Samanthas Journey Into the Alt-Right, and Back – The New Yorker

Posted on by

Since 2016,Andrew Marantzhas been reporting on how the extremist right has harnessed the Internet and social media to gain startling prominence in American politics. One day, he was contacted by a woman named Samantha, who was in a leadership position of the white-nationalist group Identity Evropa. (She asked to be identified only by her first name.) When I joined, I really thought that it was just going to be a pro-white community, where we could talk to each other about being who we are, and gain confidence, and build a community, Samantha told Marantz. I went in because I was insecure, and it made me feel good about myself. Samantha says she wasnt a racist, but soon after joining the group she found herself rubbing shoulders with the neo-Nazi organizer Richard Spencer, at a party that culminated in a furious chant of Sieg heil. Marantz and the New Yorker Radio Hour producerRhiannon Corbydove into Samanthas story to understand how and why a normal person abandoned her values, her friends, and her family for an ideology of racial segregation and eugenicsand then came out again. They found her to be a cautionary tale for a time when facts and truth are under daily attack. I thought I knew it all, she told them. I think its extremely nave and foolish to think that you are impervious to it. No one is impervious to this.

Samantha appears in Marantzs new book, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.

Read the original:

Samanthas Journey Into the Alt-Right, and Back - The New Yorker

Renowned scientists address ethics, ‘twin scientific revolutions’ of AI and CRISPR – The Stanford Daily

Posted on by

President Marc Tessier-Lavigne introduced two women, each renowned in their respective fields, as scientific trailblazers to a packed CEMEX auditorium of 600 people on Monday. Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist who invented CRISPR, and Fei-Fei Li, who currently heads the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) endeavor, discussed the twin revolutions of CRISPR and artificial intelligence with moderator Russ Altman, a bioengineering professor.

But beyond just talking about those innovations, Tessier-Lavigne noted the significant urgency present to consider the broader societal impacts of their work: to notice both the promise and peril that accompany innovation.

Innovation alone isnt sufficient, Tessier-Lavigne said. Creating a disruption does not guarantee positive effects for our society or for individuals. Disrupting just for disruptions sake is no honorable activity. Remarkable opportunities for good can also be misused.

Doudna and Lis work has been influential within the fields of gene editing and artificial intelligence, respectively. Doudna and her team developed the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows for the editing of DNA and genomes as well as for a myriad of control applications within the body and potential development of biotechnology products.

Li was the leading scientist of ImageNet, a database used in visual object recognition software that enables computers to recognize a wide variety of human, everyday objects through machine learning.

Both speakers acknowledged the ethical concerns looming over these innovations. This beginning of a revolution in deep learning is accompanied by the threat of ethical complications such as eugenics, patentability and heritable genome editing.

The recognition ability [of ImageNet] is in the background of Google searches when you use Facebook or when you communicate with your phone; its always present, Altman said, adding that recent developments in AI have caused the field to become a breeding ground of questions surrounding ethics.

When asked if it was obvious that the results were going to lead to such an explosive reaction both inside and out of the scientific community, Li said that she knew they were approaching a holy grail question.

We were granting the computers an ability that took humans 540 million years of evolution to achieve, she said. I would be lying, however, if I said I recognized the societal implications of the work at the time.

Doudna replied similarly, saying that for those of us working in the world of CRISPR, it was a very esoteric area of biology back then. It was surprising to see that our very esoteric area was merging with a very important part of biotechnology.

Could I have predicted the advancements, CRISPR babies? she asked, referring to former Stanford postdoctoral fellow He Jiankui who launched international controversy when he announced he created the worlds first gene-edited babies using CRISPR technology. Definitely not, but it was a very exciting progression.

A significant part of the discussion centered on ethics, with Altman asking the innovators about their engagement with ethics throughout their research. Doudna recalled 2012 as the year that a moral obligation really arose in her life. After reading a published article of CRISPR being applied to human primates, she recalled realizing the potential for genome editing in humans.

I was quite reluctant, but I did feel a real responsibility to engage in the discussion at that point, Dounda said.

Li also described her surprise when her own career in AI came under public scrutiny, with some critics calling genome editing a field summoning a demon.

While major parts of their professional journeys align, their paths diverge in terms of confronting the ethical problems of their work. To combat the potential misuses of CRISPR, Doudna felt like the scientific community really needed to [be] engaged as a whole. She convened meetings to broach the subject of the morality behind CRISPR applications and recalls thinking that that was the beginning of my education in ethics I felt like a student learning how to think about this and how to approach it.

Lis approach was different because CS was a much younger discipline, without an ethics sub-area, and I didnt know who to talk to. She decided to turn her focus to the drivers of AI, the human representation in the field, especially to diversify the field and open it up to more women and minorities.

Li went on to start the program AI4ALL, which began at Stanford and then grew to become nationally recognized 500 alumni of the program and 11 college campuses that host the students, all with the mission of engaging underrepresented students in underserved communities.

The academic pioneers were then asked about the exposure of young scientists to ethical information, with both agreeing that there needed to be more educating done in their fields.

Its a cultural thing in our field, Doudna said. We are in the vein of creating scholars in our specific subject rather than creating a group of holistically knowledgeable people.

Li added that students of mine dont even have the language to talk about these issues.

Altman went on to note that these are unlikely to be the last scientific revolutions. He wondered what advice the two women had for handling these explosive introductions of research.

We definitely havent seen the end of the AI story its just the beginning, Li answered. We need to invest in people. Diversity and inclusion is a way to ensure that we maximize human representation during these times.

As for representation in policy, Doudna said she would like to see more scientists in Congress.

I was really struck when I met with Bill Foster and he pointed out that he was the only Ph.D. in congress, Doudna said. I think we need to see more representation.

As for their hopes for their work moving forward, their visions were the same: an international framework to cooperate and communicate. Li noted that there are issues of warfare, bioterrorism and a myriad of other potential dangers. She noted that every discovery has a dual potential, which is why we need laws, ethical principles, an international framework given how powerful these technologies are.

Contact Hannah Shelby at hshelby at stanford.edu.

See the rest here:

Renowned scientists address ethics, 'twin scientific revolutions' of AI and CRISPR - The Stanford Daily

Stephen Miller’s white supremacy is no surprise but it raises the stakes on impeachment and 2020 – Salon

Posted on by

Like the president he serves, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller is a white supremacist. Miller believes that white people should be the most powerful group in the United States and around the world. He has worked diligently and enthusiastically to advance that goal through public policy.

