President Donald Trumpunveiled a plan to win over the African American vote on September 25, less than two months before Election Day, primarily expanding upon the existing economic-related initiatives the President established in his first term. The proposals include prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan and Antifa as terrorist organizations, making Juneteenth a federal holiday, and bolstering Black economic prosperity. During an Atlanta event announcing what was deemed the Black Economic Empowerment “Platinum Plan,” Trump sought to draw contrasts between his plan for the African American community and Joe Biden’s proposals, arguing that the former vice president “inflicted” damage on the Black community over the last 47 years he’s spent working in Washington. Trump garnered just 8% of the African American electorate in 2016, and an average of recent 2020 polls shows Biden leading Trump with African American voters by an 83% to 8%, or 75-point, margin. “They only care about power for themselves, whatever that means. My opponent is offering Black Americans nothing but the same old, tired, empty slogans,” President Donald Trump argued.
Like many other Republican politicians since the 1960s, President Donald Trump has presented different racial messages when playing to diverse audiences. He defended Confederate symbols. He has called the Black Lives Matter movement a “symbol of hate,” days after retweeting and then deleting a video that included a Florida supporter shouting “White power.” The White House has maintained that Trump did not hear the supporter say the phrase. But on September 25, the President spoke about the pillars of the plan in broad terms, saying, that among other proposals, he would be building up “peaceful” urban neighborhoods with the “highest standards” of policing, bringing fairness to the justice system, expanding school choice, increasing African American home ownership and creating a “national clemency project to right wrongful prosecutions and to pardon individuals who have reformed their (lives).”
The proposal borrows efforts from proposals by other Republicans, such as South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who played a vital role in the establishment of opportunity zones and remains the sole African American Republican in the Senate. For example, President Donald Trump’s plan proposes making lynching a national hate crime. In 2019, Scott co-sponsored legislation to make lynching a hate crime alongside none other than California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, who is now the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. The legislation passed in the Senate but was never passed by the House. As demonstrations rocked the country this summer protesting against police brutality and racism following the death of George Floyd, President Trump sought to console African Americans who have died as a result of police violence. However, he has consistently delivered a law and order message, calling demonstrators “thugs” and “anarchists” and rebuking what he said was protesters’ “mob rule.” A Monmouth University poll released earlier this month found that 82% of Black respondents said Trump’s handling of the protests made the current situation worse.
President Donald Trump’s proposed “Platinum Plan” also proposes recognizing Juneteenth, the widely observed holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States, as a federal holiday. The Trump campaign scheduled a rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of a 1921 massacre of hundreds of African Americans during racial unrest in the historic section of the city known as “Black Wall Street.” President Trump said before the rally that it was not scheduled on Juneteenth “on purpose,” but after the event, which his campaign rescheduled in order to avoid further criticism, he sought credit for popularizing the holiday. Trump told The Wall Street Journal that “nobody had ever heard of” the holiday before he brought it up. “I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said. In June, several senators, including Tim Scott and other Republicans, co-sponsored legislation to make Juneteenth a national holiday.
Overall, President Donald Trump’s recently-proposed “platinum plan” represents significant outreach on the part of a Republican Presidential candidate to make inroads with African American voters. Despite his recent outreach to African American voters, President Trump faces an uphill battle at gaining African American support. For example, a January 2020 Washington Post poll found that than 8 in 10 African Americans believe Trump is racist and has contributed to making racism a bigger problem in the US. A majority of the poll’s respondents, 58%, said Trump’s actions as president are “very” bad for African Americans in the nation. Trump has roundly denied accusations of racism. As President, he has faced blistering criticism over his public and private statements, like in 2017, when he blamed “both sides” after violence sparked by a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Trump also privately referred to some African nations as “s***hole countries” and criticized the protests led overwhelmingly by black NFL players. Last year, the US House of Representatives voted to censure the President’s comments when he told four congresswomen of color to “go back” to where they came from.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden urged Senate Republicans on September 21 not to vote on any candidate nominated to the US Supreme Court as the November election nears, calling President Donald Trump’s plan an “exercise of raw political power.” Biden said that if he wins the Presidential election, he should have the chance to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. The former Vice President rejected the idea of releasing the names of potential nominees, saying that doing so, as President Trump did, could improperly influence those candidates’ decisions in their current court roles as well as subject them to “unrelenting political attacks.” He reiterated his pledge to nominate an African-American woman to the court, which would be a historic first, if he has the opportunity.
Earlier on September 21, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she did not support Trump’s plan to move fast on filling the seat, becoming the second of the 53 Republicans in the 100-seat chamber to object publicly following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. On September 20, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the presidential election winner should pick the nominee. She is locked in a tight re-election battle and is currently polling behind her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon. On the other hand, Lisa Murkowski’s Senate term does not end until 2022, though she is expected to face a tough primary election fight against 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, another moderate Republican, said in a statement he did not object to a vote, adding: “No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year.”
Democrats noted that in 2016 Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on a Democratic appointee on the grounds that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer did not rule out that his party might move in the future to end the filibuster, a procedural tactic under which the support of 60 members is required to move to a vote on legislation if the Republicans went ahead with the nomination. “We first have to win the majority. … But if we win the majority, everything is on the table,” he said. A majority of Americans, some 62% including many Republicans, told a Reuters/Ipsos poll that they thought the winner of the November election should get to nominate a justice to fill the vacancy. Justice Antonin Scalia, a close friend of Ginsburg’s, died in February 2016, but McConnell blocked a vote on Democratic President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death upended the November election campaign, energizing both President Donald Trump’s conservative base, eager to see the court overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, and presenting new complications in the battle for control of the US Senate. “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” President Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, where supporters chanted: “Fill that seat.” Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have time to schedule a vote. While elections are on November 3, a new Congress will not be sworn in until January 3, with the winner of the presidential contest inaugurated on January 20.
Republican Senator John Barrasso, the second-highest-ranking Senate Republican and a strong ally of President Donald Trump on nearly every policy issue brushed off Democratic complaints in a September 22 interview. “Let’s be very clear – if the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court,” Barrasso said. Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom President Trump defeated in the 2016 election, called that view “indefensible.” “What’s happening in our country is incredibly dangerous,” said Clinton, whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, nominated Ginsburg to the court in 1993. “Our institutions are being basically undermined by the lust for power.”
The US Justice Department on September 21 threatened to revoke federal funding for New York City, Seattle, and Portland, saying the three cities were allowing Anarchy and violence on their streets. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. In a joint statement, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan accused the Trump administration of playing politics and said withholding federal funds would be illegal. “This is thoroughly political and unconstitutional. The president is playing cheap political games with congressionally directed funds. Our cities are bringing communities together; our cities are pushing forward after fighting back a pandemic and facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, all despite recklessness and partisanship from the White House,” they said.
The September 22 threat by Attorney General William Barr to revoke federal funds was the government’s latest escalation in its quest to curb the protests. It comes after President Donald Trump earlier this month issued a memo laying out criteria to consider when reviewing funding for states and cities that are “permitting anarchy, violence, and destruction in American cities.” The criteria include things such as whether a city forbids the police from intervening or if it defunds its police force. In all three cities, the Justice Department said, the leadership has rejected efforts to allow federal law enforcement officials to intervene and restore order, among other things. In a press briefing earlier on September 21, New York City Corporation Counsel Jim Johnson promised a court battle if the Trump administration proceeds to cut off the funds. “The president does not have the authority to change the will of Congress,” he said. “The designation of ‘anarchy’ doesn’t even pass the common sense test. If need be we can send, in addition to our legal filings, a dictionary. Because what we have in New York is not anarchy.”
A US Appeals Court on September 14 sided with President Donald Trump over his administration’s decision to end humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the US for decades. In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of three judges in the California-based 9thCircuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had blocked President Trump’s move to phase out so-called Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The ruling is expected to affect the status of people from Honduras and Nepal, who filed a separate lawsuit that was suspended last year pending the outcome of the broader case. The appeals court ruling means that those immigrants will be required to find another way to remain in the US legally or depart after a wind-down period at least until early 2021. Judge Consuelo Callahan, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in a 54-page opinion that the Trump administration decisions to phase out the protections were not reviewable and, therefore, should not have been blocked. Judge Callahan also rejected a claim by plaintiffs that President Trump’s past criticism of non-white, non-European immigrants influenced the TPS decisions. “While we do not condone the offensive and disparaging nature of the president’s remarks, we find it instructive that these statements occurred primarily in contexts removed from and unrelated to TPS policy or decisions,” she wrote.
An attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which represents plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said that they planned to seek another “en banc” review of the matter by 11 of the appeals court’s judges. The attorney, Ahilan Arulanantham, called the decision “deeply flawed” during a call with reporters, and said the case eventually could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, depending on the outcome of the request for a broader appeals court review. The termination of TPS for Haitians is also subject to separate litigation in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court heard arguments in that case in June but has not yet ruled.
President Donald Trump has made his tough immigration stance a hallmark of his presidency and the 2020 re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Joe Biden. TPS allows foreigners whose home countries experience a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other extraordinary events to remain in the US and apply for work permits. The status must be renewed periodically by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who can extend it for six- to 18-month intervals. The Trump administration has argued that most countries in the program have recovered from the related disasters or conflicts, while the status has been renewed for years beyond its need.
President Donald Trump announced on September 11 that Bahrain would establish full diplomatic relations with Israel, following the United Arab Emirates, in another sign of shifting Middle East dynamics that are bringing Arab nations closer to Israel. President Trump announced the news on Twitter, releasing a joint statement with Bahrain and Israel and calling the move “a historic breakthrough to further peace in the Middle East.” Speaking to reporters, the President said the 9/11 attacks‘ anniversary was a fitting day for the announcement. “There’s no more powerful response to the hatred that spawned 9/11,” he said. The announcement came after a similar one last month by Israel and the United Arab Emirates that they would normalize relations on the condition that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel did not follow through with plans to annex portions of the West Bank. Trump administration officials said they hoped that agreement would encourage other Arab countries with historically hostile, though recently thawing, relations with Israel to take similar steps. The deal, which isolates the Palestinians, comes as Trump tries to position himself as a peacemaker before the elections in November.
Joint Statement of the United States, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the State of Israel pic.twitter.com/xMquRkGtpM
Bahrain’s move was not unexpected. The tiny Persian Gulf kingdom was widely seen as the low-hanging fruit to be picked if all went well in the aftermath of the Emiratis’ announcement, analysts said. Bahrain, strategically significant as the home port for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, had already opened its airspace to new commercial passenger flights between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi. It was unclear whether the US or Israel had made any concessions to Bahrain in exchange for the agreement. When asked during a briefing for reporters, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, who helped broker the deal, did not respond directly.
Israel would always welcome the addition of another Arab country to the shortlist of those with diplomatic ties, but in Israel, the announcement landed with neither the surprise nor the weight of the Emirati decision. “Any Arab country is very important, for sure,” said Amos Gilead, a retired Israeli major general who leads the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. “It’s another precedent. But with all due respect, when you are small, you are small.” But Bahrain has outsize significance, said Kirsten Fontenrose, a former National Security Council senior director for Gulf affairs in the Trump White House who is now a director at the Atlantic Council. She noted that Bahrain was a close ally of Saudi Arabia, the true diplomatic prize for Israel.“Its importance is mostly because it’s an indication that the new leadership in Saudi Arabia supports normalization,” Fontenrose said. “Bahrain doesn’t make a foreign policy move without Saudi Arabia’s express permission.”
Israel and Bahrain have had unofficial ties on and off since the 1990s and enjoyed warm relations for several years. In 2019, Bahrain played host to a Trump administration conference promoting the economic aspects of its proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, during which Sheikh Khalid, a member of the Bahraini royal family who is now a diplomatic adviser to the king, gave friendly interviews to visiting Israeli journalists. “Israel is part of this heritage of this whole region, historically,” he said, adding that “the Jewish people have a place amongst us.”
Acting US Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told a former top aide to stop providing assessments of the threat of Russian interference in the 2020 Election and to play down US white supremacist activity, according to a whistleblower complaint released on September 9. Brian Murphy, a former Homeland Security deputy undersecretary for intelligence, said in the complaint that Wolf told him in mid-May to begin reporting instead on political interference threats posed by China and Iran and to highlight the involvement of left-wing groups in domestic disorder. The instruction had come to Wolf from White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Murphy cited Wolf as saying. The White House and Department of Homeland Security denied the claims. “Ambassador O’Brien has never sought to dictate the Intelligence Community’s focus on threats to the integrity of our elections or on any other topic; any contrary suggestion by a disgruntled former employee, who he has never met or heard of, is false and defamatory,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Matthews. Homeland Security spokesman Alexei Woltornist added: “We flatly deny that there is any truth to the merits of Mr. Murphy’s claim.”
US intelligence assessments that a Russian influence operation aimed at swaying the 2016 election in then-Republican nominee Donald Trump’s favor has overshadowed much of his presidency with a series of investigations being dismissed by Trump as a hoax. President Trump has expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government denied election meddling. US officials say Russia, China, and Iran have been working to influence the 2020 election between Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Brian Murphy’s complaint said he declined to comply with Chad Wolf’s order because doing so “would put the country in substantial and specific danger.” On a second occasion in July, Murphy said Wolf told him an intelligence notification on Russian disinformation efforts should be “held” because “it made the president look bad.” Murphy said that he “objected, stating that it was improper to hold a vetted intelligence product for reasons for political embarrassment. In response, Wolf took steps to exclude Murphy from relevant future meetings on the subject,” according to the complaint.
Brian Murphy filed the complaint on September 8 with the DHS Office of Inspector General. It was released on September by the intelligence committee of the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives. The complaint outlined other allegations of misconduct by Trump administration officials. Murphy said he was instructed by senior DHS officials to ensure that intelligence assessments he produced for former Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen supported administration claims that large numbers of suspected terrorists were entering the country from Mexico. Murphy said he declined to censor or manipulate the intelligence, believing this would be “improper administration of an intelligence program,” and that he warned one of the officials that doing so would constitute a felony. Officials said they would hold back one homeland threat assessment, according to Murphy, following expressions of “concerns” by Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, a top DHS official, about how it would “reflect upon President Trump.” Brian Murphy further said that two sections of the threat assessment particularly concerned the officials: one on white supremacist extremists and the other on Russian influence. Cuccinelli, Murphy said, told him to modify the section on white supremacists “in a manner that made the threat appear less severe, as well as include information on the prominence of violent ‘left-wing’ groups.” Murphy said he refused to make the requested changes, and advised Cuccinelli that doing so would amount to censorship of intelligence information.
President Donald Trump has ordered the Office of Budget Management to look into cutting federal funding to cities where he says “weak mayors” are allowing “anarchists” to “harm people, burn buildings, and ruin lives and businesses.” The official memo sent by President Trump to the OBM chief and Attorney General William Barr on September 2 accuses Democratic state leaders and mayors in cities including Portland, Seattle, and New York of allowing “persistent and outrageous acts of violence and destruction.” Trump has portrayed people attending the wave of protests across the nation, demanding social justice and fair treatment of minorities by law enforcement, as “thugs” and criminals as he campaigns for re-election on a tough “law and order” platform. On September 2, Trump said his administration would “do everything in its power to prevent weak mayors and lawless cities from taking Federal dollars while they let anarchists harm people, burn buildings, and ruin lives and businesses. We’re putting them on notice today.” “My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” he said in the memo to the OMB.
The President has squared off with local and state leaders for months, even using federal security forces in American cities to quell protests, on some occasions against the wishes of those leaders. President Donald Trump insists the unrest that was sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota and fueled by a series of subsequent incidents of police violence involving African-American men is the result, not of systemic racism in the US, but of Democratic officials failing to execute their duties. Many Democratic leaders, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, argue that the President’s tough stance and refusal to acknowledge any systemic problem in law enforcement has only served to increase the angst on American streets.
Leaders in President Donald Trump’s homestate of New York issued some of the sharpest rebukes over his threat to cut federal funding. “As much as Donald Trump wants New York City to drop dead, we will never let this stand. This has nothing to do with ‘law and order’. This is a racist campaign stunt out of the Oval Office to attack millions of people of color,” said Bill Neidhardt, spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, on Twitter. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was even more pointed, telling journalists that the President’s rhetoric would so enrage New Yorkers, that he “better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York.” “He can’t come back to New York. He can’t,” Cuomo said. “Forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York.” The governor said Trump was unwelcome as New York and its residents, “knows him for the joke that he is. The people who know him best, like him least.” The governor called Trump’s memo “an illegal stunt” in a Twitter post. “He is not a king. He cannot ‘defund’ NYC,” wrote Cuomo.
As much as Donald Trump wants New York City to drop dead, we will never let this stand.
This has nothing to do with "law and order". This is a racist campaign stunt out of the Oval Office to attack millions of people of color. https://t.co/w7tzJxc8wW
President Donald Trump said in the memo that Attorney General William Barr should report back within 14 days identifying any “anarchist jurisdictions” where officials “have refused to undertake reasonable measures” to stop violence or property destruction. He gives OMB acting director Russ Vought 30 days to direct “heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of federal grants.” It is not the first time Trump has tried to deprive US cities of federal funds for enacting policies he dislikes. There are still court battles playing out over the White House’s efforts to withhold crime fighting funds from cities and states that declare themselves “sanctuaries” for migrants and refuse to hand information over to federal authorities in a bid to protect individuals from deportation or prosecution.
Two lawmakers introduced a bipartisan measure on August 25 condemning the ring-wing conspiracy theory QAnon a week after President Donald Trump said the theory’s followers “like me very much” and QAnon-linked candidates won Republican congressional primary races across the country. Congressmen Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), and Denver Riggelman (R-VA), said their bill would make it clear the debunked conspiracy theory had no place in the American political mainstream. “Conspiracy theories that falsely blame secret cabals and marginalized groups for the problems of society have long fueled prejudice, violence and terrorism,” Malinowski said. “QAnon and the conspiracy theories it promotes are a danger and a threat that has no place in our country’s politics,” said Riggelman, who lost a Republican primary this year. The measure would condemn QAnon; ask federal law enforcement agencies to remain vigilant against violence provoked by conspiracy theories; and urge Americans to get information from trustworthy sources. The measure must first pass the House Judiciary Committee before it can be considered by the full House of Representatives.
The QAnon conspiracy theory, which the FBI has called a domestic terrorism threat, is based on unfounded claims that there is a “deep state” apparatus run by political elites, business leaders and Hollywood celebrities who are also pedophiles and actively working against President Donald Trump. The measure cites several incidents where QAnon adherents were linked to crimes they claimed were inspired by their beliefs, including the 2018 arrest of a man who plotted to plant a bomb in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda to raise awareness of the conspiracy theory. Political leaders have denounced the conspiracy theories. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Fox News last week, “There is no place for QAnon in the Republican Party.” And White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany dismissed the idea last week that the President supported the theory.
Despite the negative overall reaction to the QAnon conspiracy theory, several QAnon-linked candidates have nevertheless won Republican congressional primaries this year. One candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is likely to win the general election in her staunchly Republican district in northwestern Georgia. President Donald Trump called her a “future Republican Star” in a Twitter Post after her primary win, though Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Trump had not “done a deep dive into the statements” of Greene. President Trump said at his press briefing on August 19 that he did not know much about QAnon other than that “they like me very much, which I appreciate.” “These are people that don’t like seeing what’s going on in places like Portland, Chicago and New York and other cities and states,” he told reporters. “I’ve heard these are people that love our country.” When a reporter further explained the theory to Trump, including the belief that Trump is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals, Trump responded: “Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If I can help save the world from problems I’m willing to do it, I’m willing to put myself out there.”
Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up – a real WINNER!
The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded on August 18 as it detailed how associates of President Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help. The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.
The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on US elections. The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called the Russia investigations a “hoax,” said he “didn’t know anything about” the report, or Russia or Ukraine. He said he had “nothing” to do with Russia.
While the Mueller investigation was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn’t happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference. The report was released as two other Senate committees, the Judiciary and Homeland Security panels, conduct their own reviews of the Russia probe with an eye toward uncovering what they say was FBI misconduct in the early days of the investigation. A prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr, who regards the Russia investigation with skepticism, disclosed his first criminal charge Friday against a former FBI lawyer who plans to plead guilty to altering a government email.
Accusing New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy of a “brazen power grab,” President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has asked a federal judge to overturn New Jersey’s plan to send ballots to all 6.2 million registered voters this fall. The suit was filed in US District Court by the Trump campaign, joined by the Republican National Committee and the New Jersey Republican State Committee. Among their lawyers is state Senator Michael Testa (R-Cumberland County), a frequent critic of Governor Phil Murphy. “In the state of New Jersey, where their universal vote-by-mail system has already resulted in fraud and disenfranchisement, Governor Murphy continues to remove safeguards against abuse,” Trump campaign counsel Matt Morgan said. “With a stroke of his pen, the governor told his people their votes may not count – they may even be stolen – and that’s fine by him.”
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has sought to expand mail voting due to the coronavirus pandemic, and New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said the state will sue the US Postal Service over concerns the Trump administration is purposely crippling the agency ahead of the surge in mail-in ballots. Postmaster General Louis Dejoy on August 18 backed off on making changes blamed for delaying mail delivery, but Grewal said the lawsuit would proceed and the House is to vote on August 22 to rescind the adjustments to mail operations already made. “Governor Murphy has consistently put people ahead of politics and protected the health and safety of New Jersey residents throughout the pandemic, and his decision to allow universal mail in voting in the November election is no different,” state Democratic chairman John Currie said. “President Trump’s lawsuit is another clear attack on our democracy and on our voting rights, just like his efforts to destroy the Post Office and delegitimize the electoral process.” President Donald Trump and other Republicans, though, claimed that more absentee balloting would lead to more vote fraud. “We said every option was on the table,” New Jersey Republican Party Chairman Doug Steinhardt said. “We picked one. Governor Murphy, we’ll see you in court, again.” The Trump campaign also has sued Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Iowa, which also have sought to expand vote by mail, according to Rick Hasen a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, and author of a blog on election law.
Studies have shown vote by mail has not prompted widespread fraud, as Republicans have claimed. A 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University found that the rate of voter fraud for mail-in ballots was 0.00004% to 0.0009%. And the Washington Post found possible double voting or voting on behalf of dead people in just 372 of 14.6 million ballots cast in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, which send ballots to all registered voters as New Jersey plans to do this fall. Still, there were cases of voter fraud in Paterson’s municipal elections in May, where 800 ballots were thrown out and state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal brought charges against four individuals. “In New Jersey’s primary election, dead people voted, a mail truck carrying ballots actually caught fire, countless voters saw their ballots rejected, and the Democrat attorney general is prosecuting multiple people for fraud, yet Democrats still want to implement a rushed transition to an all-mail election,” Republican National Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said. Governor Phil Murphy acknowledged some problems with the July 7 primary, the first election conducted primarily by mail but said that the system overall worked well and county clerks will have a lot more time to prepare for the general election.
Primary turnout was 26% of New Jersey’s registered voters, the same percentage as the presidential primary four years ago. Both recorded the highest percentage turnout since 2008 when 35% of New Jersey voters cast ballots. “We think largely it was a very good result, particularly balancing the sacred right to vote at the center of democracy along with public health and respecting people’s health and the combination of vote-by-mail and in-person,” Governor Phil Murphy said August 10 at his coronavirus press briefing. He also contended that the fact that the Paterson voter fraud was easily found showed that systems are in place to prevent ballots from being cast illegally. “I view that data point in Paterson as a positive one,” Murphy said during his coronavirus press briefing. “People tried to mess with the system and they got caught and they’ve been indicted, and that’s the way it should be.”
President Donald Trump and other Republicans have cited fear of fraud in fighting efforts across the country by states to send out ballots to all registered voters or count votes postmarked by Election Day but received later. They have been been able to be so active because this is the first presidential election in almost four decades where the Republican National Committee’s voter activities are not encumbered by court-ordered restrictions stemming from the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election. Those activities had been limited by a court decree after the state Republican Party was accused of targeting heavily minority communities that tend to support Democratic candidates.
Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) reached a landmark accord sealed by President Donald Trump on August 13 that could presage a broader realignment in the region as the two agreed to “full normalization of relations” in exchange for Israel suspending annexation of occupied West Bank territory. The deal was announced by President Trump, who told reporters in the Oval Office that he had a “very special call” with leaders from both countries, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, and that they had agreed to a peace agreement. Trump also tweeted a lengthy joint statement between the US, UAE and Israel, calling the agreement to “full normalization of relations” between Israel and the UAE a “historic diplomatic breakthrough.” The UAE and Israel plan to exchange embassies and ambassadors, according to the statement. It will be the third Arab country to overtly open relations with Israel, after Egypt and Jordan. “This deal is a significant step towards building a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East,” Trump said of the agreement. “It will be known as the Abraham Accord,” Trump said of the agreement, which, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said, is named for “the father of all three great faiths,” Christian, Muslim, and Jewish. “I wanted it to be called the Donald J. Trump Accord but I didn’t think the press would understand that,” Trump said to laughter.
Joint Statement of the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates pic.twitter.com/oVyjLxf0jd
The Trump administration maintained a tight hold on this announcement, with only a select few top State Department officials aware that this announcement was coming. Most working-level State Department officials were surprised when the announcement came, said two State Department officials speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record. Last week when an interagency delegation traveled to the UAE, a peace agreement with Israel was not discussed, the officials said. “This is a game-changer,” one of the officials said. “Simply put, this is breaking out of the mold.” The administration was able to seize on the UAE and Israel’s common enemy of Iran as a way to achieve this agreement, one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. While this is likely to ruffle feathers in other Arab capitals, it will ultimately create solidarity among a greater number of countries confronting Iran, this official said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a “historic evening,” adding: “A new era opens between Israel and the Arab world.” Speaking in Jerusalem, he said: “We are establishing full and official peace, full diplomatic agreement, with embassies, investments, commerce, tourism, direct flights between Tel Aviv and Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Asked whether it was right to characterize the UAE agreement as stopping annexation, Netanyahu said: “We received a request to wait temporarily from President Trump. It is a temporary postponement. It is not removed from the table, I am telling you that.” Israel’s opposition leader Yair Lapid congratulated Netanyahu, adding, “This step is proof that negotiations and agreements, not unilateral steps like annexation, which would harm Israel’s security, are the way forward for our diplomatic relations.” Israel’s Defense Minister and Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz lauded the agreement, saying it “highlights Israel’s eternal aspiration toward peace with its neighbors.”
Outside of Israel and the US, the international reaction to the peace agreement has been mixed. Whereas countries such as Egypt, China, and the UK praised the agreement as a major step forward in the Middle East peace process, other countries have expressed much criticism regarding the agreement. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced the agreement as a “betrayal of Jerusalem.” The PA also announced it was immediately withdrawing its Ambassador to the UAE, according to a statement on the Palestinian news agency Wafa. Officials from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected the agreement, as did the Palestinian sociopolitical group Hamas. Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesperson for Hamas, said in a statement: “We strongly condemn, in all possible ways, normalization with Israel, which is considered a stab in the back to the Palestinian cause, and will only encourage it to commit more crimes and aggressions against the Palestinian people.” Additionally, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif denounced the agreement as a “dagger that was unjustly struck by the UAE in the backs of the Palestinian people and all Muslims” and called upon the international community to continue to pressure Israel to end its human rights abuses against the Palestinian people.
At his Bedminster, New Jersey golf resort on August 10, President Donald Trumpsigned four executive actions to provide economic relief amid the coronavirus pandemic. The actions amount to a stopgap measure, after failing to secure an agreement with Congress. The three memorandums and one executive order called for extending some enhanced unemployment benefits, taking steps to stop evictions, continuing the suspension of student loan repayments, and deferring payroll taxes. President Trump promised that funds would be “rapidly distributed” to Americans in need, although it remains unclear whether the president has the authority to do certain steps unilaterally, without congressional approval. In any case, legal challenges are expected, which could delay any disbursement of funds.
In one memorandum, President Donald Trump authorized the federal government to pay $300 per week for people on unemployment. States would be asked to pay an additional $100, for a total of $400 weekly for unemployed workers. “If they don’t, they don’t. That’s up to them,” President Trump said when asked what happens if governors don’t have the funds available. “The states have money. It’s sitting there.” The previous enhanced unemployment benefits, which added $600 a week to standard state unemployment benefits, expired at the end of July. The text of the memorandum calls for up to $44 billion of federal funds for the benefits to come from the Department of Homeland Security’s Disaster Relief Fund. The White House said states could use funding from the March Coronavirus relief package, the CARES Act, to fund their portion of the benefits. Given the current number of Americans unemployed, those disaster funds would likely last only a handful of weeks.
In an executive order calling to minimize evictions, President Donald Trump directed various federal agencies to make funds available for temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners facing financial hardship caused by the Coronavirus. “It’s not their fault that this virus came into our country,” he said of renters and homeowners. “It’s China’s fault.” That order also directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to consider whether measures to temporarily halt residential evictions for failure to pay rent “are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19” from one state to another. A federal moratorium on evictions expired on July 24, allowing landlords to begin issuing 30-day notices to vacate their properties. It is estimated that the temporary ban on evictions covered more than 12 million renters, preventing them from being pushed out of their homes even if they could not pay rent.
President Donald Trump also extended relief for student loan borrowers. Student loan interest rates were cut to zero earlier this year, and students could suspend payments through September. President Trump directed the secretary of education to extend the relief through the end of the year and said an additional extension is likely. And a fourth action defers payroll tax collection for workers earning less than $100,000 a year, beginning September 1. “This will mean bigger paychecks [for a time] for working families, as we race to produce a vaccine and eradicate the China virus once and for all,” Trump told reporters. Trump said the “payroll tax holiday” would last through the end of the year but could be made permanent if he is reelected. The connection to November’s election wasn’t subtle. “If I’m victorious on Nov. 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. I’m going to make them all permanent,” Trump said, then turning to jab congressional Democrats and his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. “So they will have the option of raising everybody’s taxes and taking this away. But if I win, I may extend and terminate. In other words, I will extend it beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax. And so, we’ll see what happens.”
Both congressional Democrats and Republicans alike opposed this payroll tax proposal when President Donald Trump was trying to get them to include it in the coronavirus relief package. Payroll taxes fund Medicare and Social Security, and this deferral won’t do anything to help the millions of Americans currently unemployed. Trump is likely doing this through the same mechanism that allowed taxpayers to put off filing their taxes until July 15 this year, says Andrew Rudalevige, a professor at Bowdoin College who specializes in presidential executive actions. “The Treasury secretary is authorized to delay the deadline for any action required under tax law up to one year,” said Rudalevige, in the case of a federally declared disaster, and all states are currently operating under one because of the pandemic. “So payroll tax payments could under this provision be delayed. But not forgiven — those taxes are still owed.” There are already significant concerns about the long-term solvency of the popular social safety net programs. Reducing payroll taxes would hasten those problems.
President Donald Trump’s actions come after weeks of talks between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill over the next round coronavirus relief. As of August 8, they were still far from reaching an agreement. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to President Trump’s executive actions on August 9, calling them “unworkable, weak and narrow policy announcements.” In a statement, they called for Republicans to return to negotiations.
The US Economy added another 1.8 million jobs in July, a sharp slowdown from June and a small step for an economy that is still down almost 13 million jobs since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic. It was the third straight month of improvement after the spring lockdown that decimated the labor market, and the July job gain exceeded economists’ expectations. Even so, it was far fewer than the 4.8 million jobs added in June. The unemployment rate fell to 10.2%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported August 9 but remains above the recent highs of 10% that were recorded in November of 1982 and October of 2009.
Overall, the most recent jobs report presented a mixed picture, and economists are still trying to come to grips with how the labor market is behaving in this unparalleled situation. For example, the number of people working part-time rose by 803,000 to 24 million in total in July. The government defines part-time work as anything under 35 hours per week. “We added more jobs than most people expected, but the gains really were disproportionately part-time workers,” said Kate Bahn, economist, and director of labor market policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “To me that means even if workers are coming back it’s to jobs that pay less, and families will be worse off.” Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell in all demographic groups. The rate remains by far the highest for Black workers at 14.6%, which is concerning, Bahn said. “Research from previous downturns suggests that Black workers are the most likely to be displaced,” she added. Then there are seasonal adjustments, which are based on historical trends in the job market, but because the pandemic is unlike any other moment in history, they are distorting the data at the moment. Without seasonal adjustments, only 591,000 jobs were added in July.
One positive sign in this jobs report is the number of permanent job losses: it was more or less flat from June at 2.9 million. This might not sound exciting, but it would have been very bad news for the recovery had the number gone up. “Granted still more than double from before the crisis, but we’ll take the one-month reprieve,” said Daniel Zhao, senior economist at Glassdoor. Since the Coronavirus pandemic hit, the government has struggled to count the enormous number of people who are out of work. That’s in part because it has been increasingly difficult for workers themselves to discern whether they have been temporarily laid off or employed but not at work. The share of misclassified responses was smaller in June and July than in the months before, the BLS said. Including the misclassified workers, the July unemployment rate would have been about one percentage point higher than reported.
The reopening of the economy and a resurgence in Coronavirus infections in some states, paired with business and individuals running out of federal aid, has created a unique set of conditions for the jobs market. A survey from Cornell University showed that 31% of workers who were recently rehired have lost their jobs for a second time during the pandemic. Another 26% have been told that they might get laid off again. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said states with more Coronavirus cases since June also registered the weakest employment recovery. This was most notably true for Arizona, Florida, California, and Texas.
The August 9 jobs report comes during tense times in Washington, as Republicans and Democrats are butting heads over the next stimulus bill. One point of contention is the government’s boost of unemployment benefits. The CARES act provided a weekly boost of $600 to regular jobless aid. But this provision ran out on July 31. Now Congress is arguing about how to proceed: Democrats want to keep the $600 weekly supplement for the rest of the year, while Republicans want to cut it to $400 a week. For millions of Americans, the benefit expansion contributes a large portion of their income at the moment, so cutting it could hamper the recovery. At the same time, some economists believe that too much unemployment aid actually keeps people from returning to work. The question is what is too much aid during an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions.
The US Economy contracted at a 32.9% annual ratefrom April through June, its worst drop on record, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said on July 30. Business ground to a halt during the pandemic lockdown inbeginnign in early March of 2020, and America plunged into its first recession in 11 years, putting an end to the longest economic expansion in US history and wiping out five years of economic gains in just a few months. A recession is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. Between January and March, GDP declined by an annualized rate of 5%. But this is no ordinary recession. The combination of public health and economic crises is unprecedented, and numbers cannot fully convey the hardships millions of Americans are facing. In April alone, more than 20 million American jobs vanished as businesses closed and most of the country was under stay-at-home orders. It was the biggest drop in jobs since record-keeping began more than 80 years ago. Claims for unemployment benefits skyrocketed and have still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. While the labor market has been rebounding since some states began to reopen, bringing millions back to work, the country is still down nearly 15 million jobs since February.
The Coronavirus pandemic pushed the US economy off a cliff. The second-quarter GDP drop was nearly four times worse than during the peak of the 2007-2010 financial crisis, when the economy contracted at an annual rate of 8.4% in the fourth quarter of 2008. Quarterly GDP numbers are expressed as an annualized rate. This means that the economy did not actually contract by one-third from the first quarter to the second. The annualized rate measures how much the economy would grow or shrink if conditions were to persist for 12 months. Not annualized, GDP declined by 9.5% between April and June, or by $1.8 trillion. But by either measure, it was still the worst quarter on record. The US only began keeping quarterly GDP records in 1947, so it is difficult to compare the current downturn to the Great Depression. Earlier recorded quarterly declines also pale in comparison to this year. Between April and June of 1980 (the start of the 1980-82 recession), the economy contracted at an annual rate of 8% on the heels of rising oil prices and restrictive monetary policy to control inflation. Additionally, in early 1958, GDP declined by an annualized 10%, as production slowed and high-interest rates put an end to the post-World War II expansion. The downturn followed the Asian flu pandemic of 1957, which killed 116,000 people in the US, according to the Center for Disease Control.
In response to the Coronavirus pandemic shutdown, the US government has deployed trillions of dollars in monetary and fiscal stimulus to help the country through the recession. Loan programs for companies, expanded unemployment benefits, and checks sent directly to many Americans were designed to get the economy back on track as quickly as possible. Economists predict the current, third quarter of the year will witness a sharp upswing, with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, forecasting an annualized 13.3% jump between July and September. While that would be good news, it does not mean the crisis is over. Earlier this week, the Fed extended its various lending programs through the end of the year to help business and market functioning. The central bank’s main street lending facility that is geared at small and medium-sized companies became operational only in mid-June, three months after the lockdown began.
President Donald Trump explicitly floated delaying November’s presidential election on July 30, lending an extraordinary voice to persistent concerns that he will seek to circumvent voting in a contest where he currently trails his opponent by double digits. Hours later, President Trump seemed to acknowledge the move was meant to be a “trial balloon” of sorts primarily to inject uncertainty into an election he appears determined to undermine, though he did not entirely back away from the notion of a delay. Trump has no authority to delay an election, and the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for voting. Lawmakers from both parties said almost immediately there was no likelihood the election would be delayed and even some of Trump’s allies said his message reflected the desperate flailing of a badly losing candidate. Yet as toothless as it was, Trump’s message did provide an opening, long feared by Democrats, that both he and his supporters might refuse to accept the presidential results. In questioning it ahead of time, Trump is priming those in his camp to doubt the legitimacy of whatever outcome emerges in the first weeks of November.
