Tuesday, 7 February 2017

On any given night there are young people all over Northern NSW who need a safe home for a few nights.... and you can help!


Social Futures E-News February 2017:


Social Futures and Pathfinders are seeking Family Carers for HYAP (Homeless Youth Assistance Program) to open their hearts and homes for young people aged 12-15 years from Grafton to Tweed Heads.

Family Carers help young people to have some time out in a safe environment in order to help prevent them becoming homeless or being caught up in the cycle of homelessness.

Young people will be placed with Family Carers by our HYAP Case Managers for up to 28 days while they work with the young person and their family and extended family to heal ruptured family relationships and explore opportunities for long term, safe, supported accommodation.

http://socialfutures.org.au/given-night-young-people-northern-nsw-need-safe-home-nights-can-help/

 NOTE:

Social Futures: Northern Rivers Social Development Council is a community based, not-for-profit social justice organisation based in Northern NSW.

Doomsday Clock: three Democrats attempt to bell the cat


An attempt in the U.S. House of Representatives to limit President Tantrump’s access to nuclear weapons:

Introduced in House (09/27/2016)
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016
This bill prohibits the President from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.
"First-use nuclear strike" means a nuclear weapons attack against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or a U.S. ally.
Sponsored by: Ted Lieu, District 33 California
Co-sponsored by: James McGovern, District 2 Massachusetts and Raul M. Grijalva, District 3 Arizona

TEXT


114th CONGRESS
2d Session

H.R 6179

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 27, 2016
Mr. Ted Lieu of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL
To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
(2) The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.
(3) As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.
(4) Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.
(5) By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.
(6) A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.
(b) Declaration Of Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONDUCT OF FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.
(a) Prohibition.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.
(b) First-Use Nuclear Strike Defined.—In this section, the term “first-use nuclear strike” means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.

Monday, 6 February 2017

Trump to build The Wall and start roundup and gaoling of undocumented immigrants in the face of strong resistance


The Guardian, 26 January 2017:

An executive order on “sanctuary cities” signed by Donald Trump on Wednesday has placed in the crosshairs over 400 cities and counties that offer some form of safe haven to America’s 11 million undocumented migrants.

These localities include some of the largest, most progressive metropolises in the United States, many of which have already begun preparations to fight one of Trump’s most aggressive campaign pledges– to force compliance with federal immigration agencies in a bid to ramp up deportations. The beginnings of that pledge have now been formalised by executive action within Trump’s first week in office.

The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.

The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.

Trump’s mandate also issues an extraordinary instruction to the DHS to publish a weekly list of so-called “criminal actions” committed by undocumented migrants and publicly announce which jurisdictions had previously “ignored or otherwise failed” to detain the accused individuals.

The City and County of San Francisco is suing President Trump, the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Acting Attorney General alleging that the Executive order of 25 January 2017 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that In blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as “Sanctuary City” laws and policies.

On 31 January 2017 the City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated:

The president’s executive order is not only unconstitutional, it’s un-American…. That is why we must stand up and oppose it. We are a nation of immigrants and a land of laws. We must be the ‘guardians of our democracy’ that President Obama urged us all to be in his farewell address.....

This lawsuit is not a step I take lightly…..But it is one that is necessary to defend the people of this city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our Constitution or the rule of law. This country was founded on the principle that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to do its job for it, like carrying out immigration policy.  I am defending that bedrock American principle today.....

The Trump administration falsely believes that sanctuary cities harbor criminals and make communities unsafe.  To the contrary, any persons who is booked in San Francisco has their fingerprints sent to the federal government. If the federal government has a criminal warrant for that person, San Francisco complies with that.  Moreover, sanctuary cities have less crime, fewer people in poverty and lower unemployment than other counties, according to a recent study by Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions compared to non-sanctuary counties, according to Wong’s findings in a report for the Center for American Progress. 

On 3 February 2017 The Globe and Mail reported:

Tom Cochran, the chief executive of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said he has never seen an atmosphere like this in his four decades at the organization, not even in the waning days of the Nixon administration. “It’s totally different from anything we’ve ever seen,” he said.

Mr. Cochran said his group is pushing back against Mr. Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, both in public and in private. He has requested a meeting with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, who has much of the responsibility for implementing the sanctuary cities order. Mr. Cochran intends to bring city police chiefs to the meeting to explain why they feel fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement is important for public safety.

Some cities are disputing that the Trump definition of a "sanctuary city" applies to them.

BACKGROUND


Too many Liberal and Nationals MPs keep quiet while this sort of stress is happening to people in their electorates


Yet more examples of the Turnbull Government’s Centrelink automated ‘debt’ recovery debacle made it into the media………

Penrith City Gazette, 27 January 2017:

A Glenmore Park woman has described being sick with stress after Centrelink slapped her with a $35,000 debt bill, only to have it reduced to $173 a week later.

The woman, who is known to the Gazette but wishes to remain anonymous, was caught up in the controversial Centrelink crackdown on alleged overpayments earlier this month after being informed she owed the government agency $2,795.87, but was not told why.

After providing further financial information, she then received a Centrelink letter claiming she owed a whopping $35,147.16 just one week later.

The woman described being in tears and shaking as she repeatedly called both Centrelink and the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the debt.

On January 17 the woman was contacted by Centrelink and told she had in fact only been overpaid on three days six years ago, and the new debt was just $173.51.

Lindsay Labor MP Emma Husar said her office had been contacted several times after receiving similar notices from the automated system, which compares Centrelink and Tax Office records, many around Christmas time.

“This particular case highlights the incompetence of the system – a $35,000 debt notice reduced to $170 after two weeks on the phone, worrying and stressing,” she said.

My daughter has been fighting #centrelink incorrect debt since Nov. Since that time her debt has changed from 4k to 6k & today it dropped to
     RETWEETS11
      LIKES7
     
3 replies11 retweets7 likes
Reply

      leisa @thisleisa  
         2k on completion of appeal. Guy she spoke to said 'he' dropped it significantly as it was 'obvious'   she had genuinely tried to report
4 replies 3 retweets 3 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
         correctly. So this amount is not based on any disparate figures. It's been at his discretion. I'm          trying to encourage her to keep fighting
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
 but as she was already advised to start paying back debt ($10pf) before completion of appeal, she  just feels like this is the easy option.
1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
 She's been fighting it for months. Goes to work in tears everyday. The whole thing has been  designed to grind her down & I'm afraid its
1 reply 5 retweets 6 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
 succeeded. And I can understand. An incorrect debt of 2k is better than 6k. But on the same hand  it's not her debt. It's a dismal cockup.
1 reply 4 retweets 11 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
 And I've been gently encouraging her to keep fighting today. Got some good advice but it's not me  fighting. Hate seeing her in this position
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      leisa @thisleisa  
 She's a good girl, good mother who works hard. She also votes. And so does every member of her  family & we wont forget her pain.
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes
 @janecat60 it's been a horrible shit show Jane. This kid has been back at work since O was not  even 1yo. So unfair.

And yes, Nationals Kevin Hogan MP I’m looking straight at you because these so-called payment discrepancy notices are also turning up in letter boxes across the Northern Rivers region and specifically in your electorate.

Note

Centrelink direct freecall numbers:

Debt recovery - 1800 076 072
Payment Integrity - 1800 194 053
Customer Compliance - 1800 086 400