There’s some good news coming out of a court in Massachusetts and it deals with transparency by public officials when dealing with the public. The immediate benefactors of this particular case include James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas and some other folks who routinely tape police on the beat, but it should have implications for the public – and particularly journalists – around the country. The state has had a law on the books since the sixties which banned “taping wire and oral communications with the legislature,” but it had been applied to cover other public officials and even the police. Now some parts of the law appear to be heading for the scrap heap. (Washington Times)

A federal judge ruled Monday that Americans have a right to secretly record their public officials, including police, when they are engaged in their government duties.

U.S. District Chief Judge Patti B. Staris said a Massachusetts law banning secret recordings violates the First Amendment when it comes to government employees, rejecting the state’s claims that officials need some space to be able to operate without having to worry about being monitored.

“This is not to say that police and government officials have no privacy interests,” she wrote. “However, the diminished privacy interests of government officials performing their duties in public must be balanced by the First Amendment interest in newsgathering and information-dissemination.”

My initial reaction was to say that “secret recording” might be going a bit far on the transparency side, but on further reflection, I’ve come to conclude it was a rather silly idea. Perhaps more than most other citizens, public officials are the people who will reflexively act differently when they know a camera is on them. Sometimes surreptitious recording is probably the only way to catch them if they are misbehaving.

Whether it’s elected officials or the police, these efforts at preventing them from being recorded while performing their public duties have never made any sense. They’re doing their jobs and their jobs are paid for by the taxpayers. Unlike some members of the intelligence community, no contact between a cop, mayor or legislator with a member of the public is going to contain information which endangers the nation if it’s revealed.

In almost every case, if public officials don’t want these recordings released it’s because they were up to no good. And if so, the public is entitled to be informed about it. That doesn’t mean we can go record their private meetings in their offices or follow them into their homes. But if you take any of these jobs and go out in public, you should be aware that you’re subject to scrutiny.

David Krupa is a 19-year-old college freshman at DePaul University in Chicago. Krupa decided to get a jump-start on his political career (he’s studying political science) by running for alderman in the city’s 13th ward. What he got was a personal lesson in Democratic machine politics.

In order to qualify for the ballot, Krupa had to collect 473 valid signatures from ward residents. He did that but before he could turn them in, the Democratic political machine responded with a campaign that Krupa and his attorney believes was election fraud intended to keep him off the ballot. ABC 7 in Chicago reports:

Krupa collected 1,703, but said before he even turned them in, Quinn supporters turned in affidavits from 2,796 people who said they wanted to revoke their signatures for Krupa…

During an election board hearing Monday, Krupa and his attorney said only 187 of the people who signed a revocation affidavit actually signed his nominating petitions, meaning 2,600 were fraudulent.

“They had to have been told that it was for something it wasn’t for, or coerced into doing it somehow, and we actually had a lot of people who messaged me and said that was the case they only signed because it was brought to them three times a day for a week,” Krupa said.

ABC tried to ask the current alderman, Marty Quinn, about this campaign but reports that he “declined an interview request and later ducked out of a City Council committee meeting avoiding reporters.”

Quinn did eventually speak with WTTW and said, “I guess the better question is: a self-described, ‘day-one Trump supporter’ gets 1,700 signatures in the 13th Ward, without being disingenuous? That’s the question that comes to my mind.” And then he turned and walked away. There’s a video of his performance below.

For the record, I have no idea whether Krupa is a Trump supporter. His website is here and doesn’t say anything about national politics. But Krupa believes the Chicago’s political machine, run by Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, used fraud to attempt to keep him off the ballot:

Krupa alleges that Madigan precinct workers went door to door and tricked residents into signing the affidavits.

“What people have told me is that, when they were approached, it was for something like ‘verifying my signature,’” Krupa said. “Well it wasn’t for verifying their signature, it was for taking me off the ballot. I’ve had family friends who have known me their entire life who have signed one of those revocation papers because they were told it was something it wasn’t, and they are furious.”