Miller is not a white nationalist. To use such language is to legitimate the ways white supremacists have tried since the 1970s to repackage themselves so as to appear more mainstream and reasonable in order to win over more white Americans.

As though more evidence is necessary after three years of Stephen Millers influence on Donald Trumps regime and its unrepentant and enthusiastic cruelty against nonwhites, 900 emails recently obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center offer further proof of Millers white supremacist ideology.

In his communications with a former editor of the right-wing website Breitbart, Miller then an aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions, who went on to become Trump's first attorney general advanced talking points from white supremacist websites that advocate eugenics against nonwhites and a general belief in the inferiority of black people and others.

Miller praised the notorious white supremacist novel The Camp of the Saints (also a favorite of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon) which depicts nonwhite immigrants and migrants in Europe as subhuman, murderous invaders.

In these emails Miller also channeled white supremacist talking points about nonwhite immigrants being invaders in white countries and the premise that white people are somehow being replaced.

Writing at the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie observesthat "there's no way to spin these emails into something innocuous":

The evidence is overwhelming: Miller was immersed in white power ideology. He was fluent in the language of white nationalism, attuned to its ideas. He was an obvious sympathizer who brought that sympathy to the federal government, where he has a direct hand in making immigration policy and choosing personnel.

For three years, Miller has used his perch to inflict fear and anxiety on refugees, asylum-seekers and unauthorized immigrants. Maybe, if you were charitable to Miller and sympathetic to restricting immigration, you could frame this as a misguided but good faith attempt to pull back from a more liberal status quo. No longer. These emails show that Millers views flow from his commitment to racist exclusion and the protection of a white demographic majority.

As a practical matter, Miller views nonwhite people as his enemies. In other words, a senior adviser to the president of the United States is crafting public policy that both directly and indirectly hurts tens of millions of nonwhite Americans. This is a treacherous betrayal of America's multiracial democracy and a direct threat to its future, and provides more evidence that Donald Trump and his regime are illegitimate.

In response to Miller's emails, more than 100 Democratic members of Congress have called for him to resign. No senior Republican elected officials, to my knowledge, have done the same.

These revelations about Stephen Millers white supremacist emails are not secondary to the current impeachment inquiry, or somehow coincidental to a rogue regimes assault on the rule of law and the Constitution.

Indeed, Millers emails are better understood as huge flashing road signs that illustrate how racism and the ideology of white supremacy made Trumps presidency possible and continue to fuel the Republican Party's fascist and authoritarian crusade against American democracy.

There are many examples. Social scientists and others have shown that white racism in combination with nativism and hostile sexism (and assisted Russian interference) that gave Donald Trump the White House in 2016.

Vladimir Putins spies and other agents launched a sophisticated psy-ops campaign, via social media and other means, to exacerbate racial tensions. The goal was to mobilize Trumps voters and demobilizing those more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Research shows that Trumps racially intolerant white voters reject the very idea of democracy if it means that white people will no longer be the dominant and most powerful group in America.A large proportion of Trumps voters are racial authoritarians.

From the post-civil rights era onward, the Republican Party and movement conservatives have embraced racism and white supremacy as a dominant strategy for winning elections and then keeping and expanding power.

Republicans are more likely to be racist and generally more hostile towards nonwhites than are Democrats. Racism and white racial resentment are central to conservatism as a system of motivated social cognition.

In his recent book Post-Racial or Most-Racial? political scientist Michael Tesler shows in exhaustive detail how white racial resentment and racial backlash against Barack Obama now structures the partisanship and other political values of Republicans and right-leaning independent voters.

Political polarization is not race neutral. In reality, the increasing extremism of the Republican Party, as manifested through asymmetrical political polarization from the end of the civil rights movement to the backlash against Obama and then the election of Donald Trump is a function of white racism and white racial resentment. Negative partisanship and political tribalism, where politics is viewed not just as a reasonable difference of opinion between fellow citizens who share common values but rather as a referendum on their human worth and personhood, has also been fueled by white racism and an increasing hostility by Republicans and other conservatives toward the increasingly multiracial and diverse Democratic Party.

Todays Republican Party is opposed to multiracial democracy and the full and equal citizenship rights of nonwhite people, especially black Americans. Through gerrymandering, voter suppression both legal and otherwise and other tactics, the Republican Party has made itself increasingly immune from political accountability for its embrace of white supremacy and racial authoritarianism. In essence, the post-civil rights era Republican Party is the United States largest white racist organization.

Furthermore, this racialization of white group interests in the Age of Trump is increasingly central to white identity and political decision making.

Political scientist Ashley Jardina explained this to Salon in a July 2017 interview:

The idea behind "white identity politics" is that there is a subset of white voters and/or white Americans in general who feel a sense of attachment to their group. They feel a sense of solidarity. They think that their race and their racial identity is important to who they are. Their "white identity" influences how they see and view the political world. Tied up in that sense of identity is a belief that whites are losing out in the United States, their status and power is somehow under threat.

Subsequently those white people who manifest white identity politics are responding to that perception in a political way by supporting policies and candidates who they view as protecting their racial group and preserving its status. Donald Trump is very much the candidate of white identity but white identity mattered before Trump came on the scene.

Yes, white identity is still part of the system of racism because it's about wanting to maintain their power at the top. By implication, this means that people of color necessarily cannot be equal with white people. This type of white identity is about maintaining a system of inequality.

In total, the Trump regimes corruption and lawlessness is made legitimate in the eyes of the Republican Partys leaders, the right-wing propaganda news media and Republican voters because they believe themselves to be defending America from the Democratic Party and its nonwhite supporters.

To this point, Adam Serwer of the Atlantic observes: The Republican Party has responded to the increasing diversity of the electorate with an accelerating intolerance for ethnic and religious minorities, and with elaborate schemes to disenfranchise rival constituencies and rig election rules to its advantage. Crucial to this effort is its conviction that the Republican electorate is the only one that can confer legitimacy on elected officials, and that the partys political opponents are no longer wrong but fundamentally illegitimate, faithless usurpers with no right to determine the direction of the country. This has manifested in the quasi-religious dogma that Trump represents the will of Real America, and therefore defiance of his will is itself a form of treason.

Leading Republicans know that democracy is their enemy precisely because the policies they want to force on the American people are so unpopular. Perhaps even more important, because the Republican Party is organized around white racial tribalism, Republican leaders, their news media and their voters view multiracial democracy, embodied (at least in their eyes) through the Democratic Party, as an existential threat.

