Podcast/Archive

With a great cast, bestselling source material and acclaimed filmmakers in command, “The Snowman” should have been a solid thriller. Sadly, it’s an icy misfire. Michael Fassbender plays a detective on the trail of a cunning serial killer who leaves creepy snowmen at his crime scenes. The pace drags and the story is filled with multiple dangling plot threads. “The Snowman” is a frosty fizzle.

 

The tragedy that befell the Granite Mountain Hotshots gets the big screen treatment in “Only the Brave.” Josh Brolin is rock solid as the supervisor of a crack team of Arizona firefighters who work hard and sacrifice much to protect lives and property. Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly and Jeff Bridges are among the supporting players who help this otherwise melodramatic story catch fire. It’s a fitting tribute to those who heroically put themselves in harm’s way.

 

“Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House” is a bleak and lackluster biopic about the man who was instrumental in the Washington Post’s investigation of the Watergate Scandal. Liam Neeson plays Felt, a high-ranking FBI official who, as Deep Throat, secretly walked an ethical tightrope to bring White House criminals to justice. Skip this one and watch the 1976 flick “All the President’s Men” instead.

 

Also opening this week, Tyler Perry returns yet again as Madea in “Boo 2: A Madea Halloween.” The weather goes wacky in the sci-fi adventure, “Geostorm.” “Loving Vincent” is the world’s first fully oil painted animated feature film inspired by the masterpieces of Vincent Van Gogh. “78/52: Hitchcock’s Shower Scene” is a documentary about the infamous scene from “Psycho.” “Bonehill Road” is a werewolf movie from KC based filmmaker Todd Sheets. “Hunters: The Art of the Scare” is a documentary about commercial haunted houses.


“American Made” tells the remarkable true story of Barry Seal, a TWA pilot who was recruited by the CIA to do aerial reconnaissance over Central America in the 1980s. Tom Cruise plays Seal, who became a drugs and arms smuggler and eventually established a secret training ground for Nicaraguan Contras in Mena, Arkansas. The movie was directed by Doug Liman (“The Bourne Identity”).

Take Two: “American Made”
Episode date : October 20, 2017
On Take Two
Play

Trump’s Decertification of Iran Nuclear Deal Isolates and Weakens U.S.
Interview with Jamal Abdi, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, conducted by Scott Harris

President Donald Trump announced on Oct. 13 that he is formally “decertifying” the international nuclear agreement with Iran. While Trump has stated that “The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States ever entered into,” he declined to terminate the Iran nuclear agreement. Instead, he moved the issue to Congress, where legislators will engage in a 60-day period of debate on whether or not to re-impose economic sanctions against Iran that had been in effect before the nuclear deal was signed in 2015. Re-imposition of the sanctions will effectively withdraw the U.S. from the nuclear agreement.

While Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran has violated the “spirit” of the agreement, the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran is in compliance. The other signatories to the deal: Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany all have maintained their support for the deal, just as Trump’s own Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the Pentagon’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph F. Dunford have publicly expressed support for the agreement.

Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Jamal Abdi, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, who assesses the fallout from Trump’s decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal and warns that a move to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement will isolate and undermine U.S. credibility around the world.

JAMAL ABDI: By decertifying, it doesn’t do anything on its own. But what it does is it kicks off a 60-days period in Congress where there are expedited rules to introduces sanctions legislation to snap back the sanctions that were eased under the nuclear deal. Now, that 60-day window is open and what it means it that if the majority or minority leaders in either the House or the Senate – if they introduce legislation that specifically snaps back the nuclear sanctions – no other sanctions, only the sanctions that were lifted under the deal – that legislation is guaranteed to get a vote. It can’t be stopped in committee, it goes to the floor in the Chamber it’s introduced in, it gets a vote it gets passed to the other Chamber and the key is that in the Senate, there is no filibuster. It is a straight, simple majority vote.