In his Twitter post early on July 30, coming 96 days before the election and minutes after the federal government reported the worst economic contraction in recorded history President Donald Trump offered the suggestion because he claimed without evidence the contest will be flawed. “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA,” he wrote. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???” During a late-afternoon news conference, President Trump was asked to explain his motivations. At first, he suggested he was trying to avoid a drawn-out counting process that might stretch for days or weeks if large numbers of voters cast ballots by mail. But he eventually acknowledged the real impact of his message: sowing doubts early in whatever outcome emerges in November. “What people are now looking at is … are all these stories right about the fact that these elections will be fraudulent, they’ll be fixed, rigged,” he said. “Everyone is looking at it,” Trump added. “A lot of people are saying that probably will happen.”
With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???
There is no evidence that mail-in voting leads to fraud. American elections have proceeded during wars and depressions without delay. The general election has been fixed on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November since 1845. President Donald Trump has previously sought to stoke fear and lay the groundwork to question the election’s results by promoting the idea that mail-in voting leads to widespread fraud and a “rigged” election. Democrats have warned his efforts are meant both to suppress voting and to provide a reason to refuse to leave office should he lose. Trump’s representatives had previously scoffed at Democratic suggestions he would attempt to delay the election, claiming they were unfounded conspiracies. His tweet marks the first time Trump has openly raised the idea of moving the date of voting. On July 30, Trump’s campaign said the President was offering a query. “The President is just raising a question about the chaos Democrats have created with their insistence on all mail-in voting,” campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said. “They are using coronavirus as their means to try to institute universal mail-in voting, which means sending every registered voter a ballot whether they asked for one or not.”
President Donald Trump’s Twitter post comes as a spate of recent polling in battleground states, and even states he won handily in 2016, show him trailing or virtually tied with former Vice President Joe Biden, and widespread disapproval of his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic. While Trump has encouraged states to lift restrictions on businesses and said schools must reopen for in-person learning in the fall, his suggestion that the election might be delayed because of the pandemic undermines his efforts to act as the Coronavirus is under control. Due to the utter failure of his policies, President Trump has turned instead to stoking racial divisions and appealing to white voters as he works to consolidate support among the constituencies he won in 2016. And he has taken steps to undermine the election results in ways that reflect an extraordinary break in tradition. Asked during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace last week whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump refused. “No, I’m not going to just say ‘yes.’ I’m not going to say ‘no,’ and I didn’t last time, either,” he said.
Responding to President Donald Trump’s comments, both Republicans and Democrats said Trump’s suggestion was a non-starter. “I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of President Trump’s strongest allies. “I think that’s probably a statement that gets some press attention, but I doubt it gets any serious traction,” said Senator John Thune, the Senate Republican whip. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply replied to President Trump’s tweet quoting the passage in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to set the date of elections. Presumptive Democratic nominee former Vice President Joe Biden has previously raised the possibility of Trump attempting to delay the election. “Mark my words: I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden said at a virtual fundraiser in April, according to a pool report. At the time, a spokesman for Trump said the claim amounted to “incoherent, conspiracy theory ramblings of a lost candidate who is out of touch with reality.”
On July 28 Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a major critic of the big tech industry, introduced legislation that would penalize large tech companies that sell or show targeted advertisements by threatening a legal immunity enjoyed by the industry, the latest onslaught on Big Tech’s business practices. The bill, titled “Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (Bad Ads) Act,” aims to crack down on invasive data gathering by large technology companies such as Facebook and Google that target users based on their behavioral insights. It does so by threatening Section 230, part of the Communications Decency Act, that shields online businesses from lawsuits over content posted by users. The legal shield has recently come under scrutiny from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers concerned about online content moderation decisions by technology companies. On July 28, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)and Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) will hold a hearing to examine the role of Section 230. The senators recently introduced legislation to reform the federal law.
In May, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that seeks new regulatory oversight of tech firms’ content moderation decisions, and he backed legislation to scrap or weaken Section 230 in an attempt to regulate social media platforms. “Big Tech’s manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves,” said Hawley, an outspoken critic of tech companies and a prominent Trump ally. “From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real.” His recent legislation to ban federal employees from using Chinese social media app TikTok on their government-issued phones was passed unanimously by the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and will be taken up by the US Senate for a vote.
The Trump Administration moved on July 23 to eliminate an Obama-era program intended to combat racial segregation in suburban housing, saying it amounted to federal overreach into local communities. The rule, introduced in 2015, requires cities and towns to identify patterns of discrimination, implement corrective plans, and report results. The administration’s decision to complete a process of rescinding it culminates a yearslong campaign to gut the rule by conservative critics and members of the administration who claimed it overburdened communities with complicated regulations. A new rule, which removes the Obama administration’s requirements for localities, will become effective 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
The move comes as President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign contends with waning support among white suburban voters, particularly suburban women. The decision to eliminate the rule echoes the President’s recent efforts to appeal to white grievances as he seeks to maintain support. Within hours of the announcement by Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, President Trump promoted his position on Twitter, posting a New York Post opinion article attacking the Obama housing rule and former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for supporting it. “The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article,” Trump said. “Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!”
The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article. Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better! https://t.co/1NzbR57Oe6
President Donald Trump had signaled last month that he was considering a full rollback of the rule. In a Twitter post, he wrote that the program had a “devastating impact on these once-thriving Suburban areas.” He added, “Corrupt Joe Biden wants to make them MUCH WORSE.” A spokesman for the Biden campaign called the elimination of the rule a distraction from the president’s handling of the Coronavirus. Biden has proposed a housing policy that some Republicans say would undercut traditional suburban neighborhoods of single-family homes.
At the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs, and others, I am studying the AFFH housing regulation that is having a devastating impact on these once thriving Suburban areas. Corrupt Joe Biden wants to make them MUCH WORSE. Not fair to homeowners, I may END!
The Obama administration introduced its rule in 2015 to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination among housing providers. Failure to comply with the new rule jeopardized federal funds, and opponents claimed that it intruded upon the right of localities to make decisions about their own neighborhoods. Housing Secretary Ben Carson has been a vocal opponent of the rule since his 2016 presidential bid. After he became Housing Secretary, the former neurosurgeon announced plans to suspend the program in January 2018, citing concerns raised by cities that struggled to comply with its requirements. He claimed that he would delay its resumption until communities had the necessary tools. Two years later, the department published a proposal that would water down the original rule by eliminating the original mandate that cities and towns address housing discrimination. A study from researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that under the Obama rule, municipalities proposed more ambitious fair housing goals. Justin Steil, a co-author of the study, said that the program initially faced some difficulties, including complaints from localities that its requirements were onerous, but that those issues could have been resolved with time.
The elimination of the Obama-era rule is one of several efforts by the housing department to roll back housing regulations. It announced in August of 2019 a proposal that would make it more difficult to prove some discrimination cases, those known as disparate impact claims, under the Fair Housing Act by establishing a higher bar of proof. The new and final replacement for the Obama-era program, called Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, broadly reinterpreted the meaning of “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” Now, it makes no mention of segregation. The housing department and the Office of Management and Budget waived the comment period for the new rule to speed its enactment, which raised concern among critics of the administration’s decision. They argued that the old rule’s elimination had killed the first effort in decades to ensure the protections afforded by the Fair Housing Act.
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the Trump administration was exploiting the political ramifications of a racially motivated policy change to boost his re-election campaign. Shaun Donovan, the former housing secretary who created the Obama administration policy, was scathing in his criticism of the Trump administration’s move. “This is a blatantly racist appeal to and attempt to return us to an era when the federal government actively implemented racist policies based on the false notion that Black families moving to white communities brings down property values,” said Donovan, who is now running for mayor of New York City. The move to end the program also comes amid monthslong protests against racism spurred by the death of George Floyd. The disparity in homeownership between Black and white households is the highest it has been in 50 years. This new rule “will take us backwards,” said Debby Goldberg, a vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance. “If you’re looking to tackle the problem of segregation and widespread systemic discrimination — if you’re looking to create a prosperous country where that prosperity is shared by everybody — then adopting this rule is 100 percent the wrong move to make.”
Senate Republicans on July 27 proposed a $1 trillion Coronavirus aid package hammered out with the Trump administration, paving the way for talks with Democrats on how to help Americans as expanded unemployment benefits for millions of workers expire this week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the proposal a “tailored and targeted” plan focused on getting children back to school and employees back to work and protecting corporations from lawsuits while slashing the expiring supplemental unemployment benefits of $600 a week by two-thirds. The plan sparked immediate opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats decried it as too limited compared to their $3 trillion proposal that passed the House of Representatives in May, while some Republicans called it too expensive.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the package would include direct $1,200 payments to Americans, as well as incentives for the manufacture of personal protective equipment in the US, rather than China. It also includes $190 billion for loans to help small businesses, and $100 billion for loans to businesses that operate seasonally or in low-income areas. Republicans want to reduce the expanded unemployment benefit from the current $600 per week, which is in addition to state unemployment payments and expires on July 31, to $200 in addition to state unemployment. After two months, states would implement a new formula that replaces about 70% of lost wages. The supplemental unemployment has been a financial lifeline for laid-off workers and key support for consumer spending. The extra funds, exceeding the former wages of some workers, have been a sticking point for many Republicans, who say they encourage Americans to stay home rather than go back to work.
Negotiations started immediately after the Republican package was introduced. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) met for nearly two hours with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Meadows said afterward that it was a “good meeting” and that he and Mnuchin would return to Capitol Hill on July 28. But Pelosi and Schumer, speaking to reporters, expressed frustration that items like rental and food assistance had been left out. “We hope that we would be able to reach an agreement. We clearly do not have shared values. Having said that, we just want to see if we can find some common ground to go forward. But we’re not at that place yet,” Pelosi said.
The Republican-led Senate refused to consider the House coronavirus relief bill, known as the “HEROES Act,” that was passed in May. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the House bill a “socialist manifesto” and urged Democrats to work with Republicans on their plan, the “HEALS Act.” “We have one foot in the pandemic and one foot in the recovery,” McConnell said. “The American people need more help. They need it to be comprehensive, and they need it to be carefully tailored to this crossroads.” The proposal included “strong legal liability protection” for corporations, a top Republican priority. It includes nearly $30 billion for the military and defense industry, in addition to nearly $760 billion already enacted for defense this year, including more than $10 billion in previous coronavirus relief bills.
Opposition from some of Mitch McConnell’s fellow Republicans, as well as from Democrats, signaled a tough road ahead. “The answer to these challenges will not simply be shoveling cash out of Washington. The answer to these challenges will be getting people back to work,” Republican Senator Ted Cruz told reporters. Some Republicans had complained about the high price tag. The federal government has already spent $3.7 trillion to cushion the economic blow from pandemic-forced shutdowns. On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Republican plan did too little, too slowly, to help Americans facing joblessness and eviction. “The Republican plan is weak tea, when our problems need a much stronger brew,” Schumer said. He said many states had warned they would have a hard time implementing unemployment changes. Many Americans waited weeks for previous coronavirus benefits, as outmoded state computer systems adjusted. The Republican proposal also includes measures not directly related to the Coronavirus pandemic, including $1.8 billion for construction of a new FBI headquarters in Washington, something championed by President Donald Trump, who owns a hotel across the street from the current building.
A surge of campaign contributions in the second quarter gave Democrats seeking to flip Republican-held Senate seats in those races $86 million for the three months ending on June 30, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Republican incumbents raised $52 million in the same 10 states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. But they maintained a significant cash advantage over their challengers, with nearly $100 million in hand as the campaign entered its final months. The combined Democratic cash position equaled the quarterly fundraising total of $86 million. While the general election away, the flood of campaign contributions shows Democrats benefiting from voter discontent over President Donald Trump’s responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and race relations, among other issues, analysts say.
Republicans currently hold a four-seat majority in the 100-seat Senate. With Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, Republican control of the Senate has been crucial in buttressing President Donald Trump’s presidency including keeping him in power after his impeachment trial. Superior fundraising does not guarantee Democratic challengers success on Election Day against Republican incumbents, who have had longer to build up their financial firepower. But the challenges facing Republicans have deepened with Trump’s falling poll numbers to the point where Democrats are outraising stalwarts such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, putting the party under pressure to defend them. “If they are defending these seats, that suggests there are really no offensive opportunities,” said Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank. Despite the Democratic advantage, the Republicans do have a pick-up opportunity in Alabama, where Democratic Senator Doug Jones is widely expected to lose his reelection bid. Democrats would need a net gain of four Republican-held seats to take control of the chamber if President Trump wins re-election, or three if Democratic candidate Joe Biden defeats him.
Polls show Senate Republican incumbents running slightly behind their Democratic challengers in half a dozen states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Montana and North Carolina. Democratic second-quarter fundraising swamped Republicans in each of those states. Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly scored the biggest total: $12.8 million, versus Republican Senator Martha McSally’s $9.3 million. Iowa Democrat Theresa Greenfield, who is running against Republican Senator Joni Ernst, nearly tripled her quarterly fundraising total to $6 million from $2.3 million earlier this year. Although she out-raised Ernst’s $3.6 million, Greenfield ended up with only $5.7 million in cash on hand, behind Ernst’s $9.1 million. The same was true with Jon Ossoff, the Georgia Democrat running against Republican incumbent David Perdue. Ossoff’s $3.9 million in quarterly donations surpassed Perdue’s $2.2 million. But the challenger was still behind in cash, with only $2.5 million on hand, versus Perdue’s $10.7 million. But Democrats ended with more cash in Arizona, where Kelly ended the quarter with $24 million on hand, versus McSally’s $11 million, and in Montana where Democratic Governor Steve Bullock had $7.6 million in cash compared with Republican Senator Steve Daines’ $7.1 million. Bullock also outraised Daines by $7.8 million to $5 million.
President Donald Trump signed a memorandum on July 21 instructing the US Census Bureau to exclude undocumented immigrants from the population totals that determine how many seats in Congress each state gets. It is an unprecedented move that seems to be an attempt to preserve white political power. The American Civil Liberties Union said immediately that it would sue and the action is likely to be met with a flood of legal challenges. The Trump administration appears to be on shaky legal ground, as the US constitution requires seats in Congress to be apportioned based on the “whole number of persons” counted in each state during each decennial census. The constitution vests Congress with power over the census, though Congress has since designated some of that authority to the executive. Republicans in recent years have been pushing to exclude non-citizens and other people ineligible to vote from the tally used to draw electoral districts. In 2015, Thomas Hofeller, a top Republican redistricting expert, explicitly wrote that such a change “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites”. The White House memo, titled “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census,” argues that the term “person” in the constitution really means “inhabitant” and that the president has the discretion to define what that means. The memo also argues that allowing undocumented people to count rewards states with high numbers of undocumented people.
“My administration will not support giving congressional representation to aliens who enter or remain in the country unlawfully, because doing so would create perverse incentives and undermine our system of government,” President Donald Trump said in a statement. “Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.” Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the House of Representatives would “vigorously contest” the order. “By seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2020 census, the president is violating the constitution and the rule of law,” Pelosi said in a statement.
The Trump adminitration’s interpretation is likely to be strongly challenged in court. Experts have said that the idea of illegal immigration did not exist when the constitution was written. Immigration early in America was relatively “free and open”. US Customs and Immigration Services says on its website the federal government began to regulate it in the 19th century. “If those are the best arguments they have, they’re dead in the water,” said Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice who works on census issues. “There’s no way to get around the fundamental command of the constitution, on the plain text of the constitution, to count everyone.” The legal rationale for the memo is so specious, Wolf said the motivation behind the memo might not be to enact it. He speculated the Trump administration may be trying to create uncertainty or confusion among immigrants already wary of responding to the census.
President Donald Trump announced a plan on July 22 to send federal agents to the Democratic-run cities of Chicago and Albuquerque to crack down on violent crime in an escalation of his “law and order” theme heading into the final months before the presidential election. President Trump joined at a White House event by Attorney General William Barr, unveiled an expansion of the “Operation Legend” program to more cities in a further effort by federal officials to tackle violence. “Today I’m announcing a surge of federal law enforcement into American communities plagued by violent crime,” said Trump, who has accused Democratic mayors and governors of tolerating crime waves. “This bloodshed must end; this bloodshed will end,” he said. The program involves deploying federal law enforcement agents to assist local police in combating what the Justice Department has described as a “surge” of violent crime.
Attorney General William Barr sought to differentiate the initiative from the use of federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to quell unrest in Portland, where local authorities have complained about the federal involvement. Barr said the law enforcement personnel from a variety of agencies will serve as “street” agents and investigators who will be working to “solve murders and take down violent gangs.” “This is different than the operations and tactical teams we use to defend against riots and mob violence,” Barr said. “We will continue to confront mob violence. But the operations we are discussing today are very different – they are classic crime fighting.” President Donald Trump hopes his “law and order” push will resonate with his political base as he trails Democrat Joe Biden in opinion polls ahead of the Presidential election. But the initiative risks inflaming tensions running high in many cities in the wake of the death in police custody of George Floyd, an African-American.
Operation Legend involves federal agents from the FBI, US Marshals Service, and other agencies partnering with local law enforcement. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot said it was not unusual for federal law enforcement to work alongside local partners, but urged Chicagoans to watch for any sign that federal agents, especially DHS officers, were stepping “out of line.” “We don’t need federal troops, we don’t need unnamed, secret federal agents,” said Lightfoot, in reference to tactics used by federal personnel in Portland. President Donald Trump has emphasized a robust policing and military approach to the protests across the US about racial inequality after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis. The White House has sought to focus on city crime even as Trump’s approval numbers plummet in response to his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. “We are waiting for the mayor (Lightfoot), respectfully, and other mayors and governors to call us. We are ready, willing and able to go in there with great force,” President Trump told reporters later on July 22.
President Donald Trumprefused to commit to accepting the results of the 2020 election and ensuring a peaceful transition of power in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. In the interview, which aired on July 19, President Trump undermined confidence in the result of the 2020 election by falsely claiming that mail-in ballots are “rigged,” and opened the door to later contesting the results if he loses to Democratic nominee Joe Biden. “In general, not talking about November, are you a good loser?” Wallace asked. “I’m not a good loser, I don’t like to lose, I don’t lose too often” Trump replied. “But are you gracious?” Wallace pressed. “You don’t know until you see, I think it depends. I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election,” Trump said. “I really do.” “But are you suggesting you might not accept the results of the election?” Wallace continued. “I have to see,” Trump said. Wallace then reminded Trump that he asked him a similar question as to whether he would concede the election if he lost in an October 19, 2016 presidential debate. At the time, Trump told Wallace he would “tell you at the time” and “keep you in suspense.” “The American people will decide this election. And the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House,” Joe Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told the Washington Post in response to Trump’s comments.
The most recent polling of the 2020 election has shown President Donald Trump far behind Biden both nationally and in key swing states as voters continue to give Trump poor marks on his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, race relations, and a slew of other important issues. In a statement issued on July 7, the Trump campaign’s communications director Tim Murtaugh accused Democrats of wanting to eliminate key election integrity provisions, like signature matching for absentee ballots, and cited some of the problems states have experienced in trying to scale up mail-in voting as a good reason to be skeptical over the results. “We don’t know what kind of shenanigans Democrats will try leading up to November,” Murtaugh said. “If someone had asked George W. Bush and Al Gore this same question in 2000, would they have been able to foresee the drawn-out fight over Florida? The central point remains clear: in a free and fair election, President Trump will win.”
As states have moved over the past few months to expanded absentee and mail-in voting, President Donald Trump, who voted by mail himself in Florida earlier this year, has attacked mail-in voting as inherently fraudulent and untrustworthy. He has falsely claimed that an expansion of absentee and mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and corruption (rates of absentee ballot fraud are very low), that expanding mail-in ballot hurts Republicans (studies show that it confers no partisan advantage to either side), and even raised a baseless conspiracy that children in California will go around stealing ballots out of mailboxes and forging them. Both President Trump and Attorney General William Barr have also raised a theory, for which there is no evidence to support, that foreign adversaries will try to interfere in the 2020 election by making and sending out “counterfeit ballots” to voters.
While cases of voter fraud using absentee and mail-in ballots do occur, they are extremely rare. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation’s own database of voter- and election-fraud cases, there have been 1,100 criminal convictions for all voter fraud and fewer than 150 criminal convictions for fraudulent use of absentee ballots over the past 20 years. And even though Donald Trump won the 2016 election, he continued to claim for months that millions of undocumented immigrants had improperly voted in that election and were partly responsible for 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. To this day, no evidence has surfaced to prove that any widespread voter fraud occurred in 2016. “For five years, Trump has sought to undermine our elections again and again—from soliciting foreign interference to making baseless claims about voter fraud to lying about the results of the 2016 election,” Sean Eldridge, the president of the progressive grassroots democracy reform group Stand Up America said. “Today’s comments are an escalation in these attacks on our democracy and show the insidious ways in which Trump is working to sow doubt about the outcome of this election before votes are even cast.”
President Donald Trumpannounced regulatory changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on July 15, a change that will speed up approval of federal projects such as mines, highways, water infrastructure, and gas pipelines, effectively weakening what’s considered to be a landmark conservation law. President Trump announced the implementation of the newly revised regulations in Georgia at the UPS Hapeville Airport Hub, which is set to benefit from the expedited review of a highway expansion project that will allow the hub’s operations to be more efficient. Trump claimed that “mountains and mountains of red tape” slowed the approval and development of infrastructure projects, but added that “all of that ends today.” “Today’s action completely modernizes the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We are cutting the federal permitting timeline … for a major project from up to 20 years or more … down to two years or less,” Trump said, later adding that at “the same time, we’ll maintain America’s gold standard environmental protections.”
President Donald Trump announced his administration’s plans to rewrite the NEPA regulations in January, saying at the time that the existing regulations “(led to) endless delays, waste money, keep projects from breaking ground and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers. The administration claims the change will speed up the process for getting environmental reviews approved that are required for major infrastructure projects. “You spend three, four, five years on the environmental review before you ever break ground. That’s a problem,” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an interview with Gray TV. Environmental advocacy groups view the policy change as another example of the Trump administration dismantling important conservation safety guards that protect the environment and public health from pollution. The change “drastically curtails environmental reviews for thousands of federal agency projects nationwide, a move that will weaken safeguards for air, water, wildlife, and public lands,” the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group, said in a statement responding to the decision.
NEPA, signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, is considered one of the foundational environmental laws formed at the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Rolling back this policy “may be the single biggest giveaway to polluters in the past 40 years,” according to Brett Hartl, Center for Biological Diversity government affairs director. “The Trump administration is turning back the clock to when rivers caught fire, our air was unbreathable, and our most beloved wildlife was spiraling toward extinction. The foundational law of the modern environmental movement has been turned into a rubber stamp to enrich for-profit corporations, and we doubt the courts will stand for that,” Hartl said in a statement. Environmental advocacy groups such as the National Resource Defense Council Inc. and the Sierra Club believe that the change will harm minority communities more than others. “NEPA gives a voice to communities whose health and safety would be threatened by destructive projects, and it is despicable that the Trump administration is seeking to silence them,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement. “As the country faces a global pandemic and grapples with persistent racial injustice, the last thing communities need is an attack on this bedrock environmental and civil rights law.” In contrast, Mike Sommers, the President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents America’s oil and natural gas industry, said in a statement that the regulatory changes are “essential to US energy leadership and environmental progress, providing more certainty to jumpstart not only the modernized pipeline infrastructure we need to deliver cleaner fuels but highways, bridges and renewable energy.”
Hospital data on Coronavirus patients will now be rerouted to the Trump administration instead of first being sent to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed on July 14. The move could make data less transparent to the public at a time when President Donald Trump is downplaying the spread of the pandemic, and threatens to undermine public confidence that medical data is being presented free of political interference. Michael Caputo, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the department, confirmed the change first reported by The New York Times earlier in the day, saying in a statement that the “new faster and complete data system is what our nation needs to defeat the coronavirus and the CDC, an operating division of HHS, will certainly participate in this streamlined all-of-government response. They will simply no longer control it.” “The CDC’s old hospital data gathering operation once worked well monitoring hospital information across the country, but it’s an inadequate system today,” Caputo said in the statement. The New York Times also said hospitals are to begin reporting the data to HHS on July 15, noting also that the “database that will receive new information is not open to the public, which could affect the work of scores of researchers, modelers and health officials who rely on C.D.C. data to make projections and crucial decisions.”
Former CDC acting director Dr. Richard Besser on July 15 said rerouting hospital data is a “step backwards” for the country’s coronavirus response. “It’s another example of CDC being sidelined. Not only should the data be coming to CDC, but CDC should be talking to the public through the media every day,” Besser said in an interview. He worried that the data going directly to HHS could “be further politicized, and that’s the last thing you want.” “One of the nice things about CDC being in Atlanta — being away from Washington — is that we’re able to avoid a lot of political pressure that you get in when you’re in DC,” he said. Besser appeared to agree that systems needed to be modernized, but he added, “the answer to this isn’t bypassing CDC; it’s working to ensure that the flow is going faster, making sure that they’re getting the right data.”
The Trump administration continues to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic, which has already claimed the lives of more than 136,000 Americans, in moves that are increasingly being seen as political. On July 14, four former CDC directors blasted the administration’s efforts to disregard and politicize guidelines from the agency in a scathing Washington Post op-ed. The four former CDC officials warned against what they called a “tragic indictment” of the CDC’s efforts as President Donald Trump and top coronavirus task force officials seek to reopen the nation’s schools. President Trump has said he will “pressure” governors to reopen schools, despite internal documents from the CDC separately obtained by the Times warning that reopening K-12 schools and universities would be the “highest risk” for the spread of the deadly virus. “Unfortunately, their sound science is being challenged with partisan potshots, sowing confusion and mistrust at a time when the American people need leadership, expertise and clarity. These efforts have even fueled a backlash against public health officials across the country. This is unconscionable and dangerous,” the former CDC officials wrote. Public health experts, they said: “Face two opponents: COVID-19, but also political leaders and others attempting to undermine” the CDC.
President Donald Trump on July 14 signed legislation and an executive order that he said will hold China accountable for its oppressive actions against the people of Hong Kong, then quickly shifted his speech in the Rose Garden into a campaign rally-style broadside against Democratic rival Joe Biden. The legislation and order are part of the Trump administration’s offensive against China for what he calls unfair treatment by the rising Asian superpower, which hid details about the human-to-human transition of the Coronavirus. The almost daily administration broadsides against China come as Trump is defending his response to the virus, despite a surge in Coronavirus cases, in the US and as he works to portray Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as weak on China. “So Joe Biden and President Obama freely allowed China to pillage our factories, plunder our communities and steal our most precious secrets,” Trump said, adding, “I’ve stopped it largely.” Trump added: “As vice president, Biden was a leading advocate of the Paris Climate accord, which was unbelievably expensive to our country. It would have crushed American manufacturers while allowing China to pollute the atmosphere with impunity, yet one more gift from Biden to the Chinese Communist Party.”
During his address, President Donald Trump Trump did not limit his criticism of Joe Biden to China. He delivered broadside after broadside against Biden on issues from energy to the economy, education, to immigration. Aides have pushed the president to go more negative on Biden, whom President Trump has largely spared from attacks, save for the “Sleepy Joe” nickname. Trump has gone after Biden far less aggressively than he did against his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump, once more, talked up his own tough approach to Beijing, though he spent the early weeks of the pandemic praising Chinese President Xi Jinping, in hopes of securing a new trade deal. But since the two nations signed phase one of the trade deal, the talks have stalled with virtually no hope of restarting before the November election.
The legislation President Donald Trump signed into law targets police units that have cracked down on Hong Kong protesters as well as Chinese Communist Party officials responsible for imposing a new, strict national security law widely seen as chipping away at Hong Kong’s autonomy. The mandatory sanctions are also required to be imposed on banks that conduct business with the officials. Lawmakers from both parties have urged President Trump to take strong action in response to China’s new national security law that erodes the “one country, two systems” framework under which the UK handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997. Hong Kong is considered a special administrative region within China and has its own governing and economic systems. “This law gives my administration powerful new tools to hold responsible the individuals and the entities involved in extinguishing Hong Kong’s freedom,” Trump said. “Their freedom has been taken away. Their rights have been taken away, and with it goes Hong Kong in my opinion because it will no longer be able to compete with free markets. A lot of people will be leaving Hong Kong, I suspect.”
The House of Representatives on July 1 passed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would sharply increase Infrastructure spending on roads and transit, push for deep reductions in pollution, direct billions to water projects, affordable housing, broadband and schools, and upgrade hospitals and US Postal Service trucks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Democrats were making good on a promise to rebuild America with “green, resilient, modern and job-creating infrastructure,” adding that the Moving Forward Act “shows that everything in our country is connected, from the education of our children to the technologies of the future to the road map to get there.” The bill is meant, in part, to address the expiration in September of a law authorizing spending on highways, transit, and other transportation programs. Backers, including Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), said the bill represents an ambitious, years-in-the-making push to buttress and expand aging infrastructure in a sustainable way. The bill’s passage “is proof that finally, there is a majority of us in Congress who won’t accept the status quo and instead are willing to fight for a new vision” that puts “millions of people to work in jobs that cannot be exported, while harnessing American-made materials, ingenuity, and innovation,” DeFazio said.
House Republicans objected to the bill’s concentration on reducing carbon pollution and slammed the process that resulted in what they dismissed as the “My Way or the Highway” bill. Pelosi is seeking to “heap an irresponsible amount of debt onto our children instead of seeking market-driven, collaborative, bipartisan solutions to improve our infrastructure,” said Congressman Sam Graves (R-MO) the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee. The bill passed largely along party lines after days of debate and amendments, with three Republicans voting yes and two Democrats casting no votes. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it drew immediate criticism from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “House Democrats appear addicted to pointless political theater,” McConnell said. “So naturally, this nonsense is not going anywhere in the Senate. It will just join the list of absurd House proposals that were only drawn up to show fealty to the radical left.” Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which passed a narrower, bipartisan transportation bill last July, called the House bill “a road to nowhere” and urged the House to “get serious about infrastructure.”
If the full Senate passes transportation or other combined infrastructure bill, Congress could move to create a conference committee to seek to reconcile the diverging visions, congressional aides said. Or they could try to come to an agreement on a temporary extension of the five-year transportation law, known as the Fast Act, that expires in September, though members from both parties say they oppose such a move. Either would be complicated further by broad differences over how such infrastructure should be paid for, a disconnect that has stymied many plans in recent years, despite widespread bipartisan and popular support for addressing infrastructure needs.
The Supreme Court ruled on July 8 that the Trump administration may allow employers and universities to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act requirement to provide contraceptive care because of religious or moral objections. The issue has been at the heart of an intense legal battle for nine years, first with the Obama administration sparring with religious organizations who said offering contraceptive care to their employees violated their beliefs, and then with the Trump administration broadening an exemption, angering women’s groups, health organizations, and Democratic-led states. July 8th’s decision greatly expands the ability of employers to claim the exception, and the government estimates that between 70,000 and 126,000 women could lose access to cost-free birth control as a result.
The contraceptive case involves a long-running dispute over the Affordable Care Act (colloquial known as “Obamacare“), and a requirement that employers provide cost-free birth control for female employees. The law itself does not specify the rules, leaving it to federal agencies to determine how contraceptives fit into the mandate for cost-free “preventive care and screenings.” The Obama administration required contraceptives and had narrower exceptions for churches and other houses of worship. It created a system of “accommodations,” or workarounds, for religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities. Those accommodations would provide contraceptive care but avoid having the objecting organizations directly cover the cost. The Trump administration moved in 2018 to expand the types of organizations that could opt-out to include religious groups and non-religious employers with moral and religious objections. Under the rules, the employers able to opt-out include essentially all nongovernmental workplaces, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. And the employer has the choice of whether to permit the workaround.
The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had put the Trump administration exemptions on hold and said the agencies did not have the broad authority to grant them. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, said that was wrong. “We hold that the [administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections,” wrote Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas reasoned that if an administration’s agencies have “virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventive care and screenings, he said, they must also have “the ability to identify and create exemptions” from those guidelines. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed with the court’s conservatives that the administration had the right to create an exemption, but they said lower courts should examine whether the administration’s rules were “consistent with reasoned judgment.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a blistering dissent, in which she said her colleagues had gone too far to appease religious conservatives. Until now, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote in a brief joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” Ginsburg said Congress meant to provide “gainfully employed women comprehensive, seamless, no-cost insurance coverage for preventive care protective of their health and wellbeing.” The court’s action, she wrote, “leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.”
The US has formally notified the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the World Health Organization, following through on an announcement President Donald Trump made in late May. The move, however, would not be effective until July 6, 2021, officials said, leaving open the possibility that, should President Trump lose reelection, a Joe Biden administration could reverse the decision. The former vice president promptly indicated he would do so. “Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health. On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage,” Biden announced on Twitter.
Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health. On my first day as President, I will rejoin the @WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage. https://t.co/8uazVIgPZB
The withdrawal of the US would plunge global health governance into the unknown, creating questions about the economic viability of the WHO, the future of the polio eradication program, the system for reporting dangerous infectious disease outbreaks, and myriad other programs that are as pertinent to the health of Americans as they are to people from countries around the world, such as efforts to combat the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said the Geneva-based agency had been informed the official notice had been filed, but had no further information. But Jeremy Konyndyk, a fellow at the Center for Global Development, called the move “reckless and entirely unjustified.” “The disastrous state of the outbreak in the United States is not the result of following WHO guidance but rather is the result of ignoring the agency’s increasingly urgent warnings from late January onward,” he said in a statement. “Had the U.S. followed WHO’s advice on early preparedness, aggressive testing, contact tracing, and other response measures, we would be in a far better place today than we are.”
The US is the WHO’s largest funder, contributing $426 million a year in the 2018-2019 budget period. The US currently owes the WHO $203 million for 2020 and previous years. The notice of withdrawal, signed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, made no mention of funds the country owes to the WHO and the State Department did not immediately reply to a question on whether the United States will pay the outstanding dues. The UN also appeared uncertain of the US intent. “The Secretary-General … is in the process of verifying with the World Health Organization whether all the conditions for such withdrawal are met,” Stephane Dujarric, a spokesman for Secretary-General António Guterres, said in an email. The Trump Administration has said it will work with other partners to achieve its global health goals. But experts have warned the country will lose influence internationally and its efforts may lose momentum, as other countries come to view the U.S. as an unreliable partner. “There will be no incentive to take U.S. needs into account,” said Jimmy Kolker, a longtime U.S. diplomat and former assistant secretary for global affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration. “It will be much harder than some might assume to find alternate channels for us to engage in global health activities,” Kolker warned. “Our investment will no longer leverage others’ and experts in other countries will have to diversify their partnerships away from the CDC, the NIH or USAID, as these may not be sustainable. Once deals are struck and arrangements made without U.S. involvement, it will be an uphill struggle to retrofit them if the U.S. has an interest in getting involved and decides (as we inevitably will) to halt our withdrawal or rejoin.”
President Donald Trump has moved to blame the WHO for the Coronavirus pandemic, insisting that had it been more aggressive with China in January the outbreak might have been averted. While analysts have acknowledged the agency’s lavish praise of China’s handling of the outbreak may have struck the wrong note, they also noted the WHO does not have the power to force a country to let inspectors visit to assess the situation on the ground, something President Trump insisted the agency should have done. Critics of the administration’s handling of the Coronavirus pandemic also note that in January and February, when the WHO was vociferously urging countries to prepare for the spread of the virus, President Trump himself was praising China’s handling of the outbreak and predicting the virus would stop spreading on its own. Even members of his own party have questioned the move and the timing of it, coming as the WHO leads the global response to Coronavirus, the worst health threat in a century. “Certainly, there needs to be a good, hard look at mistakes the World Health Organization might have made in connection with coronavirus, but the time to do that is after the crisis has been dealt with, not in the middle of it,” Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said after Trump’s announcement. “Withdrawing U.S. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials that are essential to the development of vaccines, which citizens of the United States, as well as others in the world, need.”
The US economyadded a record 4.8 million jobs in June, according to federal data released on July 2, but a surge in new Coronavirus infections and a spate of new closings threatens the nascent recovery. Two key federal measurements showed the precarious place the economy finds itself in three and a half months into the pandemic as the country struggles to hire back the more than 20 million workers who lost their jobs in March and April. While companies have continued to reopen, a large number of Americans are finding their jobs are no longer available. The unemployment rate in June was 11.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, down from a peak of 14.7 percent in April but still far above the 3.5 percent level notched in February. And another 1.4 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance for the first time last week and more than 19 million people are still receiving unemployment benefits, stubbornly high levels that show how many people are struggling to find or keep work. The Congressional Budget Office said the Coronavirus pandemic gave such a shock to the labor market that it would not fully recover for more than 10 years.
