Archive by Author

Jane Fonda: If Biden runs in 2024, he’ll need to ‘get better on climate’

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says that if President Biden wants to run for reelection in 2024, he needs to “get better” on the climate change issue. 

In an interview with the Washington Post published on Monday, Fonda told the newspaper that she is “sickened” about Biden issuing more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than his predecessor, former President Trump. 

Fonda said that Biden promised while campaigning for the Oval Office that he would not do any drilling on public land.

“I am sickened by that, especially since I believe he understands what’s at stake. He promised during his campaign that he would not allow any more drilling and fracking on public lands,” The 84-year-old actress told the Post. “So it’s very, very disappointing.” 

The “Grace and Frankie” actress also said that she believes Biden can be pressured into doing the right thing, saying how the upcoming midterm elections in November are “critical “ and noted that Biden has to better on climate change if he wants to run for reelection. 

“But he’s better than what could be. And I believe he can be pressured to do what’s right. That’s why the midterm elections are so, so critical. We have to fight with everything we have to pressure him and to back climate champions,” Fonda added. “And we have to make it very clear to Biden that if he intends to run again, he’s going to have to get better on climate.” 

This comes as the actress recently launched her self-titled political action committee in an effort to oust moderate Democratic lawmakers who have helped fossils fuel companies ned efforts to address climate change over the years, according to the Post. 

Fonda, whose PAC has raised up to $1.2 million for candidates who have refused to accept donations from oil and gas companies, told the Post that she hopes her climate PAC can make a change to address the issue. 

“And we’re running out of time to stem the climate crisis. We have less than eight years to cut our carbon emissions in half, according to climate scientists,” Fonda said. “That’s just four election cycles. So this moment calls for agile, aggressive action, and we’re ready to provide it.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Prosecuting Trump will ruin our nation — and might not hold him accountable

One of the great acts of statesmanship in modern American history was President Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor, Richard Nixon, in the wake of Watergate a half-century ago. It is remembered as an act of clemency that was, for Ford, not merely selfless but self-destructive. In the short run, it was deeply unpopular as he struggled to get footing under his fledgling, unelected administration. In the longer term, so narrowly did he lose the 1976 election to President Jimmy Carter that it is impossible to say whether lingering resentment was the deciding factor.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon has lived better than it launched. It was initially misunderstood as shielding Nixon from accountability. Nixon was held accountable. He resigned because he otherwise would have been impeached by the House and almost surely convicted by the Senate. He was effectively ousted from office and, as a practical matter, the other penalty for impeachment, disqualification, was irrelevant. Despite Nixon’s historic landslide victory less than two years earlier (he won 49 states in the 1972 election), he left the White House almost universally condemned. It was inconceivable that he would ever have sought public office again.

The lesson of the pardon is that President Ford preserved domestic tranquility and insulated the Department of Justice from the deeply corrupting effects of immersion in partisan politics that a prosecution of Nixon would have made unavoidable. It is a lesson we have to hope President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland have learned.

The Biden administration, and Garland in particular, are now under intense pressure from progressive extremists who dominate Democratic Party politics, and from the high-profile House select January 6th Committee, to prosecute former President Donald Trump for abuses of power that stoked the anger of his political base, encouraged anti-constitutional perfidy on the part of his political allies, and eventually provoked the Capitol riot.

The pressure is more intense than what Ford confronted. There has not been a national catharsis because Trump has not been held accountable. Sure, he lost the 2020 election, but that occurred before the derelictions leading to the Capitol riot — in fact, Trump’s loss triggered them. House Democrats proceeded to politicize and botch Trump’s impeachment; indeed, though similarly politicized, the committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, is an attempt to conduct the investigation that the House failed to carry out after the riot, and to specify the actual “high crimes and misdemeanors” Democrats failed to plead in their haste to accuse Trump of “incitement to insurrection.”

