Category: republicans

  • Citizens stage a march for a fair vote count in the presidential election in Washington, D.C., on November 6, 2020.

    Framed as a battle to save democracy, the 2020 election and its aftermath only exposed the vulnerabilities within the U.S. political system. While millions of voters overcame the “big lie” at the national level, the focus on federal elections has overshadowed the ongoing struggle at the state level to protect democracy.

    Republicans responded to historic turnout by introducing a wave of legislation restricting voting rights in states across the country. Repeatedly debunked lies about fraud and election administration continue to fuel the proposed changes to a manufactured problem.

    In Georgia, where a multiracial coalition sent shock waves through the political world, Republicans introduced several dozen bills aimed at limiting the turnout seen in the general and runoff elections. Advocates have recently honed in on two bills, calling them the worst voting legislation since the Jim Crow era. Georgia Senate Bill 241 would end no-excuse absentee ballots and add witnessing and ID requirements for those using absentee ballots.

    Early Monday morning, concerned citizens gathered to protest the passage of Georgia House Bill 531, a far-reaching bill being pushed through the state house under the pretense of improving election integrity and security. The bill would do the opposite by limiting availability of absentee ballot drop boxes, limiting early and weekend voting, and shortening the length of period for runoff elections and absentee ballot deadlines. The bill would also prohibit a practice commonly known as “line warming,” which can include providing people in the vicinity of a polling location with snacks, water or even an umbrella. The bill passed the house 97-72.

    Protesters against Georgia House Bill 531 rally outside the state capitol on March 1, 2021.
    Protesters against Georgia House Bill 531 rally outside the state capitol on March 1, 2021.

    But protecting democracy is more than beating political opponents at the federal level. Safeguarding our rights, which are constantly under attack at the state level, requires the same level of engagement (if not more) than that given to presidential and other federal elections. The current attack on voting rights and election administration runs parallel to efforts to undermine progress on critical issues, such as reproductive rights and criminal legal system reforms.

    “When we think about democracy, we think about everyone being able to participate in government,” said Ohio State Rep. Erica Crawley in an interview with Truthout. “And be able to participate in how they are governed and who is representing their interests, whether it’s at the local, state or federal level.”

    Crawley, who represents Ohio’s 26th legislative district, sees the current round of legislative attacks on voting rights as having broader repercussions. “We can’t talk about democracy without talking about voter suppression, without talking about gerrymandering, without talking about how it impacts reproductive health and health care,” Crawley said.

    Despite the Republican supermajority in the Ohio legislature, Crawley says it is her duty to continue to make sure her constituents are aware of the many fights always in motion. Regarding reproductive health care, Crawley said she specifically pushes for reproductive justice.

    “It’s not just whether someone has the ability to choose whether to have children or not to have children, but it also takes them to account those social determinants of health that have continued to be barriers for communities of color,” Crawley explained. She also raised the need for continuing to push legislation protecting and advancing Medicaid, Medicare and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Crawley sees Ohio Senate Bill 17 as one example of the threats to communities in need. Allegedly to address fraud, advocates say the bill could cost over 100,000 families needed food benefits.

    “We know those things are fundamental to taking care of a family and moving up the economic mobility ladder,” said Crawley.

    Crawley is not alone in her efforts. As a member of the State Innovation Exchange’s Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, Crawley is one of over 400 legislators across the country who champion reproductive rights and reproductive justice. Coined in 1994, reproductive justice is defined as “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.”

    And like Crawley, many of her counterparts see the parallels between safeguarding the right to vote and reproductive health rights and justice.

    “Voting rights doesn’t stand on its own, and reproductive health rights and justice isn’t on [their] own,” Jennifer Driver told Truthout. Driver serves as the senior director for reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange. “These two things are actually linked and really do impact one another.”

    Driver said that people often forget about the power of state policymakers. “Policy is localizing,” Driver said. “All policies really do happen at the local level.” Driver recognized the work of state and local grassroots organizations, but noted the need to support progressive legislators in terms of partnerships, coalition-building and policy education.

    Driver also said that part of the challenge is helping voters understand there is more to reproductive rights than abortion, but without stigmatizing the word “abortion.”

    While some have moved to seeing these issues as intersecting concerns, Driver said people need to move away from siloed approaches to work. In conversation with Truthout, Allison Coffman named the Amplify-GA campaign as an example of how people are seeing the intersecting lanes of elections, voting rights, and reproductive health and justice.

    “Although Amplify’s work doesn’t focus on elections, we know that in order to achieve reproductive justice, everyone must be able to freely cast their votes and have a say in the leadership of policymaking that affects us,” said Coffman, the director of Amplify-GA.

    Coffman described Amplify-GA as a “collaborative space for reproductive health rights and justice organizations and allies, working to expand abortion access in Georgia, and to advance reproductive justice more broadly.” Amplify-GA member organizations include Access Reproductive Care Southeast, Feminist Women’s Health Center, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, New Georgia Project, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, SPARK Reproductive Justice Now, and URGE: Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity.

    “Rights do not guarantee access,” Coffman explained. “And the same groups that are being impacted by the voting restrictions are being impacted by restrictions around reproductive justice, and specifically abortion access.” Historically marginalized groups like Black, Brown, Indigenous and LGBTQ folks, as well as young people and immigrants are the same groups that are being targeted by both attacks, according to Coffman.

    Georgia State Rep. Park Cannon agreed with Coffman’s assessment. “No one should face a mandate on the health and strength of their body,” Cannon told Truthout. She called on her legislative colleagues to continue building with their respective constituents and broader communities to bring about a future of peace and grace.

    “This pandemic has shown us the importance of personal decision making and autonomy,” Cannon said. “Georgia needs to do a better job with caring for the health of its people. We have not expanded Medicaid, which is why I’ve signed a piece of legislation to expand Medicaid in the state of Georgia.” She pointed to the expansion of Medicaid for new mothers postpartum as a step in the right direction.

    By now it should be clear that decades of political appeasement have not worked. The fundamentals of democracy purportedly are about freedom and access to the things people need for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    “The same lobbying firms, nonprofits and religious associations are attacking critical rights, and are doing it without regard for the impact on Black and Brown Georgians,” said Cannon.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former President Donald Trump speaks during the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference held at the Hyatt Regency Orlando on February 28, 2021, in Orlando, Florida.

    In the classic 1950 movie Sunset Boulevard, Gloria Swanson plays the has-been Hollywood diva, Norma Desmond, desperate for adoration, utterly infatuated with the spotlight. One of its most famous lines — “Alright, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close up” — captures the unseemly spectacle of someone far past their sell-by date who refuses to accept their fall from stardom.

    “You see,” the has-been actress utters with undistilled terror, “This is my life. It always will be. There’s nothing else. Just us and the camera — and those wonderful people out there in the dark.”

    When Donald Trump stepped up to the podium at the CPAC event in Orlando, Florida, this weekend, it was, unsurprisingly, both a ghastly and incredibly tired remake of Sunset Boulevard, a reprise of yesterday’s news, of the former president’s greatest hits, from a man who cannot imagine a world without himself at the center.

    During a bizarre CPAC presentation, Trump named all the Republicans who had crossed him and threatened to destroy their careers. He asked his audience — plaintively — whether they missed him yet. He claimed he had won the last election and would, if he so chose, win again in 2024. To this last point, his cult-like audience — which had already paraded through the conference center, in imitation of strong-men idolatrous cults in locales such as North Korea, a golden bust of the disgraced ex-president — responded, on cue, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, “You won! You won! You won!”

    Trump, in gilded retirement at Mar-a-Lago not only refuses to accept that Joe Biden won last year’s election, but he also hasn’t even remotely begun to consider the possibility that the GOP might ever be anything other than a vehicle for the enrichment of the Trump family. He has, these past months, teased the possibility of starting a third party; at the CPAC event, however, he scotched those rumors, instead urging GOP members to donate to political action committees controlled by Trump himself, along with members of his inner circle.

    That decision wasn’t exactly a surprise; after all, most of the GOP is still in lockstep with Trumpism, convinced the election was stolen, and, as January 6th fades into the past, more than willing to forgive and forget the ex-president’s incitement to deadly violence. In the past couple weeks, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy traveled to Mar-a-Lago to pay an obsequious homage to the man whom, back in January, he had screamed at during a profanity-laden phone call at the height of the Capitol siege. So, too, did GOP whip Steve Scalise, make a kiss-the-ring visit to the exiled president.

    Mitch McConnell, who bared just a touch of courage after the Senate impeachment vote by saying on the Senate floor that there was no doubt that Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th, followed up with an astounding public display of gorging himself on humble pie. What would he do if the inciter-to-insurrection ran again in 2024? He would, he promptly answered, “absolutely” support Trump in 2024 if the party nominated him again as its presidential candidate.

    Even Mike Pence — yes, the same Mike Pence who ran for his life as a Trump-inspired mob, responding in real time to Trump tweets, hunted him down to hang him for treason — has been sweet-talking the Don in recent weeks. At least Pence had the good sense to skip CPAC this year. Other Trump cabinet members, including Mike Pompeo, took the event as an opportunity to climb ever further up Trump’s private orifices, banking on a display of unflinching loyalty to Number 45 as their best chance to become Number 47 should the Don suffer an unfortunate mishap — say a short spell in prison for tax evasion, or for threatening elections officials.

    Meanwhile, state GOP chapters around the country are busily censuring GOP congressmembers and senators who voted to impeach or convict Trump. And GOP-controlled legislatures are pushing through legislation aimed to prevent the sort of non-existent “fraud” that Trump still claims cost him the last election. Of course, since the fraud wasn’t real, what this means in practice is a vast effort to contract the electorate and to make it harder for people of color, the poor and students to cast ballots in coming elections.

    The ungodly CPAC display this past four days made two things absolutely clear. The first is that CPAC, and by extension most of the GOP, is nothing more or less than a personality cult; the values that have traditionally animated conservative movements in the U.S. have, now, been entirely subjugated to the allure of Trumpism. The second is that Trump’s financial interests — which are all he really cares about at this point — clearly lie not in putting his own dollars on the line by building up a third party, but in milking the GOP faithful for all he can, as quickly as he can, before his myriad legal woes catch up to him.

    Toward the end of Sunset Boulevard, Desmond shoots an ex-lover as he attempts to walk out on her. In a bizarre twist, the dead man then narrates his posthumous understanding of how this will all end. He imagines the headlines that will accompany the announcement of his murder. “Forgotten star, a slayer, aging actress, yesterday’s glamor queen.” Instead, as Desmond is perp-walked down her palace steps, the cameras keep clicking, and the diva remains, even in delusional disgrace, the star of her own show.

    Having failed to deal Trump a political death-blow in the Senate during the impeachment trial, the GOP is now stuck with its very own Norma Desmond. Trump is always ready for his close-up, because without the sound of the adoring claque, he is nothing.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Mary Miller conducts a news conference with members of the House Freedom Caucus outside the Capitol to oppose the Equality Act on February 25, 2021.

    A truck seen January 6 on Capitol grounds sporting a far right militia’s symbol belongs to the husband of Rep. Mary Miller (R-Illinois), Chris Miller, the Daily Beast has confirmed.

    Twitter users were the first to find the truck, which displayed a decal from the Three Percenter militia in footage taken during the breach of the U.S. Capitol. The truck was also identified in earlier photos carrying campaign posters for Mary Miller, and with Chris and Mary Miller posing in front of it.

    On Thursday, Chris Miller, a Republican state representative in Illinois, confirmed in an email to the Daily Beast that it was his truck, but claimed that he wasn’t aware of the group associated with the sticker, which a friend had given to him. Miller also said that the story about the truck was a “fake story” by the “fake news,” while confirming that the story was true.

    In the footage from January 6 the truck also appeared to have an Illinois license plate that can only be used by politicians like Chris Miller, the Daily Beast reported. The Three Percenters sticker appears to have been a new addition, applied sometime between when the truck was out campaigning and January 6.

    The Three Percenters were one of several right-wing militias that helped break past police lines into the Capitol on January 6. Several people affiliated with the group have been charged with crimes relating to the attack, including trespassing and assaulting police officers.

    The militia group is named after the debunked idea that only 3 percent of American colonists fought against the British during the American Revolution, and the group has been associated with white supremacist hate crimes. It also has a presence in Illinois.

    Though Chris Miller has feigned ignorance about the militia group, both Millers have expressed views that align with right-wing extremist rhetoric.

    In another video from January 6, Chris Miller is seen at the “Save America” rally at which former President Donald Trump incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. “We’re engaged in a great cultural war to see which worldview will survive,” Miller says in the video, saying that it was Republicans like him fighting against “Democrat terrorists” and “socialism.”

    Mary Miller expressed sympathy toward Adolf Hitler in a speech at a rally the day before. “You know, if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing, unless we win the hearts and minds of our children,” she said. “This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing: He said, ‘Whoever has the youth, has the future.’ Our children are being propagandized.”

    Mary Miller’s office defended the speech until backlash grew online, after which she apologized for the remark and said that people were trying to “intentionally twist my words.”

    Though no official reports have identified ties between the January 6 attack and members of Congress, some Democrats suspect that Trump militants received assistance from Republicans that day. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has said that she feared her fellow colleagues that day. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-New Jersey) saw her Republican colleagues giving what appeared to be “reconnaissance” tours of the building on January 5. A U.S. attorney in D.C. is looking into the latter allegation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Democrats’ second trial of Trump ends like the first: the outcome known in advance, the entire process designed to sell to the anti-Trump masses that the Democrats were leading some progressive counter-attack. Both impeachments enabled these politicians to present a national diversion to avoid addressing real issues the US people suffer from: the pandemic, lack of vaccines, no national health care program, increasing homelessness, closed schools.

    The Democrats’ first impeachment over Trump’s phone call to Ukraine aimed to sully his name for the benefit of the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign.  They purposely did not address Trump’s actual crimes: his cruelty to Latino immigrants on the border, his indifference to  police abuse of Blacks and Latinos, his racist attacks on non-white US citizens and residents, his neglect of the threat of global warming, funding the genocidal war against Yemen, bombing other countries, such as Syria, illegal and cruel sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela.

    The second impeachment, for the vague charge of “incitement of insurrection” sought to permanently ban Trump from “holding any office,” removing him as an election opponent in 2024. The Democrats reduced themselves to presenting as “evidence” of inciting insurrection Trump’s statement “’if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” However, this insubstantial statement could easily be used to indict any progressive social change movement, much as the Smith Act of 1940 had been used against leftists. The Democrats conveniently avoided mention that Trump in his January 6 speech explicitly told protesters to “peacefully march to the Capitol.”

    The second impeachment also charged Trump with refusing to accept the November 2020 election results. However, the Constitution states Congress must officially certify the Electoral College votes and the presidential victor, giving Trump the constitutional right to challenge these votes in Congress. The articles of impeachment concluded “Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution”. Whatever our opinion of the man, this only continues the Democratic Party-national security state McCarthyite campaign against Trump begun in earnest in 2016. Trump’s second acquittal marked a setback for this McCarthyism the Democrats have been pushing.

    Trump’s “coup” and the Democrats’ “coup”

    Trump’s attempt on January 6 pales in comparison to the Democrats’ well-orchestrated lawfare coup operation set in motion in 2016. As Consortium News, The Grayzone, Stephen Cohen, Glenn Greenwald have documented,  by late 2015 the Democrats were working with national security state officials to paint Trump as beholden to Putin – including stories of Putin’s alleged ownership of “pee tapes” of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow hotels. The Democrats funded the Steele Dossier fabrication, beginning a years-long fact-free story of Trump collusion with Russia to steal the election.

    While Democrats charge Trump with propagating his Stop the Steal story, they have not renounced their own fake Trump-Putin collusion story. In fact, it set the stage for their first impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even tweeted – after Congress certified the 2016 Electoral College vote “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”

    The continuous Democratic Party double standard and hypocrisy in relation to Trump explains a great deal of his supporters’ anger. As Scott Ritter noted, “For the supporters of Donald Trump, the events of Jan. 6 did not occur in a vacuum but were rather the culmination of what they believed to be a four-year campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the president they voted for and, by doing so, disenfranchising not only their vote, but by extension their role as citizens.”