President Donald Trump touted the jobs that were added at a news conference called shortly after they were released, saying they were a sign that “America’s economy is now roaring back to life like nobody has ever seen before.” “All of this incredible news is the result of historic actions my administration has taken,” President Trump said. But his top aides acknowledged there was still a long way to go. “There is still a lot of hardship, and a lot of heartbreak, in these numbers,” National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said. “I think we have a lot more work to do.” The stock market initially rose on the news, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 400 points, or 1.5 percent, before retreating. It closed up 92 points on the day.
Economists called the 4.8 million jobs added encouraging, saying they were a sign that the massive financial incentives that Congress passed appeared to have succeeded at stanching even greater job loss. But the good news came with a couple of significant asterisks: It was gathered the week of June 12, when the country was reporting less than 25,000 new cases a day, not the current average of more than 40,000 that has sent new closures and shutdowns cascading across states and counties. “The pandemic pushed us into a very deep economic hole,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “We can certainly fall back.” The more than 14.7 million people who are still out of work have left the country with an unemployment rate higher than any point during the Great Recession. The unemployment insurance data, based on statewide claims that are separate from the survey that informs the jobs report, paints an even less sanguine picture: Last week was the 15th straight where unemployment claims exceeded 1 million, a sign that the economic recovery has not taken hold for many Americans.
The data bring into sharper focus the turmoil facing the US economy after many businesses sent workers home in March during the beginning of the spike in deaths caused by the virus. Many companies began rehiring in May and June, but there are signs that some workers are getting laid off for the second time in just a few months. Many Americans remain employed but are working drastically reduced schedules, more than 9 million workers reported working part-time because of economic reasons, more than double the level in February before the pandemic. Still, a participation rate of 61.5 percent in June, slightly up from April and May but nearly a percentage point below February, indicates that others may be leaving the labor force altogether, an echo of the deep economic turbulence in the Great Recession. Economists said there are other reasons to be concerned as incentives for businesses to retain employees and some benefits that have allowed people out of work to stay afloat financially are winding down without more federal action.
Federal and state officials struggled to time their reopening efforts in April and May, in some cases ignoring warnings from public health officials. Now, cases in some of the states that reopened the fastest, or with the loosest restrictions, are seeing the biggest spikes, such as Florida, Arizona, and South Carolina. In recent days, Texas shut down all bars just weeks after they had reopened. California announced the closure of bars and indoor dining in 19 counties, more than 70 percent of the state. And at least nine other states have slowed or reversed their reopenings. Restaurant bookings have begun to sink in hard-hit states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Job postings on the Indeed website, though up from a low of 39 percent, are still down 24 percent from last year.
Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank – Understanding Democratic Party
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism by Noam Chomsky – Understanding Anarchism- roots, Chomsky, being critical
Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky – Foreign Policy and Global Economics
Indefensible 7th myths of the Global Arms Trade by Paul Holden – Arms Trade Globally and Security
A peoples History of the US by Howard Zinn – US History through Working-Class People
Breaking through Power by Ralph Nader – US politics
War is a Racket by Smedley Darlington Butler – Why all wars are connected to Banks
Troops, Trolls, and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation by Samantha Bradshaw, University of Oxford – How Social Media Influences Politics
Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right-and How We Can, Too by George Lakey – Progressive Economics applied the world’s happiest/most productive Workers
Hundreds of officials who worked for former Republican President George W. Bush as a July 1 are set to endorse Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, people involved in the effort said, the latest Republican-led group coming out to oppose the re-election of Donald Trump. The officials, who include Cabinet secretaries and other senior members of the Bush administration, have formed a political action committee, 43 Alumni for Biden, to support former Vice President Joe Biden as opposed to President Donald Trump. The Super PAC will launch on July 1 with a website and Facebook page, they said. It plans to release “testimonial videos” praising Biden from high-profile Republicans and will hold get-out-the-vote efforts in the most competitive states.
The group is the latest of many Republican organizations opposing President Donald Trump’s re-election, yet another sign that his radical policies relating to race, foreign policy, and the norms of governance have alienated many Republicans. “We know what is normal and what is abnormal, and what we are seeing is highly abnormal. The president is a danger,” said Jennifer Millikin, one of the 43 Alumni organizers, who worked on Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and later in the General Services Administration. The other two members who spoke to Reuters are Karen Kirksey and Kristopher Purcell. Purcell worked as a communication official in the Bush White House. Kirksey was on the Bush 2000 campaign, and later in the Agriculture and Labor Departments. Millikin said the group was not yet ready to name all its members or its donors. It has to provide a list of initial donors to the Federal Election Commission by October.
Former President George W. Bush, who is still admired by many moderate Republicans and has seen his overall legacy improve dramatically over the past few years, won praise for saying the death of George Floyd reflected a “shocking failure”, and urged that protesters be heard. Earlier, Bush released a video calling for Americans to unite in the face of the Coronavirus pandemic. Despite policy differences with Biden, “hundreds” of former Bush officials believe the Democrat has the integrity to meet America’s challenges, the 43 Alumni members said. “This November, we are choosing country over party,” said Kristopher Purcell. “We believe that a Biden administration will adhere to the rule of law… and restore dignity and integrity to the White House.” “We really have had overwhelming support for our efforts,” Karen Kirksey said.
43 Alumni for Biden is backing the former Vice president as President Donald Trump’s support slips in the polls. Last month, a group of Republican operatives launched “Right Side PAC,” that, according to the group’s founder Matt Borges, will work to turn “that group of Republicans who feels that President Trump is an existential threat to the country and this party.”A group called Republican Voters Against Trump launched a $10 million ad campaign in May targeting Republican-leaning voters in top swing states to encourage them to support Biden. And a group of “Never Trump” Republicans formed the Lincoln Project in late 2019 and have run negative ads that have drawn the ire of Trump.
Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed a bill on June 30 abandoning the state’s flag and stripping the Confederate battle flag symbol from it, capping a remarkable turnaround on a banner that had flown over the state for more than a century. With Reeves’s move, Mississippi will take down one of the country’s most prominent Confederate tributes, withdrawing the only state flag that still bears such an emblem. The new flag’s design will be determined later, but lawmakers have barred it from including the most recognizable icon of the Confederacy, which many people associate with racism, slavery, and oppression. “This is not a political moment to me but a solemn occasion to lead our Mississippi family to come together and move on,” Reeves said at a ceremony at which he signed the measure. “A flag is a symbol of our past, our present and our future. For those reasons, we need a new symbol.” Reeves’s signature came two days after Mississippi lawmakers, facing a nationwide campaign for racial justice, passed the measure removing the state’s flag and calling for a replacement.
Lawmakers had debated the change over the weekend, with supporters of a change saying the flag had become a symbol of hatred. Opponents of jettisoning it said history would be abandoned and called instead for a statewide vote. When lawmakers voted to approve the move, loud applause broke out inside the state Capitol. “This is a new day for Mississippi,” state House Speaker Philip Gunn, who had backed a change for years, said in an interview with MSNBC, while standing in front of a man waving the state’s now-former flag. “We are not disregarding our heritage, we’re not ignoring the past, but we are embracing the future In the bill, lawmakers laid out two requirements for the flag’s eventual replacement: It cannot include the Confederate symbol and it must incorporate the phrase “In God We Trust.”
In 2015, House Speaker Philip Gunn announced his support for changing the flag during efforts to wipe Confederate iconography from public spaces after an avowed white supremacist’s massacre of nine black parishioners at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The gunman in the Charleston shooting had posted a manifesto riddled with images of the Confederate battle flag, and in response, retailers vowed to stop selling items bearing that symbol and South Carolina took down a Confederate battle flag that had flown on its statehouse grounds. But the flag in Mississippi, a state where nearly 4 in 10 residents are black, stayed aloft until the more recent swell of activism after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The protests grew from an attack on policing tactics to a far broader campaign against racial injustice, and it has begun producing change in unexpected areas. NASCAR announced it would ban displays of the Confederate battle flag, while some demonstrators toppled or damaged Confederate memorials and other monuments, including those honoring Christopher Columbus, in cities across the country.
Opponents of Mississippi’s flag also began speaking out anew, with calls to remove it coming from a parade of powerful and high-profile voices that included college sports powerhouses, religious leaders, historical groups, and celebrities. Opponents of changing the flag had decried the move and said they felt the decision should be left up to residents. The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans posted a statement telling lawmakers not to embark upon “some Legislative fiat, instead of allowing us to decide what our flag will be.” State Senator Chris McDaniel, who opposed altering the flag, said the legislature’s action came amid a “heavy-handed context of political correctness” in a video statement posted on Facebook. “The people of this state are incredibly frustrated,” he said in the message. “They should be incredibly frustrated. Not necessarily because the flag came down, but because [of] the way the flag came down. It came down in a manner, in a method and in a time that was completely wrongheaded.”
The House of Representatives voted nearly along party lines on June 28 to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., the first time a chamber of Congress has approved establishing the nation’s capital as a state. The legislation, which is unlikely to advance in the Republican-led Senate, would establish a 51st state, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, named in honor of Frederick Douglass, and allow it two senators and a voting representative in the House. The National Mall, the White House, Capitol Hill, and some other federal property would remain under congressional jurisdiction, with the rest of the land becoming the new state. The vote was 232 to 180, with every Republican and one Democrat voting “no.”
Republicans have long opposed the move to give congressional representation to the District of Columbia, where more than three-quarters of voters are registered Democrats, but the long-suffering movement for statehood, led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the capital’s lone nonvoting delegate, has been pressing for a vote on the matter for years. When Democrats assumed the House majority last year, Congresswoman. Norton secured a promise from leaders to bring up the bill for the first time in more than a quarter-century. Anger over the Trump administration’s handling of racial justice protests, particularly the use of federal officers in the city and the violent removal of protesters from Lafayette Square outside the White House, further galvanized advocates of statehood and cast a national spotlight on how much control the federal government retains over more than 700,000 residents in the District of Columbia. “Over the last few months, the nation, and even the world, has witnessed the discriminatory and outrageous treatment of D.C. residents by the federal government,” Norton said on Friday on the House floor, where she was unable to cast a vote for the bill she championed. “The federal occupation of D.C. occurred solely because the president thought he could get away with it here. He was wrong.”
The bill, which passed along party lines, is not expected to become law. President Donald Trump issued a veto threat against it shortly before its passage, declaring the measure unconstitutional. Republicans in the Senate, where the legislation would have to meet a bipartisan 60-vote threshold to advance, have rejected the idea, arguing that if representation for its citizens was the sole issue, the District of Columbia should simply be absorbed into Maryland, another heavily Democratic state. “Retrocession wouldn’t give the Democrats their real aim: two Democratic senators in perpetuity to rubber-stamp the swamp’s agenda, so you won’t hear them talk about it,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), said in a lengthy diatribe on the floor. He declared that Wyoming, a state with a smaller population, was a “well-rounded, working-class state” superior to Washington, which would amount to “an appendage of the federal government” full of lobbyists and civil servants. Wyoming is more than 80 percent white, while the majority of the District of Columbia is composed of people of color.
The arguments against statehood on the House floor barely shifted since the full chamber last debated the merits of granting statehood to Washington more than a quarter of a century ago. Opponents questioned the constitutional merits, arguing that the founding fathers intentionally did not establish the nation’s capital as a state. Others questioned whether the District of Columbia was geographically and economically viable to be a state. “Our nation’s founders made it clear that D.C. is not meant to be a state,” said Congressman Jody Hice (R-GA). “They thought about it, they debated it, and they rejected it.” Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) was the sole Democrat to join Republicans in opposing the measure. Top Democrats, several wearing masks with a symbol of the statehood movement, took to the floor to argue passionately for its passage, denouncing the disenfranchisement of Washington residents. Applause broke out on the floor as soon as the bill reached the necessary 218 thresholds to pass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at her weekly news conference in the Capitol, dismissed as shortsighted the Republican arguments that the new state would simply give Democrats a political advantage. Alaska and Hawaii, she pointed out, had entered the union as overwhelmingly Democratic and Republican states and then flipped politically. “What the state is, that can change over time,” Pelosi said. “But the fact is, people in the District of Columbia pay taxes, fight wars, risk their lives for our democracy — and yet in this place, they have no vote in the House and Senate.”
The District of Columbia, where license plates read “Taxation without representation,” has long been burdened by a lack of federal representation. The capital first earned three electoral votes and the right to vote for President in 1961 with the passage of the 23rd Amendment. The right to elect a nonvoting delegate came a decade later, but lawmakers could not agree on whether to give that delegate the right to vote, and the statehood legislation never survived a floor vote. The disparity has gained renewed national attention during the coronavirus pandemic and the protests over racial injustice. In the $2.2 trillion stimulus law enacted in March, the District of Columbia received a small fraction of the funds doled out to states to help dull the economic effect of the virus because it was treated as a territory, despite customarily being granted funding as if it were a state. “Denying D.C. statehood to over 700,000 residents, the majority of them black and brown, is systemic racism,” said Stasha Rhodes, campaign director of the pro-statehood group 51 for 51. “D.C. statehood is one of the most urgent civil rights and racial justice issues of our time — and we know we are on the right side of history.”
Iran has issued an arrest warrant for US President Donald Trump over the drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in January, as reported by Fars News Agency on June 30. President Trump is one of 36 people Iran has issued arrest warrants for in relation to the death of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Fars, but the Tehran attorney general Ali Alqasi Mehr said President Trump was at the top of the list. Mehr claimed Trump would be prosecuted as soon as his term as President ends, Fars reported. Iran also said it had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for these 36 individuals, semi-official state news agency ISNA reported, though it was unlikely that Interpol would grant the request. In a statement to CNN, Interpol said it “would not consider requests of this nature.” It explained that it was not in accordance with its rules and constitution, which states “it is strictly forbidden for the organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”
US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook called the move a “political stunt” during a joint press conference with the Saudi Arabian Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir on June 30. “It’s propaganda that we’re used to,” Hook said. “This has nothing to do with national security, international peace or promoting stability, so we see it for what it is — it’s a propaganda stunt that no one takes seriously and makes the Iranians look foolish,” he added.
Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in January along with five others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The strike, condemned by Iran and its allies as an “assassination,” raised the specter of further regional destabilization. A spokesman for Iran’s judiciary, Gholam-Hossein Esmaili, announced in early June that an Iranian citizen had been sentenced to death for allegedly working for foreign intelligence agencies. Esmaili claimed that Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi Majd disclosed the whereabouts of Soleimani to US intelligence officials. The Pentagon blamed Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and US allies in the months leading up to his killing. “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said at the time, calling the strike “decisive defensive” action aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks.
As Coronavirus cases continue to spike across the US, the nation on June 24 saw its largest daily increase in confirmed new infections since the pandemic began, the Trump administration is reportedly planning to cut off federal funding for 13 coronavirus testing sites in five states at the end of the month, a move that is in keeping with the President’s vow to slow screenings for the virus. As reported by Politico on June 24, the federal government is ending its support for 13 drive-thru coronavirus testing sites on June 30, urging states to take over their operations, even as cases spike in several parts of the country. Seven of the sites set to lose federal funding and support are located in Texas, which has seen new Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations skyrocket during the reopening process, a spike that Texas Governor Greg Abbott (one of President Donald Trump’s strongest supporters at the state level) predicted last month in a private call that leaked to reporters. Texas was one of six states that saw a record increase in new infections on Wednesday. The other testing sites that will lose federal support next week are located in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey.
Read More
Texas lawmakers reacted with alarm to the administration’s plan, which was reported days after President Donald Trump said during a weekend rally in Oklahoma that he ordered a slowdown in coronavirus testing. White House officials claimed Trump’s comments were made “in jest,” but the President on June 23 doubled down and told reporters that he was not joking. “Texas continues to set records for the number of new cases and hospitalizations and Harris County leads the state in number of confirmed cases,” Texas Democratic Conrgressmembers Sylvia Garcia, Al Green, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, and Sheila Jackson Lee wrote in letters this week to US Surgeon General Jerome Adams and to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administrator Pete Gaynor. Rocky Vaz, the director of emergency management for Dallas, told Talking Points Memo that the city asked for an extension of federal support for two testing sites in Dallas County but was denied by the Trump administration. “They told us very clearly that they are not going to extend it,” Vaz said. “We are not expecting it to continue beyond June 30, but things change.” On several occasions in recent weeks, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have falsely claimed that the recent surge in Coronavirus cases is the result of an expansion of testing rather than an actual spread of the virus. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, President Trump said coronavirus testing is “overrated” and “makes us look bad.”
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), demanded in a statement on June 24 that President Donald Trump immediately reverses the plan to end federal support for testing sites. “The pandemic is clearly getting worse in states nationwide—and instead of trying harder to stop it, President Trump is trying harder to hide it,” said Murray. “It’s completely unacceptable that while billions in federal dollars Congress passed to support testing sit unspent, this administration is closing testing sites in states where new Covid-19 cases are rapidly on the rise.” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) echoed Murray and urged Congress to intervene to ensure that the testing sites remain open and at full capacity. “Donald Trump can’t run from the facts: Covid-19 cases are still increasing and Americans are still dying,” Warren tweeted. “This is unacceptable—and Congress must act immediately to counter this reckless and inhumane measure.”
Donald Trump can’t run from the facts: COVID-19 cases are still increasing and Americans are still dying. This is unacceptable—and Congress must act immediately to counter this reckless and inhumane measure. https://t.co/ybQi5gPvU1
A Republican-sponsored bill meant to rein in police misconduct in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis failed in the US Senate on June 24, leaving congressional efforts to address racial inequities in American policing at an impasse. Democrats, denouncing the measure as irrevocably flawed, defeated a Republican push to move to final debate by a vote of 55-45, short of the 60 votes needed, a month after Floyd’s death in police custody set off weeks of worldwide protests against police brutality. The legislative fight over reform now moves to the House of Representatives, which plans to vote on a more sweeping Democratic bill on June 25. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats said they believed the June 24 vote makes it more likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, will agree to negotiations on a stronger bipartisan measure. McConnell said he would schedule another vote if there was enough progress on closing Republican-Democratic differences. President Donald Trump said he would not accept Democratic reforms and suggested the issue could end in stalemate. “If nothing happens with it, it’s one of those things. We have different philosophies,” he told reporters.
Read More
George Floyd’s May 25 death in Minneapolis, after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, stirred strong public sentiment for stopping excessive force by police, especially against African Americans. Civil rights leaders and activist groups, who called on the Senate to reject the Republican bill, have urged lawmakers to take up stronger measures. Senate Democrats sought to seize the mantle of what they regard as a new US Civil Rights Movement to address the lingering issues of systemic racism and police brutality in the US. “This movement will not be deterred. This movement will not accept anything less than real, real, substantial, substantive solutions,” said Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) who helped craft the Democratic legislation. “And so let the beginning be today, of a real conversation,” she added. But Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chamber’s only African American Republican and author of the failed bill, cautioned that an impasse would leave African Americans vulnerable to police violence. “Do you know what’s going to happen? Something bad. And we’ll be right back here talking about what should have been done, what could have been done” to prevent it, Scott said.
The Republican and Democratic bills address similar issues such as chokeholds, no-knock warrants, police body cameras, use of deadly force, and training to de-escalate confrontations with suspects and to encourage officer intervention against illegal conduct as it occurs. Democrats opposed the Republican bill because it relies on incentives to effect reforms and seeks data collection on issues such as no-knock warrants, rather than mandating changes as the Democratic bill does. Republicans warn that the Democratic bill could undermine law enforcement, in part because it would remove qualified immunity protections for police and allow victims of misconduct to sue for damages. Regarding the issue of qualified immunity protections for police officers, a June 22-23 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Americans favor removing the protections, 49% to 26%. Republicans were split on the issue, with 38% favoring removal and 37% opposing it.
President Donald Trump on June 22 issued a proclamation suspending some employment-based visas, including H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, through the end of the year as the US struggles to weather the widening coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration is touting the move as a way to protect American jobs amid the highest unemployment rate since 1939, but the decision has been panned by a broad range of companies who say they cannot access the labor they need in the US and who warn that the move could lead them to move operations abroad. The order is part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to severely limit immigration into the US during the pandemic. It suspends H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, most H-2B visas for non-agricultural guest workers, many J-1 visas for exchange visitors like teachers, interns, au pairs and camp counselors, and L-1 visas used by companies to transfer foreign workers to locations in the US, officials told reporters on June 22. Food supply chain workers are exempt, as are workers whom the government deems essential to the fight against coronavirus The order will also extend Trump’s April 2020 edict barring green cards for family members of US citizens.
An administration official estimated that the restrictions as a whole would prevent some 525,000 people from entering the US through the end of the year, though immigration analysts say they expect the number to be around half that figure. The ban will still be in place on October 1, the start of the government’s new fiscal year, when H-1B visas are typically issued. “American workers compete against foreign nationals for jobs in every sector of our economy, including against millions of aliens who enter the United States to perform temporary work,” President Donald Trump’s proclamation says. “Under ordinary circumstances, properly administered temporary worker programs can provide benefits to the economy. But under the extraordinary circumstances of the economic contraction resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, certain nonimmigrant visa programs authorizing such employment pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.”
Immigration analysts and advocates have criticized the Trump administration for what they see as an effort to use the pandemic as cover to enact a number of restrictive immigration measures the administration has long wished to implement. Immigration hard-liners have pressured the administration for months to act to limit the number of foreign workers allowed into the US. The decision to temporarily suspend worker visas has even divided Congressional Republicans. In a May 27 letter addressed to President Trump, nine Republican senators, including close Trump ally Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, urged the president to reconsider limits on temporary foreign workers, saying that the move would hurt American businesses. “Guest workers are needed to boost American business, not take American jobs,” the letter read. But earlier in May, four Republican Senators wrote to President Donald Trump asking him to do the opposite and instead suspend temporary worker visas amid the pandemic.
In a major rebuke to President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle a program implemented by President Barack Obama in 2012 that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion. Under the Obama-era program, qualified individuals brought to the US as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, President Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court. Roberts’ opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on ‘a reasoned explanation for its action.’ “
In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply declared DACA illegal and unconstitutional. “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch,” he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be rescinded because he said it was unlawful from the start. But, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed, the Attorney General offered no detailed justifications for canceling DACA. Nor did the acting secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Elaine Duke, who put out a memo announcing the rescission of DACA that relied entirely on Sessions’ opinion that the program was unlawful. As Roberts noted, Duke’s memo did not address the fact that thousands of young people had come to rely on the program, emerging from the shadows to enroll in degree programs, embark on careers, start businesses, buy homes and even marry and have 200,000 children of their own who are US citizens, not to mention that DACA recipients pay $60 billion in taxes each year. None of these concerns are “dispositive,” Roberts said, but they have to be addressed. The fact that they were not addressed made the decision to rescind DACA “arbitrary and capricious,” he wrote. And none of the justifications the administration offered after the fact sufficed either, including a memo issued by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. That memo, said Roberts, was essentially too little, too late. An agency must defend its action based on the reasons it gave at the time it acted, he said, instead of when the case is already in court.
Chief Justice John Roberts also made clear that an administration can rescind a program like DACA, and indeed immigration experts do not disagree with that conclusion. The problem for the administration was that it never wanted to take responsibility for abolishing DACA and instead sought to blame the Obama administration for what it called an “illegal and unconstitutional” program. The Chief Justice did not address that issue. Instead, says immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag, the justices in the majority seemed to be saying, “Why should the court be the bad guy” when the administration “won’t take responsibility” for rescinding DACA by explaining clearly what the policy justifications for the revocation are? Joining the Roberts opinion were the court’s four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote separately in a concurrence to say that while she agreed that rescinding DACA violated the law for the procedural reasons outlined by the Chief Justice, she would have allowed the litigants to return to the lower courts and make the case that rescinding DACA also amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissent, accusing Roberts of writing a political rather than a legal opinion. Joining him were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, with separate dissents also filed by Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In a Twitter post, President Donald Trump blasted the decision as one of the “horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.” President Trump also asked the question of if “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on the other hand, celebrated the decision, saying in a statement, “The Supreme Court’s ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored.” In an interview with NPR, Ken Cuccinelli, the Trump administration senior official who oversees immigration and citizenship at the Department of Homeland Security, said President Trump is considering his options. “I do expect you will see some action out of the administration,” he said, adding: “He is not a man who sits on his hands.”
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
While the decision gives DACA and its hundreds of thousands of recipients a lifeline, the issue is far from settled. The court decided that the way President Donald Trump went about canceling DACA was illegal, but all the justices seemed to agree that the president does have the authority to cancel the program if done properly. As for the immediate future of DACA, the consensus among immigration experts is that there is not enough time for President Donald Trump to try again to abolish the program before January. Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, the author of a 21-volume treatise on immigration law, says, “It’s not remotely possible before the election. But if [Trump] is reelected, he almost certainly will try again” to cancel DACA. For now, though, more individuals eligible for DACA status may be able to apply. Marisol Orihuela, co-director of the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, notes that the administration has refused to accept new applications since 2017. But she thinks that will change now. “Our understanding is that the program is restored to what it was in 2012 when it went into effect,” she says. Guttentag, who teaches immigration law at Yale and Stanford University, says if President Trump is not reelected, a new administration could repair “much of the damage” that he says has been inflicted on immigrants during the Trump administration. But, he adds that the immigration system is “completely shattered” and needs “fundamental reform.”
President Donald Trump said on June 14 that he plans on cutting back the number of US troops in Germany to 25,000, faulting the close US ally for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accusing it of taking advantage of America on trade. The reduction of about 9,500 troops would be a remarkable rebuke to one of the closest US trading partners and could erode faith in a pillar of postwar European security: that U.S. forces would defend alliance members against Russian aggression. It was not clear whether Trump’s stated intent, which first emerged in media reports on June 5, would actually come to pass given criticism from some of the President’s fellow Republicans in Congress who have argued a cut would be a gift to Russia. Speaking to reporters, Trump accused Germany of being “delinquent” in its payments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and vowed to stick with the plan unless the German government changed course. “So we’re protecting Germany and they’re delinquent. That doesn’t make sense. So I said, we’re going to bring down the count to 25,000 soldiers,” Trump said, adding that “they treat us very badly on trade” but providing no details. NATO in 2014 set a target that each of its 30 members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Most, including Germany, do not.
President Donald Trump’s remarks were the first official confirmation of the planned troop cut, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal (one of the few newspapers that endorsed President Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections) and later confirmed to Reuters by a senior US official who spoke on condition of anonymity. That official said it stemmed from months of work by the US military and had nothing to do with tensions between Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who thwarted his plan to host an in-person Group of Seven (G7) summit. Asked about Trump’s statement, German Ambassador to the United States Emily Haber said US troops were in Europe to defend transatlantic security and to help the US project its power in Africa and Asia. “This is about transatlantic security but also about American security,” she told a virtual think tank audience, saying US-German security cooperation would remain strong and that her government had been informed of the decision.
Last week, sources told Reuters that German officials as well a number of US officials at the White House, State Department and Pentagon were surprised by the Wall Street Journal report and they offered explanations ranging from President Donald Trump’s pique over the G7 to the influence of Richard Grenell, the former US ambassador to Germany and a Trump loyalist. “There is sure to be significant bipartisan opposition to this move in Congress, so it is possible any actual moves are significantly delayed or even never implemented,” said Phil Gordon of the Council on Foreign Relations. “This move will further erode allies’ faith in NATO and U.S. defense guarantees,” Gordon added, saying it may also “weaken the deterrence of Russia or anyone else who might threaten a NATO member.
Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled on June 14. The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation. The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote. “There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking,” the opinion read.
Speaking at a press conference, President Donald Trump called the decision “very powerful” and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.” Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden called the ruling “a momentous step forward for our country.” “The Supreme Court has confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity. That everyone should be able to live openly, proudly, as their true selves without fear,” Biden said. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, wrote in his dissent that “even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination, the context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute’s terms were understood to mean at that time.” Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s second Supreme court appointee, acknowledged the social and political progress achieved by members of the LGBTQ community, but nonetheless dissented. “They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment,” Kavanaugh wrote.
A number of LGBTQ groups celebrated the court’s ruling, including the Human Rights Campaign, whose president, Alphonso David, said in a tweet that the decision is a “landmark victory for #LGBTQ equality.” Sarah Kate Ellis, the president of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, said in a statement that the decision “is a step towards affirming the dignity of transgender people, and all LGBTQ people.” But the ruling was also sharply criticized by the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, whose president issued a blistering statement about Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards,” said Carrie Severino, a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas. “This was not judging, this was legislating — a brute force attack on our constitutional system.” Gorsuch grounded his opinion in the plain text of the law. He acknowledged that when the law was passed, Congress may not have been thinking of gay, lesbian and transgender rights. The conservative justice said Congress might not have “anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” but, he said, the “express terms of the statute give us one answer.” “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit,” he wrote in the ruling.
Huge news: #SCOTUS affirms that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This is a landmark victory for #LGBTQ equality.
The court’s ruling was on separate cases: one concerning whether the law encompasses claims of sexual orientation brought by Gerald Bostock, and the estate of Donald Zarda, and the other concerning a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, whose challenge marked the first time the court heard arguments regarding the civil rights of a transgender individual. Stephens, who died in May, mustered the courage back in 2013 to tell her co-workers about something that she had struggled with her entire life: her gender identity. Not long after, she was fired as the director of a funeral home. Stephens’ former boss, Thomas Rost, testified in the lower court that she was fired because she was “no longer going to represent himself as a man.” A lower court ruled in her favor, holding it is “analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” Aimee Stephens’ wife, Donna Stephens, also welcomed the court’s ruling, saying in a statement that Aimee was “a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people.” “I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Donna Stephens said.
Following weeks of national protests since the death of George Floyd, President Donald Trumpsigned an executive order on June 16 that he said would encourage better police practices. President Trump met privately with the families of several African-Americans killed in interactions with police before his Rose Garden signing ceremony and said he grieved for the lives lost and families devastated. But then he quickly shifted his tone and devoted most of his public remarks to a need to respect and support “the brave men and women in blue who police our streets and keep us safe.” He characterized the officers who have used excessive force as a “tiny” number of outliers among “trustworthy” police ranks. “Reducing crime and raising standards are not opposite goals,” he said before signing the order, flanked by police officials. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have been rushing to respond to the mass demonstrations against police brutality and racial prejudice that have raged for weeks across the country in response to the deaths of Floyd and other black Americans. It is a sudden shift that underscores how quickly the protests have changed the political conversation and pressured Congress to act. But President Trump, who has faced criticism for failing to acknowledge systemic racial bias and has advocated for rougher police treatment of suspects in the past as well as mass incarceration and the death penalty for even the most minor crimes, has continued to hold his ’law and order” line. At the signing event, he railed against those who committed violence during the largely peaceful protests while hailing the vast majority of officers as selfless public servants.
President Donald Trump’s executive order would establish a database that tracks police officers with excessive use-of-force complaints in their records. Many officers who wind up involved in fatal incidents have long complaint histories, including Derek Chauvin, the white Minneapolis police officer who has been charged with murder in the death of George Floyd. Those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if an officer has such a history. The order would also give police departments a financial incentive to adopt best practices and encourage co-responder programs, in which social workers join the police when they respond to nonviolent calls involving mental health, addiction, and homeless issues. President Trump said that, as part of the order, the use of chokeholds, which have become a symbol of police brutality, would be banned “except if an officer’s life is at risk.” The order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified by a “reputable independent credentialing body” with use-of-force policies that prohibit the use of chokeholds, except when the use of deadly force is allowed by law.
While President Donald Trump hailed his executive order as “historic,” Democrats and other critics said that the order does not go far enough overall. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “One modest inadequate executive order will not make up for his decades of inflammatory rhetoric and his recent policies designed to roll back the progress that we’ve made in previous years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the order “falls sadly and seriously short of what is required to combat the epidemic of racial injustice and police brutality that is murdering hundreds of Black Americans. Kristina Roth at Amnesty International USA said the order “amounts to a Band-Aid for a bullet wound.” In contrast, President Trump said that other efforts at police reform are overly broad. Trump framed his plan as an alternative to the “defund the police” movement to fully revamp departments that have emerged from the protests and which he slammed as “radical and dangerous.” “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos. Without law there is anarchy and without safety, there is a catastrophe,” he said.
The Trump Administration’s action came as Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been rolling out their own packages of policing changes. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the sole African American Republican in the Senate, has been crafting the legislative package, which will include new restrictions on police chokeholds and greater use of police body cameras, among other provisions. While the emerging Republican proposal is not as extensive as sweeping Democratic proposals, which are headed for a House vote next week, it includes perhaps the most far-reaching proposed changes ever from a party that often echoes Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric. It remains unclear whether the parties will be able to find common ground. Though their proposals share many similar provisions, both would create a national database so officers cannot transfer from one department to another without public oversight of their records, for example, several key differences remain. The Republican bill does not go as far as the Democrats’ on the issue of eliminating qualified immunity, which would allow those injured by law enforcement personnel to sue for damages. The Trump Administration has said that is a step too far. As an alternative, Senator Scott has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.
The American economy defied forecasts for a Depression-style surge in Unemployment this week, signaling the economy is picking up faster than anticipated from the coronavirus-inflicted recession amid reopenings and government stimulus. A broad gauge of payrolls rose by 2.5 million in May, trouncing forecasts for a sharp decline following a 20.7 million decrease during the prior month that was the largest in records back to 1939, according to Labor Department data released on June 5. The figures were so astonishing that President Donald Trump held a news conference, where he called the numbers “outstanding” and predicted further improvement before he is up for re-election in November. While the overall picture improved, there remain several underlying issues facing the economy. For example, 21 million Americans remain unemployed with a jobless rate higher than any other time since 1939, indicating a full recovery remains far off with many likely to suffer for some time. And the return to work is uneven, with unemployment ticking up among African Americans to 16.8%, matching the highest since 1984, even as unemployment rates declined among white and Hispanic Americans. That comes amid nationwide protests over police mistreatment of African-Americans, which have drawn renewed attention to race-based inequality.
The latest figures may give a boost to President Donald Trump, who has siginficantly fallen behind Democratic challenger Joe Biden in polls amid dissatisfaction with his response to the pandemic and the death of George Floyd. The numbers could also reduce pressure on policy for another round of fiscal support, with Democrats and Republicans at odds over the timing and scope of new measures following record aid approved by Congress. “The only thing that can stop us is bad policy, like raising taxes and the Green New Deal,” President Trump said on June 5. He also said that he will ask Congress to pass more economic stimulus, including a payroll tax cut.
One caution noted by the US Labor Department is that the unemployment rate “would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” so 16.3% if data were reported correctly, according to the agency’s statement. That refers to workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to other reasons, rather than unemployed on temporary layoff. The broader U-6, or underemployment rate, which includes those who have not searched for a job recently or want full-time employment, fell only slightly to 21.2% in May from 22.8%, which is its highest rate since 1982. In February, it was 7%, with the main unemployment rate at a half-century low of 3.5%.
The Minneapolis city council has pledged to disband the city’s police department and replace it with a new system of public safety, a historic move that comes as calls to defund law enforcement are sweeping the US. Speaking at a community rally on June 7, a veto-proof majority of council members declared their intent to “dismantle” and “abolish” the embattled police agency responsible for George Floyd’s death, and build an alternative model of community-led safety. The decision is a direct response to the massive protests that have taken over American cities in the last two weeks, and is a major victory for abolitionist activists who have long fought to disband police and prisons. “In Minneapolis and in cities across the US, it is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe,” said Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president, at the event. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period. Our commitment is to do what’s necessary to keep every single member of our community safe and to tell the truth: that the Minneapolis police are not doing that. Our commitment is to end policing as we know it and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.” Nine council members announced their support and represent a supermajority on the 12-person council, meaning the mayor, who earlier this weekend opposed disbanding the department, cannot override them.
The formal effort to abolish a major-city police department in America and replace it with a different model of safety would have been almost unthinkable even weeks ago and is a testament to the impact of the protests that began with George Floyd’s death on May 25. “This is a moment that’s going to go down in history as a landmark in the police and prison abolition movement,” said Tony Williams, a member of MPD150, a Minneapolis group whose literature on building a “police-free future” has been widely shared during the protests. “There’s a groundswell of support for this. People are grounded in the history of policing in a way that has never happened before. It’s visible that police are not able to create safety for communities.” The council members are expected to face opposition from law enforcement officials and the police union, though activists emphasize that the veto-proof majority has the authority to move forward regardless of opposition. President Donald Trump tweeted his opposition to the Minneapolis move on June 8, stating “LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE POLICE. The Radical Left Democrats have gone Crazy!”
LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE POLICE. The Radical Left Democrats have gone Crazy!
While the effort in Minneapolis is the most radical, a number of other US mayors and local leaders have reversed their positions on police funding. The mayor of Los Angeles said he would look to cut as much as $150 million from the police this week, just days after he pushed forward a city budget that was increasing it by 7%. Following days of protests and widespread accounts of police misconduct in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on June 7 that some funding would be moved from the police to “youth initiatives and social services”. Some council members and others, however, have been pushing for a $1 billion divestment from the New York Police Department. “The details will be worked out in the budget process in the weeks ahead, but I want people to understand that we are committed to shifting resources to ensure that the focus is on our young people,” Mayor De Blasio said. “And I also will affirm while doing that, we will only do it in a way that we are certain continues to ensure that this city will be safe.” De Blasio also announced that enforcement of regulations involving street vendors – many of whom are persons of color and, or immigrants, should not be handled by police. “Civilian agencies can work on proper enforcement and that’s what we’ll do going forward,” he said.
