Mediaboss Marketing

I am addressing this letter to voters who look honestly at the issues and vote for what is best for our country. In this election, forget about whether you are Republican or Democrat. You are going to make the most important vote in your lifetime. You are going to vote if you want to live in a democracy or under socialism.

As serious as all the other problems we face today, they dont compare to this biggest question. If socialism gets a foothold, it will be end of democracy, and democracy is what has made America the greatest nation in the world. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists, and I dont think Joe Biden is strong enough to stand up to them. He is already bending. It is likely he will choose a socialistic vice president candidate to appease the far left.

If Biden is unable to remain as president for one reason or another, we will have a socialist president. And the takeover will be that easy. Too many brave men and women have given their all to defend democracy. All of our wars have been to defend our freedoms. Have they given it in vain? Now it is our turn to defend our country. This election is not between Democrats and Republicans, it is between democracy and socialism. Ask this question: What is more important, your country or your party? If socialism prevails, what is next, communism? Dont laugh.

Ken Coombs

Holladay

Continued here:
Letter: This years presidential election is between democracy and socialism - Deseret News

US President Donald Trump's decision to suspend certain categories of non-immigrant visas, including the H-1B, will help absorb India's knowledge workers locally and create another Silicon Valley in the country, a former top Indian-American CEO said, calling the move a "tragedy".

In an exclusive interview with ET, Dinesh Paliwal, former chairman and CEO of Samsung-owned audio giant Harman, said the new talent base in India will feed Indian and multinational companies and likely kickstart a shift of fortune from West to East. Paliwal, who retired from Harman last month, is on the board of four companies - Bristol Myers Squibb, Harman, Nestle and Raytheon.

Trumps decision to suspend all immigrant visas is a tragedy forced on a democracy which has thrived on immigration. This is a political decision to blindside Americans in this election year that it will lead to job growth locally, said Paliwal.

The decision will impact the American economy, which is running low on technology talent, he added. "America benefited greatly by being able to draw talent from around the world, making us more competitive, innovative and creating economic opportunity. These new restrictions wont necessarily stop the work but it may drive it off our shores and potentially inhibit investment and job creation in the US, a concern expressed by many American companies," Nisha Biswal, President of the U.S.-India Business Council told ET.

Such short-sighted and politically motivated policy will likely divert incredibly talented STEM educated workforce to other high growth countries and in the coming years; these hungry knowledge workers may not find America as attractive as before, the Stamford, Connecticut-based Paliwal added. STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Organic job creation in America is needed but it will take fundamental education policy reform. However, politicians dont gain instant gratification from long-term policy impact like education and immigration reform, Paliwal, who is originally from Agra, told ET. The move has also been criticised by almost all the top CEOs, including Googles Sundar Pichai and Apples Tim Cook.

Snapdeal's Kunal Bahl is a case-in-point Indian talent, who went on to launch a leading start-up in India after his visa was rejected. India is the land of big opportunities... I didn't know this 13 years ago when my H-1B visa was rejected, but haven't regretted a moment since, Snapdeal founder Kunal Bahl, who was slated to join Microsoft in Seattle, tweeted on Tuesday. Snapdeal today competes with the likes of Amazon and Walmart-owned Flipkart in India.

Despite the unemployment rate in the US technology sector falling below 3% and most global technology giants telling the US government that suspending the visas would hurt the economy, the Trump administration has gone ahead to suspend issuance of fresh visas till December 31. In 2019, seven of the top ten beneficiaries of the visa grants were US companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook that have been hiring Indian engineers. In contrast, Indian IT services firms have progressively reduced their dependency on the H-1B visa. Indian nationals account for 70% of the 85,000 work permits issued to high technology workers each year.

It is unfortunate and, in some sense, misguided and harmful to the US economy. It prevents not only our companies but thousands of other organizations from accessing critical talent from overseas UB Pravin Rao, chairman of IT industry lobby group Nasscom, told ET on Tuesday. Access to talent is very critical and very pivotal in a post-Covid-19 recovery, he had said.

Link:
Decision to suspend visa is a tragedy forced on a democracy which has thrived on immigration: Dinesh Paliwal - Economic Times

As the story goes, Benjamin Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone asked him, Dr. Franklin, what have we got- a republic or a monarchy? Franklin supposedly responded, A republic, if you can keep it. 233 years later America may be losing the republic Franklin and the founders crafted.