    The second impeachment show intended to divert the 81 million Biden voters from their expectations and demands for progressive change, given the Democrats have won the presidency and both houses of Congress. It stifled any budding movement demanding the Democrats take action for a national health care program, a bailout for the people, a jobs program, a Green New Deal, etc. Their impeachment spectacle sought to vilify Trump and his supporters, as well as solidify what Glenn Greenwald describes as the new alliance of the national security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Bush era neo-cons, and mainstream corporate media with the neoliberal Democratic Party.

    Who were the Trump voters

    Central to the Democratic Party – and even leftist – spin is that Trump supporters are racist, sexist white men, the “deplorables.” This prejudiced stereotype hardly explains why 9 million Obama voters switched to Trump in 2016. Nor explain why, after four years of hostile mainstream media coverage, he won 10.5 million more votes in 2020.  A look at the 2020 election voter breakdown contradicts their condescending stereotype.

    In 2016, Trump won the white women vote by a margin of 9%, even though his opponent would have been the first woman president. In 2020 this vote margin increased to an 11% margin. In 2016, Trump won 28% of the Latina vote; in 2020, 31%. In 2016, Trump won 5% of the Black women vote; in 2020, 9%, despite Kamala Harris being on the Democratic ticket.  In 2016, he won 13% of the Black male vote; in 2020 it rose to 19%. Overall, comparing 2016 and 2020, Trump’s vote share rose 4% with Blacks, 3% with Latinos, and 5% with Asian Americans. Of the LGBT community, Trump was said to have won 28% of the vote, double his 2016 percent. In sum, people of color, LGBTs  the very ones said to be central to the Democratic coalition, shifted toward Trump.

    The group where Trump lost vote share involved white men, even though he won 35% more of the white working class vote than Biden. In 2016, Trump won 65% of the white men vote; in 2020 it fell to 61%. This hardly squares with liberal and pro-Democrat mythology that a Trump supporter is a racist white man.

    The US leftist movement co-opted by the Democratic Party

    Despite the November election choice coming down to two corporate neoliberals disliked by the great majority of the US population, more than 159.6 million Americans turned out to vote. The corporate rulers’ effort to neutralize popular opposition to their two parties and lure in social movements was so successful that the election turnout marked the highest percent of  voter population in 120 years, 66.7%. Even leftist groups capitulated, dressing this up as “fighting fascism” as they climbed aboard the two corporate party bandwagon.

    Typically, every four years the liberal-left, in order to justify a vote for the corporate Democrat presidential candidate, tries to paint the Republican candidate as a herald of fascism. In Fascism? First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump, I wrote:

    Leftists recognize corporate America owns the two parties, yet many still vote Democrat. Every four years, we must first defeat the fascist, then build our movement. So is the story we are told. This has been an effective strategy to trap us in the Democratic Party. It has worked for generations. Not only does it reinforce our domination by corporate America, but it seriously miseducates people about fascism.

    Needless to say, so long as corporate America has the liberal-left tied to their two party system, they have no need for fascism. They need fascism only when their customary method of rule breaks down and they face a very direct threat of losing control to revolutionary forces. The historic function of fascism is to smash the radicalized working class and its allies, destroy their organizations, and shut down political liberties when the corporate rulers find themselves unable to govern through their charade of democracy.  No such problem here.

    This capitulation to the corporate Democrats, including by self-described leftist groups, was hard to imagine just earlier in 2020, with the massive Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-neoliberal Bernie Sanders movement.

    While the vast majority of voters for both parties voted for their version of the “lesser evil,” the record election turnout for this charade was a great victory for corporate America irrespective of who won.

    A successful Trump coup would be a worse outcome for the corporate rulers

    The Democratic Party, liberals and leftists claimed Trump was planning a coup, a fascist coup even, on January 6. We are supposed to be grateful this alleged fascist insurrection was put down. But to play along with this coup story, if it were successful, the result would ignite massive nationwide protests by anti-Trump voters. After Trump’s election in November 2016, there were large “Not My President” protests in over 20 cities and many universities around the country. In 2020 between 15-26 million are said to have mobilized in Black Lives Matter rallies. Between 3-5 million participated in the anti-Trump Women’s Marches in 2017. Trump and his supporters have also shown they can turn out their base not only in large rallies but in armed protests.

    Murders by individuals in both camps have already occurred in Charlottesville, Portland and Kenosha. Both anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters firmly believe they are the ones defending US democracy and freedom against their opponents, that their own candidate legitimately won the presidential election. Right wing Trumpers fear socialists will take over the US, while the anti-Trump left fear fascists will.

    Nationwide confrontations and mobilizations by these opposing forces following a successful Trump coup could seriously damage the overall political stability of the US system for some time. This would weaken the US empire’s ability to sell its “freedom and democracy” image and political leadership role abroad. It would undermine US capacity to assert its military and world cop ideological power around the world.

    Consequently, the best result for the US empire would be for Trump to lose the election, his “coup” to fail, and he be banned from running for political office. The US rulers achieved almost all that agenda. US leftists, declared opponents of the empire, must ask themselves why this very agenda was also their own agenda.

    The post The Failure of Trump’s “Coup”: A Victory for the US Empire first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Democrats’ second trial of Trump ends like the first: the outcome known in advance, the entire process designed to sell to the anti-Trump masses that the Democrats were leading some progressive counter-attack. Both impeachments enabled these politicians to present a national diversion to avoid addressing real issues the US people suffer from: the pandemic, lack of vaccines, no national health care program, increasing homelessness, closed schools.

    The Democrats’ first impeachment over Trump’s phone call to Ukraine aimed to sully his name for the benefit of the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign.  They purposely did not address Trump’s actual crimes: his cruelty to Latino immigrants on the border, his indifference to  police abuse of Blacks and Latinos, his racist attacks on non-white US citizens and residents, his neglect of the threat of global warming, funding the genocidal war against Yemen, bombing other countries, such as Syria, illegal and cruel sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela.

    The second impeachment, for the vague charge of “incitement of insurrection” sought to permanently ban Trump from “holding any office,” removing him as an election opponent in 2024. The Democrats reduced themselves to presenting as “evidence” of inciting insurrection Trump’s statement “’if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” However, this insubstantial statement could easily be used to indict any progressive social change movement, much as the Smith Act of 1940 had been used against leftists. The Democrats conveniently avoided mention that Trump in his January 6 speech explicitly told protesters to “peacefully march to the Capitol.”

    The second impeachment also charged Trump with refusing to accept the November 2020 election results. However, the Constitution states Congress must officially certify the Electoral College votes and the presidential victor, giving Trump the constitutional right to challenge these votes in Congress. The articles of impeachment concluded “Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution”. Whatever our opinion of the man, this only continues the Democratic Party-national security state McCarthyite campaign against Trump begun in earnest in 2016. Trump’s second acquittal marked a setback for this McCarthyism the Democrats have been pushing.

    Trump’s “coup” and the Democrats’ “coup”

    Trump’s attempt on January 6 pales in comparison to the Democrats’ well-orchestrated lawfare coup operation set in motion in 2016. As Consortium News, The Grayzone, Stephen Cohen, Glenn Greenwald have documented,  by late 2015 the Democrats were working with national security state officials to paint Trump as beholden to Putin – including stories of Putin’s alleged ownership of “pee tapes” of Trump with prostitutes in Moscow hotels. The Democrats funded the Steele Dossier fabrication, beginning a years-long fact-free story of Trump collusion with Russia to steal the election.

    While Democrats charge Trump with propagating his Stop the Steal story, they have not renounced their own fake Trump-Putin collusion story. In fact, it set the stage for their first impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even tweeted – after Congress certified the 2016 Electoral College vote “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”

    The continuous Democratic Party double standard and hypocrisy in relation to Trump explains a great deal of his supporters’ anger. As Scott Ritter noted, “For the supporters of Donald Trump, the events of Jan. 6 did not occur in a vacuum but were rather the culmination of what they believed to be a four-year campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the president they voted for and, by doing so, disenfranchising not only their vote, but by extension their role as citizens.”

    The second impeachment show intended to divert the 81 million Biden voters from their expectations and demands for progressive change, given the Democrats have won the presidency and both houses of Congress. It stifled any budding movement demanding the Democrats take action for a national health care program, a bailout for the people, a jobs program, a Green New Deal, etc. Their impeachment spectacle sought to vilify Trump and his supporters, as well as solidify what Glenn Greenwald describes as the new alliance of the national security state, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Bush era neo-cons, and mainstream corporate media with the neoliberal Democratic Party.

    Who were the Trump voters

    Central to the Democratic Party – and even leftist – spin is that Trump supporters are racist, sexist white men, the “deplorables.” This prejudiced stereotype hardly explains why 9 million Obama voters switched to Trump in 2016. Nor explain why, after four years of hostile mainstream media coverage, he won 10.5 million more votes in 2020.  A look at the 2020 election voter breakdown contradicts their condescending stereotype.

    In 2016, Trump won the white women vote by a margin of 9%, even though his opponent would have been the first woman president. In 2020 this vote margin increased to an 11% margin. In 2016, Trump won 28% of the Latina vote; in 2020, 31%. In 2016, Trump won 5% of the Black women vote; in 2020, 9%, despite Kamala Harris being on the Democratic ticket.  In 2016, he won 13% of the Black male vote; in 2020 it rose to 19%. Overall, comparing 2016 and 2020, Trump’s vote share rose 4% with Blacks, 3% with Latinos, and 5% with Asian Americans. Of the LGBT community, Trump was said to have won 28% of the vote, double his 2016 percent. In sum, people of color, LGBTs  the very ones said to be central to the Democratic coalition, shifted toward Trump.

    The group where Trump lost vote share involved white men, even though he won 35% more of the white working class vote than Biden. In 2016, Trump won 65% of the white men vote; in 2020 it fell to 61%. This hardly squares with liberal and pro-Democrat mythology that a Trump supporter is a racist white man.

    The US leftist movement co-opted by the Democratic Party

    Despite the November election choice coming down to two corporate neoliberals disliked by the great majority of the US population, more than 159.6 million Americans turned out to vote. The corporate rulers’ effort to neutralize popular opposition to their two parties and lure in social movements was so successful that the election turnout marked the highest percent of  voter population in 120 years, 66.7%. Even leftist groups capitulated, dressing this up as “fighting fascism” as they climbed aboard the two corporate party bandwagon.

    Typically, every four years the liberal-left, in order to justify a vote for the corporate Democrat presidential candidate, tries to paint the Republican candidate as a herald of fascism. In Fascism? First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump, I wrote:

    Leftists recognize corporate America owns the two parties, yet many still vote Democrat. Every four years, we must first defeat the fascist, then build our movement. So is the story we are told. This has been an effective strategy to trap us in the Democratic Party. It has worked for generations. Not only does it reinforce our domination by corporate America, but it seriously miseducates people about fascism.

    Needless to say, so long as corporate America has the liberal-left tied to their two party system, they have no need for fascism. They need fascism only when their customary method of rule breaks down and they face a very direct threat of losing control to revolutionary forces. The historic function of fascism is to smash the radicalized working class and its allies, destroy their organizations, and shut down political liberties when the corporate rulers find themselves unable to govern through their charade of democracy.  No such problem here.

    This capitulation to the corporate Democrats, including by self-described leftist groups, was hard to imagine just earlier in 2020, with the massive Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-neoliberal Bernie Sanders movement.

    While the vast majority of voters for both parties voted for their version of the “lesser evil,” the record election turnout for this charade was a great victory for corporate America irrespective of who won.

    A successful Trump coup would be a worse outcome for the corporate rulers

    The Democratic Party, liberals and leftists claimed Trump was planning a coup, a fascist coup even, on January 6. We are supposed to be grateful this alleged fascist insurrection was put down. But to play along with this coup story, if it were successful, the result would ignite massive nationwide protests by anti-Trump voters. After Trump’s election in November 2016, there were large “Not My President” protests in over 20 cities and many universities around the country. In 2020 between 15-26 million are said to have mobilized in Black Lives Matter rallies. Between 3-5 million participated in the anti-Trump Women’s Marches in 2017. Trump and his supporters have also shown they can turn out their base not only in large rallies but in armed protests.

    Murders by individuals in both camps have already occurred in Charlottesville, Portland and Kenosha. Both anti-Trump and pro-Trump protesters firmly believe they are the ones defending US democracy and freedom against their opponents, that their own candidate legitimately won the presidential election. Right wing Trumpers fear socialists will take over the US, while the anti-Trump left fear fascists will.

    Nationwide confrontations and mobilizations by these opposing forces following a successful Trump coup could seriously damage the overall political stability of the US system for some time. This would weaken the US empire’s ability to sell its “freedom and democracy” image and political leadership role abroad. It would undermine US capacity to assert its military and world cop ideological power around the world.

    Consequently, the best result for the US empire would be for Trump to lose the election, his “coup” to fail, and he be banned from running for political office. The US rulers achieved almost all that agenda. US leftists, declared opponents of the empire, must ask themselves why this very agenda was also their own agenda.

    Stansfield Smith, Chicago ALBA Solidarity, is a long time Latin America solidarity activist, and presently puts out the AFGJ Venezuela Weekly. He is also the Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Read other articles by Stansfield.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Rep. John Sarbanes speaks at the Capitol on March 10, 2020.

    Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Maryland) announced on Monday that all House Democrats have now co-sponsored the 2021 version of the For the People Act, or H.R. 1. House Democrats have said that they will hold a vote on the legislation during the first week of March.

    H.R. 1 is a sweeping election reform act that is a bundle of election- and voting-related laws, and it’s been favored by Democrats and progressives for several years now. The law targets corporate campaign finance by exposing “dark money” campaign contributions and ending the Citizens United ruling that unleashed massive amounts of corporate spending in politics.

    It also greatly expands voting access by automatically registering eligible voters; making Election Day a holiday for federal employees and encouraging the private sector to do the same; and curbing partisan gerrymandering — which gives Republicans who are in control of a majority of state legislatures an advantage — and voter roll purging. In other words, as many journalists and political experts have said, it could save democracy.

    Democrats passed the bill in the House in 2019, but then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to bring it to a vote in the Senate. Republicans — and many organizations that support them in their campaigns — are opposed to the bill.

    “Our democracy is in a state of deep disrepair,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Democracy Reform Task Force Chair Sarbanes in a statement when they reintroduced H.R. 1 in January. “Across the country, people of all political persuasions — including Democrats, Independents and Republicans — are profoundly frustrated with the chaos, corruption and inaction that plague much of our politics.”

    The lawmakers also point out in their statement that 2020 was a particularly fraught year for elections. Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party fought hard to undermine and question the election and its results. Those unprecedented attacks on the election have now led to a huge wave of bills introduced in states by Republicans seeking to restrict voting rights.

    The Brennan Center for Justice has found that, as of this month, over 165 bills that seek to limit voting have been filed in states, as compared to only 35 at this time last year. They are particularly aimed at limiting mail-in voting, imposing stricter voter ID requirements, restricting voter registration and expanding voter roll purging.

    Efforts to limit voting have been particularly egregious in Georgia which turned blue in the most recent election and where Black voters, in particular, were instrumental in clinching the Democrats’ victory. Last month, a Republican lawmaker there attempted to pass a bill that would require voters to send in two copies of their ID when requesting an absentee ballot.

    On Friday, Georgia Republicans filed legislation that proposes sweeping changes to election laws as well as further restrictions to absentee and early voting. It would impose more restrictions on voter IDs when requesting an absentee ballot and limit the window for voters to request and counties to send out the ballots. It also prohibits counties from conducting early voting on Sundays, which NPR reports is traditionally a day with more turnout from Black voters through “souls to the polls” events.