For years, police abolitionist groups have advocated for governments to take money away from police and prisons and reinvesting the funds in other services. The basic principle is that government budgets and “public safety” spending should prioritize housing, employment, community health, education and other vital programs, instead of police officers. Advocates for defunding argue that recent police reform efforts have been unsuccessful, noting that de-escalation training, body cameras, and other moves have not stopped racist brutality and killings. Amid the current protests, abolitionist groups have put forward concrete steps toward dismantling police and prisons, arguing that defunding police is the first move and that cities need to remove police from schools, repeal laws that “criminalize survival” such as anti-homelessness policies, provide safe housing for people and more. Colleges, public school systems, museums, and other institutions have also increasingly announced plans to divest from the police.
Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden on June 2 blasted President Donald Trump’s response to US protests over racism and police misconduct, vowing to try to heal the country’s racial divide and not “fan the flames of hate.” Speaking in Philadelphia, a city rocked by sometimes violent demonstrations in recent days, the former Vice President sought to draw a vivid contrast between himself and President Trump, whom he will face in the general election. Biden, who served eight years as Vice President under Barack Obama, the first African-American US President, cast himself as the candidate who best understands the longstanding pain and grief in the country’s African-American communities. He said the killing of George Floyd, the African-American man who died at the hands of Minneapolis police last week, was a “wake-up call” for the nation that must force it to address the stain of systemic racism.“We can’t leave this moment thinking we can once again turn away and do nothing,” Biden said. “We can’t.” He accused Trump of turning the nation into “a battlefield riven by old resentments and fresh fears.” “Is this who we want to be?” he asked. “Is this what we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren? Fear, anger, finger-pointing, rather than the pursuit of happiness? Incompetence and anxiety, self-absorption, selfishness?” Biden pledged he would “not traffic in fear or division.”
Joe Biden’s speech on June 2 at Philadelphia’s City Hall marked the first time he has left his home state of Delaware to campaign in person since mid-March when the outbreak of the Coronavirus forced him to halt in-person campaigning indefinitely. While Biden had made public appearances in Delaware in recent days and convened a virtual conference of big-city mayors on June 1, his most recent speech suggested he may soon begin to again move about the country as states slowly re-open. Biden formally launched his White House bid in Philadelphia last year, and it is also where his campaign headquarters, currently empty because of the pandemic, is located. The city was also the birthplace of the US Constitution, which Biden cited in his speech as support of the right to peacefully protest. “Our freedom to speak is the cherished knowledge that lives inside every American,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked a resolution proposed by Senate Democrats that would have censured President Trump’s response to protesters in Washington, D.C., on June 1, when federal law enforcement officers forcefully removed demonstrators from a park across from the White House. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), introduced the resolution on June 2, saying on the Senate floor that the removal of the protesters was “appalling” and “an abuse of presidential power.” Schumer attempted to pass the measure by unanimous consent, which does not require a vote by the whole Senate but can be blocked by any member. McConnell objected, accusing Democrats of pulling a political stunt in the middle of the crisis sparked by the death of George Floyd, who died after a Minneapolis police officer pinned his knee to his neck.
Speaking after the resolution was introduced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called George Floyd’s death a “heinous act of criminal violence,” and said that “there’s no doubt that residual racism continues to be a stain on our country.” But the Republican leader argued that peaceful protests had been “hijacked” by violent riots and looting, and said the Democratic resolution would do nothing to ease tensions. “Those are the two issues that Americans want to address: racial justice, and ending riots. Unfortunately, this resolution from my friend the Democratic leader does not address either one of them. Instead, it just indulges in the myopic obsession with President Trump that has come to define the Democratic side of the aisle,” McConnell said. McConnell also proposed a resolution affirming the right to peaceful protest and condemning riots which were then blocked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
The Democratic-sponsored resolution would have affirmed the constitutional rights of Americans to peacefully protest, as well as state that violence and looting are unacceptable. It also would have condemned President Donald Trump “for ordering Federal officers to use gas and rubber bullets against the Americans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby violating the constitutional rights of those peaceful protestors.” A Justice Department official said in a statement that Attorney General William Barr was part of the decision to expand the perimeter around the White House, pushing protesters who were assembled there from the area before President Trump delivered remarks from the Rose Garden. Protesters had gathered for the fourth day of demonstrations in response to George Floyd’s death and other instances of police brutality. The protests were described as peaceful before law enforcement deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators and cleared them from the area. After walking across the cleared-out Lafayette Park, Trump posed for photographs in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church while holding the Bible, joined by several members of his cabinet, including Attorney General William Barr, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
Senate Republicans largely shied away from criticizing President Donald Trump’s June 1 visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters he “didn’t see it” when asked about the President’s photo-op. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), one of President Trump’s strongest Congressional supporters, told reporters at the Capitol that he believed Trump’s visit was “needed.” “I thought what the president did in visiting the church was not only appropriate, it was needed, it sent a message to the American people that its government is going to protect the innocent,” Kennedy said. The church was damaged in a small basement fire set by protesters on Sunday. A handful of Republicans also criticized Trump’s behavior however. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) released a statement saying he was “against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop.” Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters that “I did not think that what we saw last night was the America that I know.” Trump’s visit to the church was also condemned by Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, who oversees the church and the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C.
As the nation prepared for another series of violent protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, President Donald Trump on June 1 threatened to deploy the military if states and cities failed to quell the demonstrations. “I am mobilizing all federal and local resources, civilian and military, to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans,” President Trump said during a hastily arranged address at the White House. “Today I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming presence until the violence is quelled,” Trump said. “If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” said the president. Trump stopped short of invoking the Insurrection Act, an archaic law from 1807 that would allow Trump to deploy active-duty U.S. troops to respond to protests in cities across the country. “During his address, Trump said he was taking “swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington DC,” adding, “What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace.” “As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.”
As President Donald Trump spoke, riot police and military police outside the White House were using tear gas to clear protesters out of Lafayette Square, a public square in front of the president’s residence. Following his remarks, President Trump left the White House and walked through the square, and it appeared strongly as though the riot police had forcibly cleared the square for the sole purpose of clearing a path for the President. Once he reached the far side of the square, Trump raised a bible in front of St. John’s Church, which had been set on fire by protesters the night before. The President did not try to talk to any of the protesters, however, leaving little doubt as to where his sympathies lay.
President Donald Trump’s address followed a weekend where he threatened the protesters gathered outside the gates of the White House with the promise of “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons.” During a teleconference with governors on June 1, President Trump berated them for not using harsher tactics to quell the protests that have lit up dozens of American cities since last week, when George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, was killed by Minneapolis police. “You have to dominate if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you. You’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate,” the President told governors. Trump pressured the governors to mobilize more National Guard units, called for 10-year prison sentences for violent protesters, and effectively blamed the governors themselves for the racial unrest in their states. “The only time [violent protests are] successful is when you’re weak. And most of you are weak,” Trump can be heard saying on the audio recording. Trump also told the governors he was putting the nation’s highest-ranking military officer “in charge.” “General Milley is here who’s head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, a fighter, a warrior, and a lot of victories and no losses. And he hates to see the way it’s being handled in the various states. And I’ve just put him in charge,” Trump told the governors.
As of June 1, 23 states and the District of Columbia have mobilized more than 17,000 National Guard personnel in support of state and local authorities. More than 45,000 members of the National Guard are already supporting Coronavirus response efforts at their governors’ direction. Inside the White House, there was little consensus over what President Donald Trump should do next. Some aides advised the president to deliver a formal address to the nation, urging calm and unity. Other advisers recommended that Trump take the opposite tack, and escalate the federal response, up to and including Trump invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to order federal troops into Washington D.C. Proponents of involving the Insurrection Act to quell the protests (the most notable of which being Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas) have pointed to the fact that Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John F. KennedyLyndon Johnson, and George H.W. Bush invoked the Act in response to racial disturbances during their Presidencies. On the other hand, opponents of such measures argue that they will do little more than to inflame the racial tensions that have steadily increased since President Trump took office and may set negative precedence that may encourage future Presidents to utilize the military to crack down on their political opponents.
To those who claim the military has no role in stopping anarchists and other criminals from tearing apart our cities: read a book.
The military has intervened to maintain public order since the Whiskey Rebellion. Here are a few recent examples.
On May 30, President Donald Trump had attempted to empathize with protesters and with George Floyd’s family during remarks he delivered at a SpaceX launch in Florida.“I understand the pain that people are feeling,” Trump said. “We support the right of peaceful protesters, and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or with peace. “The memory of George Floyd is being dishonored by rioters, looters, and anarchists. The violence and vandalism is being led by Antifa and other radical left-wing groups who are terrorizing the innocent, destroying jobs, hurting businesses, and burning down buildings.” But even in his scripted sympathy, Trump politicized the protests to a great extent by blaming “radical left-wing groups” as the main culprits behind the civil disturbances.
The House of Representatives on May 27 passed legislation calling on President Donald Trump’s administration to impose sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the oppression of the country’s Uighur Muslim minority. The tally was 413 in favor, and just one opposed. Since the legislation has passed the Senate, approval sent the bill to the White House where congressional aides said they expected President Trump would sign it into law. The vote was historic, the first use of a new system allowing proxy voting because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The bill calls for sanctions against those responsible for the repression of Uighurs and other Muslim groups in China’s Xinjiang province. It singles out the region’s Communist Party secretary, Chen Quanguo, a member of China’s powerful Politburo, as responsible for “gross human rights violations” against them. “Congress sent a clear message that the Chinese government cannot act with impunity,” said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who led the push for the legislation. The measure passed the Republican-led Senate by unanimous consent. The overwhelming majority in the Democratic-led House was far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override any veto. The bill also calls on American companies or individuals operating in the Xinjiang region to take steps to ensure their supply chains are not “compromised by forced labor” there. “Today, with this overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation, the United States Congress is taking a firm step to counter Beijing’s horrific human rights abuses against the Uighurs,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
Since 2014, the Uighur Muslim community in China has been affected by extensive controls and restrictions upon their religious and cultural practices, as well as social life. In Xinjiang province, the Chinese government has expanded police surveillance to watch for signs of “religious extremism” that include owning books about Uighur, growing a beard, having a prayer rug, or quitting smoking or drinking. The government had also installed cameras in the homes of private citizens. Additionally, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 million Uighur Muslims have been detained in mass prison camps aimed at changing their political thinking, religious beliefs, and identities. The Chinese government has denied any mistreatment at these camps and has claimed that the camps provide vocational training.
The increased efforts to place sanctions on the Chinese government for the human rights abuses carried out against the Uighur Muslim community comes at a time of heightened tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration. For example, President Donald Trump has escalated his ongoing trade war against China and has blamed the Chinese government (with little evidence) for planning out the Coronavirus pandemic as a form of biological warfare against the US. Additionally, President Donald Trump has publically floated the idea of launching military strikes against China as a form of retribution for the Coronavirus outbreak.
A key figure behind the US investigation into links between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign will testify next week before a Republican-led Senate committee examining the origins of the probe, the panel said on May 27. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, will testify on June 3 as part of a Senate Judiciary Committee examination of an FBI probe of Trump campaign officials code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” which led to the Mueller investigation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of President Trump’s strongest congressional allies, said Rosenstein would offer “new revelations” about federal surveillance practices.
President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have long claimed that the Trump-Russia probe was intended to undermine his candidacy and presidency, whereas supporters of the investigation note that there is clear and convincing evidence that members of the 2016 Trump campaign conspired with Russian President Vladimir Putin to release damaging information against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as a way to sway the election in Trump’s favor. In December of 2019, a Justice Department watchdog found evidence of numerous errors but no political bias when the FBI opened the probe. “Even the best law enforcement officers make mistakes and … some engage in willful misconduct,” Rosenstein said in a statement announcing his senate testimony. “We can only hope to maintain public confidence if we correct mistakes, hold wrongdoers accountable and adopt policies to prevent problems from recurring,” he added.
The Rosenstein hearing is set a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote whether to subpoena Rosenstein, former FBI Director James Comey, and other former top officials from the Obama administration, as part of its probe. The panel’s top Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), has sharply criticized the committee investigation as an effort to attack President Donald Trump political rival Joe Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. The Mueller probe found that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election to boost Trump’s candidacy and that the Trump campaign had numerous contacts with Russians. But Mueller concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
President Donald Trump on May 27 threatened to regulate or shut down social media companies for stifling conservative voices, a day after Twitter attached a warning to some of his tweets prompting readers to fact check the president’s claims. Without offering evidence, President Trump accused such platforms of bias, tweeting: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down before we can ever allow this to happen.” Trump, a heavy user of Twitter with more than 80 million followers, added: “Clean up your act, NOW!!!! Trump’s threat to shut down platforms such as Twitter and Facebook was his strongest yet within a broader conservative backlash against Big Tech.
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that….
Twitter for the first time attached fact-check labels on President Donald Trump’s tweets after he made unsubstantiated claims on May 26 about mail-in voting. In a pair of early morning posts on May 27, the Republican president again blasted mail-in ballots. President Trump falsely claims that mail-in ballots lead to vote fraud and ineligible voters getting ballots. Twitter and Facebook declined to comment on Trump’s tweets. Asked during Twitter’s annual meeting why the company decided to affix the label to Trump’s mail-in ballot tweets, General Counsel Sean Edgett said decisions about handling misinformation are made as a group. “We have a group and committee of folks who take a look at these things and make decisions on what’s getting a lot of visibility and traction…,” he said. In recent years Twitter has tightened its policies amid criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive. Tech companies have been accused of anti-competitive practices and violating user privacy. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon face antitrust probes by federal and state authorities and a US congressional panel. The Internet Association, which includes Twitter and Facebook among its members, said online platforms do not have a political bias and they offer “more people a chance to be heard than at any point in history.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers, along with the Justice Department, have been considering changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their user’s post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits. Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a frequent critic of Big Tech companies and strong supporter of President Donald Trump, sent a letter to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey asking why the company should continue to receive legal immunity after “choosing to editorialize on President Trump’s tweets.”
A federal judge on May 18 allowed a federal lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump, his three eldest children and his company of collaborating with a fraudulent marketing scheme to prey on investors to proceed. The lawsuit, originally filed in October 2018 and amended a few months later, alleges that in exchange for “secret” payments, Trump and three of his adult children used his former reality TV show “The Celebrity Apprentice” and other promotional events as vehicles to boost ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company linked to a nonprofit that used Trump’s brand to appeal to teens. The lawsuit also accuses the Trumps of having profited off the poor and vulnerable, as people looking “to enrich themselves by systematically defrauding economically marginalized people looking to invest in their educations, start their own small business, and pursue the American dream.” “Weighing the two ‘most critical’ factors — likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm — against each other, any prejudice that Defendants and ACN may suffer from proceeding with the litigation during the pendency of the appeal does not outweigh the strong likelihood that Defendants and ACN will not succeed on appeal,” US District Court Judge Lorna Schofield wrote in her opinion.
In response to the new allegations regarding fraudulent marketing schemes, President Donald Trump and his children intent to bring the ruling to an appeals court. A lawyer for the Trumps, Joanna Hendon, said “We intend to promptly move the 2nd Circuit for a stay pending appeal.” Four anonymous plaintiffs brought the suit, including what court papers describe as a hospice caregiver, a self-employed man who was once homeless and a food delivery driver. The Trumps “deliberately misled” consumers about the likely success of their investments, the suit claims, and engaged in “a pattern of racketeering activity.” According to CNN suit is being funded by the nonprofit Tesseract Research Center, which has ties to Democratic candidates.
The Coronavirus pandemic has forced countries around the world to enact strict lockdowns, seal borders, and scale back economic activities. Despite these negative effects of the coronavirus lockdown, a new study found that these measures contributed to an estimated 17 percent decline in daily global carbon dioxide emissions compared to daily global averages from 2019. It is a worldwide drop that scientists say could be the largest in recorded history. At the height of coronavirus confinements in early April, daily carbon dioxide emissions around the world decreased by roughly 18.7 million tons compared to average daily emissions last year, falling to levels that were last observed in 2006, according to the new study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Drastic changes in transportation, industrial activities, and air travel in nations under lockdowns could also fuel a decrease in this year’s annual carbon emissions of up to 7 percent, the study found. Though significant, scientists say these declines are unlikely to have a long-term impact once countries return to normal unless governments prioritize investments and infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions. “Globally, we haven’t seen a drop this big ever, and at the yearly level, you would have to go back to World War II to see such a big drop in emissions,” said Corinne Le Quéré, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in the UK, and the study’s lead author. “But this is not the way to tackle climate change, it’s not going to happen by forcing behavior changes on people. We need to tackle it by helping people move to more sustainable ways of living.”
The study found that the sharpest decline in carbon emissions, making up 43 percent of the total decrease, came from reduced traffic from cars, buses, and trucks. Emissions from industrial activities, which were ramped down substantially in the hardest-hit nations, fell by 19 percent. Emissions from air travel, which experienced a staggering 75 percent drop in daily activity in early April, fell by 60 percent. That decline, however, made up a much smaller portion of the overall decrease because air travel typically accounts for only 2.8 percent of yearly global carbon emissions. “Air traffic was down two-thirds, but surface transport — cars and trucks — is almost 10 times bigger in terms of emissions,” said Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and a co-author of the study. The pandemic will likely also cause this year’s annual carbon emissions to drop by between 4 percent to 7 percent, depending on how long strict social-distancing measures remain in effect and how quickly economies rebound. In early April, the deepest decreases in daily global carbon emissions, 17 percent declines compared to daily averages last year, lasted for about two weeks, according to Jackson. Individual countries saw an average drop in emissions of 26 percent at the peak of their lockdowns, which occurred earlier for several countries in Asia, where the coronavirus emerged in late December, and more recently for parts of Europe and North America.
The study did not account for how global emissions could be affected by new outbreaks and a subsequent wave of infections, but such events could likely lead to steeper declines in emissions this year and possibly into 2021. “If the outbreak lasts longer, we’ll have more depressed economic activity in 2021,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved with the new study. “It’s likely at this point that 2021 emissions will be below 2019 emissions but higher than 2020, unless things take a turn for the worse.” In the new analysis, the researchers examined lockdown measures in 69 countries that are responsible for 97 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Since there is no way to measure carbon dioxide emissions in real-time, the scientists used data on how six key economic sectors, including industrial activities, ground transportation, and air travel, were affected in each country from January through April. They then calculated how emissions in these sectors, and their contribution to yearly emissions, changed based on the severity of each nation’s social-distancing restrictions.
Though declining emissions make for unexpected good news against the backdrop of the pandemic, these reductions have come at a high societal cost. The changes are also unlikely to last once restrictions on people’s movements and daily lives are lifted. And though these declines are largely unparalleled in modern history, they also demonstrate how difficult it is to make significant dents in global emissions. “Despite all of the changes that are happening around the world to our lifestyle and consumption behaviors, we’re only going to see a reduction of 7 percent this year,” Zeke Hausfather said. “It goes to show just how big of a challenge decarbonization really is.” Before the pandemic, global carbon dioxide emissions had been increasing by approximately 1 percent a year over the past decade. A drop in emissions in one year is something, but it is not enough to slow the accelerated pace of climate change. “Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so climate change is driven more by the total amount we’ve ever emitted than any amount we emit in a single year,” Hausfather said. “From a climate standpoint, what really matters is long-term systemic changes that can drive emission declines over decades.”
Decreases from 4 percent to 7 percent are roughly in line with how much global emissions would need to fall each year to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees Celsius, as outlined under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “We would have to have the same speed of reduction that’s happening in 2020 every year for the next decade,” Zeke Hausfather said. But Corinne Le Quéré said she hopes the study’s findings will encourage countries to think about solutions that promote economic recovery without sacrificing climate action. “We’re at a crossroads,” she said. “It’s about governments having vision and being forward-thinking. What society do we need to build tomorrow to reduce the risks of more disasters?” There is cause to be optimistic, Rob Jackson said, because some of the environmental changes from the coronavirus pandemic could be readily seen or felt. “The most obvious change was the beautiful blue skies we saw from India to Indiana,” he said. “People can relate to that more than abstract discussions about greenhouse gas emissions — you could just see that skies were clear.”
The Iranian parliament (Majlis) approved a bill on May 18 including a list of measures against Israel, such as the establishment of an Iranian consulate or embassy in Jerusalem to Palestine, boycott measures, and bans on contact and agreements between Iran and Israel. The bill, featuring 14 articles, passed with 43 votes in favor and no votes against, according to the Iranian IRNA news agency. The bill will be brought before the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee so that the parliament can vote on the law at the beginning of next week.
“During seven decades of its formation, the Zionist regime has created numerous difficulties for the Muslims in the region,” said the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mojtaba Zonnour, according to the Iranian Fars News Agency. “Spying, terrorism, and martyrdom of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyber and electronic warfare, and cyber-attacks on nuclear and economic centers are among the Zionist regime’s actions against the Iranian nation.” Zonnour encouraged Iranian lawmakers to approve the anti-Zionist motion as a substitute for Quds Day rallies that have been canceled due to the Coronavirus outbreak. The bill bans the use of Israeli flags, symbols, or signs for “propaganda purposes in favor of the regime“; direct and indirect financial assistance from Iranian nationals to the State of Israel is prohibited, according to the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency.
The Iranian bill claimed that the “historical and integrated land of Palestine belongs to the original Palestinian peoples, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews,” adding that the Iranian government is obliged to treat Jerusalem as the “permanent capital of Palestine.” Within six months of the adoption of the law, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must make arrangements for the establishment of a “consulate or virtual embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Capital of Jerusalem in Palestine.” The proposed law obligates the Iranian government to boycott all economic, commercial, financial, and governmental institutions of Israel whose shares belong to Israeli citizens or companies registered in Israel. Any activity of commercial companies that operate in the security, military, and infrastructure sectors is banned within Iran according to the new law as well, according to Tasnim. Cooperation between Iranian universities, medical and scientific centers, public and private centers, and government employees and their Israeli counterparts is banned as well, as is participation in conferences affiliated with the Jewish state.
Affected by the ban include any companies or entities directly created by Israel, entities that “work for the goals of the Zionist regime and international Zionism all over the world” and companies in which over half their shares belong to Israeli citizens. All hardware and software developed in Israel or by companies that have production branches in Israel are banned from use in Iran. All negotiations, political agreements or exchanges of information with official and unofficial Israeli entities are also banned by the new law. The penalties for breaking the law range from fines to imprisonment to dismissal from public service. All Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering Iran. Iranian nationals are prohibited from traveling to the “occupied Palestinian territories.” It is unclear what areas are referred to under the law. Non-incidental contact and communications between Iranian nationals and Israeli nationals are also prohibited. The perpetrator would have the burden of proof concerning proving the communication is accidental.
The announcement of the new law comes amid heightened tensions between Iran and Israel as plans for the annexation of much of the Palestinian-held territories are pushed forward by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An alleged Iranian cyberattack on Israeli water and sewage facilities last month was the subject of the first Israeli cabinet meeting since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, contributing to some of the recent tensions between Israel and Iran. Additionally, Israel in recent weeks has launched a series of airstrikes throughout Syria against targets connected to the Iranian military and the Lebanese Shi’a militia group Hezbollah. Many foreign policy observers note that the Israeli airstrikes against Iranian military assets and Iranian allies may lead to an open military conflict between Iran and Israel
On May 15, the House of Representatives passed a $3 trillion tax cut and spending bill aimed at addressing the devastating economic fallout from the growing Coronavirus outbreak by directing huge sums of money into all corners of the economy. The Trump Administration and Senate Republicans have decried the measure’s design and said they will cast it aside, leaving uncertain what steps policymakers might take as the economy continues to face severe strains. The sweeping legislation, dubbed the “Heroes Act, passed 208-199. Fourteen Democrats defected and opposed the bill, reflecting concerns voiced both by moderates and liberals in the House Democratic caucus about the bill’s content and the leadership-driven process that brought it to the floor. The bill won support from just one Republican, Congressman Peter King of New York, generally regarded as a relatively moderate Republican. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed forward despite the divisions in her caucus and Republican opposition, arguing that the legislation will put down a marker for Democrats’ priorities and set the stage for negotiations on the next bipartisan relief bill. Americans “are suffering so much, in so many ways. We want to lessen their pain,” Pelosi said during the House floor debate. “Not to act now is not only irresponsible in a humanitarian way, it is irresponsible because it’s only going to cost more, more in terms of lives, livelihood, cost to the budget, cost to our democracy.”
As Washington scrambled to deal with the growing impact of the coronavirus pandemic earlier this year, the Trump administration, state governments, local officials, and businesses took steps to send many Americans home as a way to try to contain the contagion. This led to a mass wave of layoffs that began more than two months ago and has continued every week since, particularly as Americans have sharply pulled back spending. Congress has passed four bipartisan coronavirus relief bills that have already cost around $3 trillion to try to blunt the economic fallout. While Republicans and Trump administration officials agree that more action will be necessary at some point, many say it’s time to pause and see how the programs already funded are working before devoting even more federal funds to the crisis as deficits balloon. “The president has said he would talk about state and local aid, but it cannot become a pretext for bailing out blue states that have gotten themselves into financial trouble, so while he’s open to discussing it he has no immediate plans to move forward,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, adding, “The Pelosi bill has been entirely unacceptable.”
In a reflection of clashing priorities that might make it difficult to come to an agreement on additional relief legislation, White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow floated slashing the 21 percent corporate tax rate in half for companies that return operations to the United States from overseas, a dramatic change that drew immediate opposition from Democrats. President Donald Trump has also called for a payroll tax cut and new legal liability protections for businesses in any future legislation, policies that have already been rejected by Democrats, and, in the case of the payroll tax cut, some Republicans as well. President Trump himself is pushing for the economy to reopen as quickly as possible and said recently that he’s in “no rush” to sign off on additional spending.
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s resounding victory in the South Carolina primary was a major win for a politician who has been in public life for nearly 50 years, and his first primary victory in his three presidential runs. Cheers went up at a Biden election-night rally in Columbia when MSNBC called the race, Biden cast the win as the first of many number of dominoes that will now fall his way, noting that some were counting him out just days ago. “Now, thanks to all of you — the heart of the Democratic Party — we just won and we won big . . . and we are very much alive,” Biden said in a victory speech that was pointed directly at Sanders. “We have the option of winning big or losing big. That’s our choice,” Biden told a raucous crowd in Columbia. “We have to beat Donald Trump and the Republican Party, but here’s the deal: We can’t become like them. . . . We can’t have a never-ending war.” The Biden campaign hopes to use Saturday’s win to consolidate support from many of his rivals, hoping that several drop out, which one of them, businessman Tom Steyer, did shortly after the polls closed. “Honestly, I can’t see a path where I can win the presidency,” Steyer said in announcing his decision. Biden also plans a series of high-profile endorsements over the coming days. Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe announced shortly after Biden’s win that they were backing the former vice president. Nearly half of South Carolina voters said Congressman James Clyburn’s (D-SC) final-week endorsement of Biden was an important factor in their vote, according to exit poll results from Edison Research.
Bernie Sanders, speaking at a February 28 rally in Virginia sought to put the results in perspective, ticking off his previous strong performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. “But you cannot win ’em all . . . and tonight we did not win in South Carolina,” Sanders said. “And that will not be the only defeat. There are a lot of states in this country, and nobody wins them all.” After congratulating Biden, he proclaimed, “And now we enter Super Tuesday — and Virginia!” For all the candidates but Sanders, a further winnowing of the field is crucial to winning the nomination. Sanders is broadly expected to come out of Super Tuesday with a substantial delegate lead in the race, anchored in his huge polling advantage in California. Under party rules, such leads can be difficult to overcome as the race moves on.
With most precincts reporting, Joe Biden was poised to win about half the vote, giving him a symbolic victory over Bernie Sanders, who did not win more than 34% of the vote in any of the first three states. Under party rules, nominees need to secure more than 50 percent of delegates to win the nomination at the convention in Milwaukee. But the continued viability of so many candidates has increased the likelihood that no candidate will be able to secure such a victory with initially pledged delegates alone, setting up the potential for either a brokered convention or a pre-convention horse-trading of delegates by the candidates. Complicating the hunt for the nomination is former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars advertising his candidacy to the Super Tuesday states, after deciding not to compete in the first four contests. Although his rise in polls had slowed since his first debate performance, Bloomberg still appears positioned to win delegates in many early states, as he continues to swamp his rivals in spending. His advisers vowed Saturday night that Bloomberg will stay in the race at least through Super Tuesday when he will appear on the ballot for the first time. They cited internal campaign data showing that if Bloomberg dropped out it would strengthen Sanders, whose left-leaning policies the former mayor abhors “Mike Bloomberg has not been on the ballot yet,” said Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey. “Our campaign is focused on organizing Democrats and building infrastructure in states all around the country.”
After Saturday’s outcome became clear, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Sleepy Joe Biden’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary should be the end of Mini Mike Bloomberg’s Joke of a campaign.” Biden’s support among black voters, who made up most of the electorate in South Carolina, appeared ready to lift a campaign that has struggled to find its footing for more than a year. Biden, a national polling leader in 2019, finished in fourth place in Iowa, fifth place in New Hampshire and second place in Nevada. African American voters have been a crucial part of the Democratic Party Coalition since the New Deal era, and Biden, along with other Sanders critics, have argued that it will be hard for the Democratic nominee to defeat Trump if he does not have enthusiastic support from the black community. Sanders has replied that he alone among the Democratic contenders has shown the ability to electrify voters and draw big crowds from a broad portion of the electorate.
Sleepy Joe Biden’s victory in the South Carolina Democrat Primary should be the end of Mini Mike Bloomberg’s Joke of a campaign. After the worst debate performance in the history of presidential debates, Mini Mike now has Biden split up his very few voters, taking many away!
In an early Iowa Democratic caucus vote count, Senator Bernie Sander held a slight popular-vote lead, while former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg led in a measure of state delegates. With 62 percent of precincts counted, Sanders earned 26 percent of the popular vote; Buttigieg hit 25. By both measures, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was in third place with 20 percent of the vote, and former Vice President Joe Biden placed fourth at 13 percent. The results were released nearly a day after the caucuses were held, thanks to widespread reporting issues. The Iowa Democratic Party blamed inconsistencies in reporting for the delay. A New York Times analysis of the data, however, said that the results were “riddled with inconsistencies. Technical glitches in an app used to report caucus data delayed results typically released the night of the Iowa presidential caucuses, which took place on February 3. Candidates started to move on to New Hampshire on February 4 ahead of its February 11 primary, but not before they put a positive spin on the Hawkeye State outcome in the absence of official numbers.
Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Mandy McClure said this week that the party would “continue to release the results as we can.” The first set of data from more than half of the precincts came at about 5 p.m. on February 4, followed by more results just before midnight. New chunks of numbers came throughout the day on February 5. Adding to confusion and frustration, Iowa Democrats had to update one batch of data after acknowledging they needed to make a “minor correction.” The figures the party initially released showed Buttigieg jumping barely ahead of Sanders in one of its three data sets, reallocated preference. But Sanders once again had an edge in that category when the numbers were reissued. Just before the party released its first batch of data, its chairman, Troy Price, apologized for the botched reporting process. He called it “unacceptable.” Price said Iowa Democrats would undertake a “thorough, transparent and independent examination of what occurred.” Price said the party faced “multiple reporting challenges” including a “coding error” in the app used at caucus sites. He noted that Iowa Democrats have taken their time out of an “abundance of caution” to make sure the data is accurate. Price said the party has a paper trail to verify electronically reported data.
Multiple Democratic campaigns criticized the delay in releasing results. The chaos fueled more calls from observers to do away with caucuses or Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status. In the absence of results, campaigns announced internal tallies, which can skew toward their candidates. The data suggested some combination of Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren were competing at the top of the caucus field. Buttigieg declared victory early on February 5, the only candidate to do so before the state party released any data. Speaking in New Hampshire after Iowa Democrats released results, he said a campaign that “some said should have no business even making this attempt has taken its place at the front of this race.” Speaking before results were released, Sanders said “we’re not declaring victory.” After the Iowa results started to come out, he said to reporters in New Hampshire, “I’m very proud to tell you that last night in Iowa we received more votes on the first and second round than any other candidate.” “For some reason in Iowa, they’re having a little bit of trouble counting votes,” he continued. “But I am confident that here in New Hampshire I know you’ll be able to count those votes on election night.”
"And I'm very proud to tell you that last night in Iowa we received more votes on the first and second round than any other candidate. That is with 62% of the vote in, for some reason in Iowa they're having a little bit of trouble counting votes…https://t.co/TTnpXt0kl8pic.twitter.com/xOCGlVyp4M
President Donald Trump’s Defense Team Begins Their Opening Arguments
President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team began their opening arguments this week as the impeachment trial got underway in the Senate.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers began their opening arguments in the impeachment trial on January 25, accusing Democrats of asking senators to “tear up” the ballots of the upcoming election while having “no evidence” to support the president’s removal from office. White House counsel Pat Cipollone indicated to senators that the initial arguments would seek to directly rebut the evidence presented by Democratic impeachment managers the previous three days. He also sought to portray the consequences of impeaching Trump in grave terms. “They’re asking you not only to overturn the results of the last election but, as I’ve said before, they’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately nine months,” Cipollone said. “I don’t think they spent one minute of their 24 hours talking to you about the consequences of that for our country.” President Trump’s defense team has 24 hours over three days to make its arguments. While Democrats used nearly the full time allotted for their opening arguments this week, Cipollone said he did not expect the defense to do the same and that their presentations would be “efficient.”
Pat Cipollone, his deputies Michael Purpura and Patrick Philbin, and President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow handled the speaking roles on January 25. They came armed with video clips of selected testimony to undercut specific arguments presented by House managers, seeking to paint the case against Trump as flimsy and based on cherry-picked evidence. “I am not going to continue to go over and over and over again the evidence that they did not put before you because we would be here for a lot longer than 24 hours,” Sekulow said. Trump’s team made the rough transcript of his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a central part of its early arguments. House impeachment managers similarly relied on the transcript in building their case, turning the five-page document into a Rorschach test for those trying to determine the President’s fate. Cipollone claimed that Democrats misrepresented the call, including by ignoring portions that showed Trump talking about burden-sharing and corruption.
The lawyers also zeroed in on storylines that will satisfy President Donald Trump. They raised questions about the credibility of the anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about the Ukraine call, attacked lead impeachment manager House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), and painted the President as a victim of the agents who investigated his campaign’s contacts with Russia. The attorneys quickly showed a clip of Schiff reading a parody account of the call, claiming it was “fake,” an early indication they would focus on criticizing Democrats in an effort to drive home their claim that the impeachment inquiry was motivated by partisan interests. The use of the clip is likely to satisfy Trump. The president spent the days after Schiff made the comments calling for the congressman’s resignation and suggesting he committed treason. Even months after the September hearing, Trump continues to bring up Schiff’s comments in interviews when railing against the impeachment proceedings.
President Donald Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 18, becoming only the third American President to be formally charged under the Constitution’s ultimate remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors. The historic vote split along party lines, much the way it has divided the nation, over a charge that the 45th president abused the power of his office by enlisting a foreign government to investigate a political rival ahead of the 2020 election. The House then approved a second charge, that he obstructed Congress in its investigation. The Articles of Impeachment, the political equivalent of an indictment, now go to the Senate for trial. If President Trump is acquitted by the Republican-led chamber, as expected, he still would have to run for reelection carrying the enduring stain of impeachment on his purposely disruptive presidency. “The president is impeached,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared after the vote. She called it “great day for the Constitution of the United States, a sad one for America that the president’s reckless activities necessitated us having to introduce articles of impeachment.”
President Donald Trump, who began December 18 by tweeting his anger at the proceedings, pumped his fist before an evening campaign rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, boasting of “tremendous support” in the Republican Party. “By the way,” he told the crowd, “it doesn’t feel like I’m being impeached.” The mood in the House chamber shifted throughout the day as the lawmakers pushed toward the vote. Democrats spun lofty speeches, framing impeachment as what many said was their duty to protect the Constitution and uphold the nation’s system of checks and balances. Republicans mocked and jeered the proceedings, as they stood by their party’s leader, who has frequently tested the bounds of civic norms. The start of Trump’s Michigan rally was delayed as the voting was underway in Washington but once he took the stage he boasted of accomplishments and complained bitterly about his foes for two hours, defiant rather than contrite. He called Pelosi names and warned the impeachment would be politically disastrous for Democrats.
No Republicans voted for impeachment, and Democrats had only slight defections on their side, with Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Jared Golden (D-ME), and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) being the only Democrats who voted against impeachment. While Democrats had the majority in the House to impeach Trump, a vote of two-thirds is necessary for conviction in the Republican-controlled Senate. The trial is expected to begin in January of 2020, but House Speaker Pelosi was noncommittal about sending the House articles over, leaving the start date uncertain. Senate leaders are expecting to negotiate details of the trial, but Democrats are criticizing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for saying he will not be an impartial juror and already knows the outcome.
