incorporating the defendant’s rebuttal into the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Traditionally, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the defendant fails to rebut, the plaintiff prevails.

    Under the new rule, in order to prevail, the plaintiff is expected to establish its affirmative case as well as prove the negative – that no rebuttal is possible. In other words, as part of the prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has no “valid interest or legitimate objective” in the challenged practice.

    These unusual standards are incorporated into the proposed rule’s novel five-factor test for establishing a prima facie case. Not only does the defendant have no burden to prove a valid interest to rebut the prima facie case (although it can elect to submit evidence if it would like), it is afforded two entirely new, extremely broad defenses that shield it from liability.

    The first of the two defenses operates almost like a preemption doctrine rather than how it is described in the preamble – as a rebuttal of plaintiff’s causation requirement. The proposed rule gives the defendant a complete defense to a disparate impact claim if it can show its discretion is “materially limited” by federal, state or local law, or by a “binding or controlling court, arbitral, regulatory, administrative order, or administrative requirement.”

    The Trump administration’s “following orders” defense flies in the face of the core purpose of the Fair Housing Act – which is to dismantle segregation and eradicate barriers to equal housing opportunity – be they intentionally imposed or inadvertent yet unnecessary, and whether established at the local, state or federal level, or by private corporate interests.

    The second defense to a prima facie case is available to defendants who use algorithms or other models in making their housing decisions; but it operates more like an exemption for most if not all of the financial services industry – namely mortgage banking and homeowners insurance.

    For instance, it makes disparate impact challenges to underwriting decisions unenforceable if the model is the industry standard, or if the model predicts for risk or some other valid objective and none of the factors in the model are intentionally discriminatory (i.e., are “substitutes or close proxies for” a protected group).

    The effect of this defense is to exempt from the Act those industries that denied or limited black access to the wealth generating capital available to many Americans, regardless of class. More recently in cities like Baltimore, banks sought out black and brown communities to provide them inferior loans. Nationally, black communities still have not recovered the wealth lost during the financial crises.