    The Nation said that this drive from Republicans to limit voting is voter suppression that is, in many cases, specifically aimed at Black voters. “At the beating heart of the Big Lie — the deranged fantasy that the 2020 election was stolen from its loser, Donald Trump — is the Republican belief that the votes of Black people shouldn’t count,” wrote The Nation’s Elie Mystal. “The new laws cover everything Republicans could think of to make it harder for people to cast a vote.”

    Republicans seem to be specifically targeting mail-in voting and early voting after many states opened both massively to avoid crowds and gathering on election day because of COVID-19. These bills follow the many attempts by Republicans to quash voting before the election last year where they tried every which way to limit who could vote, as well as when and where they could vote.

    Polling shows, however, that the expanded voting access in the 2020 election due to COVID was quite popular among voters from both parties. Seventy percent of voters support the adoption of no-excuse absentee voting that many states allowed last year and two-thirds support expanding early voting periods before the election, according to a new poll by Strategies 360 and Voting Rights Lab.

    H.R. 1 also enjoys wide support among the public; according to polling from Data for Progress and Equal Citizens, 67 percent of Americans support the legislation, including 77 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of Republicans.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An anti-mask protestor holds up a sign in front of the Ohio Statehouse during a right-wing protest at the State Capitol on July 18, 2020, in Columbus, Ohio.

    As the U.S. reaches the grim milestone of 500,000 deaths from COVID-19, the National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins has said that the proliferation of the virus due to partisan resistance and politicization around wearing a face mask could be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

    Collins said that misinformation around COVID was particularly harmful around mask-wearing. In the early months of the pandemic, evidence showed that wearing a mask helped to stop the spread of the disease, said Collins. “And yet, with a variety of messages through a variety of sources, mask-wearing became a statement about your political party or an invasion of your personal freedom,” he said.

    “A mask is nothing more than a life-saving medical device, and yet it got categorized in all sorts of other ways that were not factual, not scientific, and, frankly, dangerous,” Collins continued. “And I think you could make a case that tens of thousands of people died as a result.”

    Last year, as the pandemic was setting in within the U.S., wearing a mask became especially stigmatized among the right wing. Former President Donald Trump was saying that he didn’t trust masks and that people were wearing masks just to spite him. Those statements from the then-president, coupled with people’s personal beliefs about things like masculinity stigmatized mask-wearing among conservatives. Following Trump’s lead, many other Republicans also took to criticizing mask-wearing, even making bizarre and harmful claims about the practice in some cases.

    “It’s so disappointing that such behaviors could be chosen intentionally by people who have access to real public health information and yet would decide not to put on the mask in order to make some other kind of statement,” Collins said when asked about Trump’s resistance to wearing a mask. “Perhaps with some sense that they’re immune from the consequences.”

    Though Trump did eventually begin occasionally wearing a mask, the damage had been done. According to a Pew Research Center poll done in June, 23 percent of Republicans were saying that masks should either rarely or never be worn when in public, as opposed to 4 percent of Democrats saying the same thing. Only 29 percent of Republicans at the time said that masks should always be worn in public, as compared to 63 percent of Democrats.

    By late summer, Republicans mentioned masks or mask-wearing the most compared to other things when describing the biggest negative impacts on their lives from COVID, according to a different poll by Pew. By contrast, Democrats’ top two concerns mentioned were related to family and work, and masks ranked closer to the bottom.

    In some ways, this contrast persists even now, as mask-wearing has become increasingly normalized and recommended by health officials over the course of the pandemic. When President Joe Biden said last year that he would call Republican governors to ask them to install mask mandates and followed it up this year by signing a mask mandate on federal property, Republicans were quick to raise objections. First they countered by telling people not to bother with masks and following Biden’s executive order, said they would challenge the mask mandate in court.

    The U.S. is still in the throes of the pandemic, but some Republican governors are lifting their mask mandates as infection numbers fall slightly following the post-holiday spike. In Montana, for example, where the governorship just flipped from Democrat to Republican in the recent election, the new GOP governor has rescinded the previous governor’s mask mandate. All in all, the 15 states that don’t currently have a statewide mask mandate are all run by Republican governors.

    Even though some governors may think that it’s time to lift mask mandates, Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on Sunday that Americans who wish to protect themselves and others by wearing a mask may expect to wear one through the end of 2021 and even into 2022. Though cases are currently declining, and vaccine distribution is ramping up, “I want it to keep going down to a baseline that’s so low there is virtually no threat,” said Fauci.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Trump gestures as he speaks during a rally in Dalton, Georgia, on January 4, 2021.

    Donald Trump may be spending his post-presidency golfing at Mar-a -Lago but he remains front and center in the hearts and minds of millions of Republican voters, as evidenced by the 46% who said in a new Suffolk University/ USA Today poll released over the weekend that they would join a Trump Party if he decided to split off from the GOP. A whopping 80% of Republican respondents said they support punishing any Republicans in Congress who voted for Trump’s impeachment. He is still their Dear Leader even in exile.

    So the GOP still has a Trump problem. If it loses 20-30% of its voters, it will prove difficult to win any elections whether it’s called the Trump Patriot Party or the plain old GOP. That is because the polarization that powers the extreme right-wing under Trump depends upon having every last self-identified Republican vote their way. There are no more crossovers when it comes to Donald Trump.

    This is the dilemma now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., finds himself trying to navigate as he tries to take back the Senate in 2022. So far, he’s tried to have it both ways. Perhaps he and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham are playing some elaborate game of “good cop-bad cop” with Graham ostentatiously currying Trump’s favor while McConnell writes op-eds in the Wall Street Journal desperately trying to assuage big money donors and appalled suburban voters with reassurances that the Republican establishment hasn’t gone completely mad.

    It’s impossible to know how any of that will work out but whatever happens, the GOP is taking advantage of one major aspect of Trump’s legacy: The Big Lie. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 76% of Republicans still say they believe there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election and that Trump was the legitimate winner. Republican lawmakers in states across the country are now rushing to pass various draconian vote suppression schemes.

    It’s not that they haven’t been doing that all along, of course. That’s conservative electoral strategy 101, about which I’ve written many times. Having lost the popular vote seven out of the last eight presidential elections, they know very well that they do not have the support of a majority of voters in the country. Now that Trump conveniently persuaded GOP voters that the presidential election was stolen from them in broad daylight, the opportunity to curb voting in some new and ingenious ways has presented itself and they are going for it.

    So far this year at least 165 bills that would restrict voting access are being considered in state legislatures nationwide reports the Brennan Center for Justice. And the excuse Republicans are using is that they must do this to “restore trust” in the voting system — trust that was destroyed by the outrageous lies of Donald Trump and his henchmen. What a neat trick. Apparently, the only way they can restore trust is to “fix” problems that don’t exist but which also happen to suppress Democratic votes. Take Georgia, for instance, ground zero for Trump’s post-election machinations. According to the Brennan Center, the Republican legislature has proposed curtailing early voting — including on Sundays when historically Black churches have caravaned congregations in what is called “souls to the polls” — making drop boxes more onerous to access and requiring several new steps in order to vote by mail. One of the most counterintuitive restrictions is a new process that disallows dropping ballots off on Election Day and three days prior. It makes no sense. If you’ve forgotten to get your ballot in the mail you should be able to walk it in. What can possibly be a reasonable rationale against that?

    You can see how important this issue is right now by the fact that this week’s CPAC conference is featuring seven panel discussions on “election protection” with names like “The Left Pulled the Strings, Covered It Up, and Even Admits It.” “Failed States (PA, GA, NV, oh my!)” and “They Told Ya So: The Signs Were Always There.” Here’s one of the featured speakers, a lawyer who secretly helped Trump behind the scenes:

    It goes without saying that the right-wing media continues to flog this lie but it is spread far and wide by the the major networks as well which continue to feature guests who find subtler ways to poison the public’s mind. Take Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La, on ABC’s “This Week” dodging the question in a different way, suggesting that the “real problem” is that the states didn’t follow their own laws in the election, as some of Trump’s bush league lawyers argued at the time before being shot down by every judge who heard them.

    This version of the Big Lie is what MSNBC’s Chris Hayes dubbed “High Hawley-ism”, after the unctuous mewlings of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo, during the post-election period, which Hayes says is a trial balloon for GOP state legislators to unilaterally award electoral college votes to whomever they choose. You may recall that was what Trump was trying to do up until the very minute his rabid mob sacked the Capitol. Hayes wrote:

    This dubious theory, that only state *legislatures* can make these kinds of changes also invites all kinds of mischief by federal judges to reach in and overrule state supreme courts. It didn’t work in 2020, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.

    Further, as Scalia memorably noted there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote for president; we vote for electors. Every state with R control could pass a law awarding all state electors to the candidate that won the most counties and basically guarantee R victory.

    As the New York Times reported at the time, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gave plenty of signals during the election campaign that they were amenable to this idea, making it clear that they believe state legislatures have the right to enact strict measures against (non-existent) voter fraud. As Wendy R. Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Times:

    Even without the reasoning, it’s very clear that what the court has done throughout this election season has made it clear that federal courts are not going to be significant sources of voting rights protection in the lead up to elections. It’s the unique constitutional role of the courts to protect individual rights like voting rights, and they’re treating it like policy decisions.

    That’s what Trump put Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court to do for him last fall, but the cards just didn’t fall his way enough to put it to use. Even so, the Big Lie about the stolen election has opened the door for a wave of voter suppression not seen in decades with a Supreme Court ready to rubber stamp it. It may end up being his greatest legacy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Motivated by their justifiable aversion to former US President Donald Trump, many analysts have rashly painted a rosy picture of how Democrats could quickly erase the bleak trajectory of the previous Republican administration. This naivety is particularly pronounced in the current spin on the Palestinian-Israeli discourse, which is promoting, again, the illusion that Democrats will succeed where their political rivals have failed.

    There are obvious differences in the Democrats’ approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but only in semantics and political jingoism, not policy. This assertion can be justified if the Democratic administration’s official language on Palestine and Israel is examined, and such language considered within the context of practical policies on the ground.

    Take recent remarks, made by the new US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, during a CNN interview on February 8. Blinken’s comments reminded us of the clever – albeit disingenuous – US foreign policy under previous Democratic administrations. His select words may seem as a complete departure from the belligerent, yet direct, approach of former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

    “Look, leaving aside the legalities of that question (meaning the illegal Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights), as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” Blinken said. Later in the interview, he went on to, once again, acknowledge, yet, at the same time, sideline the question of ‘legalities’. “Legal questions are something else,” he said, before continuing to speak vaguely and non-committedly about the future of Syria.

    Juxtapose Blinken’s position on the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights with statements made by Pompeo in November, just before the end of Trump’s Presidency. “This is a part of Israel and central part of Israel,” Pompeo said, as he was accompanied by Israeli Foreign Minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, and speaking from the occupied Golan Heights.

    Pompeo’s position, which is a stark violation of international law, was duly condemned by Palestinians and Arabs and criticized by various governments and international bodies. Blinken’s position, however, generated little media attention and negligible, if any, serious reprimand regionally or internationally. This should not have been the case.

    By acknowledging the relevance of the issue of legality, then “leaving it aside”, in favor of the seemingly more pressing question of Israeli security, Blinken simply defended the status quo, that of perpetual Israeli military occupation, which is also championed enthusiastically by Republicans.

    Succinctly, this is the Democratic doctrine on Palestine and Israel, in effect largely since the Bill Clinton era. The current Administration of Joe Biden is, undoubtedly, following the same blueprint, which allows Washington to offer itself as a neutral party – an ‘honest peace-broker’ – while helping Israel achieve its strategic goals at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples.

    The clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican discourses on Palestine and Israel is a relatively new phenomenon. Interestingly, it was the Republican George H. W. Bush Administration that, in 1991, established the current Democratic narrative on Palestine. At the end of the First Gulf War, Bush championed the multilateral talks between Israel and Arab States in Madrid, Spain. Within a few years, a whole new American discourse was formulated.

    The September 11, 2001 attacks on the US supplanted the peace process discourse in Republican foreign policy literature with a new one, which is avowedly dedicated to fighting ‘Islamic terror’. Israel cleverly used the new American language and conduct in the Middle East to present itself as a direct partner in the US-led global ‘war on terror’.

    To stave off the collapse of US global political leadership as a result of the Iraq invasion of 2003, the Barack Obama Administration quickly restored the traditional American position, once again offering US services as a benefactor of peace in the Middle East. True, Obama labored to restore America’s relevance as a ‘peacemaker’. His administration still utilized the disingenuous language of the past, one which constantly put the onus on the Palestinians, while gently reminding Israel of its responsibilities towards Palestine’s civilian population.

    Obama’s Cairo speech in April 2009 remains the most powerful, yet indicting document on the numerous moral lapses and legal blind spots of US foreign policy, particularly under Democratic administrations. The speech, which was meant to serve as a watershed moment in the US’ approach to the Middle East region, fully exposed the caveats of US bias towards Israel, predicated mostly on emotional manipulation and historical misrepresentations.

    Obama deliberately fluctuated between the persecution of Jewish communities throughout history and Israel’s ‘right’ to ensure its security at the expense of oppressed Palestinians, as if the systematic Israeli violence was carried out as genuine attempts to prevent further persecution of world’s Jewry.

    Contrastingly, Obama insisted, with little sympathy or context, that “Palestinians must abandon violence”, thus painting the Palestinians and their rightful resistance as the true obstacle to any just peace in Palestine. Concerning Palestine and Israel, blaming the victim has been a central pillar of US foreign policy, shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Yet, while Republicans increasingly ignore the rights and, sometimes, the very existence of the Palestinians, Democrats, who continue to support Israel with equal passion, use more moderate – although inconsequential – language.

    For Democrats, Palestinians are the instigators of violence, although Israel may have, at times, used ‘disproportionate force’ in its response to Palestinian violence; for them, international law exists, but can easily be ‘left aside’ to accommodate Israeli security; for them, there is such a thing as internationally recognized borders, but these borders are flexible in order to accommodate Israel’s demographic fears, strategic interests and ‘military edge’.

    Hence, it is easier to discredit the foreign policy agenda of Trump, Pompeo and other Republicans as their aggressive, dismissive language and action are unmistakably objectionable. The Democratic discourse, however, cannot be as easily censured, as it utilizes a mix of superficial language, political platitudes and historical clichés, worded meticulously with the aim of placing the US back at the driving seat of whatever political process is underway.

    While the Democratic discourse remains committed to arming and defending Israel, it provides Palestinians and Arabs with no meaningful change, because substantive change can only occur when international law is respected. Unfortunately, according to Blinken’s logic, such seemingly trivial matters should, for now, be ‘left aside’.

    The post “Leaving Aside” International Law: Why Democrats are as Dangerous as Republicans to a Just Peace in Palestine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Motivated by their justifiable aversion to former US President Donald Trump, many analysts have rashly painted a rosy picture of how Democrats could quickly erase the bleak trajectory of the previous Republican administration. This naivety is particularly pronounced in the current spin on the Palestinian-Israeli discourse, which is promoting, again, the illusion that Democrats will succeed where their political rivals have failed.

    There are obvious differences in the Democrats’ approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but only in semantics and political jingoism, not policy. This assertion can be justified if the Democratic administration’s official language on Palestine and Israel is examined, and such language considered within the context of practical policies on the ground.

    Take recent remarks, made by the new US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, during a CNN interview on February 8. Blinken’s comments reminded us of the clever – albeit disingenuous – US foreign policy under previous Democratic administrations. His select words may seem as a complete departure from the belligerent, yet direct, approach of former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

    “Look, leaving aside the legalities of that question (meaning the illegal Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights), as a practical matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” Blinken said. Later in the interview, he went on to, once again, acknowledge, yet, at the same time, sideline the question of ‘legalities’. “Legal questions are something else,” he said, before continuing to speak vaguely and non-committedly about the future of Syria.

    Juxtapose Blinken’s position on the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights with statements made by Pompeo in November, just before the end of Trump’s Presidency. “This is a part of Israel and central part of Israel,” Pompeo said, as he was accompanied by Israeli Foreign Minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, and speaking from the occupied Golan Heights.