The House impeachment resolution laid out in stark terms the articles of impeachment against Trump stemming from his July 2019 phone call when he asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor,” to announce he was investigating Democrats including potential 2020 rival Joe Biden. At the time, Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, new to politics and government, was seeking a coveted White House visit to show backing from the U.S. as he confronted a hostile Russia at his border. He was also counting on $391 million in military aid already approved by Congress. The White House delayed the funds, but Trump eventually released the money once Congress intervened. Narrow in scope but broad in its charges, the impeachment resolution said President Donald Trump “betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections,” and then obstructing Congress’ oversight like “no president” in American history. “President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office,” it said.
Republicans argued that Democrats were impeaching President Donald Trump because they cannot defeat him in 2020. “They want to take away my vote and throw it in the trash,” said Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT). But Democrats warned the country cannot wait for the next election to decide whether President Trump should remain in office because he has shown a pattern of behavior, particularly toward Russia, and will try to corrupt US elections again. “The president and his men plot on,” said Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee that led the inquiry. “The danger persists. The risk is real.”
Thus far, it is likely that the Senate will vote to acquit President Donald Trump. Whereas some Republican Senators including Mitt Romney (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), are moving in the direction to vote to impeach President Trump, arch-conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is reluctant at best to support the Senate’s impeachment efforts. Based on this factor, the Senate will likely vote to acquit Trump assuming that Republican defections are kept at a minimum
UK prime minister Boris Johnson, secured a crushing victory in the December 12 UK general election as voters backed his promise to “get Brexit done” and take the country out of the European Union by the beginning of 2020. The Conservative Party captured 364 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, a comfortable majority of 80 seats and the party’s best showing in a parliamentary election since 1987. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will now move swiftly to ratify the Brexit deal he sealed with the European Union, allowing the UK to exit the bloc, more than 40 years after it originally joined, at the end of next month, nearly a year later than initially planned and three-and-a-half years after UK voters held a referendum on the issue. Prime Minister Boris Johnson must now negotiate a multi-part deal governing the UK’s future relationship with the world’s largest trading bloc, a process most experts think could take years, but he has promised can be completed during an 11-month transition period due to end in December 2020.
The Labor Party, whose leader, the veteran socialist Jeremy Corbyn, had presented voters a manifesto offering a second Brexit referendum and a radical expansion of the state, was plunged into bitter recriminations after the party won just 203 seats, its worst result since 1935. Labour lost seats it had held for long decades in former industrial areas in the Midlands and north of the country England as voters who had overwhelmingly backed Brexit in the June 2016 referendum swung towards the Conservatives. His critics blamed the party’s losses on Corbyn’s ambiguity over Brexit and said voters had expressed antipathy to him during the campaign. Corbyn, who was elected leader in 2015, has alienated moderates by shifting the party firmly away from the center that brought Labour three successive election victories under Tony Blair.
As well as promising to “get Brexit done”, Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to increase spending on health, education and the police and was handed a boost early in the campaign when arch-Eurosceptic Nigel Farage said his Brexit party, which failed to win any seats, would not compete in hundreds of seats to avoid splitting the pro-Brexit vote. His thumping majority should now allow him to ignore the threat of rebellion by Eurosceptics in his own party, possibly opening up the prospect of a softening in the hardline approach he has so far adopted towards Brexit.
The growing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine took another turn this week when top Congressional Democrats added Vice President Mike Pence to the growing list of Trump Administration officials they want information from. On October 3, Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA), Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) sent a letter to Vice President Pence requesting documents that could shed light on whether he knew anything about President Trump’s intentions towards Ukraine. The letter specifically requested that Pence turn over all documents related to “the Administration’s attempts to press the Ukrainian President to open an investigation into former Vice President Biden or election interference in 2016,” as well as “the reasons behind the White House’s decision to delay critical military assistance to Ukraine.”
On October 2, it was reported that President Donald Trump used Vice President Mike Pence to exert pressure on the Ukrainian government to convince it to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. For example, President Trump told Vice President Pence not to attend the inauguration of Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, knowing the Ukrainian leader desires close ties with the US in the face of continued threats by the Russian government. Additionally, the Washington Post reported that Pence met with Zelensky to convey to him that hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid would not be released to the country amid concerns about the country’s lack of efforts to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
China and Russia have signed more than US$20 billion of deals to boost economic ties in areas such as technology and energy following Xi Jinping’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The June 5 meeting between the two leaders, who have spoken of their desire to boost practical cooperation in the face of increasing rivalry with the US, marked the start of Xi Jinping’s three-day visit to Russia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between both countries.
On June 6, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that the two sides aimed to increase the volume of trade between the two countries to US$200 billion a year following last year’s 24.5 percent rise to a record level of US$108 billion. Gao Feng, a spokesman for the ministry, said the deals covered areas such as nuclear power, natural gas, automobiles, hi-tech development, e-commerce, and 5G communications. The deals were the first concrete results of the warm words exchanged between the leaders, who agreed to deepen their “unprecedented” strategic partnership for “mutual advantage.” “We discussed the current state of, and prospects for, bilateral cooperation in a businesslike and constructive manner, and reviewed, in substance, important international issues while paying close attention to Russia-China cooperation in areas that are truly important for both countries,” Putin said in a joint press statement with Xi.
Xi Jinping, who had previously told Russian media that he “treasured” the relationship with Putin, whom he described as “my best friend”, said the two countries would work to “build mutual support and assistance in issues that concern our key interests in the spirit of innovation, cooperation for the sake of mutual advantage, and promote our relations in the new era for the benefit of our two nations and the peoples of the world”. Putin also highlighted the energy cooperation between the two countries, adding that Russia was China’s leading oil exporter and the Eastern route of a gas pipeline between Russia and China will enter service later this year.
Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute at the University of London, said China’s efforts to edge closer to Russia underlined changes in their relations with the US. “The context has changed. The restart of the trade war, the US measures against Huawei as well as China’s responses suggest that China and the US are entering a process of decoupling, not only in the economic relationship but more generally,” Tsang said. “This implies a structural change in the global strategic line-up. As this progresses, China under Xi will need to strengthen its capacity to face the US and its allies. Putin’s Russia comes in handy in this context.”
President Donald Trump backed off his plan to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods and announced through Twitter on June 7 that the US had reached an agreement with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants to the Southwestern border. President Trump tweeted the announcement only hours after returning from Europe and following several days of intense and sometimes difficult negotiations between American and Mexican officials. Trump’s threat that he would impose potentially crippling tariffs on the US’ largest trading partner and one of its closest allies brought both countries to the brink of an economic and diplomatic crisis, only to be yanked back from the precipice nine days later. The threat had rattled companies across North America, including automakers and agricultural firms, which have built supply chains across Mexico, the US, and Canada.
I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended. Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to….
Business leaders in the US, Mexico, and Canada had warned that the Trump Administration’s proposed tariffs would increase costs for American consumers, who import a whole host of goods ranging from automobiles to appliances from Mexico, and prompt retaliation from the Mexican government in the form of new trade barriers that would damage the US economy. But the trade war ended before it began, forestalling that economic reckoning and an intraparty war that President Donald Trump had created by threatening tariffs to leverage immigration policy changes. Trump’s tactic had drawn protests from Republicans, including many Senators who have long opposed tariffs and worried the measure would hurt American companies and consumers. In an unusual show of force against their own party’s President, Republican Senators had threatened to block the tariffs if President Trump moved ahead with them, and had demanded a face-to-face meeting with Trump before any action. For Mexico, Trump’s threat was a replay of past episodes in which he ranted about the country’s lack of immigration enforcement. This year, he threatened to shut down the entire Southwestern border, backing off only after aides showed him evidence that Mexican authorities were taking aggressive action to stop migrants.
According to a US-Mexico Joint Declaration distributed late on June 7, Mexico agreed to, “take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US. The declaration, distributed by the State Department, said Mexico had also agreed to accept an expansion of a Trump administration program that makes some migrants wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are heard in the US. “The United States looks forward to working alongside Mexico to fulfill these commitments so that we can stem the tide of illegal migration across our southern border and to make our border strong and secure,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. But the declaration by the two countries included an ominous warning, as well, stating that if Mexico’s actions “do not have the expected results,” additional measures could be taken. The declaration said the two countries would continue talking about other steps that could be announced within 90 days to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US.
President Donald Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder, and desecration of a corpse, according to two US officials. The officials said that the Trump administration had made expedited requests this week for paperwork needed to pardon the troops on or around Memorial Day. One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, who is scheduled to stand trial in the coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said they had not seen a complete list, and did not know if other service members were included in the request for pardon paperwork.
The White House sent requests on May 17 to the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which alerted the military branches, according to one senior military official. Pardon files include background information and details on criminal charges, and in many cases include letters describing how the person in question has made amends. The official said while assembling pardon files typically takes months, the Justice Department stressed that all data would have to be complete before Memorial Day weekend because President Donald Trump planned to pardon the men then.
President Donald Trump has often bypassed traditional channels in granting pardons and wielded his power freely, sometimes in politically charged cases that resonate with him, such as the conviction of the former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Earlier this month, Trump pardoned former Army First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, who had been convicted of killing an Iraqi civilian during an interrogation in 2008. While the requests for pardon files are a strong sign of the President’s plans, Trump has been known to change his mind and it is not clear what the impetus was for the requests. But most of the troops who are positioned for a pardon have been championed by conservative lawmakers and media organizations, such as Fox News, which have portrayed them as being unfairly punished for trying to do their job. Many have pushed for Trump to intervene. The White House declined to comment. Pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals at once, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history, legal experts said. Some worried that it could erode the legitimacy of military law and undercut good order and discipline in the ranks.
On May 15, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law a controversial abortion bill that would punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison. “Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature,” said Ivey. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.” Governor Ivey noted in her statement that the new law might be unenforceable due to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But, the new law was passed with the aim of challenging that decision, Ivey said.
The Alabama state Senate passed the bill by a 25-6 with little opportunity for debate. The law only allows exceptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.” Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote. Alabama lawmakers now lead the pack of legislators across several states who are producing measures to restrict abortion, such as Georgia’s recent fetal heartbeat bill. Many women do not yet know for sure that they are pregnant at six weeks into a pregnancy, the earliest a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Republican state senator Clyde Chambliss, who ushered the bill through the chamber, repeatedly referred on the Senate floor to a “window” of time between conception and when a woman knows for sure that she is pregnant. The state senator said he believed that time was between about seven and ten days.
Overall, the reaction to the Alabama abortion law has been mixed, with pro-life activists praising its passage and pro-choice groups similarly condemning it. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician at the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives who provides abortion services, said the law would have a “devastating impact” on patients. She said that she was unclear under what circumstances the law would allow an abortion based on “reasonable medical judgment” and health of the mother. Additionally, 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand denounced the legislation as unconstitutional and as “the greatest threat to reproductive freedom in our lifetimes.” On the other hand, anti-abortion organizations groups such as Americans United for Life praised the bill, stating that the Alabama legislature has recognized that abortion is “the extinguishing of a unique human life.” Additionally, President Donald Trump similarly endorsed the law and urged the Republican Party to remain united on the issue of abortion rights.
The Supreme Court returned to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on March 26, appearing divided along ideological lines as it considered for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power ever violates the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and the one who may possess the decisive vote, expressed uneasiness about the practice. “Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said. “I’m not going to dispute that.” He added, though, that recent developments around the nation, including state ballot initiatives establishing independent redistricting commissions, proposed legislation in Congress and State Supreme Court rulings, may take action from the US Supreme Court less necessary. “Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?” he asked.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was an exceptionally active participant in March 26’s arguments, asking probing questions of both sides and displaying particularly detailed familiarity with the geography and voting districts of Maryland, his home state. But his record as an appeals court judge provides few hints about how he will approach the issue. The other justices seemed largely split along the usual lines, with the more conservative ones wary of announcing constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and the more liberal ones prepared to try. There was certainly no consensus on how to fashion a legal standard that would separate acceptable partisanship from the kind that is unconstitutional. Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a numerical test, but it did not seem to gain traction with his colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch, on hearing one lawyer’s proposed standard, said it amounted to “I know it when I see it.”
Last year’s cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, raised the possibility that the court might decide, for the first time, that some election maps were so warped by politics that they crossed a constitutional line. Challengers had pinned their hopes on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had expressed ambivalence on the subject, but he and his colleagues appeared unable to identify a workable constitutional test. The justices instead sidestepped the central questions in the two cases. When Justice Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy, many election lawyers said the prospects of a decision limiting partisan gerrymandering dropped sharply. Justice Kavanaugh’s questioning on March 26 complicated that assessment.
The North Carolina case, Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, was an appeal from a decision in August by a three-judge panel of a Federal District Court in North Carolina. The ruling found that Republican legislators there had violated the Constitution by drawing the districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates. The Maryland case, Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, was brought by Republican voters who said Democratic state lawmakers had in 2011 redrawn a district to retaliate against citizens who supported its longtime incumbent, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican. That retaliation, the plaintiffs said, violated the First Amendment by diluting their voting power.
Overall, the striking down of the tactic of partisan gerrymandering by the Supreme Court would have significant results going forward and would help to equalize the American political system. For example, gerrymandering is the primary factor that prevented the Democrats from regaining control of Congressional seats in competitive states and reduced their chances to have a substantial House majority. Additionally, gerrymandering has prevented the Republican Party from remaining competitive in states that lean towards the Democratic Party. If gerrymandering is overturned, it is hoped that the American political system will stabilize and the hyper-partisan rhetoric on both sides of the aisle will subside.
What Does The Release of the Mueller Report Mean For The Trump Presidency
The two-year long investigation led by Robert Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on March 24. Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating Russia’s effort to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, found no conspiracy “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice, Barr said, so he made his own decision. The Attorney General and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense. Attorney General Barr cautioned, however, that Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.
The release of the findings was a significant political victory for President Donald Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his Presidency since before he took the oath of office. It is also likely to alter discussion in Congress about the fate of the Trump presidency, as some Democrats had pledged to wait until the special counsel finished his work before deciding whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. President Trump and his supporters trumpeted the news almost immediately, even as they mischaracterized the special counsel’s findings. “It was a complete and total exoneration,” Trump told reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One. “It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this.” Trump added, “This was an illegal takedown that failed.”
The Fake News Media has lost tremendous credibility with its corrupt coverage of the illegal Democrat Witch Hunt of your all time favorite duly elected President, me! T.V. ratings of CNN & MSNBC tanked last night after seeing the Mueller Report statement. @FoxNews up BIG!
Attorney General William Barr’s letter was the culmination of a tense two days since Robert Mueller delivered his report to the Justice Department. Barr spent the weekend poring over the special counsel’s work, as President Donald Trump strategized with lawyers and political aides. Hours later, Barr delivered his letter describing the special counsel’s findings to Congress. Barr’s letter said that his “goal and intent” was to release as much of the Mueller report as possible, but warned that some of the reports were based on grand jury material that “by law cannot be made public.” Barr planned at a later date to send lawmakers the detailed summary of Mueller’s full report that the attorney general is required under law to deliver to Capitol Hill. Despite the comprehensive nature of the report on the Mueller investigation, many Congressional Democrats expressed concern regarding its findings. For example, shortly after the release of the Mueller findings, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a Twitter post that he planned to call Barr to testify about what he said were “very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department.”
There must be full transparency in what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered to not exonerate the President from wrongdoing. DOJ owes the public more than just a brief synopsis and decision not to go any further in their work.
It can be argued that the release of the Mueller report is beneficial for President Donald Trump going into the 2020 Election.
Overall, the findings of the Mueller report will have a significant impact on American politics going forward. The biggest takeaway from the report is that there is no tangible evidence explicitly connecting President Donald Trump to Russian efforts to sway the 2016 Presidential Election in his favor. The lack of evidence in this area weakens the efforts to impeach President Trump. While there is ample evidence that Trump committed serious financial crimes prior to his Presidency and was involved in White Supremacist hate groups such as the KKK since at least the 1970s, the US Consitution makes it difficult at best to indict a sitting President. The only area that Trump can potentially be indicted on is his attempt to cover up his affair with Stormy Daniels and violate campaign finance laws by doing so, though there is little will on the part of Congress to pursue these charges.
Additionally, it can be argued that the partial exoneration of President Donald Trump will have a positive effect on his poll numbers going into 2020. For example, President Trump’s approval rating has hovered between 42-48% over the past few months. Many observers note that the President’s approval ratings remained in this range due to the ongoing Mueller investigation. With the Mueller investigation behind him, it is likely that Trump’s approval ratings will increase over the coming months assuming that the economy remains strong and no major foreign policy issues will emerge. These higher approval ratings may linger into 2020 and might be enough to (unfortunately) carry Trump to a second term in office.
On March 15, 2019, at least 49 people were killed in mass shootings at two New Zealand mosques full of worshippers attending Friday prayers in a terrorist attack broadcast in a horrific, live video by an immigrant-hating, far-right, white supremacist wielding at least two rifles. One man was arrested and charged with murder, and two other armed suspects were taken into custody while police tried to determine what role they played. “It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, noting that many of the victims could be migrants or refugees. She pronounced it “one of New Zealand’s darkest days.” The attack shocked people across the nation of 5 million people, a country that has relatively loose gun laws but is so peaceful even police officers rarely carry firearms.
https://youtu.be/TPWxqhO00OM
The gunman behind at least one of the mosque shootings left a 74-page manifesto (in which he cited US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu as inspirations for his hatred of Muslims) that he posted on social media under the name Brenton Tarrant, identifying himself as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe. Using what may have been a Go-Pro helmet camera, he live-streamed to the world in graphic detail his assault on worshippers at Christchurch’s Masjid Al Noor (a predominantly Shi’a Mosque), where at least 41 people were killed. An attack on a second mosque in the city not long after killed several more. Police did not identify those taken into custody and gave no details except to say that none of them had been on any watch list. They did not immediately say whether the same person was responsible for both shootings. Prime Minister Ardern alluded to anti-immigrant sentiment as the possible motive, saying that immigrants and refugees “have chosen to make New Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us.” As for the suspects, Ardern said, “these are people who I would describe as having extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand.”
A Syrian refugee, a Pakistani academic, and their sons were among the 49 people killed. Syrian refugee Khaled Mustafa and his family moved to New Zealand in 2018 because they saw it as a safe haven, Syrian Solidarity New Zealand said on its Facebook page. His older son, Hamza Mustafa, was killed and his younger son was wounded. Victims hailed from around the world. Naeem Rashid and his son Talha were among six Pakistanis who were killed in the mosques, according to Mohammad Faisal, spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”He used to teach at a university,” Dr. Khurshid Alam said of his brother. “My nephew (Talha) was a student.”Shah Mahmood Qureshi, foreign minister of Pakistan, confirmed the deaths and offered his sympathies to the families as well as a “promise to facilitate them to the best of our abilities.” Additionally, several worshippers from Iran, Palestine, and Jordan were among those killed as well.
The terrorist attack sparked much horror and revulsion throughout the world. Pope Francis denounced the “senseless acts of violence” and said he was praying for the Muslim community and all New Zealanders. Additionally, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull similarly condemned the attack, stating that “Today our love, prayers and solidarity are with the people of New Zealand whose compassion, humanity and diversity will triumph over this hateful crime.”
On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has been criticized for his poor response to the terror attack. While President Trump did express his condolences for the attack in a Twitter post, he discounted the fact that the perpetrator of the attack cited him as an influence on his views and that white nationalism is a growing threat throughout the world. In contrast to President Trump’s implicit endorsement of white nationalism and discrimination against Muslims (mostly in the Shi’a sect), New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has called for a global fight to root out racist right-wing ideology in the wake of the attack. “What New Zealand experienced here was violence brought against us by someone who grew up and learned their ideology somewhere else. If we want to make sure globally that we are a safe and tolerant and inclusive world we cannot think about this in terms of boundaries,” said Aldern.
My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!
US President Donald Trump has a long history of Islamophobic rhetoric and policies that many feel directly contributed to the New Zealand Mosque attack.
Overall, the case can be made that President Donald Trump’s destructive and xenophobic policies directly resulted in the shooting from taking place. President Trump has long established a reputation as an Islamophobe going back at least a decade. For example, Trump repeatedly insisted that President Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim back in 2011 and 2012, and promoted this belief on far-right websites such as Breitbart. At a September 2015 campaign rally, Trump nodded along as a supporter claimed that “we have a problem in this country; it’s called Muslims.” Trump continued nodding, saying “right,” and “we need this question!” as the supporter then proceeded to ask Trump “when can we get rid of them?” In response, Trump said that “We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things. In November 2015, Trump indicated that he would “certainly implement” a database to track Muslims in the US and falsely claimed that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheered in New Jersey when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11. Additionally, Trump falsely claimed on March 9, 2016 that “Islam hates us.”As President, Donald Trump doubled down on this hatred towards Islam through many of his policies, the most notable of which was an executive order that banned (mostly Shi’a) Muslims from six different countries from entering into the US. Additionally, President Trump surrounded with advisors with known histories of anti-Muslim statements.
Based on all of these factors, the case can be made that President Donald Trump’s vile and bigoted rhetoric directly resulted in the brutal terrorist attack in New Zealand. The world community has a resonsibility to stand against oppression and bigotry and work together to put an end to the politics of white supremacy and fascism promoted by the Trump Administration.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Rules Out Impeaching President Trump
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi annouced this week that she would not support the impeachment of President Donald Trump, arguing that such a position will divide the country and directly play into the hands of the President
That thinking among Democrats has shifted in part because of the possibility that Mueller’s report will not be decisive and because his investigation is more narrowly focused. Instead, House Democrats are pursuing their own broad, high-profile investigations that will keep the focus on Trump’s business dealings and relationship with Russia, exerting congressional oversight without having to broach the subject of Impeachment. Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), one of the lawmakers leading those investigations, said he agrees with Pelosi and Congress needs “to do our homework.” Congressman Cummings said impeachment “has to be a bipartisan effort, and right now it’s not there.” “I get the impression this matter will only be resolved at the polls,” Cummings said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set a high bar for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her own party clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post on March 11 that she would not be in favor of impeaching Trump. “Unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said. While she has made similar comments before, Pelosi is making clear to her caucus and to voters that Democrats will not move forward quickly with trying to remove Trump from office. And it is a departure from her previous comments that Democrats are waiting on special counsel Robert Mueller to lay out findings from his Russia investigation before considering impeachment.
Some new freshman Democrats who hail from solidly liberal districts have not shied away from the subject of impeaching President Trump. For example, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) used a vulgarity in calling for Trump’s impeachment the day she was sworn in. Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who is bankrolling a campaign pushing for Trump’s impeachment, shot back at Pelosi on Monday: “Speaker Pelosi thinks ‘he’s just not worth it?’ Well, is defending our legal system ‘worth it?’ Is holding the president accountable for his crimes and cover-ups ‘worth it?’ Is doing what’s right ‘worth it?’ Or shall America stop fighting for our principles and do what’s politically convenient.” Other lawmakers who have called for impeachment looked at Pelosi’s comments more practically. Congresman Brad Sherman (D-CA), who filed articles of impeachment against Trump on the first day of the new Congress in January, acknowledged that there is not yet public support for impeachment, but noted that Pelosi “didn’t say ‘I am against it if the public is clamoring for it.’”
Republicans alternately praised Pelosi and were skeptical. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said “I agree” in response to Pelosi’s words. Sanders added of impeachment, “I don’t think it should have ever been on the table.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said it was a “smart thing for her to say,” but Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he does not think it’s “going to fly” with some of Pelosi’s members. “I do believe what Speaker Pelosi understands is that what they want to do is going to require far more than what they have now, so I think they are hedging their bet on it,” Collins said. Freshman Democrats who are from more moderate districts and will have to win re-election again in two years have been fully supportive of Pelosi’s caution. “When we have something that’s very concrete, and we have something that is compelling enough to get a strong majority of Americans, then we’ll do it,” said Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-CA). “But if it’s going to be a political disaster for us, then we’re not going to do it.”
On March 11, President Donald Trump sent to Congress a record $4.75 trillion budget plan that calls for increased military spending and sharp cuts to domestic programs like education and environmental protection for the 2020 fiscal year. President Trump’s budget, the largest in federal history, includes a nearly 5% increase in military spending and an additional $8.6 billion for construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. It also contains what White House officials called a total of $1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs, like Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health care programs for the elderly and the poor. The budget is not likely to have much effect on actual spending levels, which are controlled by Congress. Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate pronounced the budget dead on arrival and President Trump’s budgets largely failed to gain traction over the previous two years, when fellow Republicans controlled both chambers. Here is are the main takeaways from the budget:
Despite proposing the “most spending reductions ever sent to Congress,” as one of President Donald Trump’s top aides stated, the budget deficit is expected to hit at least $1 trillion this year and stay above $1 trillion every year until at least 2024. This budget deficit is unprecedented in a time of economic growth and resulted from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which reduced revenues by as much as $1.5 trillion. Additionally, the budget predicts no economic recession for at least another decade and 3% economic growth each year for the foreseeable future, an extremely optimistic picture considering that the US is nearly a decade into its current economic expansion. To meet this goal, the US economy would have to grow at a 3% rate for the next few years with no economic recession, something that the US economy has never achieved before.
Arguably the departments that have seen their biggest boost in funding this year are the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, which have all received a nearly 10% increase this year. The increased funding for the Defense Department will likely be used to help the Pentagon prepare for potential military conflicts with Iran and Venezuela (two countries that President Trump and members of his administration have repeatedly expressed interest in attacking). Additionally, President Trump’s budget also requests a slight increase in funding for NASA, with the goal of fully funding the proposed “Space Force” as well as a manned mission to Mars by the late 2030s. Under Trump’s budget proposal, ten major departments and agencies would see their budgets slashed by 10% (or more) in the next year alone, including Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State, Transportation, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In particular, the EPA and HHS will see their funding cut by as much as 1/3 over the next year.
President Trump’s budget also includes nearly $9 billion for the border wall and draconian cuts to entitlement programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled such as Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security, and Housing Vouchers. Trump also wants to implement controversial policies to require more people receiving such benefits to find work or actively search for jobs. Many advocates for the poor say stringent regulations are already in place, but the Trump administration wants to go further, and it is calculating it can save a lot of money by doing so. The budget also includes a $845 billion cut to Medicare over the next decade. Trump wants to “reduce wasteful spending” on Medicare by expanding the list of treatments that require prior authorization before the procedure can be done and putting medical providers on notice who charge more than others. The administration argues these cost savings are bipartisan ideas that will help ensure Medicare can last for many years to come, but some claim it will result in people who need treatment having it delayed or not receiving it because of extra paperwork and hurdles.
Under President Trump’s plan, state governments would play a larger role in crafting policies. For example, much of Medicaid would become “block grants” so states get a lump sum amount from the government and then have to figure out how to spend it effectively. The net result would be a $241 billion reduction in Medicaid spending over the next decade for the federal government. Trump also wants to do away with the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that pays off student loans for people who enter various government jobs. His budget calls for streamlining the student loan repayment system and having colleges and universities “share a portion of the financial responsibility associated with student loans.” The details are thin on how all of that would work, but Trump banks on his various changes to student loans saving the federal government $207 billion over the next decade.
On February 27, 2019, Michael Cohen, who acted as President Donald Trump’s attorney from 2006 to 2018, appeared before the House Oversight Committee for questioning regarding the President’s alleged crimes. Although his testimony did not point to any direct evidence of President Trump directly colluding with the Russian government to influence the results of the 2016 Presidential Election or the 2018 Midterm Elections, Cohen’s testimony painted a scathing picture of the Trump Administration overall. Through his testimony, Cohen alleged that Trump approved a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2017, had knowledge of the 2016 WikiLeaks email dump in advance, and wanted Congress to receive misleading testimony about his close ties to Russia. Cohen expressed remorse for his actions and his loyalty to Trump during a blockbuster hearing before the House Oversight Committee that lasted more than seven hours.
In the hearing, Michael Cohen described President Trump as an “intoxicating” presence. “It seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were wrong.”I regret the day I said ‘yes’ to Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way,” said Cohen in a 20-page opening statement. “I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore.” In his closing remarks, Cohen addressed the President head-on, ticking off items on a lengthy list of criticism of Trump’s behavior in office, ranging from his weather-based decision to skip a ceremony honoring veterans to his attacks on law enforcement, the media, and others. “You don’t use the power of your bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you. You don’t separate families from one another or demonize those looking to America for a better life. You don’t slander people based on the god they pray to, and you don’t cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies,” he said. “And finally, you don’t shut down the government before Christmas and New Year’s to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the president, and it’s un-American, and it’s not you.” Cohen also used the hearings to make new claims that contradicted Trump’s previous statements regarding his ties to Russia, though he said that he knew of no direct evidence that Trump or his Presidential campaign colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Michael Cohen also provided the committee with a series of documents, including letters he authored threatening Trump’s high school, college and the College Board from releasing his grades and SAT scores, according to Cohen’s prepared opening statement. Cohen also presented a pair of reimbursement checks he received for the $130,000 hush payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels weeks before the 2016 presidential election to keep her quiet about her allegation of a 2006 affair with Trump, an affair Trump says did not happen. Cohen’s documentation and testimony said Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), “raises grave questions about the legality of President Trump’s conduct and the truthfulness of his statements while he was president.”
Over the course of the hearings, Democrats sought to ask Michael Cohen substantive questions and generally respected his time, whereas the Republican members on the committee largely sought to discredit and delegitimize Cohen’s testimony, with one lawmaker describing him as a “pathological liar” due to his previous false statements to Congress. Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC), two of President Donald Trump’s strongest Congressional allies, claimed that the Democrats are merely using Michael Cohen to “try to remove the president from office because Tom Steyer told them to.” Additionally, Congressman Meadows correctly pointed out during the hearing that Cohen acted in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(3) (which governs Attorney-Client Privilege) by recording his conversations with President Trump and revealing confidential information that was discussed with the President. Moreover, President Trump predictably responded to the hearings by stating that Cohen “lied a lot” and stated that the hearings were “fake” and a partisan tool used by the Democrats.
Michael Cohen was one of many lawyers who represented me (unfortunately). He had other clients also. He was just disbarred by the State Supreme Court for lying & fraud. He did bad things unrelated to Trump. He is lying in order to reduce his prison time. Using Crooked’s lawyer!
Despite the fact that nothing entirely substantive was revealed during Cohen’s questioning, the information that was revealed indicated a pattern of deceit and misinformation on the part of President Trump. While there is yet to be found any compellint evidence tying the Trump campaign to the Russian government’s effort to alter the results of the 2016 Presidential Election and the 2018 Midterm elections, it is likely that President Trump is complicit in some form of a cover-up of his associate’s wrongdoings. This revelation may ultimately result in the end of the Trump Presidency.
Muhammadu Buhari was elected to a second term as Nigeria’s President this week.
On February 25, Nigerian election officials declared that Muhammadu Buhari had won a second term as president of Africa’s most populous country, where voters rejected a corruption-stained candidate in favor of a leader who promised to continue a campaign to eliminate graft. Not long after the polls closed, election officials found it apparent that Buhari had defeated the leading candidate, Atiku Abubakar, by a wide margin in an election that was marred by violence. In his post-election statement, President Buhari said he planned to keep working to improve security and the economy, and to fight corruption. He asked supporters “not to gloat or humiliate the opposition. Victory is enough reward for your efforts.”
In response to the results, Atiku Abubakar released a statement calling the results a “sham election” and saying that he would contest the outcome in court. He cited what he called a “statistical impossibility” of the results in some states, where turnout was high despite the fact that life there has been upended by war, as well as anomalies in states that are opposition strongholds. Referring to violence in some states in the south where, he said, soldiers had fired on civilians, Abubakar added, “The militarization of the electoral process is a disservice to our democracy and a throwback to the jackboot era of military dictatorship.” Local civil society groups had also ticked off lists of irregularities during the voting. At one point Abubakar demanded a halt to the counting.
Consequently, I hereby reject the result of the February 23, 2019 sham election and will be challenging it in court.
Nigeria’s Presidential election was in many ways a referendum on honesty, as voters once again embraced a candidate who declared to reduce the rampant levels of corruption that gave Nigeria a mediocre reputation in the past. Additionally, the election served as a referendum on the policies of President Buhari. Despite some questionable policies and poor poll numbers, Buhari was able to secure a second term due to a lower than expected turnout and lack of enthusiasm on the part of Abubakar supporters. Another factor that influence turnout was the fact that election officials decided to delay the vote by a week just hours before polls were to have opened. Numerous registered voters had made long journeys to their home districts to vote because Nigeria has no absentee balloting system. When officials postponed the election, many people gave up and returned home.
On February 15, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on the border with Mexico to access billions of dollars that Congress refused to give him to build his proposed border wall. “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we’re going to do it one way or the other,” President Trump said in a televised statement in the Rose Garden 13 hours after Congress passed a spending measure without the money he had sought. “It’s an invasion,” he added. “We have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country.” President Trump’s announcement came during a bizarre, 50-minute press conference in which he ping-ponged from topic to topic, touching on the economy, China trade talks, his summit meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, and the reasons why he deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize. President Trump also explained his failure to secure wall funding during his first two years in office when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress by saying, “I was a little new to the job.”
The decision by President Donald Trump immediately incited condemnation by Democrats, who call the move unconstitutional, as well as from some Republicans who view it as setting a negative precedent. “This is a power grab by a disappointed president, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schummer (D-NY) in a joint statement. Additionally, Governors Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) similarly condemned the President’s actions and stated that their states will file suit over the issue. President Trump acknowledged that his declaration of a national emergency would be litigated in the courts and even predicted a rough road for his side. “Look, I expect to be sued,” he said, launching into a mocking riff about how he anticipated lower court rulings against him. “And we’ll win in the Supreme Court,” he predicted.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the political, economic, and trends in the Americas for the year 2019. Home to one of the worlds most powerful countries, the two continents that make up the Western Hemisphere are contrasts to each other. Whereas North America will be preoccupied with internal political matters, the events in South America will be highly influenced by the ongoing crisis in Venezuela that reached its boiling point last month with the Trump Administration’s recognition of Juan Guaido as the country’s President.
In the US, President Donald Trump faces a complicated political climate, with the Democrats holding the House of Representatives, and the Republicans having a decent-sized majority in the Senate. Due to this divided Congressional make-up, President Trump will have a difficult time at best with pushing through parts of his agenda such as tax cuts and immigration policy changes. Additionally, this difficult political climate may result in Trump increasingly using executive powers to implement controversial policies, which he may then use as a bargaining chip to convince a reluctant Congress to go along with him, as well as a tool to rally his rabid, ignorant supporters. Furthermore, the ongoing US economic expansion will likely be nearing its end in 2019, with the stock market, unemployment, and energy prices near historic lows. While the next economic recession is several years away, its impact will likely be felt throughout the globe.
Despite having a relatively quiet domestic policy scene, the Trump Adinistration will have its hands full regarding foreign policy in 2019. Some of the major issues the Trump Administration will face in the coming year include a renewed arms race with Russia, potential retailiation by China due to the implementation of new tariffs, and tensisions in the Middle East regarding President Trump’s hardline anti-Iran and pro-Israel/Sunni policy. Perhaps the biggest challenge Trump Administration currently faces in the foreign policy realm is the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
Although domestic in origin, the ramifications of the political crisis in Venezuela will have a global reach. The desperate need for revenue has forced the Maduro government to seek revenue from illicit sources including illegal mining, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. These activities have spread beyond Venezuela’s borders into countries such as Colombia and Brazil and threaten to destabilize the entire region. Additionally, some 3 million Venezuelans have fled their country, thus placing an enormous strain on many countries in the region. In response to these challenges, the Trump Administration has developed a policy meant to isolate the Maduro government and bring about “regime change.” in Venezuela. Thus far, President Trump has implemented stringent sanctions against the Venezuela government and is also considering placing Venezuela on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list as well as intervening militarily in the country. All three of these policies are ill-advised at best and will make an already difficult situation within the country much worse. Additionally, the crisis in Venezuela is further complicated due to Venezuela’s close military alliances with Russia, Iran, and China, who may intervene militarily in response to US pressures on the country.
In contrast to the US, Mexico and Canada are likely to experience a relatively active year in terms of domestic policy changes. Mexican Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is planning in fulfilling his campaign promises of reducing corruption, poverty, and crime within the country, as well as eliminating the ban on legally binding referendums, which many critics view as a way to for AMLO to increase his own political power. In Canada, Prime Minsiter Justin Trudeau us up for re-election in October of 2019 and is expected to face off against a resurgent Conservative Party led by Andrew Scheer. Additionally, the leadership of both Canada and Mexico have pledged to work with President Donald Trump to implement the new NAFTA agreement and work together to promote poitical stability within the Americas.
Overall, 2019 is already shaping up to be an interesting year in terms of politics in the Americas, with the crisis in Venezuela expected to be a focal point of most foreign policy decisions. Here is the link to the full video:
President Donald Trumpagreed on January 24 to reopen the federal government for three weeks while negotiations continued over how to secure the nation’s southwestern border, backing down after a monthlong standoff failed to force Democrats to give him billions of dollars for his long-promised wall. The President’s concession paved the way for the House and the Senate to pass a stopgap spending bill by voice vote. President Trump signed the stopgap measure immediately after its passage, restoring normal operations at a series of federal agencies for three weeks and opening the way to paying the 800,000 federal workers who have been furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days.