Writing in the Guardian, civil rights law professor Carol Anderson summarizes the Republican Party and movement conservatisms commitment to racial authoritarianism and what has been called "Herrenvolk democracy":

The party of Lincolns electoral cul de sac was mapped out by the Republicans contempt for democracy and, especially, fear of the broader American publics access to the ballot box. Despite numerous warnings about the consequences of doubling down on racism, homophobia and misogyny in an increasingly diverse and liberalizing nation, the Republican party ignored those broadsides and chose, instead, to hollow out, shrink and tilt the electorate as far to the right as possible.

I dont want everybody to vote, bellowed Paul Weyrich, the co-founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation. Those marching orders were dutifully supported by a series of supreme court decisions that gutted the Voting Rights Act, sanctioned voter roll purges in defiance of federal law and ignored the racism embedded in extreme partisan gerrymandered districts.

As a result, a range of Republican-sponsored voter suppression policies now scars the American landscape in a concerted effort to politically silence the majority of the people. Those sheer numbers and the Republican partys hardcore refusal to jettison white supremacy as its operating code has led to policy choices that exacerbate the range of crises facing the nation.

Anderson notes that as of July 2018, even with all the Republican efforts at voter purges, there were 12 million more Democrats than Republicans in the United States. Democrats are 40% of registered voters compared with just 29% listed as Republicans. In fact, the percentage of Americans who identified as members of the Republican party dropped by 5% in four short years. And independents lean overwhelmingly toward Democrats.

The Trump regimes embrace of white supremacy and racism is not limited to the United States. It is also international.In 2018, this administration withdrew the U.S. from the UN Human Rights Council. It has pushed for language condemning racism and nationalism to be removed from official UN documents language that has been present for decades.

In what would in more normal times be a stunning admission, the director of Americas National Counterterrorism Center recently admitted that under the Trump regime the United States is now viewed by the world as an exporter of white supremacist terrorism.This report is from Yahoo News:

After an upsurge in racially motivated attacks around the world, other countries are beginning to regard the United States as an exporter of white supremacism, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said Friday.

For almost two decades, the United States has pointed abroad at countries who are exporters of extreme Islamist ideology, Russell Travers, acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told an audience in Washington, D.C. We are now being seen as the exporter of white supremacist ideology. Thats a reality with which we are going to have to deal.

Travers said there is now a global movement of what he termed racially motivated violent extremism, or RMVE (pronounced rem-vee), fueled by a wide variety of motivations and facilitated by social media and other online communications.

A large percentage of RMVE attackers in recent years have either displayed outreach to like-minded individuals or groups or referenced early attackers as sources of inspiration, he said.

While the Trump regime has brought America low and sacrificed the countrys prestige and honor abroad in apparent supplication to Vladimir Putin and Russia it can claim one success. Under Donald Trump and Stephen Millers stewardship, America is now viewed as the world leader in exporting white supremacist terrorism and violence.

Such an outcome is foundational, not coincidental.Vladimir Putins Russia is viewed by many white supremacists and other members of the New Right as a beacon for maintaining global white power and as a champion against a more cosmopolitan and diverse present and future. To the degree that the Trump regime aligns Americas interests with those of Russia, it is doing the work of global white supremacy.

Stephen Miller should of course be forced to resign. There should also be public hearings in Congress about Miller's role in the Trump regime and the policies he inflicted on the country. Miller also represents a much larger problem, beyond systemic and institutional racism in the United States.

The Trump regime has nurtured a permissive environment that welcomes and empowers white supremacists such as Miller, Bannon, Michael Anton and others, at both senior levels and as middle or lower-level bureaucrats. This problem extends to the courts, police and other law enforcement and the military. Congressional hearings could use Stephen Miller as an entry point to a larger discussion of white supremacist infiltration at all levels of the United States government.

In the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, should Democrats include the full panoply of his crimes and other unpresidential behavior encouraging white supremacy and other political violence; crimes against humanity, as demonstrated by his regimes treatment of nonwhite migrants; betrayal of the presidential oath of office; violations of the emoluments clause and abundant corruption or should they instead go small and just focus on abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the Ukraine scandal?

Ultimately, those questions will reflect on how the Democratic Partys leaders balance political expediency with principle.

At the Inquirer, Will Bunch summarizes this dilemma:

The evidence is piling up that Trumps political extortion ploy on Ukraine was bribery, an extreme abuse of power, and a violation of his sacred oath to protect the best interests of the United States. That alone merits his impeachment (which will happen), his removal (which probably wont) and a harsh judgment from 2020 voters (when it doesnt). But given the sweep of this presidents assault on both the Constitution and on human decency, it almost feels and Im hardly the first to write this like busting the murderous Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Capone wasnt charged with the St. Valentines Day Massacre, and Trump wont be impeached for ripping toddlers away from their refugee mothers and fathers, or for locking tens of thousands of kids at the border in cages or squalid detention centers. Even worse, confirmation of something awful yet long suspected that the man shaping U.S. immigration policy is a fairly unabashed white supremacist barely caused a ripple.

Yet this unconscionable assault against the tired, the hungry, the poor, and their defenseless children on the southern border is the very worst crime of Donald Trumps presidency, an offense against humanity. Its good to see our elected officials finally holding this president accountable for violating his oath when he put his hand on that Bible on January 20, 2017.

Holding Trump and Stephen Miller accountable for violating the words inside that Bible to love thy neighbor will have to wait on a higher authority than Congress.

Trumps impeachment and the 2020 presidential election offer a referendum on what type of country America is and what kind it will be in the future. The Democrats will impeach Donald Trump. Republicans in the Senate, in all likelihood, will not convict him. Trump and his cult will claim victimhood and be further empowered in their assault on democracy, the rule of law and human decency.

This leaves the American people to decide on Election Day 2020 whether they are prepared to save the countrys multiracial democracy or abandon it to fascists, racial authoritarians and their dream of a 21st-century American apartheid where making America "great again" is an updated version of Whites Only.

Originally posted here:

Stephen Miller's white supremacy is no surprise but it raises the stakes on impeachment and 2020 - Salon

When DAFs Belie the Community in Community Foundation – Non Profit News – Nonprofit Quarterly

Posted on by

Jonathan McIntosh [CC BY 2.5], via Wikimedia Commons

November 22, 2019; Charlotte Agenda

A community foundation based in Charlotte is facing intense public scrutiny after recent investigations uncovered that funds managed by the organization have been funding anti-immigrant groups for decades.