A republic form of government is one where elected individuals represent the citizens and exercise power according to the rule of law under the Constitution. In America, those representatives are democratically elected. In a direct democracy the citizens directly deliberate and decide on legislation. When elected officials in a republic abrogate their responsibility, citizens often take matters into their own hands. True democracy is mob rule. Based on the recent civil unrest, the U.S. is looking more and more like a true democracy.

Some believe the United States has moved from a republic to an oligarchy. A study by two political scientists Martin Gilens, (Princeton), and Benjamin Page, (Northwestern) concludes the wealthy have a disproportionate amount of influence in politics. Gilens and Page write: When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Gilens and Page are liberals and clearly had a predetermined outcome, but they are correct: The wealthy are more engaged in politics than the poor. But no oligarchy can survive mob rule. The numbers just wont work. So how does America get back to a representative democracy? How does the United States get back to the form of government the founders intended? Three ways:

1.The average citizen must actively engage in government. They have to do more than vote. They must pay attention to what is happening all the time, not just every two years at election time. That involves attending meetings, getting to know elected officials, helping candidates and contributing money. The reason big money has taken over politics is because so few average people are engaged in the process.

2. The American system of government must be taught to the next generation. Most millennials have little knowledge of our system of government and the genius of the founders. Pew Research, in a March 2020 poll, found two-thirds of millennials want the Electoral College eliminated and the president be elected by popular vote. They fail to not understand it is a fundamental principle of a representative democracy.

3. Americans must commit to a democratic republic. The mindset to understand the importance of being involved in a republic is critical. Without widespread commitment from individual citizens taking equity in their self-governing system of government, America will not survive.

The U.S. Constitutions First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to assembly peacefully, but not to destroy private or public property. What we are seeing in America is mob rule because some elected leaders capitulate to a mob. Until citizens hold them accountable at the ballot box, Americas system of government is doomed.

View original post here:
Steve Fair: Direct democracy is mob rule, and we're headed there, Three ways to get back to a representative democracy - Tulsa World

Written by Gaurav Bhatia | Updated: June 25, 2020 8:14:02 pm Prime Minister Indira Gandhi addressing the nation from the Doordarshan studio during Emergency. (Express archive)

The Emergency destroyed the light of freedom and democracy in our country, impinging upon the rights of the citizens. It marks the darkest moment of Indian democracy. On the intervening night of June 25-26, Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, invoked Article 352 of the Constitution and declared National Emergency.

The trigger to invoke Emergency was an order of June 24, 1975, passed by Justice V R Krishna Iyer, judge, Supreme Court of India. The judge did not grant a blanket stay of the impugned judgment delivered by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, setting aside the election of Indira Gandhi.

He granted only a partial stay and limited relief to Indira Gandhi, allowing her to sign the register kept in the House and attend sessions of the Lok Sabha. But she was disallowed from participating in any proceedings of the lower house and was debarred from voting or drawing any remuneration in her capacity as an MP.

The Emergency era witnessed Indira Gandhi in her dictatorial and self-serving style brutally assaulting the four pillars of Indian democracy.

Opinion | Ruler alone is not accountable, everyone who succumbs to authority is no less guilty

On June 25, Indira Gandhi unilaterally declared Emergency and she addressed the nation at 8 am the following day. She informed a shocked nation that Emergency has been declared due to internal disturbance and there was nothing to panic about. To use the words of L K Advani, the weak Indira cabinet when asked to bend, gleefully crawled. The meeting lasted for 15 minutes and the issue of the proclamation of Emergency was neither deliberated upon nor were the cabinet members allowed to discuss it. They were merely informed about the decision. The historical blunder was justified citing internal disturbance in the country when there was dissatisfaction amongst the masses.

The Congress tried to spread the propaganda that Indira Gandhi is indispensable to the country in their belief that she was above the Constitution. Slogans like Indira is India and India is Indira were coined by loyalists. It was made to appear that she is not to serve the Constitution, rather the Constitution is to serve her and the family.

In our parliamentary democracy, the Constitution is supreme the legislature, executive and judiciary are a creation of the Constitution. During the disturbing times of Emergency, the legislature failed to perform its function as per the mandate of the Constitution.