Despite not including any of the money for his proposed “border wall” President Donald Trump presented the agreement with congressional leaders as a victory anyway, and indicated in a speech in the Rose Garden that his cease-fire may only be temporary: If Republicans and Democrats cannot reach agreement on wall money by the February deadline, he said that he was ready to renew the confrontation or declare a national emergency to bypass Congress altogether. “We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier,” President Trump said. “If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reacted positively to President Trump’s decision to reopen the government. Schumer praised Democratic unity during the shutdown and Pelosi weighed in on the State of the Union date.
The surprise announcement was a remarkable surrender for a president who made the wall his nonnegotiable condition for reopening the government and a centerpiece of his political platform. Some immigration hard-liners that make up a key part of his political base were incensed by the capitulation. “Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States,” the commentator Ann Coulter, who has aggressively pushed Mr. Trump to keep his campaign promise on the wall, wrote on Twitter.
Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.
President Donald Trump relented as the effects of the shutdown were rippling with ever greater force across the economy, with fallout far beyond paychecks. On January 24, air traffic controllers calling in sick slowed air traffic across the Northeast, hundreds of workers at the Internal Revenue Service also did not show up, and the FBI director said he was as angry as he had ever been over his agents not being paid. “None of us are willing to go through this again,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who despite representing a state where President Donald Trump is very popular in, voted alongside a half-dozen Republicans for a Democratic measure to reopen the government for two weeks. “And it’s not just a few of us. There are a great many in our conference that feels pretty strongly.” Democrats, who declined to revel in their clear victory, said they would work in good faith to strike a deal on border security. They have raised their offer on border security funding considerably and toughened their rhetoric on stopping illegal immigration.
The already tense relationship between the US and Venezuela took a turn for the worse this past week. On January 23, Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, took an oath as interim President amid nationwide marches in opposition to President Nicolás Maduro, who was elected to a second six-year term last May in an election generally recognized as “questionable” by a majority of countries. “In my condition as president of the National Assembly, invoking the articles of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela … I swear to assume formally the competencies of the national executive,” Guaidó told a crowd of protesters in Caracas.
The Trump Administration immediately recognized Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. “In its role as the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people, the National Assembly invoked the country’s constitution to declare Nicolas Maduro illegitimate, and the office of the presidency therefore vacant. “The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law,” President Donald Trump said in the statement. “We encourage other Western Hemisphere governments to recognize National Assembly President Guaido as the Interim President of Venezuela, and we will work constructively with them in support of his efforts to restore constitutional legitimacy,” Trump added. Trump administration officials said US support of Guaido includes transferring sovereign power over international transactions to his interim government, essentially giving him control over Venezuela’s foreign assets.
As the good people of Venezuela make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the American people, we say: estamos con ustedes. We are with you. We stand with you, and we will stay with you until Democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of Libertad. pic.twitter.com/ThzIAqBoRn
The US recognition of Guaido’s claim was followed by Canada, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the OAS, and a slew of Latin American countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Colombia. But Mexico and Spain, critical leaders in the Spanish-speaking world, withheld their support. In response to the US’ bold claim that Juan Guaidó is the legitimate President of Venezuela, President Maduro broke off all diplomatic with the US and gave US diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. Before the people and nations of the world and as constitutional president … I’ve decided to break diplomatic and political relations with the imperialist U.S. government,” Maduro said before an estimated one million supporters who surrounded the capital building.
Since assuming office two years ago, the Trump administration has made the government Venezuela (alongside Iran and North Korea) one of its significant targets of aggression and sanctions. For example, President Donald Trump increased sanctions on individuals and entities linked to the Maduro government, including sanctions on gold and oil trade, which are significant sources for the foreign currency of Venezuela. Additionally, Administration officials said further economic and diplomatic actions are on the table. “Everything is on the table, all options, but on the economic sphere, if you look at what we’ve done, there is still a tremendous amount of leverage in our toolbox,” said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Secretary Pompeo also refused to rule out US military action against Venezuela. “We have a host of options, we will take every single one of those options seriously, [The Maduro regime has] no immediate future, they will have no immediate livelihood, and they will have their days counted,” Pompeo added.
On November 23, the US government released a long-awaited report stating the effects of global warming and climate change in the US are worsening and that the potential for irreversible environmental damage is steadily increasing. The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans’ health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire.
The Congressionally mandated document, the first of its kind issued during the Trump administration, details how climate-fueled disasters and other types of worrisome changes are becoming more commonplace throughout the country and how much worse they could become in the absence of efforts to combat global warming. The report notes that Western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida and the Pacific territories administered by the US are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever-larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras.
The National Climate Assessment’s publication marks the government’s fourth comprehensive look at climate change impacts on the US since 2000. The last came in 2014. Produced by 13 federal departments and agencies and overseen by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the report stretches well over 1,000 pages and draws more definitive, and in some cases more startling, conclusions than earlier versions. The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.” “The impacts we’ve seen the last 15 years have continued to get stronger, and that will only continue,” said Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the report. “We have wasted 15 years of response time. If we waste another five years of response time, the story gets worse. The longer you wait, the faster you have to respond and the more expensive it will be.”
That urgency is at odds with the stance of the Trump administration, which has rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations and incentivized the production of fossil fuels. President Trump also has said he plans to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate accord and questioned the science of climate change just last month, saying on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that “I don’t know that it’s man-made” and that the warming trend “could very well go back.” Furthermore, as the Northeast faced a cold spell this week, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” This shows a misunderstanding that climate scientists have repeatedly tried to correct, a confusion between daily weather fluctuations and long-term climate trends. President Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday’s report. However, the administration last year downplayed a separate government report calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, saying in a statement that “the climate has changed and is always changing.”
In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!
After a year of relative calm, the ongoing territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine heated up late this week. On November 25, the Ukrainian navy said that Russian authorities closed off the Kerch Strait amid a confrontation with Ukrainian naval vessels. Earlier this year, the Russian government opened a 19-kilometer bridge across the strait, creating a road linking Russia’s Krasnodar region with the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014. In a statement released shortly after the incident, the Ukrainian ministry of defense said traffic through the strait had been blocked by a tanker anchored near the Kerch Strait bridge. Russian state news agency TASS, quoting Alexei Volkov, the general director of the Crimean seaports, said traffic through the strait had been closed for security purposes.
The incident came amid a confrontation at sea between Ukrainian and Russian vessels. According to the Ukrainian navy, the naval vessels Berdyansk, Nikopol and Yani Kapu were carrying out a planned transfer from the port of Odessa to the port of Mariupol on the Azov Sea. Both countries offered differing accounts of what followed. The Russian Federal Security Service’s Border Service in Crimea reported that three Ukrainian warships had illegally entered Russia’s territorial waters, and were carrying out dangerous maneuvers, TASS stated. The Ukrainian navy said Russian border patrol vessels “carried out openly aggressive action” against the Ukrainian ships, resulting in damage to one Ukrainian ship, a navy tugboat.
Overall, the current disputes between Russia and Ukraine show that the ongoing conflict between both countries is far from settled despite a decline in tensions over the past few months. The current territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine can be traced back to early 2014 when the Obama Administration authorized the CIA to carry out a coup against the pro-Russian Ukrainian government led by Viktor Yanukovych. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian military to invade the Crimean region of Ukraine (which is home to a large Russian-speaking population) and annex the territory. Ever since the Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine has been embroiled in an endless conflict with Russia that has evolved into a proxy war between Russia and the US and its NATO allies. This recent incident shows that the localized conflict between Russia and Ukraine has the potential to turn into a major global conflict.
According to a New York Times article published on November 20, President Donald Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political opponents: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former FBI director James Comey. Donald McGahn, a Justice Department lawyer, rebuffed the President, saying that he had no authority to order prosecution. McGahn noted that while he could request an investigation, that could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for President Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the allegations, stating that they are false and without any factual basis. A spokeswoman for the FBI declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing James Comey. “Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. McGahn would point out, though, that the President never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”
It is not clear which accusations President Donald Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Former FBI director James Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Comey wrote about his interactions with the President. The document contained no classified information. President Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation.
In his conversation with McGahn, President Trump asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate James Comey and Hillary Clinton. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, McGahn said but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the President’s authorities in terms of investigating political opponents. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned President Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone. The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm. If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the President’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings. Ultimately, the lawyers warned, President Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.
A Federal Judge in California ruled against President Trump’s recent immigration executive order this week.
A federal judge on November 20 ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter how they entered the US, dealing a temporary setback to the President’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border. Judge Jon Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Judge Tigar wrote in his order.
As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest part of the US border, President Donald Trump signed an executive order two weeks ago that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, Trump said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the US borders. Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment. But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the US, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.
After the judge’s ruling on Monday, Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said, “The court made clear that the administration does not have the power to override Congress and that, absent judicial intervention, real harm will occur.” “This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump’s war on asylum seekers,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the other organizations that brought the case, said in a statement. “While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand.”
President Donald Trump, when asked by reporters about the court ruling on Tuesday, criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court where the case will likely land, calling it a “disgrace.” He labeled Judge Tigar an “Obama judge.” Trump Administration officials signaled that they would continue to defend the policy as it moved through the courts. “Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” Katie Waldman, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, and Steve Stafford, the Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement. They said the president has broad authority to stop the entry of migrants into the country. “It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled,” they said. “We look forward to continuing to defend the executive branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”
This video by CaspianReport discusses “Saudi Vision 2030,” a plan proposed by the government of Saudi Arabia that seeks to reduce the countries dependence on oil, diversify its growing economy, and develop public service industries such as health, education, infrastructure, recreation, and tourism. The goals of the plan include reinforcing economic and investment activities, increasing non-oil industry trade between countries through consumer goods, and increasing government spending on the military. The details of the plan were first announced on April 25, 2016, by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), and the Council of Ministers has tasked the Council of Economic and Development Affairs with identifying and monitoring the mechanisms and measures crucial for the implementation of “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”
The main rationale behind the Saudi Vision 2020 plan is to decrease the dependence that the Saudi economy has on oil revenues. The oil industry comprises close to 50% of Suadi Arabia’s total GDP, and the Saudi government has sought to decrease its reliance on oil revenues since the 1970s with an overall poor track record of success. The core priority of the Saudi government is to be able to develop more alternative sources of revenue for the government such as taxes, fees and income from the sovereign wealth fund. Another significant proposal is to lower the dependency of the citizens of the country on public spendings such as spending on subsidies and higher salaries and to increase the portion of the economy contributed by the private sector to provide more employment opportunities and to provide growth in the GDP.
Suadi Vision 2020 has three main pillars: the status of the country as the “heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds,” the determination to become a global investment powerhouse, and to transform the country’s location into a hub connecting three of the most influential areas of the world (Western Asia, Europe, and Africa). The plan is supervised by a group of people employed under the National Center for Performance Measurement, the Delivery Unit, and the Project Management Office of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. The National Transformation Program was designed and launched in 2016 across 24 government bodies to enhance the economic and development center
Saudi Vision 2030 is built around four major themes which set out specific objectives that are to be achieved by 2030. The four themes are:
A vibrant society: urbanism, culture and entertainment, sports, Umrah, UNESCO heritage sites, life expectancy.
A thriving economy: Employment, women in the workforce, international competitiveness, Public Investment Fund, Foreign direct investment, the private sector, non-oil exports
An ambitious nation: Non-oil revenues, government effectiveness, and e-government, household savings and income, non-profits and volunteering.
Projects: About 80 major projects are to be developed in Saudi Arabia by the year 2030. Most of these projects are financed by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia.
One such project that is part of the Saudi Vision 2030 is the National Transformation Program. First approved on June 7, 2016, the National Transformation Programa sets out the goals and targets to be achieved by the Kingdom by 2020. It is the first out of three phases each lasting for five years. Each step will accomplish a certain number of goals and targets that will eventually help the Kingdom in reaching the ultimate goals of Vision 2030. To assist the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to finance all the projects to be developed and facilitate the process of achieving the goals and targets of Vision 2030, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman announced in early 2016 that an IPO of Saudi ARAMCO is going to take place. However, only 5% of the company will be offered on the stock market. Other projects put forward under the Saudi Vision 2030 plan are the construction of a luxury resort located on the Red Sea between the cities of Umluj and Al-Wajh, the expansion of the Saudi entertainment industry, and the expansion of women’s rights. In the realm of women’s rights, the Saudi Vision 2030 plan seeks to grant women the right to vote, own property, travel abroad freely, and attend higher education facilities.
Overall, the international reaction to the Saudi Vision 2030 plan has been somewhat mixed. Many critics argue that the lack of formal political institutions, inefficient bureaucracy and a significant gap between the labor force required by the Saudi labor market and current educational system serve as a hindrance on many of the growth prospects that the country has proposed. Other critics argue that the Saudi Vision 2030 plan does not take into account the fact that rapid reform efforts may not be entirely accepted by the Saudi population, and that a slow and gradual reform plan would be a more viable policy to implement. Despite some criticism towards the reform proposals, many international observers feel that it represents a genuine opportunity for the Saudi government to reform and create a far more positive view on the country in the eyes of the international community.
In the Truthout article “Trump’s Remarks on Andrew Jackson Was a Dog Whistle for White Nationalists,” Alexander Reid Ross discusses President Donald Trump’s praise for former US President Andrew Jackson, as well as how the embrace of Jacksonian policies by the Trump Administration has the potential to lead the US down the road toward Fascism. On May 1, 2017, President Donald Trump stated that if “Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War,” as well as expressed his admiration for the seventh President of the US. Amid criticism of the factual inaccuracy of Trump’s comment, many have also pointed out that Trump’s praise for Jackson offered proof of how contemporary white nationalist narratives continue to shape the Presidents view of the world.
A favorite of white nationalist and fascist political groups, Andrew Jackson set up a legacy for the expansion of the US and the slave-owning South and implemented Classically Liberal economic policies that directly contributed to the Depression of 1837-43, which began less than two months after his successor, Martin Van Buren, assumed office. When Van Buren rejected Texas’s admission to the Union to avoid upsetting the balance between slave states and non-slave states, Jackson withdrew his support for Van Buren in favor of James Polk, a slave-holding president whose support for the annexation of Texas strengthened the hand of slaveholding states in the South. The continued expansion of the slave-holding territories in subsequent presidencies would set the stage for the Civil War. In accordance with this broader white nationalist reverence for Jackson, Trump has sought to present himself as a modern-day Andrew Jackson. For example, Trump paid a visit to Jackson’s home and grave and hung several portraits of Jackson in the White House.
Many of Trump’s actions as President also betray a resonance with the actions of Jackson. Jackson was infamous for his backhanded words regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to defend the Cherokee’s right of place, n used the powers of the executive to contravene the checks and balances of the constitutional system and displace the Native American tribes based in the Southern region of the US. The ensuing “Trail of Tears” that decimated the population of the Cherokee by upward of a third came to mark the policy of “Indian Removal” and Jackson’s presidency. Trump has echoed this sort of unilateral provocation in his own immigration policy proposals and more recently in his May 2, 2017, tweet stating “our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix the mess!”
Another interesting thing to note regarding President Donald Trump’s comments regarding Andrew Jackson is that they came about at a time in which many of his supporters started to declare a “second Civil War” amid confrontations with anti-Fascist protestors that continue to this day. Members of the “Alt-Right” frequently promote the notion of a second Civil War. For example, several Alt-Right organizations have retweeted an article by conservative columnist Dennis Prager that envisions a civil war between the left and the rest of the US over freedom of speech. Trump supporters have been quick to follow the lead of the “alt-right,” suggesting that the second Civil War will occur if the Democratic Party retakes Congress in the 2018 Midterm elections.
Fascists in the US have long identified Jackson’s legacy with their identity as a defeated and subjugated group. Jackson serves as the driving figure of US history for fascists such as the post-war US organizer Francis Parker Yockey, who identifies Jackson with the beginning of “the great epoch of the history of the practice of government in America.” The battle over the legacy of the Civil War and Andrew Jackson is currently taking place in New Orleans, where Fascist Trump supporter and KKK leader David Duke has taken it upon himself to defend historical monuments to the legacy of the Confederacy, including a statue of Andrew Jackson. Duke’s successful manipulation of populist politics, which earned him a seat in the Louisiana state legislature in the 1990s, has been likened to Trump’s own appeals to the white working class. As such, Jackson’s legacy today represents the fulfillment of many of the most violent fantasies underpinning US independence, particularly the white nationalist fantasy of removing all non-whites from the US. For this reason, as well as on account of Jackson’s unilateral approach to sovereignty, white nationalist Trump booster Jared Taylor has described Trump as a “kindred spirit” of Jackson’s.
Despite their similarities, the comparison of Trump to Jackson has always been somewhat out of context. While Jackson melded the brash pose of violent militarism with the persona of a backwoods Southern country boy, Trump entered into his role as US President without spending a day in military service. Despite these differences, Trump has appropriated the identity of Jackson, the founder of both the modern political party system as well as the American Conservative movement who earned his reputation as the “Napoleon of the woods” by defeating British forces during the Battle of New Orleans. Andrew Jackson never met Napoleon Bonaparte, but idealized him, and shared much in common with him. Both Jackson and Bonaparte gained the support of the conservative countryside and the business class through militant nationalism. The Jacksonian legacy is one of a jingoism similar to the support by many Bonapartists of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and its xenophobic objectives gained parallels with Bonapartists who supported the radical-right populism of 19th Century French and German politicians. Considering these factors, it is no surprise that Trump has drawn comparisons to Bonaparte from many different news outlets.
What binds Trump and Jackson runs deeper than a tacit class alliance and something so simple as Trump’s support for Jackson’s policies. It strikes to the core of sovereignty and how it is used. A true sovereign requires not just an “other” that can constitute the political “outside,” but the potential brought about through a suspension of political order itself. The sovereignty desired by the far right would use the specter of the “outsider” as leverage to supersede checks and balances on executive authority and perpetuate its power through aggressive manipulations of nationalist sentiment in the interests of “rebirth” and “national rejuvenation.” As Trump’s most avid far-right supporters move toward creating a violent, autonomous base of power amid what they identify as a “Civil War,” his quest for unchecked sovereignty furthers their unrestrained efforts to liquidate the left in the name of anti-antifascism.
The author concludes by stating that Trump’s invocation of Jackson evidences Trump’s tacit proximity to fascist narratives both in the US and abroad. At the same time, the President’s own quaint regard for a slavery-supporting perpetrator of genocide who set the stage for the Civil War reveals how deeply white nationalism is engrained within the social and historical fabric of the US and how violently it is defended by its proponents.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the ongoing border disputes between Israel and the Hamas-based government in the Gaza Strip (one of the two territories of the Palestinian Authority) and the recent protests along the Israel-Gaza Border. At the end of March 2018, a campaign composed of a series of protests was launched at the Gaza Strip, near the Gaza-Israel border. Called by Palestinian activists and human rights organizations active in the Middle East the “Great March of Return“, the protestors demand that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to Israel. Additionally, the protestors also gathered to protest the crippling Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip (which has entered into its 12th year), as well as the decision by the Trump Administration to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The violence that stemmed from these pretests has resulted in the deadliest Israeli-Palestinian conflict in nearly 4 years.
The Organization of the protests was initiated by independent activists active in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, as well as by the governments of Iran, Syria, Lebanon and sociopolitical organizations active in the Middle East such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement. The protests were originally slated to last from March 30, 2018 (Land day) to May 15, 2018 (Nakba Day). Five tent camps were set up between 1,500-2,500 feet from the Israeli-Gaza border and were to remain there throughout the entire campaign. In the first day of the protests, some 30,000 Palestinians participated in a march near the border, and several larger protests held throughout the months of April and May 2018 involved at least 10,000 Palestinian activists. Even though a vast majority of the protestors were peaceful, a number did engage in acts along the border such as property destruction, vandalism, and harassment of Israeli soldiers. In response, the Israeli government retaliated forcefully, killing over 100 unarmed Palestinian protestors and wounding an estimated 14,000 Palestinians.
Overall, Israel’s use of deadly force in retaliation to the unarmed protestors was met with strong condemnation within the international community. For example, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the actions on the part of Israel and called for moderation on both sides. Additionally, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem cautioned the Israeli government against using deadly force against largely peaceful protestors. On the other hand, the US government praised Israel’s handling of the protests, stating that the Jewish state has every right to defend itself even against the most insignificant threat.
This video by CaspianReport discusses President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Iranian nuclear agreement. On May 8, President Donald Trump pulled the plug on the Iranian nuclear agreement, saying that the Iranian government has failed to live up to its obligations and violated the spirit of the accord. Yet since no tangible evidence that was presented, the unilateral decision places the US in violation of the treaty and subject to international scorn. Despite the decision, much remains to be seen regarding what steps both Iran and the US will take next.
In July 2015, an agreement was concluded with Iran, China, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, which is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It provided that Iran’s nuclear activities would be limited, in exchange for a reduction in some of the US sanctions implemented against the country in 1979, 1984, 1987, 1995, 2006, and 2010. According to the JCPOA, the President of the United States would certify that Iran would adhere to the terms of the agreement every ninety days.
Ever since he announced his candidacy for President in early 2015, Donald Trump made the renegotiation of the JCPOA one of his main campaign promises, stating at a campaign rally that “this deal, if I win, will be a totally different deal. This will be a totally different deal. Ripping up is always tough.” Trump described the Iran deal as “the worst deal ever,” and argued that its implementation will lead to “a nuclear holocaust” and the destruction of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Under the Trump administration, the State Department did certify that Iran was compliant with the agreements terms in both March and July of 2017. On October 14, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would not make the certification provided for under U.S. domestic law, on the basis that the suspension of sanctions was not “proportionate and appropriate,” but stopped short of terminating the deal.
Despite withdrawing from the agreement, the Trump Administration announced that it would be willing to renegotiate a “tougher, more comprehensive deal” with Iran. President Donald Trump proposed that any new agreement with Iran would include indefinite restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program (the original agreement only lasted 15 years and became noticeably less strong after the first 10 years), as well as restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program. Additionally, the Trump Administration stated that a new agreement would also limit Iran’s foreign policy plans. In response to Iran agreeing to these new provisions, the Trump Administration would remove all sanctions against the Iranian government, restart diplomatic ties, and work to modernize the Iranian economy.
Overall, the withdrawal was praised by most members of the Republican Party, supporters of the neo-conservative movement, and countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Others in the US, including the former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden criticized the decision by the Trump administration, while various countries that had been signatories including the UK, France, Italy, Germany, China, and Russia condemned the decision in the strongest terms. Additionally, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini denounced the Trump Administrations actions, saying that such actions on the part of the US government are more proof that the Iranian people can never trust the US. Moreover, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif stated that his country is “taking all necessary steps in preparation for Iran to pursue industrial-scale enrichment without any restrictions, using the results of the latest research and development of Iran’s brave nuclear scientists.”
The withdraw of the US from the JCPOA places both the US, its allies, and the wider Middle East on an uncertain course. It is likely that the renewal of sanctions and international isolation will do little to change the policies of the Iranian government, as the sanctions have bolstered the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by weakening the Iranian private sector. Additionally, it is argued that the sanctions will only serve to strengthen the conservative movement within the country. The strengthening of the conservative movement in Iran will make political reform less likely and result in increased political repression against the Iranian people by the government. Most notably, the demise of the JCPOA makes a joint US/Israeli/Saudi military strike against Iran much more likely. Such a scenario may spark a major international conflict and destabilize the Middle East for generations to come.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the recent anti-corruption purge undertaken by the government of Saudi Arabia. On November 4, 2017, several Saudi Arabian business leaders, governmental figures, and members of the royal family were arrested in a major anti-corruption operation led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS). The detainees were held at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh (the capital of Saudi Arabia) and all private jets were grounded to prevent suspects from fleeing the country. As many as 500 people were arrested and the Saudi government targeted assets worth up as much as several billion. The Saudi government claimed that the anti-corruption purge ultimately resulted in the recovering of over $100 billion in assets and many observers note that the mass arrests resulted in MbS’s complete consolidation of control of all three branches of the security forces, making him the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia since Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia.
Overall, the anti-corruption purge by the Saudi government sparked many reactions amongst commentators and politicians throughout the world. US President Donald Trump expressed a “great deal” of confidence in the judgment of Mohammed Bin Salman and highlighted him a progressive regional leader. Additionally, several commentators expressed the belief that the anti-corruption purge may lead to greater political freedom and openness within Saudi Arabia. Thomas Freidman, a New York Times commentator and expert on Middle Eastern politics stated that the purge is the equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring and that it is reminiscent of the policies of Glasnost carried out in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Gorbachev during the mid-late 1980s.
Despite the fact that many feel that the anti-corruption purges in Saudi Arabia may signal positive change for the theocratic monarchy, others feel that the purges will have a profound and negative effect on Saudi society and within the larger context of Middle Eastern politics. Instead of a genuine effort to fundamentally transform the Saudi political and economic landscape, many argue that the purge only served to cement the power of Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) and prevent any potential rivals from gaining support and influence within Saudi public affairs. During his short time in the public eye, MbS has developed a reputation as a ruthless and cunning leader who is willing to put the interests of himself against the Saudi people. Despite some pro-reform rhetoric, the overall human rights record of Saudi Arabia has declined since MbS was appointed as Crown Prince in mid-2017. Additionally, MbS is a proponent of a hawkish foreign policy that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East. For example, MbS is a supporter of Zionism and Israeli efforts to persecute the Palestinian people, has encouraged the Saudi government to expand its war in Yemen, and promotes an anti-Iran foreign policy, going as far as to compare the current Iranian government to Nazi Germany. Only time will tell of the anti-corruption purge in Saudi Arabia is a genuine effort to improve Saudi society in the long-run, or another attempt by an authoritarian government to continue to cling to power.
Throughout human history, war has often been a method for different governments, nation-states, as well as organizations, to control resources. These wars have become bloodier and more collectivized over the last 150 years. What do I mean by collectivized? The entire population is gearing up to destroy another nation and now legitimately the enemy of another “nation.” Carl Von Clausewitz’s theory of “Total War” reshaped warfare starting in the 1800s. Total war is defined as “war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” The concept of “total war” has lead to extreme policies by nations such as strategic bombings, commerce raiding, collective punishment, forced labor for military, targeting of agriculture, Scorched Earth policy, Ethnic Cleansing, prolonged sieges that starved cities and nations, use of nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, Free Fire Zones and many more. These extreme policies carried out resulted in the idea that soldiers have a “moral duty” to resist, disobey and refuse to join the military of a nation, usually a draft. The paper will examine the actions of Soldiers who refused to fight wars, deserted the military, and in some cases turn on command, during the Vietnam War.
What was the goal of the Vietnam War carried out largely through the United States?
The Vietnam War was primarily fought over Vietnamese Independence from the “West” (Britain, France, the United States and other “allies” of the United States). After World War II, the Vietnamese wanted independence from France, because it had largely remained a French colony prior to the war and during the war under the Japanese who further devastated the country. The Vietnamese had fought off the Japanese with US support and had planned a constitution modeled after the US constitution. The country was split by a UN mandate in 1954 which split Vietnam into North and South regions. In 1955, the planned democratic elections were halted in the South over fears they would vote to unify with North Vietnam and that the so-called ‘communist” Ho Chi Minh would win. The US, in turn, installed a puppet dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, a wealthy business owner, staunchly anti-communist, and a Catholic in charge of a largely Buddhist nation. Diem brutally persecuted Buddhists and become so unpopular that he was assassinated by the CIA in October of 1963 and replaced by his brother. From 1950 to 1975, the US waged a war to control formerly French Indochina via, military aid (up to 90% of French fighting with US dollars until they lost in 1954), also during and after with “military advisors”, constantly increasing until the US openly intervened in Vietnam in 1964, in which it consistently increased troop deployments until 1975, when the war finally came to an end.
Nearly three million Americans would ultimately serve in Vietnam over the next 20 years (Wardog). Many Americans did not agree or even understand why the US was involved in Vietnam. The US lied about the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident in July of 1964, where a US ship was falsely attacked so President Lyndon B. Johnson could gain more war powers and the result had been a major escalation of the war. The Americans did not find out about this event until nearly ten years later. David Duncan, formerly a Green Beret in Vietnam, was one of the first military trainers in Vietnam. After his tour of duty, he came back and told people the war was a lie. “I was really proud of what I thought I was doing. The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn’t doing right” (Sir!NoSir!). He took a stand openly against the war and resigned from the military. The war took a long time to end, it was pushed with starch anti-communism and what Einstein calls the “measles of mankind”, nationalism.
Other soldiers such as Dr. Howard Levy refused to perform their military duties to help the war effort. The ideas of personal responsibility made many people not only question the war, hate the war, but also actively try to stop it or refuse to participate in it. Soldiers created underground newspapers in military barracks, ships and cafes across the country to spread the anti-war news. These would often become ban by the military officers and that banning of it would ironically arouse interests by more troops in what was being printed, almost a metaphor in a way for the drug war. Troops on aircraft carriers were literally signing petitions not to go to Vietnam, over 1,200 sailors signed it.
From April 18 to April 23, 1971, some 900 Vietnam veterans were involved in a massive anti-war rally in Washington, DC. The events included lobbying Congress, “Guerilla Theater” in the streets and keep in mind this was during the 1971 investigation into war crimes, with “150 vets testifying from firsthand experience” (VVAW). This helped the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in 1967, became a national organization. The April events were considered one of “the most powerful anti-war demonstration held up to that time”(VVAW). It scared President Richard Nixon so much that he received hourly reports on the demonstration (VVAW). 50 veterans even took over the office of Senator James Buckley (R-NY) after he refused to meet with them. The last day of the demonstration the veterans each individual made a statement against the war and then threw their medals over the White House fence protesting against the war. One Veteran from the demonstration famously stated that “If we have to fight again, it will be to take these steps.”
The famous May Day Protests in 1971 saw, according to Chief Jerry V. Wilson, some 12,000 to 15,000 protestors block streets, throw “chicken shit” to mock the colonels, block government buildings and marching in protest of the war (Halloran). Most of the protesters were a mix of students and veterans. These people believed that serving the war effort was deeply wrong and that the war would end when soldiers refused to fight the wars. In the 1980s, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, much of this history of the anti-war movement was swept under the carpet and myths of the “hippies” who spat on soldiers started.
Many sailors, pilots, and San Diego residents even joined the anti-war movement. Sailors on the USS Coral Sea, at first signed hundreds of petitions then thousands of them signed it. On Sept. 13, 1971, they wrote a petition to Congress stating that a majority of the sailors do not believe in the Vietnam War and asking that their ship not return to Southeast Asia. Before the petitions could be sent to Congress they were ripped off by the lifers and are now being held by the ship’s executive officer. He said the petition was legal but ignored attempts by the crew to get it back. So the crew ignored the executive officer and started a new petition. Over 300 men signed the first one and were pissed off when it was ripped up (Good Times/Vol. IV No. 29/OCT. 1, 1971). When the ship sailed out the Golden Gate on Monday for a two-week trial run, there were thousands of leaflets with the text of the petition and places for signatures.
The naval carriers and pilot crews often had little combat casualties and dealt severe damage to the civilians across Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, especially when President Richard Nixon started slowly withdrawing troops in 1969, it meant more bombing and higher civilian deaths. Veterans started focusing on actively persuading people that the war was wrong. Saying things like I was there, I did terrible things and we shouldn’t be there, things like that are a lot more persuasive when you can say you fought in that war. Soldiers also did symbolic things like wear black armbands to say they support a protest at home. The Vietnam War is also where you see the “black power” movement start to emerge and groups like the black panthers. Where are legitimate questions asked why are black people fighting for a country that doesn’t provide them with equal rights? Famous athletes like Muhammad Ali refused to fight the war, perhaps modern day Kaepernick could be said as a mini Ali.
Soon after their return home from Vietnam in 1971, a group of 236 GI’s from the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the following statement: “Throughout our time in the service we’ve seen minority group GI’s discriminated against. In Vietnam, that’s been evidenced by higher casualty rates. Other times it takes the form of slower promotions, higher penalties for rules violations, and the worst job assignments. We feel that the Army fosters racism and has purposely avoided dealing with the day-to-day problems of minority groups”(Boyle).
To briefly address it I will reference what’s in Richard Boyle article not far below the previous quote,
“Many white officers and NCO’s made a practice of harassing Black GI’s about their Afros which didn’t conform to “military regulations.” While right-wing soldiers were allowed to fly confederate flags on Martin Luther King’s birthday and could generally count on getting away with making open racial slurs, Black GI’s were given sentences of up to 6 months for giving the clenched fist salute and “dapping” (a brotherly greeting)”(Boyle).
During the 10 years of the Vietnam War according to figures by the Pentagon, 500,000 deserted (Woolf). A large anti-war movement actively protesting, the Vietcong (a “determined enemy”), a military on collapse, Nixon announced the policy of “Vietnamization” making the Vietnamese takeover the efforts which completely failed and people knew it would fail in the 1970s.
“By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous”(Heinl).
THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
North American Newspaper Alliance
Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971
The US military had become almost self-governing in a way, even outside of its officers. Soldiers refusing to go on missions, people on drugs everywhere, especially heroin, officers being killed for given orders; to put it bluntly it was a circus. Because of the drug addiction and disapproval of the military, there was now an “epidemic of barracks theft”. This theft is even more devastating for moral where you have soldiers unable to trust each other, especially when in combat.
“Soldier muggings and holdups are on the rise everywhere. Ft. Dix, N.J., has a higher rate of on-post crime than any base on the East Coast. Soldier muggings are reported to average one a night, with a big upsurge every pay-day. Despite 450 MP’s (one for every 55 soldiers stationed there – one of the highest such ratios in the country) no solution appears in sight (Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
There are more military police than ever and still, the situation cannot be dealt with. The military was in a state of active revolt.
“Crimes are so intense and violent in the vicinity of an open-gate “honor system” detention facility at Ft. Dix that, according to press reports, units on the base are unwilling to detail armed sentinels to man posts nearby, for fear of assault and robbery”(Heinl). Armed Forces Journal
So bad that the military can’t even protect a gate so they have to have a bullshit system to protect themselves from looking weak. These issues are some of many that build up an identity of the military at war with itself that can’t maintain itself, in a war it doesn’t want to fight, unrest at home and a country trying to find itself. Toward the end of the war things got so bad a term “fragging” was given to the time when US soldier in Vietnam would attack their commanders for giving those orders to fight or go on missions.
“Shortly after the costly assault on Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, the GI underground newspaper in Vietnam, “G.I. Says”, publicly offered a $10,000 bounty on Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt, the officer who ordered(and led) the attack”(Heinl).
Several attempts were made on that soldier’s life although he went home alive. But even the brashness to publish something about killing an officer in a newspaper with a bounty shows how bad the situations were. This did affect judgments by leaders, “Another Hamburger Hill is definitely out “said one Major (Heinl). The problem of soldiers refusing to fight is evident throughout the end of the war, notable by two examples, the entire units of 196th Light Infantry Brigade publicly sat down on the battlefield and 1st Air Cavalry Division refused going down a dangerous trail (Heinl). When soldiers actively don’t believe in the “value” of the war serious consequences happen to the nation’s military.
Briefly, I will talk about the problems of historically armies in World War 1, World War 2, Iraq, Afghanistan 1980s and Modern, while touching back to Vietnam. During WW1, over 240,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were court-martialed (Hinke). World War II saw 1.7 million US courts-martial, “one-third of all American prosecutions”, and around 21,000 desertions (Hinke). During the Afghan War, 60,000-80,000 ethnic Soviet border troops from the Muslim Central Asian regions deserted (Hinke). 85,000 Afghan national troops also deserted during this period (Hinke).
2001 to Today
“Pentagon estimates more than 40,000 troops have deserted from all branches of military service. In 2001 alone, 7,978 deserted” (Hinke).
All these problems of desertion relate to poor morale, belief in conflict, in some instances pay, the requirements of troops and length of the conflict. These conflicts are all about domination of regions, resources and/or competing for national interests. The Vietnam War adds up to a cumulative discontent with soldiers disbelief in the value of the conflict and actively trying to end the war. This dislike by the US soldiers does not mean that the Vietcong were just in their actions, who often killed, tortured, overtaxed and committed numerous atrocities, but as the song For What it’s Worth says, “Noboy is right if everybody’s wrong”.
Examine the Vietnam War
Examine the Opposition to the War in the Military(Army)
– How they applied refusing to fight philosophy
-Social Problems of the time (small)
-US Military on verge of Collapse?
Presentation
Present – Stop video at 5:23 mins (https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C1786515/sir-no-sir)
(Ask Questions
Question 1: What do you think about the idea “if people refuse to fight the wars can’t continue”?
– Quick Facts:
More than 21,000 American soldiers were convicted of desertion in World War Two
Since 2000 estimate of more than 40,000 troops deserted from all branches of the military.
In 2001 alone, 8,000 deserted the US military.
More than 5,500 desertions 2003-2004
Any guesses to how many deserted during the Vietnam War 10 year period? 500,000!
-Question 2
Was what they did right for refusing to fight what they perceived as an unjust war?
-Quick Facts
How many people if there was a draft implemented tomorrow and require you to show up at your local town hall would do so, to prepare for a military conflict against China and North Korea?