    Pompeo’s position, which is a stark violation of international law, was duly condemned by Palestinians and Arabs and criticized by various governments and international bodies. Blinken’s position, however, generated little media attention and negligible, if any, serious reprimand regionally or internationally. This should not have been the case.

    By acknowledging the relevance of the issue of legality, then “leaving it aside”, in favor of the seemingly more pressing question of Israeli security, Blinken simply defended the status quo, that of perpetual Israeli military occupation, which is also championed enthusiastically by Republicans.

    Succinctly, this is the Democratic doctrine on Palestine and Israel, in effect largely since the Bill Clinton era. The current Administration of Joe Biden is, undoubtedly, following the same blueprint, which allows Washington to offer itself as a neutral party – an ‘honest peace-broker’ – while helping Israel achieve its strategic goals at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples.

    The clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican discourses on Palestine and Israel is a relatively new phenomenon. Interestingly, it was the Republican George H. W. Bush Administration that, in 1991, established the current Democratic narrative on Palestine. At the end of the First Gulf War, Bush championed the multilateral talks between Israel and Arab States in Madrid, Spain. Within a few years, a whole new American discourse was formulated.

    The September 11, 2001 attacks on the US supplanted the peace process discourse in Republican foreign policy literature with a new one, which is avowedly dedicated to fighting ‘Islamic terror’. Israel cleverly used the new American language and conduct in the Middle East to present itself as a direct partner in the US-led global ‘war on terror’.

    To stave off the collapse of US global political leadership as a result of the Iraq invasion of 2003, the Barack Obama Administration quickly restored the traditional American position, once again offering US services as a benefactor of peace in the Middle East. True, Obama labored to restore America’s relevance as a ‘peacemaker’. His administration still utilized the disingenuous language of the past, one which constantly put the onus on the Palestinians, while gently reminding Israel of its responsibilities towards Palestine’s civilian population.

    Obama’s Cairo speech in April 2009 remains the most powerful, yet indicting document on the numerous moral lapses and legal blind spots of US foreign policy, particularly under Democratic administrations. The speech, which was meant to serve as a watershed moment in the US’ approach to the Middle East region, fully exposed the caveats of US bias towards Israel, predicated mostly on emotional manipulation and historical misrepresentations.

    Obama deliberately fluctuated between the persecution of Jewish communities throughout history and Israel’s ‘right’ to ensure its security at the expense of oppressed Palestinians, as if the systematic Israeli violence was carried out as genuine attempts to prevent further persecution of world’s Jewry.

    Contrastingly, Obama insisted, with little sympathy or context, that “Palestinians must abandon violence”, thus painting the Palestinians and their rightful resistance as the true obstacle to any just peace in Palestine. Concerning Palestine and Israel, blaming the victim has been a central pillar of US foreign policy, shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Yet, while Republicans increasingly ignore the rights and, sometimes, the very existence of the Palestinians, Democrats, who continue to support Israel with equal passion, use more moderate – although inconsequential – language.

    For Democrats, Palestinians are the instigators of violence, although Israel may have, at times, used ‘disproportionate force’ in its response to Palestinian violence; for them, international law exists, but can easily be ‘left aside’ to accommodate Israeli security; for them, there is such a thing as internationally recognized borders, but these borders are flexible in order to accommodate Israel’s demographic fears, strategic interests and ‘military edge’.

    Hence, it is easier to discredit the foreign policy agenda of Trump, Pompeo and other Republicans as their aggressive, dismissive language and action are unmistakably objectionable. The Democratic discourse, however, cannot be as easily censured, as it utilizes a mix of superficial language, political platitudes and historical clichés, worded meticulously with the aim of placing the US back at the driving seat of whatever political process is underway.

    While the Democratic discourse remains committed to arming and defending Israel, it provides Palestinians and Arabs with no meaningful change, because substantive change can only occur when international law is respected. Unfortunately, according to Blinken’s logic, such seemingly trivial matters should, for now, be ‘left aside’.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with former President Donald Trump pointing from limo in background

    The ongoing civil war within the GOP broke wide open on Monday, and it was nothing short of delicious to behold. The two biggest heavyweights that party has produced — former President Donald Trump and current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — went after each other like those paper-mache monsters in the creature double-features from the television of my youth. This time, however, the blood was real.

    The trouble started when McConnell concluded his involvement in Trump’s second impeachment trial with a speech that laid the 1/6 debacle at the former president’s feet — although McConnell, hypocritically, voted to acquit the president. “January 6th was a disgrace,” he intoned, “American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like.”

    “Former President Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty…. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell continued.

    Of course, McConnell’s heavy-handed statement was calculated; with his acquittal vote — using a constitutional fig leaf that focused incorrectly at process and not at the facts of the case — he was able to have it both ways. The former majority leader was attempting a dangerous straddle: Denounce the man beloved by the GOP base but vote to clear his name. People who gamble on horses lay this kind of parlay bet all the time, putting money on multiple horses in the same race. Usually, they go home busted.

    McConnell wasn’t busted, but it did not take long for the outrage of this betrayal to summon the wrath of the Beast of Palm Beach. Bereft of his usual instant-reply Twitter platform, Trump required actual time to form sentences and paragraphs — someone wrote it, anyway — and the result was a screed that sounds like a needle scratching off the largest record in the universe.

    “The Republican Party can never again be respected or strong with political ‘leaders’ like Sen. Mitch McConnell at its helm,” said Trump in a lengthy statement. “McConnell’s dedication to business as usual, status quo policies, together with his lack of political insight, wisdom, skill, and personality, has rapidly driven him from Majority Leader to Minority Leader, and it will only get worse.”

    “Mitch is a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack,” continued Trump, “and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again. He will never do what needs to be done, or what is right for our Country. Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First.”

    Thus, the gauntlet was thrown. Trump, at this point, may retain enough power and influence within the party to tear it apart from the inside out if he so chooses, much as he tore the Capitol building apart on 1/6.

    McConnell’s people were quick to rally to the senator’s defense. “Trump going total mean girl ought to feed the cable beast for weeks,” tweeted McConnell’s first chief of staff, Janet Mullins Grissom.

    “It seems an odd choice for someone who claims they want to lead the GOP to attack a man who has been unanimously elected to lead Senate Republicans a history-making eight times,” noted former McConnell aide Billy Piper. “But we have come to expect these temper tantrums when he feels threatened — just ask any of his former chiefs of staff or even his vice president.”

    Trump’s people got busy, too, none more so than world-class lickspittle Lindsey Graham. “I’m more worried about 2022 than I’ve ever been,” Graham moaned to Sean Hannity on Fox News. “I don’t want to eat our own. President Trump is the most consequential Republican in the party. If Mitch McConnell doesn’t understand that, he’s missing a lot.… We need to knock this off. Kevin McCarthy is the leader of the house Republicans. He has taken a different approach to President Trump. I would advise Senator McConnell to do that.”

    I dunno, Lindsey. “Eating our own” looks to be the top special on the GOP menu for the foreseeable. Feel free to call for seconds.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell walks through the Senate subway on his way to the fourth day of the Senates second impeachment trial of former President Trump at the U.S. Capitol on February 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Republicans in the Senate voted to acquit Donald Trump in the former president’s second impeachment trial. Although a bipartisan majority of senators found Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6 with his monthslong campaign of lies about election fraud, most Republicans blocked his conviction.

    Thus, in 57-43 Senate vote, Trump was found not guilty — againfalling 10 votes short of the 67 votes needed to convict.

    Seven Republican senators did join with all 50 Democrats to find Trump guilty, including Richard Burr of North Carolina, who just barely won reelection in the election Trump claimed was fraudulent; Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who surprised observers when he switched his earlier vote to declare the trial constitutional; Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Mitt Romney of Utah; Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who is retiring after this term.

    Other retiring Republican senators — Rob Portman of Ohio and Richard Shelby of Alabama — voted to acquit even without the looming threat of soon facing Trump voters.

    “I want to first thank my team of dedicated lawyers and others for their tireless work upholding justice and defending truth,” Trump said in a statement released after the verdict. “My deepest thanks as well to all of the United States Senators and Members of Congress who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country.”

    The Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, voted to acquit Trump and then immediately took to the Senate floor to blast Trump’s actions, calling the former president “morally responsible” for the mob attack on Congress.

    Responding to McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blasted his decision to have held the trial over until after Trump left office. “It is so pathetic that Senator McConnell kept the Senate shut down so that the Senate could not receive the Article of Impeachment and has used that as his excuse for not voting to convict Donald Trump.”

    “Whatever it was, it was a very disingenuous speech,” she continued of McConnell, “and I say this regretfully.”

    “But we will be going forward to make sure that this never happens again.”

    Other Senate Republicans spent the four days of the trial working with Trump’s defense team to undermine the process, deflect blame to Democrats who attacked on Jan. 6 and downplay the historic attack on Capitol Hill.

    After presenting a convincing case full of harrowing footage of the Capitol riot, House managers surprised the Senate trial when they moved for a vote to call witnesses, which passed with 55 votes. Democrats then frantically backed away from their position after Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., reportedly warned House managers that calling witnesses could cost them Democratic votes to convict in the Senate.

    “People want to get home for Valentine’s Day,” Coons reportedly said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Pat Toomey

    Republican senators in three swing states recently announced their retirements, opening the floodgates for a slew of candidates vying for the highly-coveted spots in 2022.

    In the past election cycle, Democrats raised unprecedented amounts of money but still largely lost Senate seats to Republicans in states that had the most expensive races, with Democratic wins in the Georgia runoffs marking a turning point. In 2022, with Democrats controlling the presidency and thin majorities in the House and Senate, the stakes will be high as Senate hopefuls throw their hats in the ring and start fundraising for likely volatile contests.

    North Carolina

    In North Carolina’s 2020 senate race, incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) held on to his seat despite being outspent by former state Sen. Cal Cunningham. Tillis’s campaign raised about $25.3 million while Cunningham’s raised around twice that number with approximately $51.2 million. North Carolina has two GOP senators and mostly Republican representatives representing the state on the national stage.

    But Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in 2016 that his current term would be his last, meaning there is an open seat on the horizon that could shake up the Senate’s party balance. Burr’s campaign raised about $12.9 million in 2016 and around $10.9 million in the 2010 election cycle. He has served as senator since 2005 and was a House representative before that from 1995.

    In February, before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States, Burr publicly declared his faith in the U.S. government’s response to the virus. But he privately warned those around him about the virus’ possible economic percussions before selling anywhere from $628,000 to $1.7 million in publicly traded stocks on Feb. 13.

    North Carolina state Sen. Jeff Jackson (D) officially joined the Senate race on Jan. 26, launching a “100 county campaign” with a promise to hold town halls in every North Carolina county. He joins fellow state Sen. Erica Smith (D), who announced her entrance in January and previously competed with Cunningham for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

    According to his campaign, Jackson raised $500,000 in the two days following his announcement with 90 percent of contributions coming from North Carolina, nearly 80 percent of which are donations of under $100.

    As for the GOP, Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) released a video revealing his Senate challenge on Dec. 1. He said that his campaign raised almost $370,000 in a little over a month after he launched his bid. Lara Trump, wife of former President Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump, is said to be considering a run, according to the New York Times.

    The North Carolina Senate race is expected to be one of the highest profile and most expensive in the 2022 midterm elections. North Carolina’s Senate race broke records in the 2020 election, coming in as the third most expensive race ever with about $298.9 million spent in total.

    Pennsylvania

    The Keystone State was the state to watch in the 2020 election, turning blue by a slim margin after helping elect Trump in 2016. The state has a Democratic governor and GOP majorities in the state House and Senate.

    Lt. Governor John Fetterman (D), a favorite among Pennsylvanian Democrats, particularly labor interests, initiated his campaign to fill Toomey’s seat on Monday after conducting an exploratory effort. According to Politico, he raised over $1.4 million in the weeks leading up to his announcement. Fetterman previously ran for Senate in 2016 and raised about $760,000, millions short of what winner Toomey and Democratic nominee Katie McGinty each raised.

    Last summer, during a period of civil unrest sparked by George Floyd’s death, Fetterman wrote about the need for “discretion and de-escalation measures” to address police brutality. On Feb. 9, in what appears to be a preemptive move, Fetterman’s campaign released a video of the lieutenant governor defending a 2013 incident in which he chased and pulled a gun on an unarmed Black man who was jogging. Fetterman claimed that he had heard shots fired near his home in the events leading to the incident. While the jogger, Christopher Miyares, never pressed charges, he and Fetterman told different accounts of what happened.

    Former Norristown borough council member John McGuigan has also launched his Senate campaign.

    Fetterman’s bid comes after Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) announced in October that he would not run for reelection or for governor and would instead return to the private sector. Toomey, a two-term senator, raised $30.8 million in the 2016 election. Prior to becoming senator, he served three terms in the U.S. House from 1999 to 2005.

    While Toomey supported Trump’s reelection, he called on the former president to resign after the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot. But Toomey and Trump’s relationship was fraught with tension even before the riot, with the two clashing over Trump’s decisions such as imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum during the coronavirus pandemic.

    His retirement leaves the Pennsylvania seat up for grabs in the 2022 election, which could thwart Republicans’ plans to take back control of the Senate and instead assist Democrats in holding on to their slim majority.

    On Feb. 10, Rep. Madeleine Dean’s (D-Pa.) son tweeted that she “seems comfortable in the Senate” after she condemned Trump for spreading lies and using violent rhetoric in his speeches during his impeachment trial, leading to speculation that she might run for the open seat. Dean is one of nine House members prosecuting Trump during the trial. She has not announced a Senate bid.

    Insiders say other potential Democratic contenders include U.S. Reps. Conor Lamb, Brendan Boyle, Chrissy Houlahan, and Susan Wild; Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney; former state Treasurer Joe Torsella; Montgomery County Commissioner Val Arkoosh; state Sen. Sharif Street; Philadelphia City Council member Helen Gym; and state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.

    As for Republicans, Craig Snyder, a Never-Trump Republican and political consultant who founded the Republicans for Hillary PAC in 2016, said on Feb. 3 that he is considering a run. Others speculated to be potential candidates include Pennsylvania Reps. Ryan Costello, Charlie Dent, Dan Meuser, Lou Barletta, Brian Fitzpatrick, Mike Kelly and Guy Reschenthaler; former U.S. Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite; 2018 lieutenant governor candidate Jeff Bartos; state Sen. Mike Regan; state Rep. Martina White; Chester County Commissioner Michelle Kichline; 2018 Senate candidate Jim Christiana; state Sen. Jake Corman; 2018 gubernatorial candidate Paul Mango; former U.S. Attorney William McSwain; former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands; 2020 congressional candidate Sean Parnell; and former state House Speaker Mike Turzai.

    Ohio

    With a majority GOP congressional delegation and a Republican governor, Ohio has leaned more right than ever in recent years with electoral votes going to Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 general presidential elections.

    Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said on Jan. 25 he would not seek reelection following the end of his second term in 2022. The senator, who has shifted more moderate in recent years compared to his more conservative colleagues, said in the statement announcing his retirement that “this is a tough time to be in public service.”

    “We live in an increasingly polarized country where members of both parties are being pushed further to the right and further to the left, and that means too few people who are actively looking to find common ground,” he said.

    Portman served in the House from 1993 until 2005, when he joined then-President George W. Bush’s Cabinet as U.S. Trade Representative. His campaign raised approximately $25.4 million in 2016 and about $13.2 million in 2010, when he was first elected to the Senate.

    Despite Trump allies’ high expectations for a Senate bid, a spokesperson for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said that he would not be running for the position and would instead run for reelection in the House. The congressman was first elected in 2004, and his campaign raised about $18 million in the 2020 election cycle, a considerable jump from the approximately $1.2 million he raised in 2018.

    As for other candidates vying for the open seat, former Ohio State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) launched his campaign on Wednesday. In the 2012 Senate race, he won the Republican nomination but ultimately lost against incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), whose campaign raised about $24.8 million. Mandel, who was heavily favored by outside spending groups, raised around $18.9 million. He ran again in 2018 but lost early on with Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) becoming the Republican nominee. Mandel received about $5.3 million during his run. His platform this time around is targeted at continuing Trump’s legacy.