The lateness of the riot in Trump’s term gave Senate Republicans the escape hatch to acquit him at the impeachment trial on dubious rationale that he no longer could be removed from office. As a result, he was not subjected to the sanction of disqualification. Far from being held to account, he has used the acquittal to minimize the heinousness of his actions and exploited the lack of disqualification as daylight to run again in 2024 — on the delusion of avenging what he still baselessly maintains was a “stolen election.”

Today’s political environment is also radically different from that of 1974. Partisan extremes now drive energy, not the bipartisan political establishment that defenestrated Nixon. Trump’s misconduct notwithstanding, his political base still heavily influences GOP politics. It has made a cause of defeating Republicans who supported Trump’s impeachment. It makes him the putative frontrunner to win the nomination. (I suspect he is more a paper-tiger whose candidacy will collapse as more Republicans realize he would be crushed in a national election, but mine is a minority view, for now.)

On the other extreme, the hard left controls the Democratic Party, pulls the strings of the Biden administration, and pervades the legacy media. Hence, the enthusiasm for Trump’s prosecution and cheerleading for the House committee, despite the partisan flaws in its composition that ensure much of the country will ignore its hearings and eventual report.

For these Democrats, Trump’s prosecution is the proxy for Congress’s failure to disqualify him via impeachment. But this is an emotional position, not a logical one. The failure to grasp this would tear our already divided country apart and irreparably damage the Justice Department.

Prosecution is not a substitute for impeachment. The latter is a political remedy, in which public officials lose the privilege of high office for abuses of public trust. That is why it does not require proof of penal crimes, why the due process requirements are minimal, and why its obvious lack of objectivity is tolerable. Prosecution, by contrast, is a judicial proceeding, in which an accused may lose the right to liberty for private wrongs. That is why it demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt of penal crimes, the due process protections are immense, and the proceeding must be fair and impartial.

There may be a viable criminal case that Trump corruptly obstructed congressional proceedings (the Jan. 6, 2021, joint session to count state-certified electoral votes), but that is highly debatable. If the Justice Department brought such a case, much of the country would condemn the indictment as political payback. Such a prosecution of a former president could take years, enmeshing the federal courts in unprecedented questions.

Besides the fact that it could lose, the Justice Department would find itself in a never-ending cycle of political investigations and prosecutions. When Republicans eventually retake the White House — and, for that matter, retake Congress, perhaps a few months from now — the GOP base that elected them would demand prosecutions of Biden administration officials and congressional Democrats. We will have razed the vital wall separating law enforcement from partisan politics.

President Ford knew better than to consign the nation to that abyss. And while the impeachment case against Nixon was compelling given the abuses of power, the chances of convicting him at a criminal trial would have been low. The costs to the country, though, would have been ruinous.

President Trump should be held to account. Prosecution would be the wrong vehicle. Here’s hoping cooler heads prevail.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, a Fox News contributor and the author of several books, including “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

Source: TEST FEED1

Clarence Thomas signals interest in making it easier to sue media

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday expressed a desire to revisit a landmark 1964 ruling that makes it relatively difficult to bring successful lawsuits against media outlets for defamation.

Thomas’s statement came in response to the court’s decision to turn away an appeal from a Christian nonprofit group who disputed their characterization by the civil rights watchdog group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Coral Ridge Ministries Media sued the SPLC for defamation for listing them as a hate group on their public database, which led to Amazon excluding Coral Ridge as a recipient of charitable contributions from online shoppers.

Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the lawsuit, which had been dismissed by lower courts for failing to overcome the decades-old legal standard, established in the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, that public figures who sue for defamation must not only prove defendants made defamatory statements, but that those statements were made with “actual malice.”

“This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity,’” Thomas wrote.

Updated at 10:05 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

NATO to significantly increase quick reaction force to over 300,000

NATO has said it will significantly increase its quick reaction force to over 300,000 military soldiers. 

During a news conference on Monday, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said that the military alliance plans to increase its forces, referred to as the “Response Force,” in battleground areas of the eastern part of the alliance. 