Images and further Readings
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-news-photo/526094756#viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-war-in-picture-id526094756 ( March in DC Arlington Cemetery)
24 May 1969: Senior US officers say the strategic location of Hill 937 – ‘Hamburger Hill’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/24/troops-count-cost-vietnam-hamburger-hill-archive-1969
References
(2009). From US War Dogs : http://www.uswardogs.org/new_page_18.htm
Between Hitler and Stalin . (n.d.). From UCRDC: http://www.ucrdc.org/HI-SCORCHED_EARTH_POLICY.html
Boyle, R. (1973). GI Revolts The Breakdown of the US Army in Vietnam. From Richard Gibson : http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. North American Newspaper Alliance. From https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. From Montclair University : https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
Drooling on the Vietnam Vets. (2000, May 2). From Slate : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
Halloran, R. (1972). 7,000 Arrested in Capital War Protest; 150 Are Hurt as Clashes Disrupt Traffic. From http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0503.html
Turse, N. (2017, September 28 ). The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary. From The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/the-ken-burns-vietnam-war-documentary-glosses-over-devastating-civilian-toll/
United Nations Office of Genocide Prevnetion and The Resposiblity to Protect . (2017). Ethnic Cleansing . From United Nations : http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.html
VVAW. (1977, Apirl ). Vets’ History: Operation “Dewey Canyon III”. From Vietnam Veterans Against the War: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1656
Woolf, C. (2015, March 26). From the Revolution to Bowe Bergdahl, desertion has a long history in the US. From PRI: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-26/revolution-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-has-long-history-us
Zeiger, D. (Director). (2005 ). Sir!No Sir! [Motion Picture].
Links if need be
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/total_war
In the third chapter of the book “Democratization: theory and experience,” Laurence Whitehead looks at the concept of civil society and its relationship to democratization. If democracy is to be viewed as a complex and open-ended process, a more explanatory account is needed to describe it more effectively. Before a democratic transition can begin, there must exist a political community receptive to such change and willing to participate in a democratic system. The ideas of civil society and social capital provide condensed analogies to explain the structure of and simplify the ideas regarding the long-term changes that stem from democratization. Instead of focusing on political actors and what they seek to accomplish, political theorists should instead focus on the large-scale and broadly-based features of the entire political community.
Laurence Whitehead then goes on to highlight the factors that help to define the idea of civil society. Theorists of civil society have seen more success in erasing its highly specific origins and have converted it into a free-standing category of thought that comes to mind when Westerners make comparative statements about the density of associative life in diverse political communities. Additionally, most non-Western discourses tend to lack an equivalent concept to the idea of civil society. Even though some argue that non-governmental organizations can be considered to be civil societies, they tend to lack the surrounding ethos, authenticity, and autonomy that are considered to be hallmarks of civil societies. Moreover, non-governmental organizations also lack the well-structured support from the larger community that civil societies often have. The definition of civil society also excludes associations such as households, religious institutions, and hierarchical institutions such as conscripted military forces and the bureaucracy of national government. Between such extremes, there may be an independent sphere of voluntary association in which interactions are governed by the principles of autonomy and self-respect.
Laurence Whitehead also considers the factors that characterize stronger civil societies. Strong civil societies are characterized by a wider set of boundaries for interaction between individuals in society and by a larger acceptance of personal freedom and individual rights. As such, a strong civil society will allow for a greater chance for democracy to be successful and long-lasting despite challenges. Even if people reach an agreement on the factors that allow for the successful implementation of civil society, the results of their agreement will not be quantitative and more descriptive in nature. The idea of a descriptive category, according to Whitehead, is akin to an “empty box,” as there are not previously existing theories within it. As such, people can apply their own theories in interpretations regarding the political process. Additionally, such factors raise the question of how an “empty box” descriptive category shape such dynamic and long-term political process such as democratization. Any linkage between both factors would require both a description and an explanation of how the norms of civility can be compelling enough to reproduce over generations and override the loyalty demands of the state and the primary descriptive groups.
After going over some of the theoretical approaches to the idea of civil society, Laurence Whitehead goes over what would be a tentative definition of the concept of civil society. If groups such as terrorist organizations, armed paramilitary groups, and criminal organizations are not to be defined as being members of civil society, Whitehead highlights the need to stipulate a general definition of civil society that highlights the importance of civility. According to Whitehead, civil society is defined as a set of self-organized intermediary groups that are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of reproduction and production, can discuss collective actions in the defense and promotion of their interests, do not seek to replace state agents or private reproducers or to accept responsibility for governing the polity as a whole, and agree to act within pre-established legal guidelines. Additionally, Whitehead states that civil society rests on four different conditions. The first two conditions are that of dual autonomy and collective action. The next two conditions are non-usurpation and civility. The definition of civil society tends to exclude criminal organizations and paramilitary groups and any organizations that threaten individual rights.
Laurence Whitehead next looks at the idea of civility and incivility. Following such a definition of civil society, it is unlikely that political scientists will find forms of voluntary associative organizations distributed evenly throughout the geographical and social terrain that is covered by the modern nation-state. Whitehead argues that neither the market or the state can be effectively used to even out the uneven social geography that is present throughout the world. The reason why the market is ineffective in evening out social geography because it obeys consumer sovereignty. Additionally, the state cannot solve such issues because its policies are skewed towards societal groups with the highest level of influence. Such factors lead to the question of what mechanism can be used to address the issue of uneven social geography, as civil society will eventually become out of sync with democratic citizenship. The weaknesses of civil society are often evident in many of the newer democracies. For example, efforts at democratization in many post-authoritarian countries are often overshadowed by antisocial forms of individualism that substitute the forms of civil associationalism favored by civil society theorists. Thus, the main advantages of civil society tend to be highly concentrated among a minority of the people in many of the new democracies.
The dynamic between civil society and democratic citizenship is also addressed by Laurence Whitehead. Civil society tends to develop unevenly over time in a logic distinct from state formation. The resulting patterns of associative life and social communication typically emerge as highly structured with insiders, traditional favored sectors, and excluded sectors. Additionally, new democracies often only work effectively if they can restrain such exclusionary tendencies and indulge the people with the most social capital to adapt to a broader and longer-term view of their civic engagement in society. Even though civil society developed incrementally, modern political regimes are often created quickly and with short notice. Examples of political regimes created abruptly include the new nations created Europe after World War One, Asia and Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, and the democracies created in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s. In all cases, formal political equality was established at a specific moment and the citizens earned a full set of democratic rights even though the creation of exclusionary political societies did not coincide with pre-existing maps of associative life between the citizenry.
Civil society may also experience slow growth that eventually allows for the creation of the conditions favorable to democracy. Examples of the gradual development of civil society include Great Britain during the 17th Century and Spain during the 1970s. Additionally, it is also the case that the implementation of a democratic government will foster the development of civil society and create the conditions necessary for its success. Examples include many of the former communist countries and to the experience of many of the former territories of countries such as the US and Great Britain. There also exists the possibility that a civil society attains a high level of development, but never produce a democratic political regime, as in the case of Hong Kong. Moreover, a civil society may develop on the basis that its freedoms and rights can only be secured if there exists a series of exclusionary measures that prevent some members form full participation. Examples include the Palestinian population in Israel, the Cypriot population in Turkey, and African Americans in the Southern part of the US up until the 1960s.
In conclusion, Laurence Whitehead explores the concept of civil society and its role in democratic transitions in “On Civil Society.” Whitehead underscores the importance of political theorists examining the factors that result in the development of strong civil societies that allow for the long-term stability of democratic governments. Additionally, Whitehead goes on to characterize the factors that characterize an effective civil society and the dynamic between civil societies and the expectations of democratic citizenship. An in-depth understanding of the idea of civil society will allow political scientists and political theorists to more effectively understand the factors that allow democratic governments to succeed in certain countries but ultimately fail in others. Moreover, the concept of civil society can be applied to explain potential democratic transitions in countries that a presently authoritarian.
In the book “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study,” Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba present a study of the political culture of democracy and discuss the social structures and processes that help to improve its overall stability. A common concern among political scientists is the future of democracy at the global level. In the years following World War II, events such as de-colonialization have raised some questions about the long-term stability of Democratic political systems and placed the issue into the broader context of the world’s culture. Despite the fact that Almond and Verba feel that the direction of political change at the global level is unclear, they argue that a political culture based upon individual participation will emerge due to demands by ordinary citizens. Additionally, Almond and Verba propose that the emerging nations will be presented with two different models of the participatory state, the democratic and totalitarian models of participation. The democratic model of participation offers the ordinary man the opportunity to take part in the political decision-making process as an influential citizen, whereas the totalitarian offers him the role of the “participant subject.” Both the democratic and totalitarian models of participation have appealed to emerging nations, but it is unclear which one will ultimately win.
According to Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, the democratic model of participation will require more than the introduction of formal institutions of democracy such as freedom of speech, an elected legislature, and universal suffrage. A participatory democratic system also requires a consistent political culture. On the other hand, Almond and Verba argue that there are several problems with transferring democratic political culture to emerging nations. The first issue is that many of the leaders in developing states have little experience with the working principles of democratic policy and civic cultures such as political parties, interest groups, and electoral systems. As a result, the idea of democratic policy as conveyed to the leaders of new countries is incomplete and heavily stresses ideology and legal norms as opposed to conveying the actual feeling and attitude towards democratic ideals. A further reason why the diffusion of democracy to new nations is difficult is that they are confronted with structural problems. For example, many of the new nations are entering the global stage at a time in which they have not fully developed industrially. As a result, individual leaders may be drawn to a policy in which authoritarian bureaucracy promotes industrial development and technological advancement, and where political organization becomes a device for human and social engineering.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the idea of the civic culture. The civic culture is a mixed set of values that contains attributes from both modern and traditional cultures and allows them to interact and interchange without polarizing and destroying each other. Additionally, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as pluralistic and based on communication and persuasion, consensus, diversity, and accessibility to gradual political change. Almond and Verba then explore the development of civic culture in Great Britain. One of the circumstances that resulted in the creation of a modern society in Britain was the emergence of a thriving merchant class and the involvement of the court and aristocracy in economic decisions. Moreover, the English Reformation and the increasing prevalence of religious diversity resulted in a higher level of secularization within British society, leading to greater modernization. As a consequence of both factors, Britain entered the 18th Century with independent merchants and aristocrats who established a parliamentary system that made it possible to assimilate rapid social changes without any sharp discontinuities. By establishing a civic culture, ordinary people were able to enter into the political process and develop British democratic structures.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba describe several different types of political cultures. According to Almond and Verba, political culture refers to the overall attitudes that individuals have regarding the political system and their attitudes toward their respective roles in the system. The term political culture is used because it allows Almond and Verba to separate the non-political concepts from their study and allows them to employ an interdisciplinary approach to their analysis of mass attitudes towards democracy. In classifying objects of political orientation, Almond and Verba start with the general political system, which deals with the organization as a whole. In explaining the components of the political system, Almond and Verba distinguish the specific roles or structures, the functions of incumbents, and particular public policies, decisions, or enforcement of decisions. These structures, incumbents, and decisions are then classified by involvement either in the political (input) process, or in the administrative (output) process.
In their study of mass attitudes and values, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba have identified three distinct types of political cultures. The first type of political culture mentioned by Almond and Verba is the parochial political culture. A parochial political culture emerges when the citizens of a particular nation have no understanding of the national political system, do not possess any tendency to participate in the input processes and have no consciousness of the output operations. Additionally, there are no specialized political roles within a parochial political culture, and the leadership roles are not separated from their religious and social orientations. Examples of parochial political cultures include African and Native American tribes and indigenous communities within particular nations. A subjective political culture is when people are aware of the mechanism of government and the political process, but are not taught to or are not allowed to participate in the system. Examples of subjective political cultures include traditional monarchies or authoritarian government systems. In a participant political culture, the populace is involved in the decision-making process and more or less has a say in public policy decisions. Examples of participant political cultures include the United States, Great Britain, and many other countries throughout the world. The three different classifications of political culture described by Almond and Verba does not assume that one classification replaces the other. On the other hand, the introduction of new classifications serves as a way to encourage previous political orientations to adapt.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also mention that a number of political cultures are systematically mixed. A systematically mixed political culture occurs when there are elements of more simple and more complex patterns of political orientations. The first example of a systematically mixed political culture is the parochial-subject culture, which occurs when a majority of the population has rejected the exclusive claims of diffuse tribal, village, or feudal authority and has developed allegiance towards more complex political systems. Examples of parochial-subject political cultures include the Ottoman Empire and the loosely articulated African kingdoms. In a subject-participant culture, a substantial part of the population has acquired the ability and desire to become more engaged in governmental decisions, whereas the rest of the population continue to be oriented toward an authoritarian political structure and have a relatively little desire to get involved in critical public policy decisions. Additionally, a successful shift from a subject to a participant culture requires the diffusion of positive orientations toward a democratic infrastructure, the acceptance of norms of civic obligation, and the development of a sense of civic competence among a substantial proportion of the population. France during the 19th Century and Germany during the early 20th Century are examples of subject-participant political cultures. A parochial-participant political culture occurs when elements of a participatory system are introduced to a traditionally parochial society. As a result of the lack of structure and experiences with democracy, parochial-participant political cultures have the most experiences with instability and teeter back and forth between democracy and authoritarianism.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba focus on the political cultures of five different countries in their study: The United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. Almond and Verba selected these countries because they have experienced a wide range of historical and political experiences and have gone through a number of events that influenced their political systems. The United States and Great Britain both represent relatively successful experiments in democratic governance despite the fact that the rationale behind their acceptance of democratic values is different. For example, the political culture in Great Britain combines deference toward authority with a lively sense of the rights of citizen initiatives, whereas the political culture of the United States is based on political competence and participation rather than obedience to legitimate authority. Germany is included because its experiments in democratic governance during the late 19th and early 20th Century never resulted in the development of a participatory political culture necessary to legitimize democratic institutions of government. Almond and Verba include Italy and Mexico in their study because both represent less developed societies with transitional political systems.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the feelings towards government and politics that are prevalent in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. The first metric that they measured was the national factors in which the resident of all five countries were most proud of. A majority (85%) of American respondents cited their political system as the greatest source of pride they feel towards their country. In contrast, only 46% of British, 30% of Mexican, 7% of German, and 3% of Italian respondents cited their governmental institutions as their greatest source of national pride. Moreover, American and British respondents were more likely to refer to public policy accomplishments than the respondents from other countries. The Italian respondents cited their countries contributions to the arts and its cultural treasures, whereas the German respondents cited their countries economic system as the greatest source of national pride. Additionally, Mexican pride was distributed equally between the political and economic systems and the physical attributes of their country.
The findings show that the Americans and British express great pride in their political institutions and thus feel the least alienated towards their political systems. On the other hand, the Germans and Italian respondents express a low level of pride in their political institutions and feel more alienated towards their governments. The results from the Mexican respondents show that they have a keen interest in political involvement despite the fact that their political culture is largely parochial. The fact that Mexican respondents expressed an interest in politics is due to past feelings associated by the populace with events such as the Mexican Revolution. The continued connection to the Mexican Revolution shows that the Mexican people believe that the revolution did not accomplish its stated political goals and that the process of political change is ongoing. When broken down by educational level, a majority of American, British, and Mexican respondents with higher levels of education expressed more pride in their respective political systems. Additionally, the fact that educational attainment does no influence the levels of national pride among the German and Italian respondents further suggests alienation from the political system as opposed to a lack of awareness of the system.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also go on to explore the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities among the respondents from all five countries. Both Almond and Verba hypothesized that if the respondents expected fair treatment by governmental authorities, they would, in turn, express more support for legitimate authority. The respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany expected a higher level of treatment by governmental authorities than the respondents from Italy and Mexico. Additionally, the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities varies by educational attainment. For example, respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany with higher educational levels expect more equitable treatment by political authorities than respondents with lower levels of education. Even though the number of Italian and Mexican respondents expecting fair and equal treatment in government were relatively low, the differences between the advantaged and less advantaged groups regarding education were larger than in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Such findings show that there is a connection between expectations regarding treatment by governmental authorities and alienation from the political system.
The attitudes towards political communication are also discussed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. A key component of democratic governments is the willingness for ordinary men and women to get involved in the political process. The main factor that influences such willingness is the level of comfort with discussing political issues. Respondents from the United States and Great Britain expressed the highest level of willingness to discuss politics. Additionally, even though German respondents expressed the highest frequency of following reports about public affairs, the number of people who discuss politics on a regular basis was lower than in the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, the Mexican and Italian respondents expressed a relatively low willingness to discuss political affairs. With regards to the percent of respondents who refused to report their voting decision, the American, British, and Mexican respondents expressed little reluctance when revealing their political choice, whereas the German and Italian respondents expressed the highest level of reluctance. The reluctance on the part of the German and Italian respondents to reveal their voting choices shows that they feel that identifying with a political party is unsafe and inadvisable. Additionally, their unwillingness to reveal their voting choices indicates that there is a higher level of alienation from the political system on the part of the German and Italian respondents when compared to the American, British, and Mexican respondents.
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then discuss the relationship between the civic culture and democratic stability and the impact of political culture on the political system that it belongs to. One view that Almond and Verba discuss is the rationality-activist model, which stipulates that a stable democracy involves the population to be informed and active in politics. Additionally, the rationality-activist model requires the citizens to base their voting choices on careful evaluation and carefully weighing in the alternatives. On the other hand, Almond and Verba mention that current research shows that most citizens in democratic nations rarely live up to the rationality-activist model. As such, Almond and Verba feel that the rationality-activist model is only a part of the civic culture and does not make up its entirety. Moreover, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as a mixed political culture that involves both citizens who are informed and take an active role in politics and citizens who take a less active role in politics. The diverse nature of the civic culture also implies that the different roles in political such as parochial, subject, and participant do not replace each other and instead build upon each other.
In conclusion, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba discuss the idea of the political culture and its relationship to democracy in “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study.” A major concern among political scientists is what factors result in the establishment of a political culture that allows for the stability of democracy within a particular country. In their study of political culture, Almond and Verba looked at several factors such as citizen views on government, views on treatment by governmental authorities, and the willingness of people to discuss political issues and the views that respondents from five different democracies have regarding them. The results of their study determined that countries with a long-term history of democratic governance were more likely to have political cultures that foster democratic ideas than countries with a shorter history of democratic government. Additionally, Almond and Verba discuss the relationship between political culture and the long-term stability of democratic political systems.
This video by PressTV presents a review of President Donald Trump’s first full year in office. One year has passed since Donald Trump has been elected US President. Since then, the world has seen a US President unlike any other. One that is aggressive, impulsive, uninterested in politics, and egotistical. Despite coming into office with a grand series of promises to change American politics for the better, the case can be made that the policies pursued by the Trump Administration have changed American politics for the worst. Trump has thus far failed to realize any of his campaign promises, fanned the conspiracy flames regarding his relationship with Russia, contradicted and insulted his staff, and made enemies of allies throughout the world. Additionally, President Trump has attacked the governmental institutions he oversees, threatened to use his powers to ruin the lives of his political opponents, waged war against members of his own party, and engaged in race-baiting, sexism, ableism, and religious bigotry when pursuing his destructive agenda.
One such area in which President Donald Trump left his mark during his first year was his immigration executive order banning (mostly Shi’a Muslim) immigrants, travelers, and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya). This action ignited a firestorm of protest and revealed the bigoted, white supremacist agenda underlying the Trump Administration’s policies. President Trump also rattled the nuclear-saber more than any other President in US history with his incitement of North Korea, going as far to threaten the North Korean government with “fire and fury.” Many politicians on both sides of the aisle worry that Trump has misused the moral authority surrounding the office of the Presidency through such statements and actions.
President Donald Trump claimed during his first year in office that he has the unilateral authority to order the Justice Department to open or close investigations into his political opponents. Such rhetoric threatens to set a negative precedent in future Administrations that goes directly against the principles of separation of power spelled out in the US Constitution. President Trump’s outreach to autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel further characterized his first year in office. By backing the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, President Trump has given the green light for Saudi Arabia to escalate its three-year-long intervention in Yemen, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and has encouraged hatred towards Shi’a Muslims throughout the world. Additionally, President Trump’s choice to recognize Jerusalem (“al-Quds” in Arabic) as the capital of Israel has encouraged the Israeli regime to expand its crusade against the Palestinian people.
President Donald Trump also left a negative mark within the realm of international politics and has adopted a firm, neoconservative view regarding the role of the US in the world. President Trump has repeatedly denounced the Iranian nuclear deal, calling it the “worst deal ever negotiated” despite the fact that it was upheld by numerous organizations, most notably the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Additionally, President Trump has proposed a hardliner stance towards Iran, calling it a “terrorist nation” and calling for US military action to remove the current Iranian government from power. These actions on the part of the President have led to many European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to rethink their reliance on US political and diplomatic leadership on the world stage.
In terms of domestic policy, President Donald Trump generally has had an abysmal first year in office. Trump failed to follow through on repealing The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) despite the fact that his party controls both houses of Congress, and has relied on Executive Orders more often than any other first-year President in US history. The only true legislative achievements of President Trump’s first year in office are his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Many critics argue that the presence of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will move the Judicial branch far to the right and have a profound (and what many view as a negative) impact on decisions such as drug policy, women’s rights, abortion, gay rights, and electoral reform. Additionally, nearly all economic organizations point out that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a clear giveaway to the wealthiest 1% and only serve to further the widening income gap between the wealthy and the poor.
President Trump has now appointed a new cabinet, member Bill Coal of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Bill Coal is a former sex offender who was caught molesting four children in front of the Oakland GOP offices where he was previously attempting to bolster support for a future run for governor. Bill Coal was key for Trump in Michigan, for not only rallying voters for Trump but also encouraging younger voters to erect Republicans. Coal will now head the nation’s federal Child Protection Agency, tasked with protecting over 30 million children from negligence, abuse, and rape. Coal said, “I am fully committed to making sure I lick the problems that affect those kids. To make sure their parents are kept busy with employment and to nail down a hard solution to our nation’s problems.”
Coal has also been known to pay bribes, and an FCC court ruled he was in violation of Code 345 section E-W, preventing corporations from donating money to businesses to donate to political campaigns. The business in question was a candy store that was known for its lollypops and ice cream. Coal paid a fine of $50,000 dollars and has reportedly made no comment since, although our investigative reports have seen his trash full of lollypop wrappers, which mysteriously stopped after becoming head of the agency. Trump has said, “Bill Coal is a man who can get things done and he’s a guy I would trust to take care of my own kids.” Coal was last in Michigan at a farm he owned bragging about how big his cock was days before his term begins, see image below.
He is quoted as saying “I can’t wait to have kids come over and see my cock as part of my job. I am very proud to be an American today and can’t thank the President enough for allowing me to bask in his erect oral victory. Amen.”
Bill Coal and his cock in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
For more fun see…
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sexual_innuendo
Have you ever tried to organize a college event? Did you get frustrated by issues of planning and attendance?
College is a stressful environment often characterized by heavy workloads and important deadlines to meet. Planning a successful college event can be most successful by following certain guidelines to maximize your potential. Finals/Midterms times and prior to are the worst time to hold events. Here are some tips to help you set up a successful event:
1. Early Bird gets the worm
First-time Political leaning or educational events, in my opinion, are always best to be done in the first 2-3 weeks of school. Before Midterms and before homework starts getting overwhelming.
2.Time Time Time
Make sure the event isn’t at a time when most people are in class but perhaps “college hour,” or a time when people want to have some pizza after class.
3. Who’s Who?
Figure out who are the Demographic most likely to attend. Figure out how to attract them, like LGBTQ attract them by telling them about the issue and how it’s important in their life. How they should come and will benefit. Then figure out how to attract large segments of the student or other population.
4. Monopoly MOFO
Making sure your event has a monopoly over the time/date is important so other events don’t drain from your audience. If a more “liberal” socially- (not economically that word is misused today), then figure out what other events that draw people in that realm may be happening or run by and inform them of your event beforehand to make sure you have a leg up on them. Something as simple as saying “hey come to my event” and “save the date.” Informing the faculty who are “experts” in that field your event is on can help spread the word as well.
5. Art Bitches
Make sure you have an attractive flyer to catch someone’s eye to the event. This should also include online postings like on Instagram/Facebook which are drawing more attention these days. A picture is worth a thousand words so keep it relative to the event.
6. Munchies!
Having Pizza at the event can go a long way where people who aren’t generally as interested now come to the event and want a piece of that action. So food is a way to lure people just make sure you try to gauge the attendance with food supply otherwise it will take away from an event. Refillable cups is advised along with water to reduce plastic use and make your event more environmentally friendly.
7. Songs of the time (EXTRA)
Having a musician play relevant music at the end of the event can lure more people- his or her friends to attend- and ends an element that there will be a musician playing at the end. Try to keep the music almost relevant to the event. For example, if the event discusses healthcare policy, include a song that talks about health care or if the event is about immigration feature a song about immigration. Try to keep the music it a genre you think people will like. Solidarity Singers in NJ are known for political songs and is a good source for political events.
Early in Semester
During a right day of week/Time
Figuring out the target group
Making sure the target group has only your event to attend
Posters that are well designed
Some food at the event
(Extra)Perhaps music performance at the end or start
(These are lessons I have learned from my failed events-XOXO )
One of the two major political parties in the US is the Democratic Party. With its roots being traced back to the late 18th Century Democratic Party has arguably been the most important party in US history. The Democratic Party dominated US politics at the national level between 1828 and 1860 and again from 1932 to 1968, and a majority of American voters still identify as Democrats today even though the Party has lost ground in many areas of the country over the past 50 years. Here is a brief overview of the history of the Democratic Party.
Before the Democratic Party
The Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties participated in spirited debates regarding the direction of the young country during the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.
After the U.S. Constitution came into effect in 1789, the voters and elected officials divided into two rival political factions. The first such group was the Federalist Party, which favored a strong and active federal government ruled by a wealthy elite. The second group was the Democratic-Republican Party, which advocated dispersing power more broadly among white male property owners. By the time of the 1824 Presidential Election, the Federalists Party mostly collapsed, leaving the Democratic-Republican Party as the only remaining political party in the US.
During the 1820s new states entered the union, voting laws were relaxed, and several states passed legislation that provided for the direct election of presidential electors by voters. These changes split the Democratic-Republicans into factions, each of which nominated a candidate in the presidential election of 1824. The party’s congressional caucus chose William H. Crawford of Georgia, but Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, the leaders of the party’s two most significant factions also sought the presidency. House Speaker Henry Clay was nominated by the Kentucky and Tennessee legislatures. Jackson won a majority of the popular and electoral vote, but no candidate received the necessary majority in the electoral college. When the election went to the House of Representatives, Clay threw his support to Adams, who won the House vote and subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state.
Andrew Jackson is the father of the modern Democratic Party.
Despite Adams’s victory, differences between the Adams and the Jackson factions persisted. Adams’s supporters, representing Eastern interests and progressive economic and social policies, called themselves the National Republicans. Jackson, whose strength was in the South and West, referred to his followers as Democrats. The Jacksonian branch advocated economic populism, social conservatism, and rural values. Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 presidential election by a landslide and soon began to implement his right-wing, populist agenda (which was in many ways similar to the modern-day “Tea-Party” movement in the Republican Party and is cited by President Donald Trump as an inspiration for his policies). In 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland, the Democrats nominated Jackson for a second term as President, drafted a party platform, and established a rule that required party presidential and vice presidential nominees to receive the votes of at least two-thirds of the national convention delegates, thus establishing the Convention System, which nominated all Presidential candidates between 1832 and 1976.
Growth & Decline of the Democratic Party
From 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all Presidential elections except 1840 and 1848 and controlled Congress with substantial majorities. As the 1840s and 1850s progressed, the Democratic Party suffered internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats wanted to allow slavery in all the areas of the country, while Northern Democrats proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through a public vote. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge, and Northern Democrats nominated Senator Stephen Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate. With the Democrats split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote.
American Presidential elections during the late 19th Century were split based on ethnic, regional, and ideological lines.
The election of 1860 is regarded by most political observers as the first of the country’s three “critical” elections—contests that produced sharp yet enduring changes in party loyalties across the country. It established the Democratic and Republican parties, which represented the right and left of the political spectrum respectively. In federal elections from the 1870s to the 1890s, the parties were evenly split except in the South, where the Democrats dominated because most whites blamed the Republican Party for both the American Civil War and Reconstruction. The two parties controlled Congress for almost equal periods through the rest of the 19th century, though the Democratic Party held the presidency only during the two terms of Grover Cleveland (1885–89 and 1893–97).
A Shift Towards Progressivism
The Democratic Party began to move to the left during the 1896 Presidential Election with the nomination of former Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan. In contrast to prior Democratic nominees, Bryan advocated a progressive platform meant to counter the growing power of economic elites and return some semblance of stability to the common man. Even though Bryan ultimately lost to Republican William McKinley, his nomination resulted in a permanent realignment of both political parties on economic policy. The progressive trend within the Democratic Party continued under President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21). Wilson championed various liberal economic reforms, such as federal banking regulation, child labor laws, the break up of business monopolies, and pure food and drug regulations.
The peak of the Modern Democratic Party
President Roosevelt is credited with reviving the Democratic Party during the 1930s and 1940s.
The stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent start of the Great Depression was the primary catalyst for the Democratic Party revival of the mid-20th Century. Led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats not only regained the presidency but also replaced the Republicans as the majority party. Through his political skills and his sweeping New Deal social programs, Roosevelt forged a broad coalition including small farmers, some ethnic minorities, organized labor, urban dwellers, liberals, intellectuals, and reformers that enabled the Democratic Party to retain the presidency until 1952 and to control both houses of Congress for most of the period from the 1930s to the mid-1990s. Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, 1940, and 1944 and was the only president to be elected to more than two terms. Upon his death in 1945, Roosevelt was succeeded by Vice President Harry S. Truman, who was narrowly elected in 1948. The only Republican President during this period was Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander during World War II and a largely liberal Republican.
Despite having overwhelming control over the American political system, the Democratic Party began to witness divisions regarding the issue of civil rights during the 1930s. Northern Democrats mostly favored federal civil rights reforms, whereas Southern Democrats expressed violent opposition to such proposals. As the 1950s progressed, many Southern Democrats Senators such as future President Lyndon Johnson (TX), Estes Kefauver (TN), Claude Pepper (FL), and Ralph Yarborough (TX) began to embrace the idea of civil rights and sought to push the Democratic Party to take a firm stance in favor of the issue. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson took charge on civil rights and pushed Congress to pass the previously-stalled Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. These efforts led to another realignment in American politics that resulted in the Republican Party gaining ground with Southern Whites and the Democratic Party cementing its support amongst minority voters and liberal voters in the Northeast and West Coast.
The New Democratic Party
The Democratic Party under President Bill Clinton moved to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues.
By the late 1960s, the extended period of Democratic Party domination was coming to an end. With the party split over issues such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, and the proper role of government, Republican candidate Richard Nixon was able to defeat Vice President Hubert Humphrey and independent segregationist candidate George Wallace by a comfortable margin. Despite retaining control over both houses of Congress until 1994, the Democratic Party lost 6 out of the 9 Presidential elections between 1968 and 2004. To regain support at the Presidential level and capitalize on public dissatisfaction (particularly in the Northeast and West Coast) at the continuing rightward drift of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party started to move towards the political center during the late 1980s and 1990s. Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), the Democratic Party adopted neo-liberal economic policies such as free trade advocacy, support for targeted tax cuts, and fiscal conservatism. Additionally, the Democratic Party during this period began to move towards the left on social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and the role of religion to gain ground in the mostly secular Northeast and West Coast. Even though these policies endeared the Democratic Party to numerous voting groups, they negatively impacted Democratic chances in the Appalachian and Ozarks regions in the South, parts of the Midwest, and in the Great Plains states.
Future of the Democratic Party
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million but ended up losing the electoral vote by a close margin. These results reveal that the Democratic Party is regaining its status as the nations majority party, albeit with an entirely different coalition of voters. Additionally, Clinton performed strongly in several typically-Republican states such as Texas, Utah, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina. Perhaps these results indicate a new trend that will allow the Democratic Party to gain control of the Southwest and some of the more cosmopolitan Southern states.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the background of the current political crisis in Yemen. Yemen is located in the Southwestern part of the Middle East and is evenly divided between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. This central location, the lack of strong governmental institutions, and disputes between both religious sects made a conflict within the county inevitable. The conflict in Yemen began in 2011 and was part of the Arab Spring wave of protests against corrupt and authoritarian governments (often backed by Western powers) within the Middle East. The protests were led by both secular and Islamist opposition groups. Longtime rebel groups such as the Houthis (a Shi’a group primarily supported by Iran, Syria, Russia, and Lebanon) and the Southern Movement participated in the protests. President Ali Abdullah Saleh (who assumed dictatorial control of the country in 1978) responded with a violent crackdown that destabilized the country and made his downfall inevitable. Saleh was almost killed when a bomb went off in a mosque where he and other top government officials were praying in June of 2011. During Saleh’s time receiving medical treatment, he left Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. As acting president, Hadi met with the opposition and expressed support for political reforms. Saleh agreed in late 2011 to resign from power, and the opposition groups subsequently agreed to allow Hadi to stand unopposed for the presidency in 2012.
Hadi’s election was one of the first democratic transfers of power in Yemeni history and was an encouraging sign for Yemen’s political future. Despite the initial optimism surrounding his presidency, Hadi struggled to deal with numerous issues, such as attacks by Al-Qaeda, separatist movements, corruption, unemployment, and food insecurity. The Houthi movement, which champions Yemen’s Shia Muslim community (which has been the victim of much governmental repression despite their near majority in the country) took advantage of the new president’s weakness by taking control of their northern heartland of Saada province and neighboring areas. Disillusioned with the transition, many ordinary Yemenis, including Sunni’s, began to side the Houthis and in September 2014, the Houthis entered the capital, Sanaa.
In January 2015, the Houthis reinforced their takeover of Sanaa, surrounding the presidential palace and other key points and placed political figures under house arrest. The Houthis and security forces loyal to Saleh then attempted to take control of the entire country, forcing Hadi to flee abroad in March 2015. Alarmed by the rise of a group they believed to be backed militarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia and began an air campaign aimed at restoring Hadi’s government. Even though the Saudi-led campaign has received widespread logistical and military support from countries such as the US, Israel, UK, and France, the tactics used by the Saudi military in Yemen are subject to widespread internal condemnation. Many international observers accuse the Saudi’s of indiscriminately targeting civilians, committing a religious genocide against Shi’a Muslims, and leading the country to the brink of widespread famine. Much like with many other conflicts in the region, one can argue that the primary goal of Saudi Arabia through their intervention in Yemen is to weaken the regional influence of the Iranian government and prevent any indigenous political movements in support of independence and political freedom from emerging.
The Republican Party is one of the two main political parties currently active in the United States. Founded by anti-slavery activists, economic modernizers, and liberal Whigs and Democrats in 1854, the Republicans dominated politics nationally and was the majority political party in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains for most of the period between 1854 and 1932. The Republican party has won 24 of the last 40 U.S. presidential elections, and there has been a total of 19 Republican Presidents between 1860 and 2016, the most from any political party.
Liberal Republicans & The Civil War
The Republican Party was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 and soon became the main anti-slavery political party within the US.
The Republican Party was officially formed in the small town of Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, as a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats opposed to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus repealing the 34-year prohibition on slavery in territories north of the Mason–Dixon line. This change was viewed anti-slavery members of Congress as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South. In addition to supporting an anti-slavery platform, the Republican Party followed a platform based on economic modernization, a more open interpretation of the constitution, expanded banking, openness to new immigrants, and giving free western land to farmers as a way to discourage the spread of slavery to the Western territories. Most of the support for the new political party came from New England (particularly Vermont, Maine, and parts of Upstate New York), the Midwest, and certain areas in the Upper South such as Eastern Tennessee, Southeastern Kentucky, and Western Virginia (regions where slavery was non-existent).
The Republican Party almost immediately made a mark on American politics and soon superseded the Whig Party as the chief opposition party. The first Republican Presidential nominee was John Frémont, a former general during the Mexican-American War and a strong opponent of the spread slavery. In the 1856 Presidential Election, Frémont scored 33% of the vote and came very close to defeating Democratic candidate James Buchanan in the Electoral College. The strong performance of the Republican Party was an impressive feat despite the fact that the party lacked a strong organizational structure and was not on the ballot in all states. The Republican Party built upon their successes by winning control of both House of Congress in the 1858 midterm elections.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War led to the first era of Republican domination of the American political system.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War opened a new era of Republican dominance at the federal level known as the Third-Party System. President Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union. Most of the remaining Democrats at first were War Democrats and supportive of the Union war effort until late 1862. When in the Fall of 1862 Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as one of the leading war goals, many War Democrats became “Peace Democrats” and thus became more sympathetic to the cause of the Confederacy. The Republicans condemned the peace-oriented Democrats as disloyal and won enough War Democrats to maintain their Congressional majority in 1862. In 1864, the Republicans formed a coalition with many War Democrats (such as Tennessee military governor Andrew Johnson) as the National Union Party which reelected Lincoln in a landslide.