    “I’m going to Washington to fight for President Trump’s America First Agenda and to pulverize the Uniparty – that cabal of Democrats and Republicans who sound the same, stand for nothing and are more interested in cocktail party invites than defending the Constitution,” Mandel said in a statement.

    According to Politico, other GOP candidates who could compete with Mandel include J.D. Vance, a venture capitalist and author of the popular book “Hillbilly Elegy”; Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose; and U.S. Reps. Steve Stivers, Brad Wenstrup, Michael Turner and Warren Davidson.

    On the opposite side of the political aisle, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) is expected to make his bid public in early March according to the New York Times. He is already asking supporters for donations via email. Ryan has considered running for statewide office before and previously ran for president in the 2020 election cycle before bowing out in October of 2019. He raised $1.3 million during his short-lived campaign. In 2016, he unsuccessfully challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the top spot in Democratic leadership.

    Other potential entrants on the Democrats’ side include Ohio House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes and U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio).

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) walks out the Senate chamber in the U.S. Capitol on February 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Trump's defense team presented the defense that Trump should not be held responsible for the January 6th attack at the U.S. Capitol on First Amendment grounds and the fact that he is no longer in office.

    Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky informed colleagues in an email Saturday morning that he will vote to acquit Donald Trump on the charge of inciting a deadly insurrection, despite admitting less than two weeks after the January 6 assault that the former president “provoked” the right-wing mob.

    McConnell hid behind a procedural justification for his decision to vote to acquit, echoing the position of many of his Republican colleagues.

    “While a close call,” McConnell wrote, “I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction.”

    Rep. Don Beyer (D-Virginia) tweeted in response to news of McConnell’s decision that “it is disappointing but not at all surprising that Trump’s worst enablers will stand with him.”

    “McConnell’s failure to put the needs of the country before partisan politics will define his legacy, and shape the future of a Republican Party increasingly embracing authoritarianism,” wrote Beyer. “McConnell kept the trial from starting until Trump had left office. Now McConnell says he won’t convict Trump because he is no longer in office.

    “Pure cynical partisanship to let Trump get away with inciting the attack on the Capitol, and all the death and destruction it caused,” Beyer added.

    A final verdict in the Trump impeachment trial could come as early as Saturday afternoon. A two-thirds vote is needed to convict.

    McConnell’s email came after a more than 190 legal scholars published an open letter urging senators not to “rely solely on a procedural argument that has already been voted down by this body, and certainly not on legal sophistry.”

    “It is now your turn to honor your oath as you weigh the evidence and arguments presented, even though it may require you to put our Constitution and the rule of law ahead of your own political allegiances,” the letter reads. “The eyes of the entire nation and future generations are upon you. Will you stand true to your oath?”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Outgoing President Trump addresses guests at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on January 20, 2021.

    When former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial wraps up in the coming days, it’s entirely possible that a large majority of Republican senators will vote to acquit him of inciting an insurrection.

    If they do so, it will not be because of lack of evidence but because of a stunning lack of moral fortitude. They will acquit not because the House managers didn’t prove their case, but because by and large, GOP senators — with a few exceptions — regard their oath to deliver impartial justice about as flippantly as Trump regarded his oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

    Over the course of three days, the nine House managers, led by constitutional law scholar Rep. Jamie Raskin, presented an entirely devastating picture of Trump and of Trumpism. They showed, through a meticulous use of Trump’s own quotes, film footage, and a variety of firsthand accounts from participants and victims, just how dangerous the January 6 mob attack was. They showed Trump egging on the enraged “Stop the Steal” crowds in Washington, D.C., that morning. They showed the mob actively hunting down Congress members, beating and attempting to crush police officers. And they showed — through social media posts, radio and TV interviews, and phone conversations — how many of the Trump loyalists believed that the former president had summoned them to D.C. with no aim other than to use brute force to stop Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote.

    The speech Trump gave to D.C. protesters that morning, as well as his tweets in the run-up to the protests and during the assault on the Capitol itself, were laid out in full, technicolor detail at the trial. Trump’s odious words contained no nuance, no subtlety. His “Stop the Steal” rhetoric was a lie pushed in plain view, and his attacks on political figures — including his own vice president — who dared to put the Constitution above fealty to Donald J. Trump were clearly aimed at cultivating a violent response from the MAGA mob.

    But, at least as importantly as documenting the days immediately surrounding January 6, the House managers established years-long patterns that led up to that day. In a sense, they put Trump’s entire political modus operandi on trial in the court of U.S. and global public opinion. The presentations clearly showed that throughout his presidency, Trump was busy defending and cozying up to extremist groups — from calling the neo-Nazis of the Charlottesville riot “very fine people”to calling on militias to “liberate” Michigan and several other states from public health-mandated COVID restrictions in the spring of 2020 to telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Trump was encouraging acts of violence against counterprotesters at his political rallies and elsewhere. He was glorifying former Rep. Greg Gianforte’s beating up of a Guardian newspaper reporter. (Gianforte is now the governor of Montana.) Trump was presiding over rallies in which his supporters, with his clear support, were calling for his opponents to be jailed and, in some instances, to be physically harmed.

    The House managers gave a devastatingly thorough presentation that let Trump — for so long the star of his own show — speak for himself. In speaking for himself, he damned himself before the eyes of the world.

    It’s impossible to imagine that an impartial juror could sit through the three days of presentations the House managers put together and not vote to convict Trump. It’s impossible to imagine, as Trump’s inept attorneys wanted their audiences to do, that Trump was simply exercising his free speech rights, with no ill intent, with no hope that his words would activate the mob to march on Congress and try to prevent a peaceful transfer of power.

    Perhaps that’s why, by Thursday afternoon, as the Democrats prepared to wrap up their case, 15 GOP senators had simply absented themselves from the proceedings. For them, it would be easier to vote to acquit — a decision they had made before any of the evidence was even presented — if they weren’t forced to actually confront the overwhelming evidence of the culpability of the man they were readying themselves to exonerate.

    But does GOP senators’ ostrich stance mean that the trial was a waste of time? Not in the slightest. The impeachment managers were, in part, playing for the history books, seeking to indelibly frame the Trump presidency in the public’s mind as one configured, from the get-go, to deliver violence and to whip up fanaticism. They were seeking to shape history’s understanding of Trump, to ensure that, generations from now, his name remains synonymous with insurrection, with demagoguery, with violence and with bloodlust. They succeeded.

    As the proceedings continue, Trump’s lawyers won’t be able to effectively counter this effort; they seem to have realized this early on, providing a ludicrously flimsy, poorly prepared defense. Their opening arguments on Tuesday afternoon were the stuff of dime-store shills. “Mediocre” would be a charitable description of the legal arguments they delivered. There was, in their hurried, ill-argued presentations, simply no evidence of the top legal brains that one would expect an ex-president to be able to marshal in his defense. In fact, Trump didn’t really field a legal team at all; instead, he went from one rejection to the next, as top-tier law firms fled his toxic embrace and refused to represent him, until finally he found a couple of random lawyers who were willing to argue (albeit poorly and with minimal preparation) his case in public.

    Yet in all likelihood, when the voting begins, more than a third of the Senate will move to acquit Trump.

    That outcome will, I predict, be something of a pyrrhic victory for the GOP. In fact, it will likely hang like an albatross around the party’s neck for a long, long time to come — for a majority of Americans believe that Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection and should, in consequence, forfeit the right to run for public office again. And, given the power of the House managers’ presentation this week, I’d guess that the needle of public opinion will shift further against Trump — and by extension, the Trumpified GOP — in the coming weeks.

    Former U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill supposedly once noted that “history is written by the victors.” Trump, out of power, living in a gilded cage in Mar-a-Lago, is, at this point, most assuredly not a victor. He has lost the presidency and lost his previously vast social media platform, and after attempting to incite an insurrection, he has lost any last vestiges of credibility. Most importantly, he has lost much of the power to create his own narrative. Instead, the history of Trump and of Trumpism is largely being written by others. And it’s a narrative that, as the impeachment trial has so vividly shown, will not be kind to him.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.

    The top-ranking Republican in the state of Michigan told members of a GOP county group that he did not believe that most of those who took part in the attacks of the U.S. Capitol building last month were supporters of former President Donald Trump.

    In spite of absolutely zero evidence existing to support such claims that have been made over the past month, Michigan’s Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) suggested that the breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a faked event.

    “That wasn’t Trump people. That’s been a hoax from day one. It was all staged,” Shirkey told members of the Hillsdale County Republican Party.

    His comments were recorded and uploaded on YouTube by a member of that county’s GOP organization. Shirkey was facing censure from his party over his failure to do more to oppose Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    While speaking to members of the group, Shirkey also placed blame on then-U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and other congressional leaders for not providing more security at the Capitol building on the day of the breach. “I think they wanted to have a mess,” he added.

    In trying to defend his record on opposing Governor Whitmer, Shirkey then resorted to disturbingly sexualized language, stating that Republicans in the state legislature “spanked her hard on budget, spanked her hard on appointments.”

    After his comments on the Capitol attacks and Whitmer were made public, Shirkey offered up a half-hearted apology in words that did not express a change of opinion and implying he may still believe that the attack on Congress last month was staged.

    “I said some things in a videoed conversation that are not fitting for the role I am privileged to serve,” Shirkey explained. “I own that. I have many flaws. Being passionate coupled with an occasional lapse in restraint of tongue are at least two of them.”

    Bobby Leddy, a spokesman for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, condemned Shirkey’s rhetoric.

    “It’s disappointing that Sen. Shirkey is spending his time on political potshots, indulging conspiracy theories, and expressing empathy for the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building,” Leddy said. “Gov. Whitmer is staying laser-focused on keeping people safe and getting Michigan back to work.”

    Shirkey’s comments are indicative of an alarming trend seemingly taking over the Republican Party in areas all across the U.S. — that of embracing extremist viewpoints and disseminating misinformation that has, at times, caused some on the far right to act out in violent ways.

    In Oregon, for example, the state Republican Party recently passed a resolution falsely describing the Capitol attack as a “false flag” event. And on Tuesday morning, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), whom Trump has described as a “rising star” in the party, and who was recently removed from committee assignments in the House after a number of her controversial comments from the past were highlighted, also expressed doubts about the Capitol breach.

    “If the #Jan6 organizers were Trump supporters, then why did they attack us while we were objecting to electoral college votes for Joe Biden? The attack RUINED our objection that we spent weeks preparing for, which devastated our efforts on behalf of Trump and his voters,” Greene wrongly suggested.

    Several fact checks and investigations into the backgrounds of those who were involved in the breach have revealed that it was, in fact, Trump loyalists who attacked the Capitol.

    Vitriolic and patently false statements like these and others often come with grave consequences. Adherence to Trump and the false claims he has made in the past, for example, particularly against Whitmer, may have led to extremists in Michigan to plan a kidnapping plot against her last year.

    In October, the FBI announced that it had arrested a number of men who had planned to abduct Whitmer and transport her to Wisconsin where they would try her in a kangaroo court of their own making. The scheme had advanced to the point where the men involved had surveilled the governor’s summer home, and had planned to purchase explosives.

    Notably, the early stages of the plot started shortly after Trump sent out a tweet urging Michiganders to “liberate” their state from Whitmer’s coronavirus guidelines, which he viewed as being too restrictive.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks during a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol on February 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In spite of expressing some regrets last week over comments she’s made in the past alleging conspiracy theories and promoting violence toward others, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) reverted back to asserting such false notions, peddling the already debunked claim that individuals who attacked the U.S. Capitol building last month were not actual supporters of former President Donald Trump.

    Some have wrongly asserted in the past that the breach of the Capitol might have been a “false flag” attack, meant to tarnish Trump’s image as he attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Others have errantly asserted that the non-existent organization called “antifa” had pretended to be Trump loyalists in order to attack the Capitol. None of these claims, nor any others like them purporting that anyone else besides Trump’s own base of supporters attacked Congress, have any shred of validity to them.

    Yet on Tuesday morning, Greene made the bold — and false — assumption that there could be no logical way that those who attacked the Capitol were Trump backers, since they interrupted her and other GOP lawmakers’ efforts to challenge the outcome of the presidential election results by breaching the building.

    “If the #Jan6 organizers were Trump supporters, then why did they attack us while we were objecting to electoral college votes for Joe Biden? The attack RUINED our objection that we spent weeks preparing for, which devastated our efforts on behalf of Trump and his voters,” Greene said in the first of a series of tweets making the false allegations.

    “The Capitol attack was planned and organized, NOT incited in the moment by President Trump, and NO Republican Member was involved,” Greene further claimed.

    Greene’s commentary is a drastic rewriting of history, as Trump’s words that day, just prior to the attack on the Capitol, were indeed incendiary. The former president had asserted, without evidence of any kind, that the election was stolen from him “by emboldened radical left Democrats” and “the fake news media.” He also told his supporters they could “never take back our country with weakness,” and directed them to go to the Capitol that day to demonstrate their grievances in person.

    A number of Trump loyalists who took part in the violence on January 6 have since cited Trump’s very words as the direct reason why they attacked Congress.

    Due to a plethora of controversial statements from Greene in the past, the House of Representatives voted last week to remove the Georgia lawmaker from two committee assignments she had held. In addressing the action on the House floor, Greene, who continued to attack the media for holding her accountable for her past statements, seemed to express at least some amount of remorse for what she had said.

    “I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true and I would ask questions about them and talk about them, and that is absolutely what I regret,” Greene said, acknowledging that tragedies she had belittled or said were fake in the past — including school shootings and the attacks on 9/11 — were “absolutely real.”

    Having expressed a belief on Tuesday in yet another conspiracy theory, however, disputing who actually took part in the attacks on the Capitol, it’s apparent that Greene will not change her ways anytime soon, and that her expression of regret last week was short lived, if it was sincere in the first place.

    Several Democrats had previously called on Greene to be expelled from Congress altogether, but that action would have required two-thirds of the House to agree to do so, which would have meant some Republicans would have had to join in the efforts to remove her from office. Attempts to hold her accountable now, after promulgating yet another false conspiracy theory, likely won’t come about, due to the current political infighting within the GOP, and the real possibility that the party may soon embrace, rather than reject, the same QAnon philosophies promoted by Greene in the near future.

    Indeed, a number of other actions across the U.S. seem to indicate that Republicans are gravitating toward such extremist views rather than trying to push them away. The Oregon Republican Party, for example, passed a resolution backing the former president, and professing, much like Greene has implied, that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was a “false flag” event. The Texas GOP also recently adopted a common QAnon catchphrase as a slogan on its social media accounts.

    These actions by the GOP, and others like them, suggest that the propensity to disseminate false statements and blatant lies that was commonplace under the former president is being mainstreamed on the political right among Republican lawmakers in Congress, as well as conservative political organizations across the country, showcasing the fact that extreme misinformation in U.S. politics will continue to pose a problem in the months and years ahead.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Donald Trump in silhouette pointing with backdrop of Capitol seige

    The second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is officially underway, and aside from the unique historic nature of the event itself, the whole thing feels like a sail with no wind in it. To call this “pathetic” is to be kind. Some 45 GOP senators have signaled their intent to cleave to a laughably incorrect legal theory that argues Trump can’t be tried now that he’s out of office. Without 17 of them voting to convict, acquittal is a certainty.

    Jeff Tiedrich of the political forum Smirking Chimp sums up the absurdity with Twitter-appropriate brevity: “so for four years we couldn’t prosecute Trump because he was president and now we have to let him get away with it because he’s no longer president? holy f—–g shit, this is some industrial-strength bullshit and I’m not having any of it.”

    Preach, brother.

    That rotten eggs reek is no surprise; nor is the sullen loyalty fest taking place within the Republican Party any shock to the observant. They like to call these things “trials,” but in truth it is purely a political event, and politics is about counting noses. For whatever reason, 45 GOP senators have chosen to wade deeper into the ashes of Trumpism, holding up their bowls like Oliver Twist asking for more.