Opinion | Those who have not seen the dark side of dictatorship, dont truly appreciate the value of freedoms today

Around 1,10,000 citizens of our country were illegally detained and not even informed about the grounds of their detention. Almost all political leaders from the Opposition were put in prison.

The detention of these opposition members was done for a sinister purpose to drastically reduce the participative strength of Parliament. After reducing the sitting strength, self-serving unconstitutional amendments amending the Constitution were introduced by Indira Gandhi and were passed by a fraudulent two-thirds majority of the present and voting members.

Such was the subservience of MPs from the Congress that they violated their oath to serve the Constitution and spinelessly served Indira Gandhi. During this period, Indira Gandhi brought the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, extending the term of the elected parliament to six years, which was violative of Article 83(2), mandating a term of five years for the Lok Sabha. The 42nd Amendment was later revoked by way of the 44th Amendment in 1978. It remains the only instance when a Parliament term was extended, ignoring the will of the people.

The Constitution and the Representation of People Act, 1951 were also amended with retrospective effect so that the grounds on which Raj Narain succeeded before the Allahabad High Court are not available to him against Indira Gandhi.

Opinion |It is unlikely that Emergency will return, but eternal vigilance is the price for freedom

The judiciary, the guardian of the Constitution, was also made subservient to the executive.

In the appeal filed by Indira Gandhi before the Supreme Court, just before the matter was to be heard, the then Law Minister H R Gokhale brazenly called Justice V R Krishna Iyer, who was to hear the matter and requested a personal audience. Justice Iyer politely inquired about the purpose of his visit, upon which the then Law Minister being frank and expecting an audience, told Iyer (as per his memoirs) that he wanted to discuss the case with him. The judge, upholding the doctrine of separation of powers, refused to meet the law minister.

By way of the 42nd amendment, the order of detention was placed beyond the scope of judicial review. The judiciary was at its weakest during this time. The citizens challenged illegal detentions in various high courts of the country. The high courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Rajasthan upheld the spirit of the Constitution and held that even during Emergency, when Article 359 is invoked and the enforcement of fundamental rights is suspended, a detenu has the right to move the court.

April 28, 1976, can be termed as the darkest day for the Indian judiciary. A constitution bench comprising five judges of the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla reversed these pro-liberty judgments given by various high courts and held that Liberty is the gift of law and can be forfeited by Law.

Opinion |The unsung heroes of the Emergency

The sole dissenter judgment was Justice H R Khanna, considered by many as one the finest judges the country has ever produced. Justice Khanna held that even when right under Article 21 is suspended, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life and liberty without the authority of law. He was punished for not being committed to Indira Gandhi and for upholding the Constitution. Going against the established norms of appointing the senior-most puisne judge as the next Chief Justice of India, the government superseded him by Justice M H Beg.

Justice Khanna has been aptly rewarded by the citizens of the country and lives in the heart of every Indian as a saviour of democracy. His portrait hangs in court no. 2 of the Supreme Court, the court where he last presided. Every day, lawyers and litigants pay reverence to him for the exemplary courage he showed in protecting the rights of the common citizens of the country.

Even the media, the fourth pillar of democracy, was not spared from the autocratic functioning of Indira Gandhi. On the night of June 25, 1975, electricity supply to the offices of leading newspapers was withdrawn. This was done so that news declaring Emergency by Indira Gandhi does not reach the common citizens. Members of the censor board were stationed at the offices of all leading newspapers to dictate and monitor the content they publish.

The most important lesson learnt from the Emergency is that India as a democracy can only remain strong if we strengthen our constitutional institutions like Parliament, the Supreme Court, Election Commission of India and the PMO rather than sycophantically strengthening an individual or a family.

India has learnt that placing an individual above the country is detrimental to our democracy. Indian democracy under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set an exemplary precedent, showing how the three organs of democracy can function in complete harmony, despite differences, as their respective roles have been well-defined by the Constitution.

The writer is national spokesperson, BJP and Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Read the rest here:
When the pillars of democracy were shaken - The Indian Express

President Trumps firing of Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, is another move by the Trump administration that, though likely legal and not totally unprecedented, appears to violate core democratic values.

The firing was dramatic, with Attorney General William Barr announcing late on Friday night Bermans resignation and a replacement. Berman issued a statement roughly an hour later saying that he had not resigned and that Barr personally did not have the right to fire him due to the nature of his appointment. So on Saturday afternoon, Trump himself fired Berman, and Barr designated a different person to replace Berman than the one he had named on Friday. The firing was also somewhat surprising given that Berman is a longtime Republican who not only donated to Trumps first presidential campaign but also served on his transition team.