Nearly all of the state Republican parties accepted the idea of the abolition of slavery except Kentucky. In Congress, the Republicans established legislation to promote rapid modernization, the creation of national banking system, high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money issued without backing (“greenbacks”), a large national debt, homestead laws, federal infrastructure spending (particularly on the railroads and industries), and federal aid for education and agriculture. These legislative efforts added to the perception that the Republican Party was the more liberal of the two main political parties.
Post Civil-War Republicans
After the successful conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the Republican Party leadership was faced with the challenge of Reconstruction. The Republican Party soon became split between the moderates (who favored a lenient approach to Reconstruction) and the Radical Republicans (who demanded aggressive action against slavery and vengeance toward former Confederates). By 1864, a majority of Republicans in Congress were part of the Radical branch of the party. These tensions reached their boiling point after President Lincoln’s assassination in April of 1865. The Radical Republicans at first welcomed President Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s second Vice President and a Southern Democrat who supported the Union), believing that he would take a hard line in punishing the South and enforce the rights of former slaves. However, Johnson denounced the Radicals and attempted to ally with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing laws over President Johnson’s veto. President Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1868 but was acquitted by the Senate by only one vote.
The Republican Party of the 1870s sought to establish a viable political coalition based on the ideas of racial equality and progressive public policy.
With the election of Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party structure, and the army and sought to build a Republican base in the South using the votes of Freedmen, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers, supported directly by the US army. Republicans all throughout the South formed clubs called Union Leagues that mobilized the voters, discussed policy issues and fought off white supremacist attacks. President Grant strongly supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth Amendment and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Despite President Grant’s popularity and devotion to the cause of racial and social equality, his tolerance for corruption led to increased factionalism in the Republican Party. The economic depression of 1873 energized the Democrats at the Congressional level. The Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in 1874 and formed “Redeemer” coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state. Reconstruction came to an end when an electoral commission awarded the contested election of 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who promised through the unofficial Compromise of 1877 to withdraw federal troops from the control of the last three southern states (Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana). The South then became known as the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats for the next century.
Economic Conservatism
The Republican Party by and large remained the dominant political party at the Presidential level for the next five decades, with the Democrats only winning the Presidency in 1884, 1892, 1912, and 1916. Starting in the mid-1890s, both of the political parties began to shift on economic policy due to events such as the 1893-1897 economic depression. During the 1896 Presidential Election, the Democrats nominated former Congressman William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, whereas the Republicans nominated Governor William McKinley of Ohio. In contrast to previous Democratic nominees, Bryan followed a platform aligned with contemporary liberalism. Some of the main components of Bryan’s platform included increased federal aid to farmers and factory workers, opposition to the gold standard, a federal income tax, opposition to the wealthy elite, and economic populism. In contrast, Republican William McKinley took an entirely opposite position, arguing that the application of classically liberal economic policies, the continuation of the gold standard, and protectionism would lead to widespread prosperity. Ultimately, McKinley defeated Bryan by a comfortable margin, but the political shifts from this election would have ramifications moving forward. Even though the Republican Party moved towards the left-wing of the political spectrum once more under the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, the conservative branch would win out by 1920 with the nomination and subsequent election of Warren Harding to the Presidency.
A Party in Decline & Flux
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio led the conservative wing of the Republican Party from the late 1930s to the early 1950s and advocated for the party to support fiscally conservative principles.
The initial era of Republican domination at the Presidential level would come to an end with the start of the Great Depression in 1929. President Hoover attempted to alleviate the widespread suffering caused by the Depression, but his strict adherence to Republican principles precluded him from establishing relief directly from the federal government. Additionally, President Hoover became the first Republican President to openly-endorse white supremacy and supported the removal of blacks from state-level Republican parties, which alienated black support for the Republican Party. The Depression cost Hoover the presidency with the 1932 landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and allowed the Democrats to gain a substantial Congressional majority for the first time since the 1850s. The Roosevelt Administration implemented a legislative program known as the “New Deal,” which expanded the role of the federal government in the economy as a way to alleviate the suffering caused by the economic decline and to prevent another economic decline on the scale of the Great Depression from occurring again. Additionally, President Roosevelt sought to gain the support of voter groups that typically voted Republican such as African-Americans, ethnic minorities, and rural farmers. Roosevelt’s efforts were ultimately successful and led to strong victories for the Democratic Party at the ballot box for the next three decades. During this period, the Democratic Party retained control of Congress for every year except 1946 and 1952 and won the Presidency in all elections except 1952 and 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower, a liberal Republican, defeated a fractured Democratic Party.
In response to the New Deal and the policies of the national Democratic Party, the Republicans split into two factions. The first wing was the liberal faction, which favored expanding the New Deal social programs, but felt that such programs would be managed better by Republican administrations. Additionally, the liberal faction of the Republican Party firmly favored civil rights legislation and worked closely with Northern Democrats to push forward positive legislative changes in that arena. The other group was the conservative faction, which advocated a return to laissez-faire economics and fiscal conservatism. Even though the conservative faction of the Republican Party also supported civil rights reforms, they started to form alliances with conservative Southern Democrats in the late 1930s as a way to prevent progressive laws from passing. After the 1938 midterm election, the “Conservative Coalition” formed a majority in Congress and prevented successive Democratic administrations from expanding the New Deal and other associated social programs. It can be argued that the “Conservative Coalition” controlled Congress until 1958, when a large group of liberal Democrats was elected to the Senate and House of Representatives.
The Southern Strategy & The Republican Resurgence
The political parties began to shift again in the 1960s due to policy changes within the Democratic Party. The main split in the Democratic Party came about due to the struggle for civil rights. Since the late 1930s, the Democratic Party experienced a major split between the liberal and moderate factions, which favored civil rights, and the Southern faction, which was steadfast in its opposition to federal civil rights legislation. These tensions came to a head when Lyndon Johnson became President after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Despite being a Southerner, Johnson had a record in support of civil rights since the mid-1950s and felt that civil rights represented a major political opportunity for the Democratic Party. Over the course of his Presidency, major civil rights legislation was passed in 1964, 1965, and 1968 and the Democrats soon became associated with civil rights reform. In response to these changes, the Republican Party began to appeal to white Southerners opposed to the changes to their way of life. These appeals first became apparent in the 1962 Alabama Senate Election between Democrat Lister Hill and Republican James Martin. Despite being a supporter of segregation, Hill was targeted relentlessly by Martin as a covert supporter of federal civil rights legislation. Ultimately Hill won the race, but by only a 1% margin. The Hill-Martin Senate race served as a prelude to the 1964 Presidential Election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater lost in every region of the country except the Deep South due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Modern Republicans look up to President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the main political leader to emulate.
The Republican Party began to see a resurgence at the federal level during the late 1960s that continue to this day. As a result of the aforementioned civil rights reform, the ongoing Vietnam War, and the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to reform the party structure, the Republican Party regained control of the Presidency in 1968 and retained control of this office in each election except 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012. On the other hand, the Republican Party did not regain control of the Senate until 1980 and the House of Representatives until 1994. The growth of the Republican Party over the past 50 years can be attributed to the implementation of a conservative platform on both economics and foreign policy as well as the rise of the Christian Right political movement in the late 1970s. The modern Republican Party considers President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the political leader to look up to, much like how Democrats view Franklin Roosevelt as their political idol. During his Presidency, Reagan implemented neoliberal economic policies, expressed strong support for socially conservative values, increased defense spending and advocated an internationalist foreign policy that some credit with contributing to the end the Cold War.
Contemporary Republican Party
Today, the Republican Party is at its highest level of support since the late 1920s. The Republicans control both House of Congress and have gained total control over historically Democratic areas such as the Appalachian and Ozark regions of the South since 2010 and are increasingly becoming dominant in the industrial Midwest. On the other hand, the Republican Party has lost nearly all of their historic support in the Northeast and West Coast due to their adopting of a socially conservative and xenophobic platform over the past decade.
In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton with 304 Electoral Votes but lost the popular vote by 3 million. Trump performed strongly in the Midwest, Appalachia, Ozarks, and some states in the Northeast such as Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Additionally, Trump performed very poorly in several typically Republican states such as Texas, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Utah. Perhaps the 2016 Presidential Election signals a new realignment for both political parties. Future elections may see the Republican Party cementing their gains in the Midwest, Appalachia, and Ozarks, and the Democratic Party continuing to grow in support along both coasts of the US and picking up parts of the cosmopolitan Southern states and the Southwest.
This video by CaspianReport discusses the decline of the Ottoman Empire during the late 19th and early 20th Century. The Ottoman Empire was an empire founded in 1299 AD in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) by Osman I, a Turkish tribal leader. By 1354, the Ottoman Empire reached into Southeastern Europe and eventually ended the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) in 1453 with the conquest of Constantinople. During its height of power in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was a multinational and multicultural empire controlling a majority of the Middle East and Southern Europe (including countries such as Greece and parts of present-day Italy), the Caucuses, and Northern Africa. With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Middle East and Western worlds for half a millennium.
Despite its long track record of success, the Ottoman Empire began to fall behind European rivals such as Great Britain, France, and Russia during the mid-18th century. Additionally, the Ottoman army consequently suffered severe military defeats in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which prompted them to initiate a process of reform in the late 1830s known as the Tanzimat. As such, over the course of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman state became more powerful and organized, despite suffering territorial losses, especially in the Balkans, where many new states such as Greece and Albania emerged by the 1860s. The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, hoping to escape from the isolation which had contributed to its recent territorial losses, and thus joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to hold its own during the conflict, it began to deal with internal dissent, in particular with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings and the rise of Jewish immigration into the region of Palestine starting in the late 19th century. During this time, atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. The Ottoman Empire ultimately collapsed by the end of World War I and was replaced by the Republic Turkey in 1923. The former Ottoman territories were also divided up into new nations by Great Britain and France after World War 1 and continue to serve as the basis for the modern Middle East.
https://represent.us/about/ (passing city wide anti-corruption laws)
https://volunteer.represent.us/chapters
Wolf PAC (Money out of Politics) via constitutional amendment
https://vimeo.com/278195786
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/11/19283/here-are-interests-lobbying-every-statehouse -COVANTA HOLDING CORP. FIRSTENERGY CORP. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP.) Top Industries lobbying NJ(2014)!
http://www.arboraesthetics.com/blog/category/tree-planting
http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/aesthetic.htm
http://www.gardenaesthetics.com/
http://gardenpool.org/diy-projects – creating sustainable living in US and Abroad
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/ -Research focuses on long-term trends relevant to the environment, including changes in population,
http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html – Getting lead out of drinking water
https://www.nrdc.org/ – Protecting US Environment
http://www.vrg.org/- Vegetarian resource group
(From NJ Future Website)-http://designyourtown.org/places/ – Can look at town designs
Peace & International Conflict Resolution Humanitarian Law Project (Fight for Human Rights) Veterans for Peace (For International Peace and Nuclear Disarmament)
https://www.peacecoalition.org/ – For International Peace and Nuclear Disarm
http://worldbeyondwar.org/who/ -World Beyond War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
Internet Issues, Cyber Security, Freedom of Information
https://civic.mit.edu/ – Goal :sign, create, deploy, and assess tools and processes that support and foster civic participation and the flow of information between and within communities.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html – Talks about fragmented communities need to understand to get into modern US politics especially NJ
https://www.edx.org/school/harvardx – Getting very cheap Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics…etc
https://www.coursera.org/- Getting Free Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics..etc
https://www.khanacademy.org/ – Mostly free highschool
http://www.njamistadcurriculum.net/about – Teach about African American Historyhttps://www.njsba.org/about/membership/membership-school-board-members/school-board-candidacy/- Run for School Board
http://www.njcul.org/- New Jersey League of Credit Unions
List of Labor Unions
https://www.manta.com/mb_44_F0277_31/labor_unions_and_similar_labor_organizations/new_jersey
Information on Area to help make decisions
https://datausa.io/
http://www.bestplaces.net/state/new_jersey
Reliable News Organizations
https://centerforcooperativemedia.org/ – Montclair NJ- Help start new state wide local media coverage via coop model
https://hudsoncountyview.com/ -Hudson County NJ News
(Intro)Film the Myth of the Liberal Media by Noam Chomsky : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo&feature=share WikiLeaks – Truth to Power AirWars – Military news Democracy Now! – World/ US News DC Reporting – US News- Washington- Big Shots The Real News Network – World/US News
https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2017%E2%80%932018 – Has Rule of Law Report(global decline of law)
https://www.projectcensored.org/- News Stories that the media misses
https://usawatchdog.com/bio/ – US news and Corruption The Intercept – In-depth News, mostly foreign Policy, in depth on domestic issues Chapo Trap House – Young People on Policy
A major issue facing the Middle East is the continued struggle to address the limited level of political freedom and high level of socioeconomic inequalities that characterize the region. Much of the Middle East suffer from elevated rates of unemployment, rampant poverty, and an unequal distribution of wealth and social services. Additionally, many of the Middle Eastern nations lack robust and efficient governmental institutions and mechanisms that allow their citizens to express their demands and hold their leaders accountable. Some of the factors that have contributed to such regional inequalities include the legacy of Western imperialism, the role of religion, and the dominance of oil in the economies of the Middle East. Lust concludes her analysis by exploring the possibilities to bring about political and societal change in the region to reduce the high levels of inequalities.
One of the main factors influencing the overall political and economic status of the Middle East is the fact that many of the governments in the region remain relatively weak. Recent global rankings indicate that a clear majority of the nations in the Middle East are either weak or fragile states and several countries in the region such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Sudan are on the cusp of becoming failed states due to the continued instability that came about due to their ongoing civil wars. Both international and domestic factors have undermined the sovereignty of many nations in the Middle East by challenging their legitimate right to rule and different social groups, either sectarian, ethnic, or religious based, often gained control of governmental institutions throughout the region, seeking to use them for their personal benefit. The legacy of colonialism and the intervention of external powers into regional political systems has also negatively impacted the creation of formal governmental institutions and prevented the development of robust and efficient states in the Middle East.
The presence of authoritarian political systems also contributes to the limited political freedoms region. Much of the Middle East is characterized by “resilient authoritarianism” that has endured despite increases in democratization in recent decades. There are several reasons why authoritarian political rule continues to persist in the Middle East. One such factor is the strategic location of the Middle East. Because of the strategic role of the Middle East, international forces have invested much of their resources into building up dependable leaders by giving them the support to remain in power without creating stable democratic societies. The dynamic between Islamist political parties and secular political leaders also contributes to continued authoritarianism in the region. For example, secular authoritarian leaders in the Middle East advantage of the fears that the populace has regarding Islamist political parties as an excuse to place limits on political freedom. Often, these efforts backfired and ultimately resulted in religiously-affiliated political groups coming into power due to the fact that secular democratic movements were suppressed, thus making religious movements the only viable opposition movement that the population could hook onto.
Economic factors also serve to exacerbate inequalities in the Middle East. The role of oil in the regional economies tends to undermine political and economic reform in the Middle East and compound the problems of state-building. The reliance on oil production provides countries with a relatively easy source of revenue but also prevents the creation of more diverse economic systems that will improve the stability of individual states. High dependence on oil production gives authoritarian leaders little incentive to support political reforms and serves to allow them to retain their power. The prevalence of resource-based economic systems also reduces the incentives for leaders to establish efficient taxation structures meant to create a more equitable distribution of wealth, thus contributing to an increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth in the region.
Despite the multitude of challenges facing the Middle East, there are several ways to address both the lack of political freedoms and high level of social inequality in the Middle East. One such way to address the political inequalities in the region is to establish an independent mass media and an independent judicial system. By reducing government control over the media and improving the judiciary, governmental accountability will improve. Additionally, increasing the influence of political parties and shifting the role of the legislature away from a service organization will allow people to become more engaged in the political process, enabling them to encourage change in the political systems of their respective countries. The final way to address the structural challenges in the Middle East is to implement effective development programs, and civil society initiatives focused on empowering the individual to work towards bringing about change and promoting effective governance and state-building at the grassroots level.
Traveling back to 1945, an era where World War II had wiped tens of millions off the face of the Earth, resulted in genocide and mass murder on an unimaginable scale, we find the world plunged into darkness for nearly 6 years. By the time the Germans had surrendered, the war with Japan was also coming to an end(May 1945). The atomic bomb was a poker hand play by President Truman to force the Soviet Union into submission on deals across Europe and Asia. By doing so, the US could maintain its hegemony over the entire world and expand its influence into Eastern Europe.
President Harry Truman himself wrote after the Potsdam conference that “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.” Six out of seven Five Star Generals during World War II were against the use of the devastating weapon on Japan because they knew Japan was going to surrender and that the use of such weapon could not be undone. Here is some direct information discussing why some high ranking military officials were against the use of the atomic bomb:
In his “third person” autobiography (co-authored with Walter Muir Whitehill) the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated “The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”
The use of nuclear weapons did not bring Japan closer to surrender. The Japanese had wanted to reach peace with the Allies as early as March of 1945, but also be able to have their Emperor and Prime Minister have a role in determining military decisions, which was something the Truman administration would not accept.
General Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF), recalled in a 1962 interview that he gave “notification that I would not drop an atomic bomb on verbal orders–they had to be written–and this was accomplished.” Spaatz also stated that the dropping of the atomic bomb was “done by a military man under military orders. We’re supposed to carry out orders and not question them.” In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview, Spaatz stressed that the bombing “was purely a political decision, wasn’t a military decision. The military man carries out the order of his political bosses.”
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not about winning a war, it was about testing a new weapon on an enemy many people believed to be subhuman (the Japanese). The bombings targeted civilians populations like modern terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Those left alive from the atomic bombs suffered a cruel death from radiation poisoning and severe burns. Estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) considered over conservative by the Children of Atomic Bomb project.
General Douglas MacArthur, the US commander in the Pacific, thought that the use of such bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view. General Curtis “Demon” LeMay, a staunch anti-Communist who gained notoriety after being selected as segregationist candidate George Wallace’s running mate in the 1968 Presidential Election said that “Even without the atomic bomb and the Russian entry into the war, Japan would have surrendered within two weeks. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.”
Douglas MacArthur was an American five-star general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II.
In every US history class, we are told the opposite, in that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan saved lives and resulted in a speedy victory against Japan. That statement is unequivocally false. The US didn’t have to invade the Japanese mainland or use the atomic bomb. The United States could have ended the war sooner without unconditional surrender and many people paid the price of politics of the war with their lives. The atomic bomb was a political weapon more so than a military one. The atomic bomb now poses a threat to wiping out the human species, as nuclear weapons have become significantly more powerful with the new Hydrogen Bomb and now numbers in the thousands across the globe. Currently, the US and Russia hold 90% of world stockpiles and the stakes for war between both countries are much higher than they were during the height of the Cold War (roughly between 1955 and 1963) because of US troops on Russian borders and other areas like North Korea.
The scientist and people who developed the Manhattan project circulated a petition with over a 70 people signing it against the use of such a bomb. The petition stated that“If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States, as well as the cities of other nations, will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.”
The US had a moral responsibility to prevent the use of the weapon and make sure others weren’t pushed to pursue it. The Truman Administration failed to realize the long-term problems of using nuclear weapons. Because he used them the Soviets put tons of time and energy into developing the technology. Truman not considering the advice from the scientist ignored warnings that the rest of the world would catch up, specifically the Soviet Union, which the scientists claimed could lead to a Cold war and destroy human civilization. An accidental mishap could mean triggering a nuclear war, which has come close to happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and a few other times, most notably in 1979, 1983, and 1995. It should be known that these weapons aren’t safe and that mistakes have been before, where atomic weapons have almost been set off. For example, unarmed nuclear weapons were accidental dropped by the US Air Force in South Carolina in 1958 and North Carolina in 1961. Luckily neither incident resulted in the detonation of the bombs. Another time a maintenance worker while fixing things around a nuclear warhead accidental armed it with his tool belt. These are just a few instances of how a weapon endangered the lives of countless people. There are also the nuclear weapons that are missing not to ruffle your feathers.
A world without nuclear weapons is a safe one and the United Nations just passed a resolution to ban Nuclear Weapons with many European countries and the US abstaining. The resolution goal is to hold a conference in March 2017 to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.
Bullet Points
Japan was going to surrender just under terms it felt would allow them to keep their Emperor.
Most high-level military Generals were against the use of Atomic weapons.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed.
Bombs had no military or strategic importance.
Truman made decision to drop bomb not experts.
US leaders failed to understand they would lose nuclear monopoly in the future(20 years later).
Scientists who developed the bomb were against its use.
UN resolution to ban Nukes on table recently.
For those less tech savoy words highlighted in blue if clicked link to sources.
I recommend watching the video below, it is graphic but shows the horrors of nuclear attack on Japan.
The symbol originally designed for the British nuclear disarmament movement. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament symbol, designed by Gerald Holtom in 1958.
Some Images
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm
Supplemental Materials
Oliver Stone Untold History of the US (Season 1 Episode 3) Goes into detail on Atomic Weapon Use and why it was Immoral
Conversations with History: Kenzaburo Oe University of California Television (UCTV): Japanese man who lived through Bombings/Outspoken against nuclear weapons
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2605/0/13-times-the-US-almost-destroyed-itself-with-its-own-nuclear-weapons.html
This video by Caspian Report discusses the Islamic conquest of Persia (Present-day Iran) during the 7th Century AD. The rise of Islam as a religion coincided with significant political, social, economic and military weakness in Iran, which was then under the rule of the Sassanid Empire. The Arab armies initially attacked Iran in 633 through the province of Asōristān (present-day Iraq). After a 21-year-long campaign, the Sassanid Empire collapsed in 654 to the Arab forces under the leadership of Uthman ibn Affan.
The conversion of the Iranian people to Islam was gradual and incentivized in various ways over 400 years with some Iranians never converting and widespread cases of the destruction of cultural artifacts and opponents to Muslim rule being harshly persecuted. Even though the Arab forces attempted to force an entirely different culture and traditions on the Iranian people, Iranian culture and the Persian language remained largely intact.
Additionally, the Arab conquest of Iran is mentioned to have ultimately strengthened Islam and allowed it to become a major world religion that has endured. On the other hand, the Arab conquest is one of many examples of a foreign imperialist invasion force attempting to invade Iran and weaken its culture. Additionally, the Arab conquest of Iran is mentioned to have prevented the emergence of a strong and independent Iran until the rise of the Safavid Empire in the early 16th Century.
This video by Capsian Report discusses the current political crisis in Venezuela. Venezuela is now experiencing a protracted political crisis that threatens to tear apart the country as a result of a general downturn in its economy. As a result of the crisis, the government of Venezuela under the leadership of President Nicholas Maduro has decreased political freedom and has thus far failed to turn the economic and political situation in the country around. The political crisis in Venezuela was only gotten worse in recent weeks and culminated with an attack on the Supreme Court building by several dissident groups on June 28, 2017. Even though this video ignores the role that the US government has played in promoting protests against President Maduro and in destabilizing the economy of Venezuela, it gives a great insight and explanation of some of the problems facing Venezuela over the past five years.
In the study of Democratic Transitions and regime collapse at the international level, there exist many theories that can be used to help explain the individual factors behind democratization. For example, some theories on democratization focus on the role that economic and social development plays in increasing support for democratic change. On the other hand, others concentrate on the political cultures present in democracy and discuss the social structures and processes that help to enhance overall stability. Different ideas on democratization vary in their effectiveness and may not be applied uniformly.
Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba explored attitudes towards democracy in countries including the US, Mexico, the UK, Italy, and Germany
The first theory of democratization is that of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. As initially illustrated in the 1963 book “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study,” Almond and Verba explore the relationship between political culture and democracy by studying the overall values and attitudes of five different countries. Almond and Verba first discuss the idea of the civic culture, which is a mixed set of values that contains attributes from both modern and traditional cultures and allows both cultures to interact polarizing and destroying each other. Further, Almond and Verba identify three different types of political cultures. These categories include parochial political culture, subjective political cultures, and participatory political cultures. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then discuss the relationship between the civic culture and democratic stability and the impact of political culture on political systems to which they belong.
One such view that Almond and Verba explore is the rationality-activist model, which stipulates that a stable democracy requires the population to be informed and active in politics. The rationality-activist model also requires citizens to base their voting choices on careful evaluation and weighing in alternatives. Almond and Verba determine that most citizens in democratic nations do not live up to the rationality-activist model based on their research. As such, Almond and Verba feel that the rationality-activist model is one component of, and does not explain all of, civic culture. Moreover, Almond and Verba discuss the civic culture as a mixed political culture that includes both citizens who are familiarized and take an active role in politics and citizens who take a less active role in politics.
Dankwart Rustow explores an entirely different theory of which factors result in democratization and ensure that democracy will remain stable. In his 1970 article “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a dynamic model,” Rustow argues that a dynamic model for democratic transitions is necessary to explain such processes in individual nations and that standardized approaches to democratization often ignore the factors that vary between countries. As opposed to theorists such as Almond and Verba, Rustow argues for a genetic theory on democratization, comparing evolution to democratization. Like natural selection, the possibility that instability may permit authoritarian regimes to adapt to democratization and that their beliefs may adjust over time. Dankwart Rustow’s model of democratization is based on four different stages. The first stage is the background condition, which starts out with national unity as its primary condition. The next phase is the preparatory phase, which consists of the political processes that set democratization off. In the decision stage, democracy is achieved through a process of a conscious action on the part of the top political leadership. The habituation phase institutes a process of selectivity for people who are supporters of democracy, among parties in general elections and politicians vying for leadership within these parties.
The theory on democratization by Seymour Lipsett focuses on the relationship between economic development and the likelihood of a country to become and remain a stable democracy. In the 1959 article “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development,” Lipsett hypothesizes that the more developed a country is in terms of economics, it is more likely that the country would be a democracy and be characterized by a more stable political situation overall. For his study, Lipsett looks at a number of countries in both Latin America and Europe and uses several different indices such as per capita income, education levels, the percent of a countries population employed in the agricultural sector, and urbanization. Even though the indices were presented separately, they point in favor of Seymour Lipsett’s initial hypothesis that democracy and the level of development within societies are interconnected and show that if a country is more economically developed, the chances for the emergence of a democratic political system is much higher than for underdeveloped countries. Lipsett’s study also suggests that the first step in modernization is urbanization, which is followed by media growth and literacy. The next stage is rapid industrial development, which fosters improved communication networks. The growth of advanced communication networks, in turn, encourages the development of formal democratic institutions such as voting and citizen participation in the decisions of their government.
Stephen Haggard and Robert Kaufman look at the effects of socioeconomic forces in transitions to democracy in the article “The political economy of democratic transitions.” Haggard and Kaufman focus on the effects of short-term economic conditions on the bargaining power and interests of incumbents and opposition. Drawing upon the experiences of ten middle-income Latin American and Asian countries, they trace the impact of economic crisis on the terms of democratic transitions and the nature of new political alignments. Haggard and Kaufman argue that elite bargaining is an element in democratic transitions. When such strategic interactions are put in the wider socioeconomic context, it is clear that there are significant policy dilemmas, political alignments of new democratic governments, and longer-term prospects for stability and consolidation.
Haggard and Kaufman argue that even though social interests and relations do not determine prospects for democracy, political elites can mobilize support or opposition in new democracies depending on how economic policy affects the distribution of income across different social groups. Moreover, economic performance over time changes preferences about democratic institutions, particular policies, and incumbents. Furthermore, Haggard and Kaufman state that the connection between the policies of new democratic governments and the long-term prospects for solidification must be addressed with caution. Consolidation, according to Haggard and Kaufman, is affected by political choices that modify the initial terms of the transition in addition to international and domestic developments out of the control of political leaders.
John Higley and Michael Burton argue that the decisions by societal elites play a role in democratic transitions regime breakdowns in their 1989 article “The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns.” Higley and Burton state that democratic transitions and breakdowns can be understood by studying changes in the internal relations of national elites. The first type of national elite that they discuss is the disunified national elite, which produces a series of unstable regimes that tend to alternate between authoritarian and democratic on a regular basis. On the other hand, consensually unified elite results in a much more stable governmental system that has the potential to evolve into a stable democracy if socioeconomic conditions permit.
According to Higley and Burton, elite disunity stems from the process of nation-state formation. The construction of new states is typically a complicated process characterized by violence and conflict. Additionally, elite disunity involves the repression of certain elite groups by others, which makes disunity inevitable. A disunified elite may cause political instability and leave an opportunity for outside forces to overthrow the regime. Elite transformations, according to Higley and Burton, occur in two steps. In the first step, various factions enter into voluntary collaboration in electoral politics to mobilize a solid electoral majority and protect their interests by controlling government executive power. In the second step, the primary hostile factions opposing this coalition eventually abandon their ideological stances and adopt those of the winning coalition. As a result of this development, a consensually unified national elite is created, and a stable democratic regime typically emerges.
Adam Przeworski looks at the economic conditions that allow democracy to be consolidated in the 1991 book “Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America.” In his work, Przeworski attempts to identify the obstacles in building lasting democracy and transforming poor economies in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Przeworski charts the paths along which countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe from a political and economic organization. Przeworski looks at the way outcomes are enforced under a democratic system and offers several different views of compliance within the system. He determines compliance exists in the form of self-enforcing outcomes, bargains, and contracts, or as individual motivation to social order. According to Przeworski, Democracy becomes consolidated when either it becomes the only viable option for a particular set of political and economic circumstances or when all the relevant political forces find it best to submit their interests and values to the interplay of the democratic institutions. Przeworski’s hypothesis is based on three different assumptions. The first two assumptions are that the role of institutions is important in a democratic system and that there are various ways in which democracies are established. The third assumption is that institutions make a difference in efficiency of government as well as in the distribution of wealth.
In the book “Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states,” Albert Hirschman explores how organizations discern their wrongdoings and come back to the right track. Regardless of how well the core institutions are set up in society, it is presumed that individual members will fail to live up to the rules. Hirschman states that every society learns to live with a certain amount of this form of dysfunction, but that they must learn to correct such transgressions. Hirschman then goes on to discuss the ideas of exit and voice of the public. Individuals who run firms or organizations find out about their wrongdoings through two different routes. The first route is the exit path, which occurs when customers stop purchasing a firm’s products or leave an organization. As a result of the exit, a firm’s revenues may drop or membership to an organization begins to decline, thus convincing the leadership to correct any inefficiencies that led to the exit. The next route is the voice option, which occurs when either the customers or the members of an organization begin to express their dissatisfaction directly to the leadership of an organization or firm. As a result, the leadership engages in a search to discover and correct the factors that resulted in its constituents’ dissatisfaction. The exit route is connected to economics because it consists of a client who is displeased with a product using the market to defend their position. On the other hand, the voice route is related to politics because it serves as a way to convince organizations and firms to change their policies or be replaced by democratic competition.
The strongest theoretical approach to democratization, in my opinion, is that Dankwart Rustow. The primary reason why this approach is the strongest is that it takes into account the fact that various countries have different experiences regarding their political history and the development of formal societal institutions. The variations in development and history often play a role in determining the steps that a country takes to move towards democracy and the overall stability of the democratic government when it does emerge. Additionally, Rustows approach takes into account the fact that instability may result in an authoritarian leader modifying their views to allow for a greater level of democracy and political freedom. Another strength of Rustow’s theory on democratization is that it begins with national unity as the key factor that allows for democratic governments to eventually gain power. A common theme in many democratic transitions is that demands among the vast majority of citizens for democratic change are a key factor that allowed for democratic governments to gain power and legitimacy. Additionally, national unity often serves as a way to increase the overall stability and long-term survival prospects of democratic regimes.
The approach by Haggard and Kaufman is the second strongest theoretical approach to democratization. The main reason as to why the assumption by Haggard and Kaufman is the second most reliable approach is because they take into the fact that there exist two different types of democratic transitions, the crisis, and non-crisis transition. The crisis transition occurs when a country is faced with an economic decline, whereas non-crisis transitions occur when there is relative economic stability in a country. Haggard and Kaufman make a convincing argument that transitions to democracy are often dependent on the economic circumstances that a country is facing. For example, they state that countries that are economically stable are less likely to transition towards democracy, whereas countries facing economic uncertainty have a greater chance to see the decline in authoritarianism. The examples that they use in their cause study also show a high level of variation between both the crisis and non-crisis transitions. Additionally, the cases they include represent a diverse geographic array of countries located in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. The fact that they focus on countries in various geographic areas shows that their hypothesis that economic circumstances play a role in democratic transitions can be applied to many different scenarios and that is not dependent on particular geographic regions.
The third strongest approach is by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. The main strength of Almond and Verba’s approach is that it takes into account the belief that democracy in a country is dependent on the creation of a values system that is supportive of it. Without the existence of a system of values that allows for democracy and widespread citizen participation in politics, the future stability and strength of any democratic political systems is reduced. Additionally, a values system in which individuals are accustomed to the ideas of democracy is widespread, the more likely that democracy will eventually emerge within an authoritarian political system. The primary weakness with Almond and Verba’s approach is that it only takes into account five different countries. Out of the five countries, they mention, the ones with the strongest history of democratic governance are the United States and Great Britain. Germany and Italy, on the other hand, were characterized by political instability and a relatively short history of democratic institutions Moreover, Mexico at the time of Almond and Verba’s study was marked as having a one-party political system and limited political freedom overall.
The fourth strongest theoretical approach to democratization is by Albert Hirschman. The reason why the democratization model of Albert Hirschman is the fourth strongest is that it focuses on the role of individuals in determining political change. Hirschman’s approach is based on the idea that people will either voice their dissatisfaction with the status quo and push authoritarian leaders to implement policies that allow for greater governmental efficiency or a higher level of political freedom, or exit from the current political situation and begin supporting alternative political systems such as democracy. Additionally, Hirschman argues that the ability for individuals to voice their opinions in an authoritarian society is based on the existence of exit options and the opportunity for members to shift towards competing political ideas. The approach by Hirschman also looks at the notion of gradual political reform by taking into account the possibility that efforts by individuals may force leaders into making lasting political changes. On the other hand, Hirschman does not take into consideration the fact that authoritarian leaders may not have the incentive to allow for gradual reform even with increasing demands from individuals. For example, authoritarian leaders may still be willing to keep the current political status quo in spite of increased citizen demands for change due to the existence of longstanding structural and institutional factors.
The fifth strongest approach to democratic transitions is by Adam Przeworski. The reason why the approach to Adam Przeworski is the fifth strongest is that it presents an in-depth view as to how outcomes are followed through in a democratic political system and how democracy becomes consolidated. Additionally, Przeworski looks at the underlying problems associated with democratic transitions and the dynamic between various elements within an authoritarian society. Understanding the issues defining democratic transitions and the number of factions in an authoritarian society is essential to having an understanding regarding how authoritarian countries ultimately transition to democracy. Moreover, Przeworski takes into account several different outcomes that societies tend to take regarding democratic transitions that are often ignored by other theorists. The main weakness of Przeworski’s approach is that he primarily focuses on economic factors and tends to ignore political and social factors and the ways in which they influence a countries transition towards democracy.
The sixth strongest model of democratization is by John Higley and Michael Burton. Higley and Burton look into the relationship between societal elites and democratization. The reason why such approach is valid is that elites have often played a significant role in pushing for democratization and have a role in determining the long-term success of democratic systems. Additionally, the approach of Higley and Burton focuses on the outcomes of democratic transitions, which serves as a contrast to the approach of other democracy theorists who mostly explore the processes behind democratic transitions. The main weakness of Higley and Burton’s democratization theory is that it assumes that the relationships of societal elites are the primary factor that influences democratic stability in society. Additionally, they argue that elite disunity is the main factor that creates political instability and does not take into account other factors such as economic uncertainty, ongoing societal issues, and political struggle in creating instability and weakening the effectiveness of new democratic governments.
The seventh strongest idea on democratization is by Seymour Lipsett. The main strength of Lipsett’s approach is that he used quantitative methods to explore how democracy emerges as opposed to the previous theoretical approaches used by previous theorists. Additionally, Lipsett looks at the emergence of democracy through both a sociological as well as economic perspective. The main weakness in Lipsett’s approach is the fact that he does not use a varied group of countries within his study. For example, Lipsett only includes countries from Latin America and Europe as his case studies. The fact that he uses a relatively small subset of countries limits the effectiveness of his research and prevents the data that he finds from being applied uniformly. Additionally, the methodology that Lipsett used to classify countries as being a democracy or not is questionable and is not uniform between both regions that he focuses his study on. For example, the main criteria Lipsett uses to locate European democracies are the uninterrupted continuation of democracy since World War One, and the absence of any significant political movement opposed to liberal ideas since the mid-1930s. He categorizes Latin American democracies by the level of freedom in political elections since the end of World War One. The relatively limited nature of his classifications does not take into account other factors that influence democracies such as overall political freedom.
In conclusion, political scientists and governmental leaders alike often ask the question as to what factors allow democracy to form and flourish in particular societies. To explain the factors that lead to democratization and the stability of a democratic system, there exist several different democratization theories. The theories of democratization often vary in their effectiveness and focus on the various aspects such as the economic, political, and social factors behind democratic transitions. Additionally, the theories of democratic transitions often concentrate on certain areas of the world more than others and sometimes are only applicable to the period in which they were initially developed in. Despite the differences between the theories of democratization, a common theme they share is that they promote the belief that countries will eventually turn towards democracy and that more open political systems will ultimately emerge.