So unlike when the deal actually got through Congress and you had every single Republican voting against it, but they had to hit that 60-vote threshold. Now, we’ve got this simple majority, and so, this is sort of a conundrum that this Congress has had under Trump – this Republican Congress – his responsibility of governing. So really, nobody in Congress, even those people who oppose the deal, they don’t actually want to kill the thing, they just want to rack up these political points and say how much they hate it.

But what Donald Trump has effectively done unwittingly is kind of call their bluff and now it’s up to either Kevin McCarthy in the House or Mitch McConnell in the Senate, if they introduce that snap-back legislation, it’s going to get a vote. Either enough Republicans are going to have to vote to protect the deal, or they vote against it; the sanctions snap-back and then the U.S. is then in violation of the deal.

That means basically, the U.S. exits the deal and then we find out okay, can the deal be salvaged by just, you know Europe, Russia, China and Iran. Or does Iran end up wanting to back out of elements of the deal? And it’s sort of a nightmare. Nobody really knows how that process plays out.

BETWEEN THE LINES: What’s the likely response in Iran to this ongoing process in the United States that jeopardizes this nuclear agreement? Especially from the hardline factions within the Tehran government?

JAMAL ABDI: For the hardliners, this a “I told you so” moment. The supreme leader, Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei, who has final say over these things. What the supreme leader said was, “Okay you can go ahead with these negotiations, that’s fine. But at the end of the day, you can’t trust the United States. Even if we deal with the nuclear issue, they’re just going to pivot and say there’s some other reason that they’re our enemy. And so, this a futile exercise. But you go ahead with it, I’m not going to stop you.”

And now, they’re really saying, “I told you so.” But I think inside of Iran, the challenge here is that actually, really, it sort of empowers the hard-liners and it sort of forces (Iranian President) Hassan Rouhani and the moderates – they’ve actually had to … Rouhani actually sort of challenged the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the hardline military wing in Iran, challenged them in his election, which is unprecedented and now, after what Trump did, he’s actually having to stand up to the IRGC.

So you sort of see the homogenization of the politics in Iran because of Trump’s move.

BETWEEN THE LINES: One last quick question. If either Congress or Donald Trump abrogate this international nuclear agreement with Iran, what are the consequences for U.S. credibility in the world? And I’m thinking about any hope there might be for some kind of nuclear control agreement with North Korea? It’s hard to understand how a country would approach the United States with Donald Trump in the White House to sign onto such an agreement.

JAMAL ABDI: Yeah, and we’re sort of talking about pulling up a thread of all of our diplomatic tools here. I think some of the damage has already been done. Now there’s a question of, well, we’ll deal with one president, and then the next president – who knows who’s going be elected. And they apparently don’t feel that they are beholden to the agreements that the country signed previously. So I think that, especially, when we look at North Korea, where this is going to be a huge diplomatic undertaking if we’re going to able to solve that challenge peacefully.

And all this has done is just sap our credibility and sapped our leverage to be able to ask for anything now that we’re not a trustworthy actor. So I think it’s extremely damaging to diplomacy and it sort of puts the U.S. in the position of the only tool that you can actually view as credible is military force. And that’s a really dark prospect, I think, going forward – not just for this presidency but for administrations to come, potentially.

For more information, visit the National Iranian American Council website at niacouncil.org.

With Obamacare Subsidy Cut, Trump Will Raise Insurance Premiums, Reduce Coverage
Interview with Eagan Kemp, health care policy advocate with Public Citizen, conducted by Scott Harris

After several major attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, President Trump issued two executive orders on Oct. 12 with the stated goal of dismantling his predecessor’s landmark healthcare legislative achievement. The first executive order asks the Labor Department to loosen rules that permit small companies to form associations and buy the kind of coverage available to larger businesses. These plans would have lower standards and cover far fewer healthcare costs. The second executive order ends $9 billion in subsidies paid under the Obamacare program to reduce the cost of health insurance for low-income Americans. Ironically, nearly 70 percent of those benefiting from subsidies cut by the president live in states Trump won in the 2016 presidential election.