The Charlotte Agenda reports that the Foundation For The Carolinas (FFTC) is the sixth-largest community foundation in the country with $2.6 billion in assets. Their CEO, Michael Marsicano, is considered a civic leader in many circles, and the Foundation is influential in its ability to set the policy agenda with local officials.

FFTC is currently facing a whirlwind of criticism after a variety of news outlets have reported on the developments related to foundation-housed, donor-advised funds. An investigative report by the Charlotte Observer found that the foundation granted roughly $21 million in donor-advised dollars to organizations that advocate for limits on immigration between 2006 and 2018. Two organizations that received funding have caught the attention of the public: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Those two groups, along with one other group, Numbers USA, received about 85 percent of the $21 million.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated both CIS and FAIR as hate groups. A quick glance at their history provides an understanding of how they operate today. John Tanton founded both groups and was also listed as a board member of FAIR up until 2010. Tanton was a white supremacist and eugenicist who regularly associated with former Klan members and leaders of the white nationalist movement.

A report from the Council on Foundations (COF) explains how community foundations acquire their resources and details the challenges to the overall model in the 21st century. Donor-advised funds (DAFs) have become an increasingly important aspect of generating revenue for many community foundations. Over the years, donor-advised funds have seen huge growth. Total DAF assets reached $121.42 billion in 2018. Community foundations hold a good share of these funds, but over time, funds run by investor firms like Fidelity and Schwab, which now run commercially-sponsored nonprofit DAFs, have grown in market share and have emerged as the nations largest nonprofits.

FFTC provides its DAF holders with full discretion over where their donations go, which is how the donations have ended up in the coffers of groups like CIS and FAIR.

In fairness to FFTC, providing donor-advised fund holders nearly full discretion over disbursements while maintaining legal responsibility for them is a common practice for community foundations. Most community foundations separate their programmatic work in the community from the more transactional work of managing donor-advised funds. It may even make sense in a lot of ways. It allows the community foundations to continue operating and making impact in the community, while maximizing the amount of donor-advised funds at the foundation means increased revenue. It also promotes democratic ideals by allowing a wide range of ideas to receive support.

But when a grant made is considered to be counter to the ideals of the donor-advised sponsor, that rather frail contract can fall apart. We have seen this occur in networks of Jewish federations, some of which have refused to make donations to groups critical of Israel. The issue became serious enough that the New Israel Fund sprung up to meet the needs of progressive Jewish donors.

As for FFTC, Marsicano gives many justifications for the foundations funding of anti-immigrant groups. He asks, Where does one draw the line in what should be funded and what should not be funded? He claims that it is the job of the IRS to determine who receives charitable status. He also mentions how a diversity of viewpoints makes for a healthier community, and that no institution should be engaged in cutting off the freedom of speech of its community members.

These are fair arguments until you begin to examine the current context at a deeper level. Nearly every organization that applies for charitable status is approved. And it is now common knowledge that there are many hate groups who are registered as charitable organizations. Additionally, the gutting of the IRS following the Lois Lerner scandal continues. The IRS have very few resources to regulate whether organizations are staying true to their charitable missions.

The stakes have also gotten higher, given the increase in hate crimes since the 2016 election. Charlotte residents have also been the subjects of increased raids and deportations because of the stance of their sheriff, who refuses to collaborate with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Speaking to the Charlotte Agenda, Sil Ganz of ourBridge for KIDS wonders how the Foundation can provide so much support to her immigrant-focused nonprofit, while also channeling funds to anti-immigrant groups. She adds, I find [the FFTCs] position of neutrality highly problematic as it puts our neighbors and families at risk. Aaron Dorfman, of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, offers a more critical view of the situation, there is no such thing as neutrality on thisyou cant be a big tent for your community if youre facilitating harm on some members of your community. Thats exactly whats happening here. In response to the recent developments, over 80 foundations have signed a pledge to filter out hate groups from their grantmaking.

Still, the fact that donors could certainly find another institution to channel their tax-deductible donations speaks to a broader problem in how the US treats charitable organizations. Increasingly, the community foundation world is faced with challenging questions about whether they are more committed to growth and increasing their assets under management, or more committed to their values and mission. These are important developments to follow because community foundations play such a crucial role in our communities. As the famous late historian Howard Zinn said, you cant be neutral on a moving train.Benjamin Martinez

View original post here:

When DAFs Belie the Community in Community Foundation - Non Profit News - Nonprofit Quarterly

Indiana University Provost: The First Amendment says we can’t fire our notorious bigot professor, so here’s what we’re doing instead – Boing Boing

Posted on by

Eric Rasmusen is a tenured business school professor at Indiana University Bloomington; for many years, he's posted a stream of "racist, sexist, and homophobic views" to his personal social media, including the idea that women do not belong in the workplace (he often refers to women by slurs like "slut" when discussing this and other subjects); that gay men should not be allowed in academia because of their insatiable sexual appetites and propensity for abusing students; that Black students are academically inferior to white students and do not belong at elite academic institutions.

Indiana U is a state college and bound by the First Amendment's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of speech and Rasmusen has confined his odious speech acts to his personal social media, apparently refraining from voicing these views on campus while acting in a professional capacity. As a result, it's the view of the university provost that he cannot be fired, despite her characterization of Rasmusen's views as "vile and stupid" and "stunningly ignorant." Provost Lauren Robel has also said that her own respect for the First Amendment is such that she would not fire Rasmusen for his personal views, even if she could.

However, Robel and the university acknowledge that Rasmusen's views call into question his impartiality and also expose students to a reasonable belief that they could not be fairly graded or assessed by Rasmusen. Accordingly the university has undertaken a pari of extraordinary measures to protect students without trampling the First Amendment.

1. All classes that Rasmusen teaches will also be offered by another instructor so that any student can chose to take the class without coming into contact with Rasmusen.

2. Rasmusen will be required to grade all assignments on a double-blind basis, and when that is not possible, he will be closely supervised by another business school prof who will ensure that he does not practice discrimination.

The provost goes on to say that this is not exhaustive, and the university is prepared to take further steps to protect students and faculty members from Rasmusen's bigotry.

Rasmusen's publications include articles like "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." He has posted a detailed rebuttal to the provost's article.