    A decision has been made within the Republican overmind to stick with Trump even after losing the House, Senate, White House and 465,000 American lives under his administration, and they are toeing the line like the dutiful lemmings they are.

    Behold, then, the only thing less surprising than scurrilous Republicans: Pushover Democrats. To be sure, the fact that 45 GOP Senators have indicated they will acquit Trump is disheartening, but that does not mean you run down the colors and say, “OK, well, then I guess none of this ever really happened, sorry to have bothered you, we’ll make this quick.”

    Which is basically what the Democratic congressional leadership has agreed to. After four short days of testimony regarding the sacking of the Capitol by Trump supporters and the murder of a Capitol Police officer, senators could vote to hear more evidence.

    “But that appeared exceedingly unlikely Monday,” reports The Washington Post, “with Democrats wanting to move quickly to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief proposal and Republicans seeking to get past the internally divisive debate over Trump as soon as possible. Several Senate aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions, said they expect an acquittal vote as soon as next Monday, which is Presidents’ Day.”

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is said to be pleased with the arrangement. Nothing more need be said.

    For all the talk of trials combined with the cowardice of speedy resolutions, it behooves us to remember the article of impeachment we’re talking about:

    President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

    In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

    It’s the least the man deserves, and he still won’t get it, and that’s how that goes. There is no good reason whatsoever, given the profound gravity of the offenses as stated, to rush this thing. “You fight the fight because the fight is worth fighting,” I wrote yesterday. “You act out of hope in more than just the outcome, because the effort yields its own rewards. You shout down hypocrisy for the sake of the truth, period.”

    There is always the possibility that the House impeachment managers use their foreshortened time to put on such a dramatic and moving case that the full body will have no choice but to vote in favor of hearing more evidence. Trump may erupt and demand to testify after watching himself take a beating on television for four days — note well those GOP senators are not defending him, but are instead attacking the process, a fact he is sure not to miss.

    Here is history, again, and worth watching if you can. Let’s see what happens next.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Americans: We’re dying!

    Republicans: Good.

    Democrats: We hear you and we honor your experience.

    The USA is the single worst human rights offender on our planet. The fact that most of its transgressions take place outside its own borders makes it more egregious, not less. So-called human rights watchdog groups which fail to acknowledge this fact are propaganda constructs.

    By 2024 the only mainstream US political debate allowed will be about whether America should nuke Russia or China.

    “Kindly let me help you or you will drown, said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.”
    ~ Alan Watts

    Interventionist foreign policy in a nutshell.

    War is insanity. Unjust war is criminal insanity. One of the ugliest things about western imperialism is the way it gives extremely young soldiers whose minds have been warped by a criminally insane war machine the power of life and death over defenseless populations.

    One very important thing you can do is keep finding new ways to help people see the horrors of imperialism with fresh eyes. It’s all so aggressively normalized and it’s been going on all our lives, so it’s easy to get used to it and lose sight of how unspeakably horrific it is.

    Choosing to continue an immoral course of action is as immoral as initiating it. Presidents who continue the immoral policies of their predecessors are as culpable as the presidents who initiated them.

    The Democratic Party is corrupt and murderous beyond the possibility of redemption and anyone who says otherwise is either deceived or deceiving.

    I’m seeing US progressive/DSA types getting more and more agitated about the sudden increase in hostility toward the Democrats from the left. What did they think was going to happen when the Dems took control of the entire government? You’re the power now, buttercup.

    The problem with warning that the $2000 check scandal will lead to losses in the midterms is that Democrats are fine with losing in the midterms. You think they like having to own all their right wing bullshit for themselves? Democrats hate being exposed and vulnerable like this. They much prefer to blame their corporate cronyism, austerity policies and warmongering on an obstructionist Republican congress. They’re happy to lose the midterms. They prefer to lose the midterms.

    The easiest way to look cool is to fight the power. The easiest way to get rich is to serve the power. The easiest way to look cool and get rich is to serve power while appearing to fight it.

    Democrats are absolutely correct that it is of paramount importance for the Republicans be held accountable for their atrocious crimes lest those crimes repeat themselves in the future.

    Start with the Bush administration.

    Immense military and financial commitments are made to Israel on the grounds that it’s “the only democracy in the Middle East”, but also if you try holding it to the same standards as other democracies you’re a Nazi.

    And also Israel is not a democracy. Obviously.

    If I saw someone criticizing the many, many horrible things the Australian government has done, it would never in a million years occur to me to rush to Australia’s defense. Yet I interact with people hastening to defend the US empire on a daily basis. These people are silly.

    World peace and inner peace are not separate endeavors. Go deep enough into one and you’ll eventually find yourself working on the other as well.

    If humanity can’t collectively transcend egoic consciousness it won’t matter if the revolution succeeds; even if we create worldwide utopia we’ll only end up destroying it out of boredom. Conflicts with each other and with nature will keep rebirthing until inner conflicts vanish.

    __________________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , or throwing some money into my tip jar on  or . If you want to read more you can buy my new book Poems For Rebels (you can also download a PDF for five bucks) or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • donald and melania trump

    The era of Donald Trump is not over, unfortunately. Yes, he has retreated to his compound in Southern Florida and has been uncharacteristically out of the public eye since he left office on January 20th. But his presence still hovers over the Republican Party like an evil genie pulling the party leadership’s strings and keeping the rank and file under his spell despite the fact that he’s been banned from social media and is refusing to appear on TV or talk radio.

    This week, Trump will be very much at the center of our political world once more when his second impeachment trial begins.

    As exhausting as it may seem to have Trump on the stage again, it is vitally necessary. The man tried to overturn the election and illegally install himself in the White House for four more years. While it’s still unlikely the impeachment managers from the House of Representatives will be able to get 17 Republicans senators to put their country before their party, the record will be kept for posterity and hopefully the country will figure out a way to close the holes in our system that Trump exposed during his four years in office. The impeachment managers had better get to work doing that because just as it is highly unlikely they will be able to convict Trump of his abuse of power it’s equally unlikely that they will be able to disqualify him from running again (although that is disputed). God forbid, it is possible that we could have President Trump again on January 20th, 2025.

    There has been a lot of back and forth on the issue of whether or not it’s constitutional to even hold an impeachment trial of a president who is no longer in office. The brief Trump’s lawyers submitted suggests that they will be leaning hard on the idea that it’s unconstitutional as their defense, which is understandable since the GOP senators signaled that was the ticket out when 45 of them voted for a resolution saying that it was.

    Interestingly, there has been pushback on this from some highly respected conservative legal scholars from the Federalist Society, notably former federal judge Michael McConnell and Charles J. Cooper, who is as stalwart a right-winger as exists in the Republican legal world. Cooper has worked closely with Ted Cruz of Texas and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy as well as provided counsel for every conservative legal crusade from anti-abortion cases to gun rights. Writing in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday, Cooper points out that the idea a president cannot be impeached after leaving office makes no sense considering the provision that allows the Senate to bar him or her from holding office again. He says, “it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.”

    There was a time when an opinion from Charles Cooper would hold great sway with Republican senators. But they have mostly been immune to reason when it comes to Trump for years now and that hasn’t changed since he left office. Still, if there are any conservatives looking for some back-up to argue the point, he’s given it to them.

    The House managers will be presenting a case that says, “you all know what you saw, here’s a reminder.” They will air video clips showing that for weeks Trump riled up his voters with the Big Lie about the election and then called them to Washington, promising it would be “wild,” and then incited them to storm the Capitol to stop the counting of the electoral votes. He told them he was going up there with them but went back to the White House instead. Did he suspect there was going to be violence? It’s a question worth asking. Back at the White House he watched the insurrection on television and did nothing for hours until he reluctantly issued this video:

    And then, with the Capitol building still engulfed in tear gas and smoke, windows shattered, people wounded and the country in shock, he tweeted this which resulted in Twitter finally locking his account:

    “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

    That is basically the case right there. In a courtroom with an unbiased jury, it would be a slam dunk.

    But this won’t be a normal courtroom and it’s anything but an unbiased jury. It’s nearly the same jury that ignored Trump’s embrace of illegal electoral behavior going all the way back to 2016 when he was warned that the Russian government was interfering in the election and his reaction was to invite them to hack Hillary Clinton’s email and spend the next four years denying the interference had ever happened. When asked in the presidential debate that year if he would accept the results of the election, he refused to say. Days later he told his rally crowd that he would accept it — but only if he won.

    Fast forward two years and Trump is caught trying to extort the Ukrainian president to sabotage Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in exchange for military aid, a gross abuse of power for which he was impeached and acquitted by the Republicans in the Senate. Many of those senators argued that since it was only a year from the election they should let the people decide.

    And then came the Big Lie that the election of 2020 was stolen and the incitement to insurrection on January 6th. Many of those same senators who suggested the people should decide joined Trump in his post-election fantasy, refusing to admit that it was over, objecting to the results on the most specious of grounds.

    From almost the moment Trump entered politics, he’s been telegraphing that he had no intention of following the rules or laws that govern our democracy, especially those pertaining to elections. Once he learned how the Electoral College makes it possible to win despite losing he clearly thought he could game the system to his advantage and might well have succeeded if it had been just a little bit closer in some states. At some point, he became convinced that he could overturn the election if he intimidated Mike Pence and the Congress with a violent mob. And all the way along, a majority of Republicans have collaborated with him, in the process normalizing this democratic dysfunction.

    Republicans have shown us in living color that they will not forthrightly stand up against an assault on our democracy by one of their own. A handful voted to impeach in the House and it’s possible another handful will vote guilty in the Senate, but the number who stood by Trump, openly and boldly, to object to the election results despite massive evidence that the election was fairly decided is chilling. They now seem determined to let Trump off the hook once again. At this point, you have to wonder if it isn’t because at least some of them think he was on to something.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Cori Bush speaks to the press outside of the Hyatt Regency hotel on Capitol Hill on November 12, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

    Congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri delivered an emotional speech on the House floor Thursday night detailing her experience of the January 6 mob invasion of the U.S. Capitol Building — which she called a “blatant, heinous, vile white supremacist attack” — and demanding that lawmakers take the basic step of holding to account those who abetted and incited the deadly violence.

    The Missouri Democrat’s remarks were part of a series of speeches organized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in which members of the House provided their individual perspectives of the events of last month in an effort to inform the public and bolster the pursuit consequences for all responsible, including former President Donald Trump.

    A racial justice and anti-police brutality organizer prior to her election to Congress in November, Bush said Thursday that as the pro-Trump insurrectionists broke into and began storming through the halls of the Capitol Building on January 6, she felt “like this was one of the days out there on the streets when the white supremacists would show up and start shooting at us.”

    “This was one of the days when the police would ambush us from behind, from behind trees, and from behind buildings, and all of a sudden now we’re on the ground feeling brutalized,” Bush said. “And I just remember taking a second thinking, if they touch these doors, and come anywhere near my staff, and I’m just going to be real honest about it, my thought process was: we banging to the end. I’m not letting them take out my people. And you’re not taking me out. We’ve come too far.”

    The Missouri Democrat went on to specifically address the Republicans whose incessant lies about the results of the 2020 presidential election — and efforts to overturn the results of that contest — helped fuel last month’s attack, pointing to her resolution calling for investigation and expulsion of seditious members of Congress.

    “If we cannot stand up to white supremacy in this moment, as representatives, then why did you run for office in the first place?” Bush asked. “We can’t build a better society if members are too scared to stand up and act to reject the white supremacist attack that happened right before our eyes. How can we trust that you will address the suffering that white supremacy causes on a day to day basis in the shadows if you can’t even address the white supremacy that happens right in front of you in your house? Does your silence speak to your agreement is the question.”

    “On January 3, we stood together to swear an oath to office to the Constitution,” Bush continued. “We swore to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Well, it was attacked by a domestic enemy called white supremacy and we must stand together now, today, to uphold that oath and hold every single person who helped incite it accountable.”

    Watch the full speech:

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene leaves her office at the U.S. Capitol on February 3, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) referred to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) as a member of the “Q” political party after House Republicans failed to take any action against Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia).

    Pelosi released the statement following news that the Republican caucus would not remove Greene, a supporter of QAnon, from the House Budget and Education panels. Greene has been criticized for espousing anti-Semitism and conspiracies, including claims that several school shootings were staged, a prominent Jewish family was responsible for a laser in space starting wildfires, and prominent Democrats had engaged in Satanic rituals involving children.

    Greene has also suggested that some members of Congress, including Pelosi herself, deserved to be killed. One week prior to Election Day 2020, she also appeared in a video where she said that “freedoms” were going to be taken away from Americans if President Joe Biden won the presidential race against Donald Trump, and that the only way to regain those freedoms was through violence.

    Republicans met on Wednesday night to discuss whether any actions should be taken against Greene. After deciding not to take action — and after many members of the GOP caucus actually gave Greene a standing ovation — Pelosi responded in a statement on her official website, referring to McCarthy by removing the “R” next to his name and replacing it with a “Q.”

    “After several conversations and literally running away from reporters, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Q-CA) made clear that he is refusing to take action against conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Pelosi wrote.

    Democrats previously gave McCarthy an ultimatum, telling him to take action on Greene and remove her from her House committee assignments by Thursday, or they would move ahead with their own vote. Pelosi announced in her statement that, because of the non-action on McCarthy’s part, “the House will continue with a vote to strip Greene of her seat on the esteemed House Committee on Education & Labor and House Committee on Budget.”

    McCarthy, for his own part, made disingenuous remarks following his party’s vote on Greene. In speaking to the press afterward, the Minority Leader claimed that Greene purportedly denounced “Q-on” during the caucus meeting on Wednesday, flubbing the name of the movement and then saying, “I don’t know if I say it right, I don’t even know what it is.”

    In fact, McCarthy does know about QAnon, as he has made numerous statements about it in the past. Last August, for instance, he denounced the movement outright, saying in a Fox News interview that “there is no place for QAnon in the Republican Party.”

    Beyond the vote on Greene scheduled for Thursday, Democrats have signaled that they intend to make QAnon and the GOP’s reluctance to denounce the movement a central political issue in the future. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-New York), who currently chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), explained in an interview with Politico that he views the Democratic Party as the “responsible adult” in Congress, aiming to highlight how the GOP is failing to take reasonable actions regarding the conspiracy theories being spread from within itself.

    His comments came after the DCCC this week launched a TV ad campaign showing QAnon-aligned individuals participating in the mob of Trump loyalists who stormed the Capitol building last month.

    Republicans also voted on Wednesday over whether to remove Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) from her post in GOP leadership in the House, following her vote in favor of impeaching former President Trump. By a secret-ballot vote of 145-61, members of the House Republican caucus voted to let her keep her role.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senator Bernie Sanders speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill, January 27, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In his first speech on the Senate floor since officially becoming chairman of the chamber’s budget committee on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders reminded Republican senators complaining about the Democratic majority’s effort to pass coronavirus relief through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process that the GOP used the same tool to unilaterally ram through tax cuts for the wealthy just over three years ago.

    “There has been some discussion here, the media seems fixated, on the issue of partisanship,” said the Vermont senator. “Oh my god, we’re being so partisan. So let me remind everybody… under the Trump administration, massive tax breaks were passed that went to the top 1% and large corporations — 83% of the benefits of the Trump tax plan went to the 1% and large corporations. And you know how bipartisan that bill was, passed in reconciliation? There was not one Democrat that voted for that bill. It was [passed] just with Republican votes.”

    “Then outrageously, as part of reconciliation, Republicans came forward and said, ‘Hey, we think it’s a brilliant idea to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw up to 32 million people off the healthcare that they have,” Sanders said, recounting the GOP’s failed 2017 effort. “Not one Democrat voted for that bill. My point is that it’s one thing for my Republican friends here to be talking about the need for bipartisanship, which all of us support. But the reality is they used exactly the same process to pass — or at least try to pass — major, major pieces of legislation.”