Taken together, Trump’s two executive orders will result in an increase in the number of Americans without health insurance, the erosion of health insurance standards, substantial increases in insurance premiums, market instability and increased expenses for the federal government. The day after the executive orders were issued, 18 U.S. states sued the president to stop him from ending the payment of Obamacare subsidies.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, agreed in principle on a bill that would cover the subsidy payments for two years, but the fate of that legislation is uncertain at best. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Eagan Kemp, health care policy advocate with Public Citizen and a former senior policy analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Here, he examines the impact of President Trump’s recent executive orders on the U.S. health care system.

EAGAN KEMP: Millions of Americans will experience either higher premiums or they may be scared away from getting coverage because there’s going to be some sticker shock even if their premiums might cover some of the cost changes.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Do we have an estimate of how many people could lose their health insurance over the course of the next year once these specific subsidies disappear?

EAGAN KEMP: We don’t have an exact estimate but there’s a potential of millions of folks losing their coverage. The other that Trump had said that he was hoping that this was do was to save money, but that we also know that’s not the case based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. Ultimately, even though they’re cutting these subsidies, it will cost the federal government nearly $200 billion over the next decade because the insurance companies are now going to need to charge higher premiums, but because of the way the law is structured, those increases will be covered by the federal government.

There will be around 1.5 to 2 million folks that are going to see direct increases that won’t be covered by the subsidies that they’re getting.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Now how about the association health plans. What kind of impact does the Trump executive order on the association health plans have on the overall insurance market?

EAGAN KEMP: That one’s pretty significant as well, and the implications there could be far-ranging. And the implications there could be far-ranging. So this particular executive order, it directs certain parts of the federal government to make new rules or regulations. And what’s scaring people is that the way it could be written it could allow companies to sell across state lines and so, something that we experienced before the Affordable Care Act was a race to the bottom in terms of insurance standards.

So there were companies offering junk plans that could be sold across state lines and that’s sort of the fear that it could go back to that. So things that often weren’t covered previously were maternity care, or mental health services or severe limitations on prescription drugs. And the real fear is that folks could end up thinking that they’re less, but what they’re paying for is a junk plan that won’t cover them when they get sick.

BETWEEN THE LINES: What are the wider societal ripple effects from having these plans that don’t really cover what they cover currently because of the ACA standards?

EAGAN KEMP: One of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act is a reduction in the amount of debt Americans are taking on due to medical expenses. Folks are able to get coverage earlier. They’re able to maintain coverage without the proper regulation, someone could think that they’re signing up for something good, and then once they get sick realize that they have to bear all that expense, which may mean taking on medical debt. It may mean declaring bankruptcy.

BETWEEN THE LINES: As I’ve been reading about these changes, one of the warnings that has been written about by a lot of commentators in those inside the health insurance industry, is a general concern about what they call destabilization of the health insurance marketplace – which means you might have more health insurance companies pulling out of the Obamacare exchanges. But the effects could go further than that, I’ve been reading. Tell us what your concerns are about the stability of the marketplace.

EAGAN KEMP: Some states they had their insurance companies provide two sets of rate increases. And so some states, insurers said, “We expect to raise it 8 to 10 percent” and then if the state asked them for the second set, it might have been 20 to 30 percent. And that’s a big difference. And all of a sudden, if you’re an insurer you’re about to start opening your market and start recruiting folks, so now you’re having to have these much higher premiums. So anyone looking on any sort of state exchange or federal exchange, they’re seeing some really high prices and they might step away. And if there’s less folks enrolling, that means that the folks that are left who may be sicker, are going to be facing even high premiums over time. And that’s one of the real concerns about sort of the destabilization – you’d have insurance companies with these junk plans cherry-picking the healthy people out of the market, which are just going to leave sick folks in the actual ACA-regulated plans, meaning they’re going to be paying outrageous sums and just may not be solvent. An insurance company can’t only be insuring the sickest folks.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Eagan, what do we know about public opinion on Obamacare, whether to repeal, replace this kind of direct sabotage that we see from the White House? Do know how Americans, by and large, feel Congress and the White House should be moving in terms of improving the health care system of the country?