“We will enhance our battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance up to brigade-levels. We will transform the NATO Response Force and increase the number of our high readiness forces to well over 300,000,” Stoltenberg said at the news conference. “We will also boost our ability to reinforce in crisis and conflict.”

Stoltenberg said that the boost in military units will also include more pre-positioned equipment, stockpiles of military supplies, more forward-deployed capabilities, upgraded defense plans and strengthened command and control. 

“These troops will exercise together with home defence forces, and they will become familiar with local terrain, facilities, and our new pre-positioned stocks,” Stoltenberg said. “So that they can respond smoothly and swiftly to any emergency. Together, this constitutes the biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defence since the Cold War.” 

NATO leaders are at an alliance summit in Madrid this week to decide on a new strategic concept, which will address the alliance’s future plans for political and military development in the region.

This comes as Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukrainian has entered its fourth month. The unprovoked invasion has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people on both sides and displaced more than 8 million Ukrainian citizens in the process.

Stoltenberg said the military alliance will agree on sending a new assistance package to Ukraine, which would include anti-drone systems and fuel.

“Over the longer term, we will help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era military equipment, to modern NATO equipment,” Stoltenberg added. “And further strengthen its defence and security institutions.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden and Democrats’ Brexit intrusions are conduct unbecoming the US

President Biden’s leadership is causing even some of his party’s faithful to wonder whether he should be the Democrats’ candidate in 2024. Even if he presided with competence, there would be places where Biden should not venture. One such place is interfering with the foreign and domestic policies of the United Kingdom. 

Amid a global economic crisis and conflict with Russia, the Biden administration has not wavered in siding against its most stalwart ally. Recently, Biden officials “at different levels of government” have warned the UK not to pursue any action to modify the Northern Ireland Protocol — the trading arrangements put in place after the UK voted for Brexit in 2016 — heedless of the fact that Britain, a sovereign country, must be allowed to pursue policy that is in its best interests. This is not how friends treat cherished friends, and it has this week earned sharp criticism of two former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, Nikki Haley and John Bolton.   

Northern Ireland is a full-fledged province of the United Kingdom, whose government must act to maintain its proper cohesion. The Biden administration’s latest error of judgment is its challenge to the British government’s duty and resolve in this regard, siding instead with European Union (EU) bad faith and intransigence. 

Biden, along with some of his fellow Democrats in Congress, apparently is blind to the reality of the breakdown in power-sharing in Stormont that is created by EU extremism over implementation of the Protocol that is the real threat to peace and stability. 

There is no excuse for being blind to reality. In September, no less than the architect of the Good Friday Agreement, David Trimble, wrote Biden a measured appeal, cogently asking that the president abandon his support for the EU’s position over the trade terms, arguing that meddling by Biden and his congressional cohorts risks causing civil unrest, damage to the Northern Ireland economy, and political uncertainty. That this most-informed advice from someone who best understands the situation in Northern Ireland has gone unheeded is hardly shocking, considering the Biden administration’s neglect to coordinate with the UK — our key military partner and closest ally — during last August’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. 

Were the Biden administration well-intended, it would demonstrate even-handedness. To put this into context, the American public would rightfully be incensed were a British leader to meddle in our sovereign affairs — say, supporting Texas or California seceding from the Union, or taking the side of Canada or Mexico in the event of a USMCA disagreement.

In fact, Prime Minister Boris Johnson did voice an opinion — and a critical one, at that — about Friday’s Supreme Court decision regarding abortion. But, unlike the Biden administration, Johnson, when disagreeing, hasn’t resorted to threatening consequences or conditions. 

Democrats’ intolerable “our way or the highway” approach in prescribing what Britain’s course should be leaves the Biden administration content to undermine and show contempt for our ally, even as the UK demonstrates so clearly its Brexit release to be “Global Britain,” with its leadership regarding Ukraine and its defense engagement with Sweden and Finland — in stark contrast to the EU wallowing on these and other subjects. 