Yet underlying all the drama is something weve gotten used to in the Trump era: the breaking of democratic norms and values, which are two distinct concepts. As weve written about before, values are fundamental principles (e.g., free speech), whereas norms are the unwritten rules we abide by (dont cut in line) that sometimes reinforce those values (Supreme Court justices dont endorse political candidates, thereby bolstering the independence of the judicial and executive branches) but also sometimes dont. So lets look at Trumps firing of Berman in the context of some of those values.

Under Bermans leadership, the Southern District was reportedly investigating Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani, including Giulianis dealings with Ukranian officials that were scrutinized as part of the impeachment inquiry against Trump. We dont know the status of that investigation, whether Giuliani was likely to face criminal charges or even whether that investigation was a factor in the decision to oust Berman. There is some logic to the idea that Department of Justice prosecutors should avoid making decisions close to the election that might influence its outcome indicting the presidents attorney is arguably such an example. In fact, Democrats in 2016 criticized then-FBI Director James Comey on these grounds, when he announced less than two weeks before Election Day that he was reviewing new evidence involving Democratic nominee Hillary Clintons use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

That said, if Trump and Barr were trying to protect Giuliani (and therefore Trump), it fits a pattern of Barrs Justice Department seeming to extend special treatment to Trump allies. In February, DOJ officials overruled career prosecutors and asked for a significantly lighter sentence for longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. All four prosecutors withdrew from the case and one resigned in protest of the decision. Even more unusual was the decision in May by a Barr-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to drop charges against Trumps first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Not only did a career prosecutor quit that case as well, but federal appeals judges are considering not allowing the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The democratic value at play here is equal justice under the law a person should not get unusually lenient treatment by the Justice Department if he or she is an ally of the presidents. Arguably, previous presidents have violated this value for example, as he was leaving office, Bill Clinton pardoned the ex-husband of a major Democratic Party donor.

The most alarming potential explanation of what happened to Berman is that Barr tried to fire him specifically for investigating Giuliani. A milder version may be that the Southern District, under Bermans leadership, demonstrated that it did not care about Trumps preferences and would investigate whichever crimes it deemed important, no matter the potential ramifications for Trump. Two years ago, the Southern District persuaded onetime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a number of crimes, including violating campaign finance law, with Cohen suggesting his illegal behavior came at Trumps behest. (Its worth noting that Berman recused himself from that case.)

So Barr and Trump may consider Berman insufficiently loyal to their interests and fear he would bring charges that would reflect badly on Trump or Republicans, even if Berman didnt bring forward a case clearly linked to the president.

Indeed, the Trump administration has a long record of demoting, reassigning, firing or otherwise sidelining law enforcement officials who show independence from the White House: Comey, former FBI general counsel James Baker, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump or his allies often hinted that Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller would be fired during their tenures as deputy attorney general and DOJ special counsel, respectively, in a manner seemingly designed to intimidate them. Trump has also recently complained about current FBI Director Christopher Wray and hinted that he could be fired.

And Barr has implied that the Justice Department will seek to bring charges against those involved with initiating the investigations of the Trump campaigns connections to Russia in effect, criminalizing efforts that bring scrutiny to the president.

Again, it is not unprecedented for presidents to replace law enforcement officials. Presidents in both parties traditionally replace with their own choices all the U.S. attorneys appointed by the previous administration, which often results in a wide partisan swap. As president, Clinton fired the FBI director, and most notably, in what came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre, then-President Richard Nixon purged the senior leadership of the Justice Department for refusing to quash an investigation of him he was forced to resign in part because of these moves.

The democratic value at stake here is the independence of law enforcement. That ideal, that their decisions should be divorced from politics, is hard to maintain if key law enforcement officials are constantly worried about being fired by the president, attorney general or anyone else for political reasons.

Its worth thinking about the initial bid to fire Berman on Friday night, because that is in part what made this move so problematic at first glance. It appeared to be an attempt by Barr and Trump to install at the top of an important law enforcement agency (the Southern District of New York) someone more likely to be friendly to their interests. Generally, when a political appointee like a U.S. attorney leaves, he or she is replaced by the No. 2 person in that office, usually a career civil service employee not formally aligned with either party. But on Friday Barr announced that Berman would be temporarily replaced by Craig Carpenito, a U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, a close ally of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump loyalist.