So it appears that roughly 2,600 people, including people who know Krupa, were pressured or tricked into committing election fraud. The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass published a column last week explaining why Speaker Madigan’s likely involvement means no one involved in this campaign will ever be held to account:

The Goliath is the 13th Ward Democratic Organization run by House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, aka Boss Madigan, the most powerful politician in the state. Boss Madigan has long hand-picked his aldermen. He likes them loyal and quiet…

There is no litigation, yet, but election attorney Michael Dorf, who is representing Krupa, says this case is a “clown car of felonies.”

“You know the 13th Ward better than I do,” Dorf said. “This is clown school and election fraud. This is going way, way beyond the line. David is a huge underdog. Go ahead and beat him on Election Day, or do subtle fraud, like taking away yard signs, but when this number of false affidavits are filed, you’re talking fundamental fraud, epic fraud.”…

Dorf said that he will ask the elections board next week to refer the matter to Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

But Foxx, a Democrat, won’t want to anger the Boss.

Neither will incoming Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who famously said he would not “go fishing” for corruption, and who also received a million dollars in Madigan political money.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Democrats to do something about other Democrats committing election fraud. That’s not the Chicago way.

There are liberals on social media as I write this speculating that this quote is evidence that … Graham has been compromised by the Russians and is now serving the same Kremlin masters that the president supposedly is. That theory is nonsense, of course.

But.

This is not the Grahamnesty I thought I knew. Ever since he went full beastmode at the Kavanaugh hearing he’s been a different man. Did McCain’s passing free him to be more of a populist? Is this some sort of strategic thing, backing Trump on high-profile standoffs with Democrats in hopes that POTUS will acquiesce on lower-profile matters like punishing the Saudis for the Khashoggi killing?

I feel like if this keeps up for much longer I’m going to start having misgivings about calling him “Grahamnesty.”

Complaining Pelosi will not accept a DACA deal for wall money, Graham said: “This is liberal arrogance and I have had enough of it. Take it on, stare it down. See what happens.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 11, 2018

He kept it up on Twitter:

Great job sticking to your guns on border security, Mr. President!

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 11, 2018

Put DACA on the table and make them say NO to the Wall and DACA. #DigIn

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 11, 2018

DACA? Is either side talking seriously about a deal involving DREAMers? Seems kind of random for Graham to mention that — almost as if Benjy Sarlin is right:

There’s a lot of deserved focus on how R’s like Graham have become Trump allies, but a lot of that alliance is just them proposing what they already wanted pre-Trump and then claiming it’s a #MAGA move to own the libs https://t.co/W5Q9sM6mCY

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) December 11, 2018

Perhaps we’ll stick with the “Grahamnesty” sobriquet a bit longer.

Can’t fault Graham for looking ahead to some sort of face-saving compromise after the two parties deadlock and the government shuts down, though. One way out of that would be to agree on a middle-ground number for funding the wall. Trump wants $5 billion, Democrats have offered $1.6 billion for general “border security.” Maybe we end up with $3 billion or thereabouts for the wall — but Democratic voters won’t like that, even though it’ll mean Trump was forced to come down off his initial number. They just won the House despite immigration becoming a prominent issue in the final weeks due to the caravan, and the wall is Trump’s baby. They don’t want to give in on this and don’t think they should have to, especially if he’s playing shutdown hardball to achieve it. If they end up giving him anything for the wall Pelosi and Schumer will have to get something meaningful in return. Graham’s already laying the groundwork for it: DREAM amnesty for wall funding.

As for the politics, it was … unorthodox, shall we say, for Trump to say on camera at this afternoon’s meeting with Chuck and Nancy that he’d take the blame for shutting down the government over wall funding. Particularly with polls like this floating around:

Ed was right earlier, though, when he said that Trump will own the shutdown no matter what. He’s the one driving the standoff by demanding wall funding; it’d be silly for him to try to frame it differently. And to be honest, there’s no better moment for a shutdown to signal seriousness of purpose than right now. The GOP’s as far away from the next election as it can be and the opposing party is about to take over a house of Congress. An early test of wills will show Democrats up front that Trump intends to make border security a top issue over the next two years and that he won’t take no for an answer — if in fact he wins that test of wills.