Biden’s approach would be bad enough in isolation toward a country of scant importance to the U.S. But Britain is not that, and what he does is not in the U.S. interest. He sides against the UK with an Irish nationalism that purports neutrality but shelters under UK and NATO protection. It appears the EU’s not-so-hidden aim is a united Ireland, the North separated from the UK as punishment for Brexit.

Perhaps Biden, undeclared, shares that aim. That would make starkly dishonest, Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s justification of the administration’s suggestion to put on the ground an uninvited and unwanted American envoy to act as referee, “in line with our historical role as a good-faith arbiter.” Regardless of motives, the meddling has met with an appropriate response from UK Brexit negotiator David Frost: “It is our country that faced the Troubles. We don’t need lectures from others about the peace process.”

One has to marvel at the judgment of an American administration to intrude shamefully on our closest ally’s sovereignty when we have paralyzing problems at home, such as unbearable inflation caused by runaway spending.

Moreover, at a time of peril that threatens all the people of Ireland — that is, Russia’s suggested nuclear detonation to swamp the UK — rather than lecturing the UK about how it reacts to EU bullying, Biden instead should consider urging Ireland to join NATO.

Lee Cohen, a senior fellow of the Bow Group and the Bruges Group, was adviser on Great Britain to the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and founded the Congressional United Kingdom Caucus. Follow him on Twitter @LeeLeesco3.

Source: TEST FEED1

What’s Putin’s next move?

With the fall of Severdonetsk last week, what might Russian President Vladimir Putin be thinking about the war in Ukraine, the consequences of his policies regarding the U.S., NATO and the EU and his next steps? As the West never fully comprehended the depth of Putin’s resentment and animosity towards it until it was too late, are the U.S. and NATO overestimating Ukraine’s ability to resist and underestimating Moscow’s determination to persist and prevail in this war? Suppose Putin believes he has the advantage over not only Ukraine but also the U.S., NATO and EU?

What are some of these possible strategic, economic, tactical and military advantages as Putin may see them? First, Putin has size and quantity on his side in the war against Ukraine. No matter how heroic Ukrainian resistance has been, it is not infinite, especially as casualties rise and weapons and logistics stocks are depleted. 

Second, Putin no doubt sees, rightly or wrongly, the weaknesses and flaws in the Western alliance that, over time, will not be contained and can be exploited. In that context, the energy and food weapons will be exploited to divide the alliance. Europe is dependent on Russian gas and oil. And the cost of gasoline in America, assuming it will remain high, is a huge problem for President Biden and his domestic support, exacerbated by swelling inflation that may constrain a longer term consensus to allocate many billions of dollars to support Ukraine.

About food, as Putin learned in his engagement in Syria, migration can be a powerful weapon. With an outbreak of massive global starvation and food shortages, the implications for migration are self-evident. With 5 million displaced Ukrainians and substantial numbers seeking refuge in Poland, Romania and elsewhere, starvation will drive orders of magnitude more people to find safety and sustenance in Europe and the U.S. The West may not be able to handle this.

Third, Putin sees that the U.S. has been forced into planning for a two-front war directed against Russia and China. Putin fully appreciates the folly of such a strategy. Napoleon and Hitler ultimately were defeated by embarking on two-front wars, invading Russia in 1812 and the USSR in 1941, respectively. China then is a strategic asset as well as a market for Russian energy to circumvent the sanctions and force the U.S. to dilute its resources in having to cope with two major adversaries half a world away.

Fourth, Putin probably sees the divisions in America over virtually every issue as further constraints on its power and ability to influence events. While he may not be following the two Supreme Court decisions from last week, one kicking the abortion issue back to the states and the other enabling Americans the right of concealed carry of firearms, the U.S. political system seems in gridlock and incapable of working.

Fifth, Putin has other leverage. The brouhaha over Lithuania imposing EU sanctions on Russia by blocking certain goods and services to Kaliningrad, Russia’s enclave in the Baltic separated from the homeland, is one. The EU may resolve this. But implicit military threats by Russia have already led to strong reactions in the Baltics.

Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas declared that NATO’s strategy to defend her country could see it being “wiped from the map.”  Putin will flex Russia’s main and only military advantage over NATO – numerical superiority in short-range nuclear weapons – possibly to announce publicly stationing more in Kaliningrad as a Damoclean sword to threaten and divide NATO.

The NATO Summit in Madrid takes place this week. NATO will announce its new Strategic Concept that began a major overhaul the day after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. Forward defense, mainly stationing more NATO forces in the Baltics and the Northern and Southern flanks as deterrents to Russian aggression, will be featured. But will this concept counter what Putin believes are his advantages?

Fortunately, Putin’s advantages are not necessarily as strong or as valid as he believes. Yet, unless the West understands why Putin believes time is on his side and acts to reverse that perception, it is hard to be optimistic about the chances for a viable counter strategy.

And, given current flash points, memories of June 28 and the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in 1914 in Sarajevo loom.

Dr.  Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the prime author of “shock and awe.” His latest  book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.” Follow him on Twitter @harlankullman.

Source: TEST FEED1

G7 nations seek to step up pressure on Russia, aid for Ukraine

The Group of Seven (G7) leaders are readying new penalties on Russia and additional assistance for Ukraine at a summit in Germany to underscore their support for Kyiv as it battles Russian forces for the fifth straight month.  

The G7 leaders plan to expand sanctions on Russia’s technology and defense sector, impose new tariffs on Russian goods and sanction those engaged in human rights abuses in Ukraine, according to a fact sheet distributed by the White House on Monday.  

The G7 nations will also commit to helping Ukraine cover its “short-term budgetary funding shortfalls,” the fact sheet said, and pledge to provide military, humanitarian, financial, and diplomatic support for Ukraine for as long as needed.  

For its part, the United States is expected to make a new $7.5 billion commitment in aid for Ukraine that is part of the $40 billion aid package approved by Congress last month.  

The announcements came on the second day of the G7 summit in Germany, where G7 leaders met virtually with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

The G7 — which includes the U.S., Germany, Italy, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada — is trying to demonstrate support for Ukraine as the bloody Russian war enters its fifth month with no end in sight.  

While President Biden has succeeded in keeping allies united behind a forceful, coordinated response to Russia’s war, there have been questions about whether that unity can endure as the war drags on and continues to disrupt the global economy.  

In addition to the announcements Monday, Biden has also said that the G7 economies will ban Russian gold imports, cutting off another source of revenue for the Russian economy.  

The G7 is also discussing a global price cap for Russian oil that would cut down on the profits of Russia’s energy industry. A senior administration official described the G7 finance ministers as in the “final discussions” about the price cap and indicated the details would be finalized sometime after the summit concludes.  

The Biden administration is expected to announce a handful of new penalties on Russia in the coming days in coordination with the other G7 countries.  

For instance, the State and Treasury Departments plan to impose blocking sanctions on state-owned defense businesses and defense research organizations, according to the White House fact sheet. The departments also plan to impose blocking sanctions on private military companies operating in Ukraine, Russian units implicated in human rights abuses, and officials installed in Ukraine by Russia.  

Biden will also announce that the U.S. will impose higher tariffs on over 570 groups of Russian products worth about $2.3 billion, the fact sheet said.  

And the G7 will seek to use money collected by new tariffs on Russian imports to provide additional assistance for Ukraine.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats more likely to vote in midterms after abortion ruling: poll

More Democrats than Republicans questioned in a new survey say they are more likely to vote in the midterm elections after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday.

The NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist poll, published on Monday, found that 78 percent of Democrats said they are more likely to vote in this year’s midterms in response to the ruling, which opened the door to state bans on abortion. 

When asked the same question, 54 percent of Republican respondents said they are more likely to vote in November, while 53 percent of independents agreed.  

Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, meanwhile, said they strongly oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion, as did 53 percent of independents. 