    Between the unusually stringent and likely never to be satisfied prima facie case, and the two all-encompassing and easy to satisfy defenses, the proposed rule appears to use a belt and suspenders approach geared to ensure no effects case slips through. If the rule is finalized, it is likely to be challenged in court. It will then be to challengers to show a court that the Trump administration’s interpretation distorts the meaning of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and undermines both congressional and judicial authority.
    The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/24/trump-administrations-assault-fair-housing Olatunde Johnson, Michelle Aronowitz This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States. The re-reading of the Fair Housing Act urged by the President and his Cabinet Secretary Ben Carson appears to eliminate the possibility of challenging systemic discrimination—which is often subtle and embedded in government and industry practices—and risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities. The proposal would gut the core of the Act’s disparate impact method of proof. This is despite the Supreme Court’s affirmance of this approach in a 2015 decision authored by Justice Kennedy in Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (ICP). The disparate impact method of proof has been used to challenge loan practices that exclude or charge higher prices to minorities or target them for subprime loans; it has also been used to address practices that displace minority communities to further gentrification and to combat discriminatory zoning practices that exclude minorities from majority-white communities. The proposal "risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities." An example of disparate impact involves a challenge to actions taken by St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, a majority-white community outside of New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The parish had adopted a number of measures to prevent blacks displaced by the Hurricane from relocating to the Parish. One such measure was a “blood relative ordinance,” which prohibited rentals to those without blood ties to existing St. Bernard Parish residents. A court ruled that the Parish’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act under intent and impact theories, and Justice Kennedy in ICP cited this case in making clear that the Act reached disparate impact claims. The single question presented in ICP was whether the statute permits disparate impact claims. The Court therefore did not decide what standard should be used to analyze those claims. HUD’s current disparate impact rule, adopted in 2013 by the Obama administration after an extensive regulatory process, formalizes the longstanding understanding that the Act prohibits policies and practices by the housing industry that cause segregation or adverse disparate effects on protected groups, and that lack sufficient justification. The 2013 rule applies the traditional three-step burden shifting approach for proving disparate impact claims, embodied in other civil rights statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination). The Title VII disparate impact standard was codified by statute in 1991, and the current HUD standard aligns closely with that. As in employment, HUD’s 2013 rule made clear that a statistical disparity alone is not enough to prove disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The Trump Administration’s proposed rule would tear through that careful structure by piling on new requirements for plaintiffs and creating broad defenses for the housing industry. First, HUD’s proposal perverts the concept of a prima facie case by incorporating the defendant’s rebuttal into the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Traditionally, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the defendant fails to rebut, the plaintiff prevails. Under the new rule, in order to prevail, the plaintiff is expected to establish its affirmative case as well as prove the negative – that no rebuttal is possible. In other words, as part of the prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has no “valid interest or legitimate objective” in the challenged practice. These unusual standards are incorporated into the proposed rule’s novel five-factor test for establishing a prima facie case. Not only does the defendant have no burden to prove a valid interest to rebut the prima facie case (although it can elect to submit evidence if it would like), it is afforded two entirely new, extremely broad defenses that shield it from liability. The first of the two defenses operates almost like a preemption doctrine rather than how it is described in the preamble – as a rebuttal of plaintiff’s causation requirement. The proposed rule gives the defendant a complete defense to a disparate impact claim if it can show its discretion is “materially limited” by federal, state or local law, or by a “binding or controlling court, arbitral, regulatory, administrative order, or administrative requirement.” The Trump administration’s “following orders” defense flies in the face of the core purpose of the Fair Housing Act – which is to dismantle segregation and eradicate barriers to equal housing opportunity – be they intentionally imposed or inadvertent yet unnecessary, and whether established at the local, state or federal level, or by private corporate interests. The second defense to a prima facie case is available to defendants who use algorithms or other models in making their housing decisions; but it operates more like an exemption for most if not all of the financial services industry – namely mortgage banking and homeowners insurance. For instance, it makes disparate impact challenges to underwriting decisions unenforceable if the model is the industry standard, or if the model predicts for risk or some other valid objective and none of the factors in the model are intentionally discriminatory (i.e., are “substitutes or close proxies for” a protected group). The effect of this defense is to exempt from the Act those industries that denied or limited black access to the wealth generating capital available to many Americans, regardless of class. More recently in cities like Baltimore, banks sought out black and brown communities to provide them inferior loans. Nationally, black communities still have not recovered the wealth lost during the financial crises. Between the unusually stringent and likely never to be satisfied prima facie case, and the two all-encompassing and easy to satisfy defenses, the proposed rule appears to use a belt and suspenders approach geared to ensure no effects case slips through. If the rule is finalized, it is likely to be challenged in court. It will then be to challengers to show a court that the Trump administration’s interpretation distorts the meaning of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and undermines both congressional and judicial authority.
    The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing
    The proposal would gut the core of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact method of proof... This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States.
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Rep Carson "There Has To Be A Reassessment Of The Direction The State Of Israel Wants To Take!"
    #wwwMOXNEWScom #BDS #PalestineApartheid
    https://youtu.be/qvtMYnjhQ9U
    wwwMOXNEWScom 8/15/19
    Rep Carson "There Has To Be A Reassessment Of The Direction The State Of Israel Wants To Take!" #wwwMOXNEWScom #BDS #PalestineApartheid https://youtu.be/qvtMYnjhQ9U wwwMOXNEWScom 8/15/19
    Rep Carson "There Has To Be A Reassessment Of The Direction The State Of Israel Wants To Take!"
    August 15, 2019 MSM News http://MOXNews.com "This Is A Grave Injustice! And It Doesn't Look Well For Israel!" Congressman Carson PLEASE SUPPORT MOX NEWS NEW!...
    YouTube
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://nationalinsiders.com/after-ben-carson-offers-to-help-baltimore-king-elijah-declines-tour-of-his-own-hud-facility/
    https://nationalinsiders.com/after-ben-carson-offers-to-help-baltimore-king-elijah-declines-tour-of-his-own-hud-facility/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/30/ben-carson-visit-baltimore-awareness-crime/?utm_medium=email
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/30/ben-carson-visit-baltimore-awareness-crime/?utm_medium=email
    EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson To Visit Baltimore As Liberals Defend Crime-Ridden City Following Trump’s Criticism
    Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Dr. Ben Carson on Wednesday will travel to Baltimore, Md to spread awareness about the city.
    DAILYCALLER.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show