Will he, though?

White House official tells me: “POTUS said that he wants $5 billion. It’s crystal clear, and we’re executing to it. It’s a red line. He’s willing to shut it down. He’s willing to own it.”

Senate GOP official tells me: “Trump will sign whatever McConnell and Ryan send him.”

— Elaina Plott (@elainaplott) December 11, 2018

The core virtue of Trump’s presidency to nationalists like Tucker Carlson is how he’s managed to shift the focus of the national conversation to nationalist priorities. The wall is Exhibit A on that point, and a shutdown to force wall funding would be a dramatic demonstration of how intent Trump is on doing it. If he ends up backing off or caving, it’ll leave the Tuckers of the world wondering whether there’s really any core virtue there after all. (Some, like Ann Coulter, are already wondering.) That’s the real political risk here to the president — not that swing voters will remember the shutdown when they go to the polls in 2020 but that populists will remember that it failed to produce any meaningful border improvements, if in fact it fails to do so. He’d better be careful.

An imam who frequently criticizes radical Islam was sent an intimidating email by Twitter’s legal team telling him that he broke Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

The tweet that spurred the email was made last month by Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, a moderate Muslim from Australia, who called for that country’s government to investigate the mosque that a knife attacker attended in Melbourne.

“Investigate the Mosque and the Imam that delivers these Jihadist sermons,” Tawhidi tweeted Nov. 9.

The police must investigate which Mosque this terrorist attended for Friday Prayers today. I am serious. Investigate the Mosque and the Imam that delivers these Jihadist sermons. pic.twitter.com/sFoHzekx0k

— Imam Mohammad Tawhidi (@Imamofpeace) November 9, 2018

TRENDING: Report: Ocasio-Cortez Forgets What the Constitution Says Right Before Joking About Presidential Run

This tweet broke Pakistan’s law, according to the email Tawhidi received from Twitter last week.

The email said “Twitter has received official correspondence” indicating Tawhidi’s tweet “is in violation of Pakistan law.”

Twitter’s Legal Department has sent me an Email informing me that I have broken Pakistan’s Law. I have attached the Tweet in question, so judge for yourselves.

I am not from Pakistan nor am I a Pakistani citizen. Pakistan has no authority over what I say. Get out of here. pic.twitter.com/wsVacLXpJm

— Imam Mohammad Tawhidi (@Imamofpeace) December 3, 2018

“You may wish to consult legal counsel about this matter,” the email read.

Any email that advises you to get a lawyer is intimidating.

Fortunately, it’s an empty threat because Pakistan’s ridiculous laws have no jurisdiction over someone living in Australia.

“I am not from Pakistan nor am I a Pakistani citizen,” Tawhidi tweeted. “Pakistan has no authority over what I say. Get out of here.”

I would enjoy breaking Pakistan’s Laws if they had any in the first place. https://t.co/76YzhQs2qS

— Imam Mohammad Tawhidi (@Imamofpeace) December 5, 2018

RELATED: Mueller Slapped with $350M Suit After Pushing Suspect Too Far

While Tawhidi appears to be safe from Pakistani authorities, it’s concerning that Twitter seems to be doing the dirty work of a corrupt Islamist regime.

Tawhidi is not from Pakistan, and his tweet didn’t violate Twitter’s terms of service. The purpose of Twitter’s email appears to be to intimidate the peaceful imam on behalf of Pakistan.

In August, the Pakistani government threatened to block the social media giant if it didn’t crack down on “objectionable content,” according to Pakistan Today.

It doesn’t seem like Twitter is ready to make such a move just yet, but its intimidating emails may scare people into staying quiet about radical Islamic terrorists.

This is scary. Twitter is helping an authoritarian regime harass opponents of terrorism.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

There are few things in this world you can count on, and few of them are salutary. I can think of only three, two of which are horrible. Those are death and taxes.