By comparison, 77 percent of Republican respondents said they support the ruling, while 10 percent opposed it. 

Additionally, 59 percent of female respondents said in the poll that they disapprove of the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 54 percent of male respondents agreed with the same sentiment. 

The Supreme Court in a ruling on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that established the right to abortion, in a 5-4 vote. Dozens of states are expected to tighten abortion access as a result of the ruling.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed in the new poll also said they will vote for a candidate who would support a federal law to restore the right to an abortion, while 36 percent of respondents said they would vote against a candidate who supports abortion rights. 

The new NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist poll was conducted from June 24 to June 25 with a total of 941 respondents. The survey had a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

What the government gets to know about you should be your choice

Every year, government agents descend on people’s homes threatening them with huge fines if they do not divulge intimate details about their lives. The American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3.5 million randomly selected Americans every year. It demands personal information such as how many beds, cars and phones the household has. It asks people to disclose their fertility history, sexual orientation, and history of marriage and divorce. It asks about daily commute time to work, detailed work history, and how much a person pays in taxes, rent, mortgage and utility bills.  

In 1790, Congress authorized the first census. The law it passed authorized six simple questions about the number of people who lived in each home to ensure congressional representation was accurately apportioned. Interestingly, Congress rejected James Madison’s proposal to ask about people’s occupations as “a waste of trouble.” That first Congress, which was closest in time to when the Constitution was written, rejected the notion that government agents could collect people’s personal information under its power to count the nation’s population.

Under the Constitution, the Census Bureau has one job: to count the number of people in the country for apportioning congressional seats in the house of representatives. That’s it. 

But many people don’t realize that the bureau now also conducts other surveys in addition to the decennial census. Most of them are voluntary. For some, the federal government even pays participants. But the American Community Survey is mandatory, and that compulsion makes it constitutionally suspect. 

The American Community Survey, which asks more than 100 questions, goes far beyond a simple headcount. If this were a voluntary survey, people would be free to not answer the questions. No consequences would follow. But refusing to answer the ACS carries criminal prosecution and potentially ruinous fines. The Census Bureau acknowledges that threatening people makes many buckle under the pressure and disclose their life’s private details to the government agents. And the bureau doesn’t see any problem with that.

We have seen a steady march toward protecting people’s privacy in the United States over the last century. As recently as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court has recognized that people have a constitutional “right to shield information from disclosure.” Meanwhile, the Census Bureau has marched in the opposite direction and ended up with a legal position that is unsustainable under the narrow authority Congress has given it. In short, the bureau believes that it can compel anyone to divulge any information it may be interested in under the threat of criminal charges and fines.

Ordering people to disclose highly personal information, or else pay hefty fines, without suspicion of wrongdoing, without probable cause, or without a warrant, is unconstitutional. Yet the Census Bureau asserts it has authority akin to a general warrant — the power to search and seize anyone they choose for any or no reason at all — when it randomly selects millions of Americans and orders them to answer the American Community Survey. 

The Bill of Rights zealously safeguards the right to privacy. And this is exactly the kind of invasion of privacy that Judge Janice Rogers Brown decried in People v. McKay as “the inevitable [revival] of the general warrant” and “precisely the kind of arbitrary authority which gave rise to the Fourth Amendment.”

That is why Maureen Murphy, John Huddleston and thousands of other Americans are fighting the Census Bureau’s unwarranted intrusion into their lives. Their pending class-action lawsuit asks the court to settle once and for all that the bureau lacks the authority to compel individuals to answer the American Community Survey. The relevant statute simply does not give the Census Bureau as much power as the bureau thinks it does. 

The right to privacy is as American as apple pie or a baseball game on the Fourth of July. Simply put, what the government gets to know about you should be your choice to make. And if a government agent comes to your home asking you intrusive questions without a warrant or probable cause, you should have the undiluted right to tell the agent to take a hike. 

Adi Dynar is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse. 

Source: TEST FEED1