I think the most interesting thing about this is that Rasmusen was tenured: for decades after the rise of Reaganism, a lot of people assumed that right wingers who dabbled in eugenics, white supremacy, dominionism and other medieval/crypto-fascist ideas were just colorful provocateurs LARPing Archie Bunker. It turned out they were deadly fucking serious. They were a sleeper cell from Gilead, and now they're finished masturbating over the Turner Diaries and have broken cover and plan on enacting a full-blown Dominionist white theocracy.

The First Amendment is strong medicine, and works both ways. All of us are free to condemn views that we find reprehensible, and to do so as vehemently and publicly as Professor Rasmusen expresses his views. We are free to avoid his classes, and demand that the university ensure that he does not, or has not, acted on those views in ways that violate either the federal and state civil rights laws or IUs nondiscrimination policies. I condemn, in the strongest terms, Professor Rasmusens views on race, gender, and sexuality, and I think others should condemn them. But my strong disagreement with his viewsindeed, the fact that I find them loathsomeis not a reason for Indiana University to violate the Constitution of the United States.

On the First Amendment [Lauren Robel/Indiana University]

After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was shock doctrined through a massive, neoliberal transformation, the centerpiece of which was a replacement of the public school system with a system entirely made up of charter schools.

20 years ago, Illinois was rocked by a scandal after the widespread practice of locking schoolchildren, especially those with disabilities or special needs, in small, confining boxes was revealed. The teachers who imprisoned these children argued that they did so out of the interests of safety -- that of the imprisoned students, of the other []

Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy is a marvellous interdisciplinary research center, and it is advertising for "visitors" for one-year stints: postdocs, policy fellows and visiting IT professors.

It should be obvious to anyone who has ever opened up a web page that the route to a career in Silicon Valley does not necessarily travel through a traditional university. Even so, budding coders need guidance and the right expertise. Thats where the Treehouse Project comes in. Its built for self-starters and contains a []

What does it take to be an effective project manager? These days, its more than just amorphous people skills. Methodologies like Agile, Scrum and Six Sigma lay out a proven roadmap for completing big jobs not just in software but in any industry. If youve got the will to master them, the Premium 2020 Project []

Craft is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot these days, but what does it actually mean? Sadly, its all too easy to fake craftsmanship when looks are all you have to go by. On the other hand, you know from the first cut whether youre handling a good chefs knife or not. And []

Visit link:

Indiana University Provost: The First Amendment says we can't fire our notorious bigot professor, so here's what we're doing instead - Boing Boing

What Is Blockchain Technology and How Does It Work? – TheStreet.com

Posted on by

Blockchain is already proving to be a gamechanger across the board for a variety of global industries-- fromfinanceto agriculture and dozens of industries in between.

Blockchain as a technology is growing robustly as a result.

According to the Global Blockchain Market Report,the market value projection for the blockchain sector will stand at over $60 billion by 2024. That's up from just $706 million in 2017.

The U.S. and China are the countries with the largest stake in blockchain solutions right now, but countries like South Korea and India are also pouring billions into the technology, and looking to catch up fast.

Still, millions of global consumers have no idea what blockchain is and how it will change the way they conduct commerce in the coming years.

Here's a closer look at the blockchain phenomenon and what it means to global industry and the consumers participating in those industries.

Broadly defined, blockchain is a distributed ledger system that offers stronger security to the real-time digital economic process. Structurally, blockchain is comprised of blocks of digitally recorded data.

According to the Global Blockchain Market Report, demand for blockchain technology is burgeoning, in key areas like finance and in technology. For example, the "largest users" of the IBM (IBM - Get Report) cloud increasingly count on blockchain to properly manage their supply chains. The report notes that 60 IBM cloud data centers see blockchain as "the top application driving growth" across the globe.

Blockchain growth has accelerated now that system developers have figured out how to harness blockchain with worldwide digital technologies.

"Digital technology is dominant worldwide," the blockchain report states. "The old mainframe digital technology managed data in batches, now digital data is managed in real-time over the internet. Blockchain brings digital technology into real-time computing systems management. It has the ability to change all aspects of the digital economy, including conducting business, delivering healthcare, shopping, enhancing education and learning, entertainment, and staying connected with a social world."

The global financial sector has been particularly aggressive -- and successful -- in bringing blockchain to the masses.

"Online payments have gained huge traction," the Global Blockchain Market Report states. "Card-based payment methods, credit and debit cards have become dominant. Blockchain supports all these changes by creating increased speed of transaction processing and greater efficiency in real-time processing."

For a major breakthrough global technology platform, blockchain's history is a relatively short one.

Essentially, blockchain traces its historical origins to 1991, when cryptographers Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta published a landmark paper entitled "How to Time-Stamp a Digital Document."

Essentially, the duo's theme focusing on the creation of a cryptographically secured chain on blocks (called by the authors as an "immutable ledger") that could withstand any tampering of time-stamped documents.

What the authors came up with was a "digital safety-deposit box" that recorded the time and date of a specific document's creation, and electronically stored a copy of that document for safekeeping.

While Haber and Stornetta planted the seeds of blockchain in the early 1990s, it wasn't until 2008 that the technology began picking up speed. At that time, an entity (it could be a real person but nobody knows) named Satoshi Nakamoto created the first digital ledger technology called Bitcoin, which officially kicked off the global cryptocurrencies market.

Nakamoto followed up with a 2009 whitepaper on blockchain cryptocurrencies called "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" that laid out the structure of a decentralized digitalized blockchain platform that spread control out to legions of global users, with no single entity in control of the platform.

That set the stage for commercialized blockchain as the first genuine peer-to-peer distributed and secure computing ledger that could record transactions on a global scale, one block linked to another block at a time.

That gave blockchain the ultimate democratized factor -- a digital computing platform that enabled users to conduct transactions with no need for a centralized authority calling the shots, and nobody collecting fees and charges on those transactions in the process.

The platform was managed not by a centralized figure, but by an army of autonomous global users who leveraged peer-to-peer networks and a time-stamping server to conduct financial transactions (currencies at first) approved by the user themselves.

Shortly after, Bitcoin Market, the first global cryptocurrency exchange, is established and its total market cap quickly crests $2 billion, casting more of a spotlight on both blockchain and bitcoin technologies. By 2018, Switzerland and Japan began officially accepting cryptocurrency payment and 15% of finance companies begin using blockchain in their everyday financial transaction operations.

Given the historical trends linked to cryptocurrencies and blockchain, it's perhaps easiest to explain the business applications of blockchain as a series of innovations

First innovation:Bitcoin, the king of the cryptocurrency world was the first major step in blockchain's evolution. The transaction-oriented model for bitcoin was tailor-made for blockchain, and it still shows today, as bitcoin's market cap has crested $145 billion.