EAGAN KEMP: One thing we’re seeing is that throughout the repeal and replace efforts, the Affordable Care Act has only gotten more popular. We’re seeing the majority of Americans of approving of what the Affordable Care Act does and wanting it to get continued. It’s a very small amount of Americans that want it repealed or repealed and replaced. Americans are realizing the importance that the Affordable Care Act has meant for them. And I think that’s only going to continue, especially if Americans continue to see higher premiums and polling also indicates that Trump doesn’t think he’s going to get blamed for this – he’s said that again and again that – but the polls don’t say that. The polls indicate that the Congress and Trump will be held accountable for the sabotage.

Citizen.org.

Trump Guts Obamacare Birth Control Mandate in Another Blow to Reproductive Rights
Interview with Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, conducted by Melinda Tuhus

In early October, the Trump administration announced a major rollback in coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which the Republican-dominated Congress has so far failed to repeal. Under the ACA, a suite of more than a dozen birth control options were required to be made available at no cost for women to choose the method best for them. That element of Obamacare was immediately challenged in court based on the argument that employers should not be forced to provide birth control if they objected based on their religious beliefs. A convoluted system was later devised to respond to those concerns, which allowed women to receive the birth control insurance coverage they needed.

According to the latest regulation issued by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, the head of virtually any company can now decide that providing birth control coverage violates their religious beliefs or moral view, and deny female employees free birth control coverage. The regulation went into effect on Oct. 6.

Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. She discusses how exemptions to the birth control mandate have grown over time, how the new rules change may affect women and how groups across the U.S. are fighting back.

LAURIE SOBEL: So, under the Obama administration, there were rules that were drafted to allow for religious employers to have an exemption, and that was limited to houses of worship, which had the effect of the women insured by those policies would not get contraceptive coverage.

Then there was a second category allowing for an accommodation, which allowed religiously affiliated non-profits, and then after the case of Hobby Lobby, closely held for-profits, to have an accommodation, which meant the employer had to notify someone – either their insurer or third party administrator or the government – that they had a religious objection to providing some or all contraceptive coverage and then the insurer was required to provide the coverage. So the effect on the people insured by those policies was that they still had full coverage for contraceptives with no cost sharing. It shifted who paid for the coverage.

BETWEEN THE LINES: But the Trump administration really blew a much bigger hole in the exemptions, right?

LAURIE SOBEL: Right. So now the exemption is expanded to everyone who previously had that accommodation, they can choose to stay with the accommodation or shift to an exemption, which has this impact that workers and their dependents would not have coverage anymore. So there was a group of non-profits in particular that had been litigating the accommodation, saying it didn’t go far enough to meet their needs in terms of their religious beliefs, that they felt they were complicit in providing that coverage if they had to notify someone who would then provide that coverage. So those non-profits that have litigated will likely opt for an exemption now, in addition the closely held for-profits can also opt for an exemption. That group of employers has not litigated the accommodation, but we don’t know to what extent they have been complying with the accommodation.

There’s a whole new group of employers that would now be eligible for the exemption, outside of those groups. So, in addition, any employer, regardless of whether they non-profit or for-profit, including publicly held companies, that have a religious objection to providing some or all contraceptive coverage, can be exempt. In addition, there’s a new category of employers that have a moral objection, and that’s open to any employer except publicly traded for-profits. So, all non-profits, and all for-profits that are not publicly traded can opt for an exemption based on a moral objection to some or all contraceptive coverage. There’s no definition of moral objection in the regulations.

BETWEEN THE LINES: So do the employers have to provide any kind of proof of their moral or religious opposition?

LAURIE SOBEL: There’s no proof that’s required.

BETWEEN THE LINES: Laurie Sobel, is there any way to figure out how many women could be impacted by these changes?

LAURIE SOBEL: No, we really don’t know. We certainly have no idea how many employers would take up a moral objection. There are numbers in the regulations that are really speculative; by regulations I mean the preamble before the regulations that the agencies wrote, that basically tried to figure out how many employers had litigated and based upon that how many would take the exemption as opposed to the accommodation and then trying to figure out how many employees each of those organization had. And the truth is, we really have no idea because this expands the categories so greatly that we don’t know which employers would take this up.