As for positives, I can think of one: the overwhelming goodness of Gary Sinise.

Sinise, probably best known for his role as Lt. Dan in “Forrest Gump,” has long worked with veterans and veterans groups, such as flying veterans to the National World War II Museum to tell their stories or serving them Thanksgiving dinner.

This Christmas, he’s not just focusing on veterans themselves, but their children — namely, the children left behind when one of our heroes tragically passes away.

Over 1000 Gold Star Children travel w/ surviving parent, 1,750 in all, via @americanair to Disney World today as part of our @GarySiniseFound Snowball Express program. This charter left LAX this morning. I’ll join up in a few days. Have fun kids! We love you! pic.twitter.com/OfMEpVF1er

— Gary Sinise (@GarySinise) December 8, 2018

TRENDING: Report: Ocasio-Cortez Forgets What the Constitution Says Right Before Joking About Presidential Run

According to KCAL-TV, the Gary Sinise Foundation filled 15 planes full of Gold Star families to go to Walt Disney World down in Florida as a special Christmas present called the “Snowball Express.”

“Each one of these children who are going on these airplanes have lost a parent in military services – either combat related or illness or unfortunately suicide sometimes,” Sinise said.

“We wanna take care of these kids and make sure they know we don’t forget.”

“About 1,700 people from 15 locations across the country board the Snowball Express on their way to a 5-night vacation in Orlando, Florida,” KCAL reported.

To see them off from the West Coast, Santa Claus made an appearance (along with his better half) at Los Angeles International Airport on Saturday morning, arriving via helicopter.

The first person in line to meet Santa was young Desmond, whose father Army Sgt. Myles Penix died back in 2016.

“I (didn’t know) that he would be here in a helicopter — I thought he was gonna be jumping out of there in a parachute,” Desmond said.

Desmond was enjoying the trip, as was his mother Jade; She said the trip was important in the healing process.

RELATED: Gary Sinise Has Unforgettable Gift for Gold Star Families, Where Is His Time ‘Person of the Year’ Nomination?

“It’s just important ’cause of all of the bonding that we get to do. He gets to find friends who are just like him, and I get to find ones that have lost just like me,” she said.

“It’s easier when you find people who’ve gone through the same thing. So it’s an amazing experience. All of the different tributes they have, and all of the different balloon releases where I get to write a message to my husband; it’s amazing.”

As Twitchy noted, there were plenty of people giving Sinise plaudits on social media.

A good man doing great work for the children of the best men who did the worst work. God bless @GarySinise, these Gold Star children and their parents who gave all for them and our nation. https://t.co/G65tyZcbG2

— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) December 10, 2018

Why is it that whenever I read things like this I get something in my eye? I swear it’s sand in my eye…

— Chris Willis (@CWillis191) December 10, 2018

You and all those who work so hard for these people are amazing. You truly are a special person.

— Truth be told (@Truthbe46567003) December 10, 2018

A good man doing great work for the children of the best men who did the worst work. God bless @GarySinise, these Gold Star children and their parents who gave all for them and our nation. https://t.co/G65tyZcbG2

— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) December 10, 2018

It just goes to show how amazing Gary Sinise is. Our hats are off to you as always, Lt. Dan. Dare we suggest, as Twitchy did, that he should be Time’s “Person of the Year”?

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The congress that keeps kicking the can down the road.

Via Washington Times:

Democratic congressional leaders are loath to acknowledge it, but President Trump has them cornered with his threat to terminate NAFTA if his new trade deal with Mexico and Canada isn’t approved.

Scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement without a replacement would deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. economy. In the short term, it would reduce real U.S. gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — by as much as $231 billion, more than 1 percent during the first five years, according to an analysis commissioned by the Business Roundtable.

“Terminating NAFTA would have negative impacts on jobs, exports and output even after new supply chains are formed. In this longer run, we estimate that U.S. GDP would remain depressed by over 0.2 percent, permanently,” said the report for the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations.