    Watch:

    Sanders floor remarks came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans delivered speeches Wednesday denouncing Democrats’ efforts to go it alone on coronavirus relief amid open GOP hostility to the level of spending that experts say is needed to combat the ongoing public health emergency and bring the U.S. economy out of deep recession.

    “Less than a day after several Senate Republicans spent two hours meeting with President Biden, Senate Democrats plowed ahead with a party-line vote to set the table for a partisan jam,” said McConnell, who led the Senate GOP’s unilateral tax-cut push in 2017. In 2018, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax legislation would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt over ten years.

    Coincidentally, $1.9 trillion is also the top-line price tag of President Joe Biden’s relief proposal, which Republican senators have rejected as excessive even as the coronavirus continues to spread across the country and the economy remains in shambles, leaving millions hungry, out of work, and at risk of eviction.

    In an appearance on CNN late Wednesday, Sanders said he does not support making changes to the president’s opening relief offer in an effort to win the backing of Republicans who, now that a Democrat is in the White House, are suddenly concerned about the soaring deficit.

    Sanders specifically rejected an ongoing push by some Democratic senators to narrow eligibility for the $1,400 direct payments in Biden’s plan. Economic relief, the Vermont senator argued, should not be needlessly curtailed amid such widespread suffering.

    “The priority that I see is addressing the crises facing working families,” said Sanders. “When you got millions of people out there worried about how they’re gonna feed their kids, or how they’re gonna get enough income to pay the rent, that is the priority that we have to address.”

    “Right now, tens of millions of working families, middle-class people, low-income people are in crisis,” the Vermont senator added. “They need help, they need help now.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The events of January 6, 2021 in Washington D.C. were historic and will be analyzed for some time to come. Many were rattled and shaken to their core by what unfolded that day in the nation’s capital. Others were excited, relieved, and hopeful.

    Since then, all sorts of disinformation, confusion, and illusions have filled mainstream accounts of what happened that day and why, but it is already clear that certain things are emerging that once again do not bode well for the people. It is always important to ask: “when a major event happens, who ultimately ends up benefitting from it?”

    As with past events and crises, and keeping in mind the role and significance of “disaster capitalism,” it is not unreasonable to assume that the events of January 6, 2021 will be used by the rich and their political and media representatives to expand police-state arrangements under the banner of high ideals (e.g., “protecting the citadel of democracy” and “our democracy is in peril”). The irony of the situation did not escape numerous world leaders and millions around the globe who proclaimed in unison: “Finally the U.S. is getting a taste of its own medicine. The U.S. has actively organized ruthless coups, conflicts, wars, rebellions, and insurrections in more than 100 countries over the past 200 years.” For many, the events of January 6 further lowered the credibility of “representative democracy” in the “bastion of democracy.”

    Further degrading the legitimacy of outmoded governance arrangements, the world saw how Washington D.C. was recently turned into a large military camp with armed soldiers and armed state agents everywhere. Many police and military forces will remain in and around the area well after the January 2021 presidential inauguration and contribute to establishing a “new normal” of police presence. How does this look at home and abroad? Like a robust vibrant democracy which is the envy of the world, or a scandalous troubling situation? The massive militarization of Washington D.C. has only added to the dystopian, humiliating, and bizarre life everyone has been forced to endure since March 2020 when the never-ending and exhausting “COVID Pandemic” started in earnest.

    But contrary to media accounts the struggle today is not between democrats and republicans. It is not between those who support Trump or revile him. It is not between racists versus anti-racists, pro-diversity or anti-diversity advocates, or “progressives” versus “right-wingers.” Nor is it between “right-wing thugs” versus the police, or ANTIFA versus right-wing militias. These are facile dichotomies that consolidate anticonsciousness and further divide the polity. Such superficial characterizations miss the profound significance of what is unfolding—an intense legitimacy crisis—and the fact that no one is talking about how to empower the people as sharp conflicts among factions of the ruling elite intensify and ensnare people. Ramzy Baroud reminded us recently that:

    While mainstream US media has conveniently attributed all of America’s ills to the unruly character of outgoing President Donald Trump, the truth is not quite so convenient. The US has been experiencing an unprecedented political influx at every level of society for years, leading us to believe that the rowdy years of Trump’s Presidency were a mere symptom, not the cause, of America’s political instability.

    In the current fractured, chaotic, and dangerous context, all manner of inflammatory and provocative remarks are still being made by a range of politicians, media outlets, and “leaders.” Words like “treason,” “insurrection,” “violent mob,” “coup,” “rebellion,” and “sedition” are being thrown around loosely and quickly. There is no sense of how such discourse takes us all further down a dangerous road. Different individuals, groups, and factions are being lumped into overly-simplistic categories and classifications while ignoring the long-standing marginalization of the polity as a whole and the continued failure of “representative democracy.”

    In this foggy context, it can be easy to forget that whether you are a democrat, republican, or something else, the economy and society are not operating in your interests. Debt, poverty, inequality, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, under-employment, stock market bubbles, environmental decay, and generalized anxiety continue to worsen nationwide and harm Americans of all political stripes while the rich get much richer much faster. Existing governance arrangements marginalize more than 95 percent of people. Working people have no real mechanism to effectively advance their interests in the current political setup. They are reduced to perpetually begging politicians and “leaders” to do the most basic things. There is an urgent need for democratic renewal.

    In the coming months we will not only see more economic collapse but also more police-state arrangements put in place in the name of “security” and “democracy.” A main focus will be “domestic terrorism,” leading to the further restriction of freedom of speech and criminalization of dissent. Freedom of movement will also be constrained. This will be far-reaching, affecting everyone, even those currently throwing around words like “sedition,” “coup,” and “insurrection.” Already, the atmosphere has been chilled; many are more carefully self-monitoring their speech and actions so as to not be targeted by the state.

    At the end of the day, conflicts, divisions, social unrest, political turmoil, and economic deterioration will not go away so long as the existing authority clashes with the prevailing conditions and the demands emerging from these conditions. Objective conditions are screaming for modernization and solutions that the rich and their entourage are unable and unwilling to provide.

    Unemployment, under-employment, hunger, homelessness, poverty, debt, inequality, despair, and generalized anxiety do not care if you are black or white, democrat or republican, right-wing or left-wing, a “Trumper” or “anti-Trumper.” Concrete conditions are screaming for the affirmation of basic rights like the right to food, shelter, education, healthcare, work, and security.

    Their struggles and demands may take different forms and express themselves in different ways, but it is the long-standing absence of these rights that people from all walks of life are striving to bring into being.

    And while their policies may differ in some respects, the different factions of the rich and their political representatives have only more of the same to offer people: more inequality, more debt, more under-employment, more worry and insecurity, more stock market bubbles, and more empty promises. Lofty phrases and grand “plans” from the rich and their representatives won’t change the aim and direction of the economy. People are not going to suddenly become empowered because one party of the rich or the other holds power now. Divisions, dissatisfaction, and marginalization are not going to disappear just because a different section of the rich wields power. Many believe that the road ahead will be very rocky.

    Democratic renewal does not favor the rich or their representatives, it is something only working people themselves will benefit from and have to collectively fight for. In this regard, it is key to consciously reject the aims, outlook, views, and agenda of the rich and develop a new independent aim, politics, outlook, and agenda that favors the polity and the public interest.

    The post Will More Police-State Arrangements Foster Democracy? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Biden is moving his agenda forward quickly. He has signed at least 33 executive actions that direct the members of the executive branch on how they should implement laws. Continue reading

    The post Turning the Ship of State appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • Americans were shocked to witness the assault on the capitol building on January 6, the day Congress was scheduled to ratify the presidential election.  Washington DC and the nation’s state capitals remained on high alert through the inauguration as right wing groups promised more violent attacks.

    It’s easy to trace the proximate cause of this assault, a president who has long cultivated the lie that the 2020 election was somehow stolen.  Prior to the capitol assault, he exhorted his “Save America” rally on the Mall to “stop the steal” and “fight much harder,” asserting “You have to show strength, you have to be strong.”

    Much has been made of the fascist overtones of Trump’s efforts, but it is important to understand how we got to such a place.  It goes well past Trump to forty years of dysfunctional, neoliberal American politics, and beyond that to the racism deeply embedded in this nation’s history.  Both political parties share responsibility for our current condition.

    Republicans

    The Republican Party role is the most obvious.

    In 1968, President Nixon rode a law and order campaign into the White House, appealing to a so-called “silent majority” frightened, if not alienated, by the images of antiwar protesters, inner-city “rioters,” and counterculture “freaks” during the 1960s.

    The corporate mass media, of course, fed this dynamic by refusing to take seriously the actual claims of black, antiwar, New Left and feminist activists, instead, making sure the public saw the most inflammatory examples of their behaviors and appearances.  In mass mediaspeak, “radical” was used to describe militancy, whereas any system-challenging argument vanished from mainstream discourse – sound familiar?  That’s a story I have documented elsewhere.

    Nixon’s racist “southern strategy” set in stone the future of the Republican Party, although it remained for Ronald Reagan to seal the deal.  Reagan’s rhetoric about basic “decency” and “family values,” effectively played on the feelings of those disaffected by the 60s.

    Yet Reagan’s actual policies focused on eliminating ways the government addresses public needs, cutting taxes on the wealthy, rebuilding a huge military complex, regenerating an aggressive foreign policy, and deregulating the economy.

    However, the people drawn to Reagan’s so-called “conservative” rhetoric and his tax-cut pitch – whether religious traditionalists, rural folks, or members of the white working class — actually lost more and more ground, economically, under Reagan’s and the Republicans’ neoliberalism.  They got symbolic gratification while their attention was diverted to the Democrats, liberals, and “Eastern elites” who allegedly caused their problems.

    That’s the Republican path that leads directly to Trump and his True Believers.  It also echoes the post-Reconstruction Democrats’ austerity pitch that reinforced white supremacy in the South.

    What, then, of the Democratic Party?

    Democrats

    Smarting from Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984, Democratic centrists – names like Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, and Bill Clinton — took steps to move the Party away from its more liberal wing, into the corporate-dependent center.  In its more liberal moments the Party voiced hopeful rhetoric about defending the rights of minorities, women, and LGBTQ people, defending the environment, etc.  The reality has consistently fallen far short of the rhetoric.

    Indeed, the two “liberal” Democratic presidents of the neoliberal era – Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — were responsible for a host of repressive and “free market” (e.g., neoliberal) policies.  Clinton’s contributions are perhaps better known: the “end of welfare as we know it,” NAFTA, financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the 1994 Crime Bill that accelerated mass incarceration, among others.

    Riding a campaign of “hope” and “change” into the White House, none of Obama’s “liberal” accomplishments – the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court appointments, the negotiated settlement with Iran, and initial steps on climate — diverged from the neoliberal playbook.  At the same time, Obama pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other so-called ‘free trade” agreements, escalated both domestic surveillance and drone killings abroad, supported the anti-democratic coup in Honduras, and withdrew the public option for health insurance, among others.

    The right-wing Republican attack machine kept its rank-and-file in line with attacks on Clinton’s “60s-style” licentiousness and Obama’s being of African descent.  For their part, the corporate media repeatedly turned the 60s era into a “good sixties” of a romanticized civil rights movement and a hopeful John Kennedy administration, and a “bad sixties” of violence and narcissistic rebelliousness  — the latter a useful hook for selling entertainment and commodities to younger generations.

    Dysfunctional Neoliberal Politics

    Republicans, in short, have been all about giveaways to the rich while manipulating the emotions of less well-off white Americans.  Democrats have ignored the latter populations, becoming increasingly dependent on corporate money while effectively manipulating the aspirations of marginalized communities.

    In their more liberal moments, what Nancy Fraser has called “progressive neoliberalism,” Democrats embrace what is often called “identity politics” – race, gender, and sexuality in particular.  Republicans use Democrats’ rhetoric to cement the emotional attachment of their rank and file supporters.  As Republican “reactionary neoliberalism” becomes more and more outrageous, Democrats gain popular support.  The corporate center, with all its sanctimonious rhetoric, is reinforced when something like the Capitol assault occurs.

    As Fraser has observed in The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born, “To reinstate progressive neoliberalism [e.g., Joe Biden and the Democratic mainstream] … is to recreate –indeed to exacerbate—the very conditions that created Trump.  And that means preparing the ground for future Trumps –ever more vicious and dangerous.”

    Thus the country remains stuck in a see-saw battle that utterly fails to address the deep crises we face.  Neither party speaks a word against a capitalist system that feeds inequality, threatens the planet’s ability to sustain life, and generates a foreign policy marked by militarism and war.  The “problem” is always the “other party.”  Such are the boundaries of what Noam Chomsky called “legitimate discourse.”

    And neither party dares to confront class inequality.  Unlike identity concerns about white supremacy, hate speech, harassment and abuse, and the like – all profound problems — class analysis reveals the systemic forces that keep both parties’ rank-and-file in their place at the margins of American politics.

    Ultimately, the only way out of this will occur when enough people become aware, not only of the seriousness of the crises facing us, but of the need to come together in a well-mobilized mass movement addressing systemic concerns.  We already can see where we’re heading if we don’t do this.

    Ted (Edward) Morgan is emeritus professor of Political Science at Lehigh University and the author of What Really Happened to the 1960: How Mass Media Culture Failed American Democracy.  He can be reached at epm2@lehigh.edu. Read other articles by Ted.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Americans were shocked to witness the assault on the capitol building on January 6, the day Congress was scheduled to ratify the presidential election.  Washington DC and the nation’s state capitals remained on high alert through the inauguration as right wing groups promised more violent attacks.

    It’s easy to trace the proximate cause of this assault, a president who has long cultivated the lie that the 2020 election was somehow stolen.  Prior to the capitol assault, he exhorted his “Save America” rally on the Mall to “stop the steal” and “fight much harder,” asserting “You have to show strength, you have to be strong.”

    Much has been made of the fascist overtones of Trump’s efforts, but it is important to understand how we got to such a place.  It goes well past Trump to forty years of dysfunctional, neoliberal American politics, and beyond that to the racism deeply embedded in this nation’s history.  Both political parties share responsibility for our current condition.

    Republicans

    The Republican Party role is the most obvious.

    In 1968, President Nixon rode a law and order campaign into the White House, appealing to a so-called “silent majority” frightened, if not alienated, by the images of antiwar protesters, inner-city “rioters,” and counterculture “freaks” during the 1960s.

    The corporate mass media, of course, fed this dynamic by refusing to take seriously the actual claims of black, antiwar, New Left and feminist activists, instead, making sure the public saw the most inflammatory examples of their behaviors and appearances.  In mass mediaspeak, “radical” was used to describe militancy, whereas any system-challenging argument vanished from mainstream discourse – sound familiar?  That’s a story I have documented elsewhere.

    Nixon’s racist “southern strategy” set in stone the future of the Republican Party, although it remained for Ronald Reagan to seal the deal.  Reagan’s rhetoric about basic “decency” and “family values,” effectively played on the feelings of those disaffected by the 60s.

    Yet Reagan’s actual policies focused on eliminating ways the government addresses public needs, cutting taxes on the wealthy, rebuilding a huge military complex, regenerating an aggressive foreign policy, and deregulating the economy.

    However, the people drawn to Reagan’s so-called “conservative” rhetoric and his tax-cut pitch – whether religious traditionalists, rural folks, or members of the white working class — actually lost more and more ground, economically, under Reagan’s and the Republicans’ neoliberalism.  They got symbolic gratification while their attention was diverted to the Democrats, liberals, and “Eastern elites” who allegedly caused their problems.

    That’s the Republican path that leads directly to Trump and his True Believers.  It also echoes the post-Reconstruction Democrats’ austerity pitch that reinforced white supremacy in the South.

    What, then, of the Democratic Party?

    Democrats

    Smarting from Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984, Democratic centrists – names like Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, and Bill Clinton — took steps to move the Party away from its more liberal wing, into the corporate-dependent center.  In its more liberal moments the Party voiced hopeful rhetoric about defending the rights of minorities, women, and LGBTQ people, defending the environment, etc.  The reality has consistently fallen far short of the rhetoric.