Certainly this is a big expansion of the exemption for this benefit, and it would be very hard to track how many women are affected because of the lack of notice that’s required to have this exemption, so there’d be no central place to know that employers notified their insurer or the government that they have a religious or moral objection. So it will become very difficult to track the number of women affected or the number of employers that have taken this on.

BETWEEN THE LINES: So these changes have already gone into effect, but what’s happening in the fight back?

LAURIE SOBEL: There’s active litigation going on already. The groups that I know about – I’m not entirely clear if they’ve all filed, but they’ve all announced they’re going to litigate – is the National Women’s Law Center, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the attorney general of California, and the attorney general of Massachusetts.

BETWEEN THE LINES: There’s a silver lining for women who live in states that guarantee more coverage than the federal government, right?

LAURIE SOBEL: There’s eight states that have their own laws that are at least as expansive as the ACA in terms of what’s required, so no cost sharing for coverage of contraceptive of all 18 methods; essentially it’s the ACA benefit required at the state level, and most of those states have a more narrowly defined exemption than is now in the federal law. So we know 61 percent of workers across the country that are covered; workers are insured by self-insured plans, and those aren’t regulated by the states. So that’s where the gap will be. So, if you’re an employer in California that has a moral objection and you have a self-insured plan, then you’re exempt from the federal law and you’re not covered by the state law.

This week’s summary of under-reported news

Compiled by Bob Nixon

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is waging an active campaign to discredit a new global estimate of modern slavery developed by the International Labor Organization, the International Organization for Migration and the Australia based Walk Free Foundation. The recently published reports estimate that 40 million people across the globe are victims of forced labor, forced marriage and human trafficking. The research found that over 60 percent of the victims of slavery live in the Asia-Pacific region. (“U.N. Denies India Singled Out Over Slavery Estimates,” Reuters, Oct. 6, 2017; “India Slammed for Slavery, We Need to Counter: IB to Govt,” Indian Express, Oct. 4, 2017)
Under intense pressure to end Chicago’s epidemic of violence, politicians and federal law enforcement agencies waged a new campaign against street level gun dealers. The new drive used paid informants who set up gun deals that entrapped numerous inner-city residents for selling guns. (“How Chicago Gets Its Guns,” ProPublica Illinois, Oct. 10, 2017)
Amid the fury of recent hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, Louisiana had made substantial investments in coastal land protection. This includes developing a new coastal floodgate system of levees and locks to protect Terrebonne Parish from storm surges. It’s one of the costliest infrastructure projects made without the aid of US government funding. (“In Race against Rising Seas, Louisiana Scrambles to Save Dwindling Coast,” Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 3, 2017)

Iran, ObamaCare
Episode date : October 20, 2017
On Between the Lines
Play

This week on CounterSpin: A human rights nightmare continues to unfold in Myanmar, as hundreds of thousands of Rohingya flee what a new UN report calls “coordinated and systemic” attacks by security forces and Buddhist-majority mobs, only to arrive—if they arrive—to horrific conditions in refugee camps in Bangladesh. What human rights groups have the called “ethnic cleansing” of the religious and linguistic minority, the Myanmar government of Aung San Suu Kyi calls “clearance operations,” aimed solely at ousting militants. Though the Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for generations, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient’s government maintains they are simply illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, where, as in Myanmar, Rohingya are denied citizenship.

You may have seen or read some of what the UN calls “bone-chilling” accounts of attacks on Rohingya people. What’s the history behind those accounts? Azeem Ibrahim is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy and author of The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Hidden Genocide. He’ll join us for an extended conversation about the roots of the current crisis and where we go from here.

Plus a quick look back at recent coverage of the continuing Puerto Rican disaster.