The impact on the U.S. GDP, about $19.3 trillion in 2017, would depend on the reactions of Mexico and Canada. Alternative scenarios in the analysis pegged the reduced annual GDP at $119 billion to $231 billion, with job losses from 1.8 million to 3.6 million in the five-year window.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who next year will take charge of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade agreements, said the president has Congress over a barrel.

“It seems to me it is going to force Congress to act — even if you disagree with parts of it,” he said in an interview on the “Adams on Agriculture” program on the American Ag Radio Network.

“Now that is a hard-nosed approach, but sometimes a president has to use that if he wants to get things accomplished,” Mr. Grassley said.

Keep reading…

The most predictable thing about the climate these days is the sensationalism we see in the headlines.

“The weather of Washington’s future: Hellish heat and high water,” the Washington Post wrote after the National Climate Assessment was released. “New U.S. climate assessment forecasts dire effects on economy, health,” said NPR. And not to be outdone, CBS News claimed “Mass deaths and mayhem: National Climate Assessment’s most shocking warnings.”

It’s not a new trend, but it’s worth pointing out again. Headlines often overstate the actual content of the report, and the report itself often overstates the data.

Let’s take those “mass deaths” (leaving aside the mayhem for the moment). What does the report actually say?

“The health and well-being of Americans are already affected by climate change, with the adverse health consequences projected to worsen with additional climate change,” the National Climate Assessment reads.

More specifically, “In 49 large cities in the United States, changes in extreme hot and extreme cold temperatures are projected to result in more than 9,000 additional premature deaths per year under a higher scenario by the end of the century, although this number would be lower if considering acclimatization or other adaptations (for example, increased use of air conditioning).”

That estimate is based on a 2016 study that applies mortality data to climate models that predict more and more intense heatwaves. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find there’s some real uncertainty about those numbers.

That study references a research letter published in 2016 by the American Geophysical Union.

“These probabilities are typically computed using ensembles of climate simulations whose simulated probabilities are known to be imperfect,” the letter reads. “… Climate model ensembles tend to be overconfident in their representation of the climate variability which leads to systematic increase in the attributable risk to an extreme event.”

As for heatwaves, the reality is that far more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat.

Even those deaths are difficult to pin on extreme temperatures. Rather, scientists say preexisting conditions can often be exacerbated by extremes. Making projections 50 years out is difficult, and far from “settled science.”

Still, we know what prevents many of those deaths—from both extreme cold and extreme heat. It’s affordable, reliable energy. People cool and heat their homes when they can afford to. Misguided policies like the carbon tax, designed to curb energy usage, would send electricity bills soaring and would achieve the opposite of the National Climate Assessment’s goals.

Energy poverty is deadly, as the European Union is learning. Just last year it established a commission to address the problem.

“More than 50 million households in the European Union are struggling to attain adequate warmth, pay their utility bills on time, and live in homes free of damp and mold,” the EU says. “Awareness of energy poverty is rising in Europe and has been identified as a policy priority by a number of EU institutions, most notably in the European Commission’s ‘Clean Energy for All Europeans’ legislative package.”

But back to the U.S.’s National Climate Assessment.

The report also presents some scary predictions for the economy. A highly quoted headline cites that the economic damages from climate change could amount to 10 percent of annual U.S. gross domestic product in 2090. The obvious criticism is that this headline uses the highest estimate of a model where the average cost estimate is around 3 percent.

But digging deeper, there are other questions to be posed about how these economic impacts are calculated.

Premature deaths from extreme temperature (9,300 per year) are said to amount to $140 billion in annual losses. How is it that each premature death is given an economic cost of more than $15 million? Is it reasonable to place an economic value on a theoretical loss of life due to climate change, similar to the way we estimate property damage?

These questions must be asked before we take these “projected costs” at face value.

There’s a real danger here, and that’s in responding to the National Climate Assessment in a way that will make things worse, not better. Already, a carbon tax bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would make energy more expensive for American families.

The other danger is in responding to the headlines, not the data. We know the National Climate Assessment is good for frightening news stories. But public policy must be based on solid information, not scary interpretations.