Second innovation:The next step for blockchain was actually called "blockchain." The idea here was that, with the success of bitcoin, blockchain could be detached from digital currencies and succeed on its own as a decentralized technology platform.

With immediate success in various industries, most notably banking and finance, aerospace, and food and agriculture, blockchain research and development has grown significantly.

Third innovation:Innovation three focused on the so-called "smart contract", which introduced Ethereumto the cryptocurrency market. This iteration enabled fixed income financial products and commercial loans to be released via blockchain, which up to that point had only worked bitcoin tokens.

Fourth innovation:The next, and most current, blockchain iteration is known as "proof of stake", a digital technology models that give an individual who owns a significant amount of cryptocurrency coins more power over someone who doesn't.

That power enables stakeholders to be able to mine or validate block transactions based on the number of cryptocurrencies (like bitcoin) that the individual owns. Proof of stake supplants "proof of work" which is deemed by blockchain experts as more difficult and inefficient as the new stakeholder model.

Fifth innovation. The last phase of blockchain actually hasn't occurred yet, but "blockchain scaling," which would make financial transactions faster, is in the works.

Compared to traditional financial transaction systems like Visa (V - Get Report) and PayPal (PYPL - Get Report) , current blockchain transactions are slow. While Visa, for example, can manage over 1,660 transactions per second, bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second.

Often, bitcoin users who don't have deep pockets and pay low transaction fees are forced towait up to 13 minutes for their transactions to be cleared (that's because the higher transaction fee you pay the faster the block manager or "miner" clears your transaction.)

For cryptocurrencies to compete with mainstream financial tools like credit and debit cards, it's going to need to be much faster at the point of transaction, and that's the promise of blockchain scaling.

The scaling phase, with myriad iterations and technologies involved, basically aims to make blockchain execute transactions per second faster than it can right now, thus setting up cryptocurrencies as a more viable financial currency.

As blockchain is, in actuality, a chain of blocks that holds data and information, it needs a unique stamp that validates the block.

That's come from a blockchain "hash", which notes the block's unique time stamp, transaction data and a record of the most recent block that preceded it. In a word, the has is a sequence of random tags that track and validate blockchain transactions.

The idea is to use the blockchain to pass information along the network, one block at a time. The hash marks each block, providing the tracking mechanism required to pass that block along from one party to another, safely and securely.

Once an individual creates a new block, that block is validated across potentially millions of computers across the world, and then is added to the blockchain with its own individual record and history.

Blockchain's usefulness is predicated on the network's participants agreeing to the order of the transactions made on the network.

It's really a system of checks and balances that ensure the integrity of each block's transaction and account balances, giving participants a trusted and verified system of engaging in digital commerce.

Blockchain is often heralded by advocates as being transparent and democratic, offering access to everyone. To a point, that's true.

After all, anyone can access content available on blockchain but doing so on a large scale is virtually impossible, as there may be millions of copies of similar blockchains to track and monitor.

Additionally, as cryptocurrency transactions on blockchain don't identify transaction participants (aside from a user name or digital signature), blockchain is hardly transparent about who's conducting business on the blockchain and the network that supports the widespread use of the platform.

That makes blockchain far less private than users might think.

Yet the fact that blockchain users participating in network financial transactions are confidential (but not exactly anonymous) makes itdifficult for cyber-predators to identify them and steal their personal data.

It's also highly difficult to change any information input and confirmed on the blockchain, as every block added to the blockchain is validated with a "hash" or digital stamp that is unique to each transaction.

With each block on the blockchain different because of its unique hash, it can't be altered by third parties and that helps reinforce a stronger sense of system security on the blockchain.

Blockchain can mean a lot of different things to many different people, but its promise as a means of revitalizing stale business processes and making transactions more democratic -- and safer -- when conducting transactions digitally, is substantial.

Thus, as disruptive technological innovations go, blockchain is a blockbuster in a highly public and transformative way.

Whether you're a novice investor looking to get into cryptocurrencies or a large company CEO looking to turbo-boost your business processes, the more you know about how blockchain works, the more you can leverage its growth potential.

Read the original here:

What Is Blockchain Technology and How Does It Work? - TheStreet.com

Moneros codebase makes it hard to be implemented in different exchanges – AMBCrypto

Posted on by

Monero has been up and ready for the upcoming network upgrade for quite some time. The cryptocurrency will be seeing a shift from the CryptoNight R proof-of-work algorithm to RandomX, one of the most awaited ASIC-resistant algorithms.

Along with this, the upgrade will also phaseout long payment ID, which is being done in order to improve privacy, user experience, and also reduce support work for services and exchanges. The other upgrades include requirement of at least two outputs for transactions and ten-block (approximately twenty minutes) lock time for incoming transactions will be enforced on a protocol level.

The leading fungible cryptocurrency and its upcoming upgrade were one of the topics discussed by Matthias Tarasiewicz Director of RIAT during a live interview for Monero Talk. Douglas Tuman, the host of the show, asked Tarasiewicz whether he viewed Monero as a second-generation cryptocurrency and as a reaction to technological shortcomings in Bitcoin.

While agreeing that Monero was indeed created to address the shortcomings of Bitcoin, Tarasiewicz also highlighted that the cryptocurrency was very different in comparison to the coin thats often dubbed as digital gold.

There was a lot of technological changes that have been put. Also in a way, its a complete groud up a rewritten different system. So, technically its not an altcoin, which is like just a fork of Bitcoin because it has been like rewritten and its like very very different, it has a lot of different properties [] it wouldnt qualify as this very old term of altcoins.

The researcher also stated that Monero was hard to be implemented in different hardware and exchanges, taking into consideration that its codebase was completely different. He further stated that this was also the reason Monero has not yet seen total adoption, adding that this will be solved in time.

Additionally, Tarasiewicz went on to express that he finds it fascinating that not many people pay heed to one of Moneros basic elements: its privacy aspect, which is totally lacking in Bitcoin. Following this, he spoke about Moneros upgrade to RandomX, and its previous attempt to ward off ASIC centralization. He said,

[] well have a protocol upgrade soon where well see very interesting developments, this kind of ASIC resistance, in my opinion, is also super interesting thing from a research perspective thing to look at, from a game-theoretical thing to look at.

Tarasiewicz further pointed out even Satoshi Nakamoto constantly spoke about the idea of One CPU, One Vote system in the whitepaper, which was totally undermined by the arms race that was introduced through developing these FPGAs, ASIC mining and so on.