This is a pattern for Trump: removing the leaders of various government agencies or departments, ignoring normal succession procedures and passing over the people who would normally step in, and instead replacing them with Trump allies. The temporary replacements role is essentially to do Trumps bidding in a way that the removed person would not. The most prominent example of this was when, after the 2018 midterm elections, Trump replaced Sessions with his chief of staff at the time, Matt Whitaker. Often, as in the case of Berman, Trump has removed someone appointed in a process he did not totally control (usually Senate confirmation in Bermans case, he was installed by the judges of the Southern District) with someone chosen solely by Trump for that particular role.

Trumps controlling the executive branch in this way minimizing the oversight of other branches weakens checks on his executive power. In this instance, however, Bermans own chief deputy, Audrey Strauss, stepped into the role.

That said, that Carpenito never actually made it into Bermans former position doesnt mean the move wasnt still problematic in terms of oversight. In indicting one Trump lawyer (Cohen) and investigating another (Giuliani), the Southern District under Bermans leadership was effectively conducting oversight of the president, since Giuliani in particular was basically executing Trumps policy goals with Ukraine (pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden). Bermans firing suggests Trump was unhappy with that oversight and wants to limit it.

Trumps attempts to stop oversight of his policy moves is also part of a pattern. He has essentially refused to comply with any congressional investigations into his administration. And over the past few months, he has fired a number of the inspectors general at federal agencies, the people formally charged with scrutinizing the executive branch. The intelligence community inspector general played a key role in bringing forward the whistleblowers complaints about the Trump administrations dealings with Ukraine, leading to the presidents impeachment. Trump seems to now view all inspectors general as threats to his administration.

The democratic value at play here is oversight of the executive branch. The Senates role in confirming executive branch appointees and the presence of inspectors general are ways in which a president in theory is not able to do whatever he wants with the executive branch. Trump seems unwilling to abide by these constraints. Having his personal lawyer conduct foreign policy puts that person out of the purview of the Senate or inspectors general. Firing the U.S. attorney whose office was investigating the presidents lawyer signals that the presidents lawyer and the sphere of policy he is implementing is off limits.

The Berman firing, like the removals of several inspectors general, was done on a Friday night. This is not the most important of these violations of democratic values. Previous presidents and plenty of other people outside of politics, for that matter dump bad news on Friday nights, hoping it will get less media coverage as journalists take off for the weekend.

That said, these firings are important for the reasons I have laid out above. Trumps seeming desire to obscure them suggests he wants to avoid careful examination of decisions that he no doubt is aware will be controversial.

Media and public scrutiny of presidential decisions is a core democratic value as well, even if other presidents have also neglected to maintain it.

And, again, this is a pattern for Trump. In the past few weeks, he and his aides have sought to get CNN to retract and apologize for a poll showing Trump trailing Biden and to block the publication of former National Security Adviser John Boltons book, which is critical of Trump. Presidents often complain about polls and dislike books critical of them but Trumps actions go beyond those more traditional objections.

We recently wrote about how the administrations decision to use chemical agents and rubber bullets on protesters outside the White House violated several democratic values. Key officials involved in that incident now seem to regret it. The firing of Berman may also backfire on Trump. It could embolden more people, including some Republicans, to start criticizing the president for politicizing law enforcement decisions.

Bermans decision to resist his firing and administration officials distancing themselves from the White House protest incident suggest something else that should worry Trump: People in his administration may be reading and believing polls showing him trailing Biden, thinking Trump is likely to lose reelection in November and becoming more unwilling to do questionable things to stay in good standing with a man who may not be president come January.

CORRECTION (June 22, 2020, 8:37 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the events that preceded former President Richard Nixons resignation. The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon amid the Watergate scandal, but he resigned before the full House held an impeachment vote. Nixon was not impeached by the full House of Representatives.

CORRECTION (JUNE 23, 2020, 7:05 a.m.) An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Rod Rosenstein had served as deputy director of the FBI under President Trump. Rosenstein was the deputy attorney general.

The rest is here:
Trumps Latest Firing May Have Violated Four Core Values Of American Democracy - FiveThirtyEight