    Indeed, the two “liberal” Democratic presidents of the neoliberal era – Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — were responsible for a host of repressive and “free market” (e.g., neoliberal) policies.  Clinton’s contributions are perhaps better known: the “end of welfare as we know it,” NAFTA, financial and telecommunications deregulation, and the 1994 Crime Bill that accelerated mass incarceration, among others.

    Riding a campaign of “hope” and “change” into the White House, none of Obama’s “liberal” accomplishments – the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court appointments, the negotiated settlement with Iran, and initial steps on climate — diverged from the neoliberal playbook.  At the same time, Obama pushed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other so-called ‘free trade” agreements, escalated both domestic surveillance and drone killings abroad, supported the anti-democratic coup in Honduras, and withdrew the public option for health insurance, among others.

    The right-wing Republican attack machine kept its rank-and-file in line with attacks on Clinton’s “60s-style” licentiousness and Obama’s being of African descent.  For their part, the corporate media repeatedly turned the 60s era into a “good sixties” of a romanticized civil rights movement and a hopeful John Kennedy administration, and a “bad sixties” of violence and narcissistic rebelliousness  — the latter a useful hook for selling entertainment and commodities to younger generations.

    Dysfunctional Neoliberal Politics

    Republicans, in short, have been all about giveaways to the rich while manipulating the emotions of less well-off white Americans.  Democrats have ignored the latter populations, becoming increasingly dependent on corporate money while effectively manipulating the aspirations of marginalized communities.

    In their more liberal moments, what Nancy Fraser has called “progressive neoliberalism,” Democrats embrace what is often called “identity politics” – race, gender, and sexuality in particular.  Republicans use Democrats’ rhetoric to cement the emotional attachment of their rank and file supporters.  As Republican “reactionary neoliberalism” becomes more and more outrageous, Democrats gain popular support.  The corporate center, with all its sanctimonious rhetoric, is reinforced when something like the Capitol assault occurs.

    As Fraser has observed in The Old is Dying and the New Cannot Be Born, “To reinstate progressive neoliberalism [e.g., Joe Biden and the Democratic mainstream] … is to recreate –indeed to exacerbate—the very conditions that created Trump.  And that means preparing the ground for future Trumps –ever more vicious and dangerous.”

    Thus the country remains stuck in a see-saw battle that utterly fails to address the deep crises we face.  Neither party speaks a word against a capitalist system that feeds inequality, threatens the planet’s ability to sustain life, and generates a foreign policy marked by militarism and war.  The “problem” is always the “other party.”  Such are the boundaries of what Noam Chomsky called “legitimate discourse.”

    And neither party dares to confront class inequality.  Unlike identity concerns about white supremacy, hate speech, harassment and abuse, and the like – all profound problems — class analysis reveals the systemic forces that keep both parties’ rank-and-file in their place at the margins of American politics.

    Ultimately, the only way out of this will occur when enough people become aware, not only of the seriousness of the crises facing us, but of the need to come together in a well-mobilized mass movement addressing systemic concerns.  We already can see where we’re heading if we don’t do this.

    The post The Capitol Assault was Symptomatic of Our Dysfunctional Two-Party Politics first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • After the US Capitol was attacked by his supporters, Donald Trump has become the first president of America to be impeached twice. Regardless of how he leaves the White House – the Senate won’t act on the impeachment before Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021 – the neo-fascist seeds he has sown won’t stop germinating.

    Even after the brazen attempt to overturn election results, there is ambiguity among Americans on Trump’s impeachment – 38% oppose his impeachment and 15% have no opinion. These percentages are in line with the support enjoyed by him for false claims regarding rigged elections.  Polls carried out December 2020 showed that almost 40% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans believed that the November election was rigged against Trump. The acceptance of these allegations came in the backdrop of overtly anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of a contested election.

    Trump put 234 federal judges into office, hand-picked according to ideological leanings. He appointed three Supreme Court justices, with his party taking unparalleled measures to push them through against popular mandate and in violation of certain procedures.

    Republican Realignments

    After the spectacle at the Capitol, the Republican Party has split into True Trumpists and Back-to-Businessers. Mike Pence, Tom Cotton, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, Jim Lankford and even Kelly Loeffler have sided against Trump. According to Mike Davis, this split reflects “a realignment of power within the Party with more traditional capitalist interest groups like NAM [National Association of Manufactures] and the Business Roundtable as well as with the Koch family, long uncomfortable with Trump. There should be no illusion that ‘moderate Republicans’ have suddenly been raised from the grave; the emerging project will preserve the core alliance between Christian evangelicals and economic conservatives and presumably defend most of the Trump-era legislation.”

    For Post-Trump Republicans, the lucrative potentials of Trumpism have been exhausted: they’ve already extracted their justices, their tax cuts, and their anti-immigration credentials. Now, they have got the perfect excuse to step off from the Trumpist bandwagon. True Trumpists, led by Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, find themselves in another political space – captains of a de facto third party that is mostly concentrated in the House of Representatives and state legislatures. Already, Trump lackeys are trying to redirect the frenzy of the fascist mob into a crusade against Big Tech which – to their chagrin – has banned Trump from almost all platforms. For instance, Rep. Jim Jordan defended Trump with the farcical claim that impeaching him was simply an expression of “cancel culture” and a further attempt to silence conservatives.

    The Spread of Neo-fascism

    As is evident from the Republican split, an alt-right political faction will ensure that Trumpism does not wither away. At this point, it is necessary to ask how neo-fascism percolated through the pores of American society. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies reported that far-Right and White supremacist terrorist attacks in the US increased dramatically in 2017 (one year after Trump’s Election win) to 53 attacks and another 44 in 2019 – an evidence of the cultural rootedness of neo-fascism.

    In the Terror of the Unforeseen, Henry Giroux neatly lists all the elements comprising Trumpism: “the cult of the leader, the discourse of the savior, white nationalism, a narrative of decline, unchecked casino capitalism, systemic racism, silence in the face of a growing police state, the encouragement of state endorsed violence, the hallowing out of democracy by corporate power, a grotesque celebration of greed, a massive growth in the inequality of wealth, power and resources, a brutal politics of disposability, an expanding culture of cruelty, and a disdain for public virtues”. From this compendium, we can observe that it was neoliberalism combined with violent xenophobia and anti-intellectualism which created a fertile ground for Trump’s political hegemony.

    In the age of Trump, Giroux sees the emergence of neo-fascism in “an unceasing stream of racism, demonizing insults, lies, and militarized rhetoric, serving as emotional appeals that are endlessly circulated and reproduced at the highest levels of government and the media.”  “The United States has a long history of racist language leading to cruel and harmful practices and, in some cases, violence aimed at groups targeted by such language.” Giroux says that “the language of white nationalism and racial resentment” creates “a discourse that annihilates social codes and restrains political behavior and undermines the rule of law.”

    Trump’s public pedagogy does not operate just through his tweets or statements but also through his performative silences. This was clear in the case of the 2017 Charlottesville rally where White supremacists gathered in opposition to the removal of a US Civil War statue. During the rally, a White supremacist killed the anti-fascist activist Heather Heyer. This act was heavily condemned across a broad political spectrum within the US. However, the Charlottesville rally and the killing of Heyer were initially met with silence from Trump, who otherwise is quick to tweet his opinions on similar situations. When he broke the silence with a press conference, he said that “there are two sides to a story” and asked “what about the alt left?” Even though he later condemned the racist elements in the Charlottesville rally, the initial silence and the narrative of “both sides” had already impacted the public discourse.

    Ultimately, Trump’s entire political project rests on irrationality. Only in this way can he simultaneously further the capitalist class’ agenda. “The bourgeoisie,” Henry Lefebvre says in Mystified Consciousness, “doesn’t need ideas too refined and metaphysical. Carefully instigated banalities are usually more useful than metaphysics. It needs only to utilize old everyday sentiments, sentiments whose fragrance is ‘all natural’ and ‘simply itself’: faith, hearth, race, heroism, purity, duty – banalities inscribed in all our hearts.” These emotionally powerful banalities serve to craft a false sense of collective identity in a neoliberal environment of hyper-individualization. As Hannah Arendt writes in Origins of Totalitarianism, “men in the midst of social disintegration and atomization will do anything to belong”.

    A Socialist Response

    Neo-fascism in USA can be eliminated only through socialism. As long as neoliberal capitalism reigns supreme, potentialities for a project like Trumpism will continue to abound. Therefore, a socialist response needs to be carefully constructed. Socialist political praxis needs to emphasize protecting the population in the immediate present while working toward the long-run revolutionary reconstitution of society at large. Such a multi-temporal dynamic will allow the Left to ideologically defeat the Right on the terrain of hegemony.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • NOTE: Margaret Flowers and Askia Muhammad will co-host an inaugural special on Pacifica Radio on Wednesday, January 20 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm Eastern. It can be heard on WBAI and WPFW. The theme will be Dr. King’s triple evils and what Biden’s cabinet picks tell us about what we can expect from this administration. Guests include Dr. Greg Carr, Abby Martin and Danny Sjursen.

    Also, on Tuesday, January 26 at 8:00 pm Eastern, Popular Resistance will co-host a webinar, “COVID-19: How Weaponizing Disease and Vaccine Wars are Failing Us.” The webinar will be co-hosted by Margaret Flowers and Sara Flounders and it will feature Vijay Prashad, Max Blumethal, Margaret Kimberley and Lee Siu Hin. All are editors or contributors of the new book “Capitalism on a Ventilator.” Register at bit.ly/WeaponizingCOVID.

    This week we celebrate the life of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and witness the inauguration of our next president, Joe Biden. This inauguration will be unique, first, for being held during a pandemic and, second, for its heightened security in fear of another attack by Trump supporters. Downtown Washington, DC is normally secured during an inauguration and people must pass through checkpoints to get into the Mall and parade route, but this time is different.

    There are 25,000 members of the National Guard on duty in the city to protect the President and Members of Congress. But even this does not guarantee security. The FBI is screening every national guard member for ties to right wing militias and groups responsible for the January 6 assault on the Capitol. The ruling class experienced what it is like when those who are supposed to protect you don’t.

    This insecurity is another facet of a society in break down. As Dr. King warned us over 50 years ago:

    I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin to shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-centered’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. . . . A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

    Migrants march from Honduras to the United States with the hope of a better reception under a Biden administration (Luis Echeverria)

    The pandemic and recession have exposed more widely what many communities have known for a long time, that corporate profits are more important than their lives and that lawmakers serve the wealthy class. During the pandemic, the rich have gotten richer, the Pentagon budget has ballooned with bi-partisan support and the people have not received what they need to survive. Unemployment, loss of health insurance, hunger and poverty are growing while the stock market ended the year with record highs.

    Many are hopeful that a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President will turn this around, and it is reasonable to expect there will be some positive changes. The Biden administration claims it will take immediate action to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, extend the break on student loan payments, provide a one-time $1,400 payment and invest more in testing and vaccine administration, among other actions.

    These actions are welcome, but they are a far cry from what is necessary. A family with two parents working full time for minimum wage will still live in poverty, even at $15/hour. The majority of people in the United States, 65%, support giving $2,000/month to every adult during the pandemic. This is supported by 54% of Republicans polled and 78% of Democrats. People with student loans are calling for them to be cancelled, not delayed. And, as I wrote in Truthout, Biden’s priority for managing the pandemic is on reopening businesses and schools, not on taking the public health measures that are called for such as shutting down with guarantees of housing and economic support and nationalizing the healthcare system, as other countries have done.

    What is required is massive public investment in systemic changes that get to the roots of the crises we face. In addition to the triple evils that Dr. King spoke about, racism, capitalism and militarism, we can add the climate crisis. An eco-socialist Green New Deal such as that promoted by Howie Hawkins would get at the roots of each of these crises.

    Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute argues that the economy can handle a massive investment of public dollars without fear of negative consequences, such as inflation, because for too long the economy has been starving the public while funneling wealth to the top. It is time for redistribution of that wealth to serve the public good.

    In fact, Sam Pizzigati of Inequality.org writes that throughout history, governments have fallen when they fail to address wealth inequality and meet the people’s needs. This is the finding of a recent study called “Moral Collapse and State Failure: A View From the Past.” They write that the fall of pre-modern governments “can be traced to a principal leadership that inexplicably abandoned core principles of state-building that were foundational to these polities, while also ignoring their expected roles as effective leaders and moral exemplars.”

    From Socialist Alternative

    So far, it looks like what we can expect from the Biden Administration is a few tweaks to the system to placate people and relieve some suffering but not the system changes we require. Biden is actively opposed to national improved Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, two proposals that a majority of people, especially Democrats, support. Mark Dunlea explains why the Biden climate plan is inadequate for the dire situation we face.

    Biden’s cabinet picks and language make it clear that the United States’ aggressive foreign policy of regime change and wars for resources and domination will continue. Samantha Power, a war hawk, has been chosen to head the USAID, an institution that invests in creating chaos and regime change efforts in other countries. Victoria Nuland, who was a major leader of the US’ successful coup in Ukraine that brought neo-Nazis to power, has been picked for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Biden’s choices for CIA Director, Mike Morell, and Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, are both torture proponents. Abby Martin of Empire Files exposes the dark backgrounds of several other nominees for Biden’s cabinet, including Antony Blinken as Secretary of State, Jake Sullivan as National Security Adviser, Linda Thomas-Greenfield for United Nations Ambassador and Michael Flourney to head the Pentagon.

    It also doesn’t appear that Democrats in Congress will show the necessary courage to fight for what the people need. Danny Haiphong of Black Agenda Report writes about the “Obama-fication” of “The Squad” and how they serve to protect the status quo and weaken the progressive movement. It is important to understand how they are the “more effective evil,” or as Gabriel Rockhill explains, they are the arm of liberal democracies that convince people to consent to the neo-liberal capitalism that is destroying our lives and the planet. This is how Western fascism rises within legislative bodies. Already, we are seeing champions of national improved Medicare for All, Bernie Sanders and Pramila Jayapal, back down to a position of lowering the age of Medicare eligibility, which would not solve our healthcare crisis, only delay that solution.

    Chris Hedges often warns us that we need to know what we are up against if we are to effectively challenge it. Dr. King warned us that our nation was heading toward spiritual death if we did not get to the roots of the crises, the triple evils. He demonstrated that social movements should not align themselves with capitalist political parties because then the movement becomes subservient to their interests and compromises its own interests. And he told us what we must do. Prior to King’s death, he was organizing an occupation of Washington, DC to demand an end to poverty.

    During the Biden administration, many of the progressive forces will work to weaken those of us who make demands for bold changes. They will try to placate us with a diverse cabinet of women and people of color who were chosen because they support capitalism, imperialism and systemic racism despite their identities. Chris Hedges describes this as a form of “colonialism.”

    Our tasks are to maintain political independence from the capitalist parties, struggle for systemic changes and embrace a bold agenda that inspires people to take action. Through strategic and intentional action, we can achieve the changes we need. We have a key ingredient for success – widespread support for the changes we need. Now, we only need to mobilize in ways that inspire people and that have an impact – strikes, boycotts, occupations and more that are focused on improving the lives of everyone.

    We can turn things around and reduce the suffering that is driving the polarization and trend towards violence in our country. It’s time to embrace our radical Dr. King.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The federal execution of a woman who was mentally ill was the act of a morally bankrupt administration

    In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Lisa Montgomery became the first woman to be put to death by the United States government for almost seven decades. At the Indiana penitentiary where she was executed by lethal injection, there are no facilities for female prisoners. So during prolonged legal wrangling over her fate, Montgomery was cruelly placed in a holding cell in the execution-chamber building itself.

    Her crime was horrific. In 2004, Montgomery strangled a young woman, Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant. She then cut a baby girl from her womb, and attempted to pass her off as her own. The pain and suffering of Ms Stinnett’s family can barely be imagined. But the political context of this week’s execution, and overwhelming evidence of Montgomery’s longstanding mental illness, suggests a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.