[] there has been a time, in the very early age of Bitcoin, where there was a lot of discussion on Bitcoin talk about like okay, is this a good thing or not. It was a good thing as long as the miners could still produce coins, but if you look now whos busy securing these large networks [.] theres a huge centralization happening.

He further said,

This is the one thing which I find like extremely interesting with Monero that theres an attempt to have ASIC resistance. So, its in a way very resistant or like a currency which questions things or criticizes things. Thats what I like about it.

Link:

Moneros codebase makes it hard to be implemented in different exchanges - AMBCrypto

Why America needed Donald Trump | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

There is one good thing about President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump puts Kushner in charge of overseeing border wall construction: report Trump 2020 national spokesperson gives birth to daughter New McCarthy ad praising Trump includes Russian stock footage MORE going into 2020. It is that he is consistent. Consistency in some philosophies connotes reliability. His divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, bullying mockery of others during campaign rallies, combative foreign policy, his rejection of diplomacy, and his demand for unequivocal loyalty have seriously disturbed the political establishment. This is an establishment that, in the minds of Americans on both the right and the left, has become consumed by its own interests.

Despite the disappointment and feelings of grievances, Americans have come to expect a certain level of civility in political life. They expect prevarications and empty promises masked by the warm embrace of civility. Both civility and character have been political standards that Americans have used to judge the body of politics in this country.

These guiding principles have become the critical appropriation and embodiment of traditions that have shaped the character and shared meaning of a people in these United States. Political communication should be grounded in our personal narratives. Citizens do not emerge from a historical vacuum. They arise from particular traditions. As such, some are taught to speak authoritatively yet compassionately, and they take action responsibly with the aim of serving the collective good.

Trump clearly does not abide by these standards. He questions the very legitimacy and agency of tradition and its meaning in the United States. He is a creature unwedded to basic conservative or liberal doctrines and is unconcerned with orthodoxy. From his view and that of his supporters, Washington tradition has not worked, and it is that grievance toward the status quo that has given Trump sustenance today. The peculiarity of this phenomenon is not relegated to just the political right. Similar sentiments are growing on the left and have given rise to Senator Bernie SandersBernie SandersSaagar Enjeti: Bloomberg exposes 'true danger' of 'corporate media' Doctor calls for standardizing mental fitness tests for elected officials Warren: Bloomberg is betting he 'only needs bags and bags of money' to win election MORE, Senator Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWhy Democrats are not actually serious about uniting the nation Warren: Bloomberg is betting he 'only needs bags and bags of money' to win election Bloomberg campaign chief: Trump is winning 2020 election right now MORE, and other emerging progressive stars in the Democratic Party such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

Americans have far deeper issues than partisan divides. Though their grievances are disparate, they share one commonality in their dislike for all things closely aligned with the elite media, politicians, and business. This is one of the reasons for the cultish following of the president, who can do no wrong in the eyes of his worshippers. It does not bother them because Trump exposes the disguise of civility, just as Sanders and Warren do. They stick it to the man by castigating political elites.

As for African Americans and members of other racial minority groups, we have fared no better or worse under Trump than we have under previous administrations. We may have felt better under President Obama because of symbolic racial pride, but we agree that many expectations fell short. The economy did well under President Clinton, but we acknowledge the dangerous crime bill and tough law enforcement stances that decimated the black community. The point is simple in that feeling good or having pride in our national leader does not necessarily yield good results.

What Trump says and does, through his rhetoric and behavior, can be brutally honest. While it may wound the vanity of some, he has complete disregard for business as usual. We must ask ourselves if we would rather have a president who does not care about political civility and tells it like it is or a president who is polished and hides the truth. Whatever you think about Trump and his supporters, it appears there is a growing number of Americans on both sides seeking a leader who is a street fighter, someone who will voice their grievances on center stage.

Americans are accustomed to the former civil politician. They smile at you, look you in the eyes, and tell you what you want to hear to make us feel comfortable. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, everything about the status quo before Trump signaled comfort. We were living in a country devoid of disruptive change. The reality was that it was business as usual, but those dynamics have been changing under the leadership of Trump. Despite the disdain some have for him, a similar movement has taken place on the left. The country needed Trump to shake things up.

In the blockbuster hit The Dark Knight, the Joker said to district attorney Harvey Dent, Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It is fair! Trump is indeed fair to Americans because his disruption brings a shared level of chaos to the elites on all sides.

Quardricos Driskell is an adjunct professor of legislative politics with the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management. Shermichael Singleton is a Republican strategist and a political analyst.

Read this article:

Why America needed Donald Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Trump denies sending Giuliani to Ukraine to pressure officials on investigations – USA TODAY

Posted on by

Here's the latest for Tuesday November 26th: US Capitol shut down over plane threat; Mall shooting injures two; Trump pardons turkeys. AP Domestic

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump on Tuesday denied sending his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on his opponents,or for any other reason.

"No, I didn't direct him," Trump told former Fox News hostBill OReilly in an online interview."No, but you have to understand, Rudy is a great corruption fighter."

Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine have come under scrutiny in the House Democratic impeachment inquiry.Federal investigators, meanwhile,are conducting an investigation into Giuliani's associates, two of whom were charged with campaign finance violations.

Trump repeatedly said he never directed his personal attorney to go to Ukraine.

Giuliani agreed.

"He never did and I never did," Giuliani told USA TODAY in response to Trump's remarks. "I never went to Ukraine and I was always seeking evidence to defend him against false charges in my role as his lawyer."

Giuliani said his effort started long before Biden was a candidate and while the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was still underway.

Whether Trump sent Giuliani to the country is not the center of the investigation, however. The summary of the president's July 25 phone call with Ukraine presidentVolodymyr Zelensky shows the president urged Kyiv officials to reach out to Giuliani about the investigations.

State Department officials have told lawmakers under oath as part of the impeachment inquiry that Giuliani and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, appeared to be running a diplomatic effort in Ukraine outside of the official channels.

Giuliani was also among the critics who appeared determined to undermine former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Giuliani has acknowledged he was conducting an investigation into Ukraine to defend Trump.

"The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven," Giuliani posted on Twitter last month.

Despite speculation about whether Trump will continue to stick by his personal attorney, the president has so far generally defended him.

Giuliani raised eyebrows recently by saying he did not think Trump would turn on him during the investigation and that, even if Trumpdid, he has an "insurance policy." Giuliani later said he was joking and that his insurance was his case against Biden.