“Juror No 2”, as Lindy Lou Isonhood was known, talks about the impact that a death sentence had on her and other jurors in a case in Mississippi in which they reached a verdict to sentence Bobby Wilcher to death for the murder of a woman. Bobby had been convicted by another jury, but his original death sentence was set aside by an appeals court. Bobby was then sentenced to death a second time after a new sentencing trial. Lindy had reservations about the sentence and set out to find the other jurors nearly twenty-two years later to see if they had similar thoughts of regret. Lindy visited Bobby while he was on death row. He was executed and that event sparked a crusade by Lindy to reform the system. Lindy felt trapped by the jury instructions given by the Judge, making her feel like she had no choice. Lindy’s story is captured in a film, “Lindy Lou, Juror No. 2” which is currently being screened in some film festivals. Lindy is interviewed by host Craig Lubow in a two-part series. Other films and news stories have looked at the impact of the death penalty on the defendants’ families, the victims’ families, and on the Warden and doctors that must implement the death penalty. This is the first time that the impact on the jurors is examined.

Trailor: https://ff.hrw.org/film/lindy-lou-juror-number-2

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6340848/


Chautauqua hosts Julie Hume and Scott Easterday present a fascinating one hour Thursday Night Special on the concept of CHAOS (no, we are not talking presidential politics).  Dr John Symons expounds on the philosophical implications of chaos, from the early Greeks and ancient religions through the present.  Physicist Dr Richard Gordon explains chaos theory, including mention of the butterfly effect.  Rev. Dr Dwight Frizzell brings a selection of fractal music.


Free Speech on College Campuses

Last week an invited lawmaker was shut down form addressing Texas Southern University after protesters stormed the room calling him a racist. House Representative Briscoe Cain was asked to speak to the Thurgood Marshall School of Law by the Federalist Society about the recent legislative special session. But as he uttered a few words, he was shut down by students and then the Universitys President who claimed it was an unapproved event. It’s ironic that the school is named for the Supreme Court justice known for his exemplary record of protecting First Amendment rights.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also recently spoke–uninterrupted–at Georgetown University about free speech on American college campuses. He said, The right of free speech does not exist only to protect the ideas upon which most of us agree at a given moment in time, and encouraged students to: make your voices heard, [and] to defend the rights of others to do the same. Sessions joins a bipartisan chorus of public officials expressing support for free speech in academic institutions.

This summer, Senators Bernie Sanders and Mitch McConnell condemned efforts to shut down different viewpoints at schools. And in 2015, Barack Obama more than once defended the importance of free speech on campus. I dont agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view, he said at a September 2015 town hall.

The recent Sessions talk comes amid an uptick (1) in efforts to dis-invite controversial speakers of all ideological persuasions, (2) use of bias response teams to monitor unpopular speech, and (3) in unprecedented violence aimed at silencing off-campus speakers.

These are some of the findings from a recent study from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The comprehensive survey on students’ attitudes about free speech measured responses to questions about hate speech, guest speakers on campus, self-expression and reactions to expression of other students.

Guest -Will Creeley, Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on Americas college campuses.

—-

Tech Freedom on USA Liberty Act of 2017

Americans whose data is inadvertently swept up while the government monitors foreign intelligence risk having their information used for non-national-security related purposes.

Two weeks ago draft legislation was introduced to address this, but a broad coalition of civil liberties organizations say it doesn’t go far enough. They are calling on the House to close the so-called back-door search loophole by requiring a warrant based on probable cause for any search of information about U.S. citizens and residents. Similar to the USA Freedom Act of 2015, which ended the practice of bulk surveillance of American citizens under Section 215 of the 2001 PATRIOT Act, the current USA Liberty Act of 2017 would overhaul surveillance that is supposed to be limited to targets outside the U.S. but actually affects Americans. Section 702 expires at the end of December, which is why Congress is reassessing the program.

Currently, FISA surveillance is conducted under a warrant issued annually by the FISA court for a list of foreign intelligence targets. But law enforcement can access, and can use, Americans communications swept up in FISA surveillance with no warrant at all. This is even though U.S. persons communications require constitutional protections not afforded to foreigners.

The USA Liberty Act adds a warrant-like probable cause requirement before law enforcement can search the database, but also includes a sweeping, vague exception for foreign intelligence information and does not stop law enforcement from using that information for criminal prosecutions. This is a glaring violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Guest – Austin Carson, Executive Director of TechFreedom joins us to talk about this legislation, and the state of surveillance generally. Tech Freedom is a non-profit, non-partisan technology think tank launched in 2011 that focuses on issues of Internet freedom and technological progress.

————————————————–


Lamonte McIntyre, Wrongfully Convicted, 23 Years Imprisoned, How Did This Happen?

Lamonte McIntyre, Wrongfully Convicted, 23 Years Imprisoned, How Did This Happen? How many others has this happened to? How do we find the others and set them free? Is the real question, How can we keep this from happening again? The news is filled with this story of police corruption, coerced testimony and the 23 years spent behind bars on a wrongful conviction. This is not the first such case and will not be the last one either. What we as a community, as a society need to decide is what are we going to do to rectify these wrongs and what lengths will we go to find the other victims that are still behind bars?

Today host Latahra Smith of the KC Freedom Project talks with Lora McDonald of MORE2 about this case and MORE2’s efforts to bring this problem to the public’s attention. Lora is a close friend of the McIntyre family and will bring her own perspective to the issue. We also will be playing parts of the Wyandotte County Prosecutors Press conference after the hearing was over and the comments of Niko Quinn who was coerced into testifying against Lamonte and spend 20 years trying to tell authorities she had lied. We will also open the phone lines for your questions and comments.


Recent News

KKFI Jazz Calendar for March 6 – March 12

March 5, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on KKFI Jazz Calendar for March 6 – March 12
KKFI Jazz Calendar for March 6 – March 12

This is the KKFI Jazz Event Calendar for the week of Monday, March 6th to Sunday, March 12th. This is shared for the benefit of jazz music lovers. Please check with the music venue to confirm details of the event. …

Read More →

KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 27 – March 5

March 1, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 27 – March 5
KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 27 – March 5

This is the KKFI Jazz Event Calendar for the week of Monday, February 27th to Sunday, March 5th. This is shared for the benefit of jazz music lovers. Please check with the music venue to confirm details of the event. …

Read More →

Under the Radar’s Fifth Anniversary Show at KKFI

February 23, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on Under the Radar’s Fifth Anniversary Show at KKFI
Under the Radar's Fifth Anniversary Show at KKFI

On Sunday night, KKFI’s Under the Radar a weekly show featuring local artists and musicians celebrated it’s 5th Anniversary.  The show was a gathering of local musicians and supporters including: Drew Black and Dirty Electric, The Electric Lungs, Missouri Loves …

Read More →

KC for Refugees Fundraiser at Record Bar

February 23, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on KC for Refugees Fundraiser at Record Bar
KC for Refugees Fundraiser at Record Bar

Back on Jan 20th (Yea, yea I know.),  the Musicians for Active Justice held a fundraiser at the Record Bar for local non-profit KC for Refugees. The event featured a number of great local rock bands including:  Emmaline Twist, Hipshot Killer and (the)medicine theory. …

Read More →

KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 20 – February 26

February 20, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 20 – February 26
KKFI Jazz Calendar for February 20 – February 26

This is the KKFI Jazz Event Calendar for the week of Monday, February 20th to Sunday, February 26th. This is shared for the benefit of jazz music lovers. Please check with the music venue to confirm details of the event. …

Read More →

Morning Mix – Leftovers from The Winter Pledge Drive

February 14, 2017 By KKFI 90.1 FM Comments Off on Morning Mix – Leftovers from The Winter Pledge Drive
Morning Mix - Leftovers from The Winter Pledge Drive

Join Host Beth Pike as she dips her hand into the proverbial box of musical chocolates to see what “sweet” musical treats it brings.  We’ll start with some leftovers from the final show of the pledge drive, Paul McCartney and …

Read More →

Page 7 of 69« First...56789...203040...Last »