On Monday, Trump called Giuliani "a great guy" and the "best mayor" New York City ever had.

Giuliani has refused to provide information to House investigators about his dealings in Ukraine on Trump's behalf.

Giuliani hasdone business in Ukrainesince at least 2008.In June 2017, he delivered a speech called Global Challenge, the Role of the U.S. and the Place of Ukraine, according to a post on the website of the Pinchuk Foundation.

Fritze and Jackson cover the White House for USA TODAY. Follow them at @jfritze and @djusatoday.

Contributing:Kevin Johnson and Kevin McCoy

Donald J. Trumps path to White House was anything but traditional. While many of the other 43 presidents either previously served in elected positions or had careers in the military before taking office, Trump was a real estate mogul and reality TV star — here is a look at each presidents path to the Oval […](Photo: Pool / Getty Images)

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/26/trump-denies-sending-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-probe-opponents/4314617002/

Read the original here:

Trump denies sending Giuliani to Ukraine to pressure officials on investigations - USA TODAY

William Barr, Donald Trump, and the post-Christian culture wars – Vox.com

Posted on by

Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. They have 27 governorships and governing trifectas in 21 states. But many conservatives particularly Christian conservatives believe theyre being routed in the war that matters most: the post-Christian culture war. They see a diverse, secular left winning the future and preparing to eviscerate both Christian practice and traditional mores. And they see themselves as woefully unprepared to respond with the ruthlessness that the moment requires.

Enter Donald Trump. Whatever Trumps moral failings, hes a street fighter suited for an era of political combat. Christian conservatives believe rightly or wrongly that theyve been held back by their sense of righteousness, grace, and gentility, with disastrous results. Trump operates without restraint. He is the enemy they believe the secular deserve, and perhaps unfortunately, the champion they need. Understanding this dynamic is crucial to understanding the psychology that attracts establishment Republicans to Trump, and convinces them that his offense is their best defense.

If this sound exaggerated, consider two recent speeches given by Attorney General William Barr. Barr is a particularly important kind of figure in the Trump world. He previously served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, and had settled into a comfortable twilight as a respected member of the Republican legal establishment. Its the support of establishment Republicans like Barr that gives Trump his political power and protects him from impeachment. But why would someone like Barr spend the end of his career serving a man like Trump?

Speaking at Notre Dame in October, Barr offered his answer. He argued that the conflict of the 20th century pitted democracy against fascism and communism a struggle democracy won, and handily. But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge, he warned. America was built atop the insight that free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people. But over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack, driven from the public square by the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

This is a war Barr thinks progressives have been winning, and that conservatives fight in the face of long institutional odds.

Today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back. First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the progressives, have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

Whatever political power conservatives hold, progressives occupy the cultural high ground, and they strike without mercy. Those who defy the [secular] creed risk a figurative burning at the stake, says Barr, social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

In a November speech before the Federalist Society, Barr expanded on the advantage progressives hold. Its worth quoting his argument at length:

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of Resistance against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursuing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a rule of law standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy war, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

I suspect many readers will, at this point, be vibrating with counterarguments. Many of those counterarguments probably begin with the words Merrick Garland. But hold them at bay for a second. Lets stay with the world as Barr sees it.

Robert Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute, estimates that when Barack Obama took office, 54 percent of the country was white and Christian; by the time he left office, that had fallen to 43 percent. This is largely because young Americans are less white, and less Christian, than older Americans. Almost 70 percent of American seniors are white Christians, compared to only 29 percent of young adults.

In 2018, Americans who claim no religion passed Catholics and evangelicals as the most popular response on the General Social Survey. That arguably overstates the trend: The GSS breaks Protestants into subcategories, and if you group them together, they remain the most populous religious group, at least for now. But the age cohorts here are stark. If you look at seniors, only about one in 10 seniors today claim no religious affiliation, Jones told me. But if you look at Americans under the age of 30, its 40 percent.

These are big, dramatic changes, and theyre leading Christians particularly older, white, conservative Christians to experience Americas changing demographics as a form of siege. In some cases, that experience is almost literal.

The political commentator Rod Dreher blogs for the American Conservative, where he offers a running catalog of moral affronts and liberal provocations. He doesnt simply see a society that has become secular and sexualized, but a progressive regime that insists Christians accept and even participate in the degeneracy or fall afoul of nondiscrimination laws and anti-bigotry norms.

I completely concede that religious conservatives, social conservatives, have lost the cultural war, he told me in a podcast conversation. The other side is just bouncing the rubble and it seems that they will not be satisfied until they grind my side into the dirt.

In 2017 Dreher published The Benedict Option, arguing that Christians should retreat into monastic communities where they can live their faith in peace and wait for a decadent culture to consume itself. We in the modern West are living under barbarism, though we do not recognize it, he writes. Our scientists, our judges, our princes, our scholars, and our scribesthey are at work demolishing the faith, the family, gender, even what it means to be human. Our barbarians have exchanged the animal pelts and spears of the past for designer suits and smartphones.

Other Christian conservatives counsel more energetic forms of engagement. The New York Posts Sohrab Ahmari forced a puzzling rupture in the conservative intelligentsia when he attacked another Christian conservative, David French, for being too polite in his politics. Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions, Ahmari wrote. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism.

It was never quite clear what Ahmaris more ruthless form of conflict required, but it began with a recognition that the condition of conservative Christianity was too desperate to countenance the niceties of liberal democracy.

But many Christian conservatives have come up with an answer both coarser and clearer than Ahmaris musings: Donald Trump. Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. put it sharply:

This is the context not only for Barrs speeches and his service to Trump, but for much of the Republican Partys embrace of Trump. White evangelicals were the base of Trumps support in the 2016 GOP primary, and they voted for him in the general election in higher numbers than they voted for George W. Bush.

Its this apocalyptic psychology that motivates the strained defenses of even Trumps worst behavior. If the left can even destroy Trump, then what chance do conservatives have? Liberals can hypothesize all they want about why Republicans should prefer Mike Pence, but the reality is that if Republicans joined with Democrats to remove Trump from office, the left would annihilate Pence in the aftermath, and what Barr calls the scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of Resistance would grab hold of the full powers of the federal government and turn them against the right.

In his interview with my colleague Sean Illing, National Review editor Rich Lowry said that Trump, who he once opposed, has been steadfast on pro-life stuff, on conscience rights, on judges. The downside, Lowry admitted, is he doesnt respect the separation of powers in our government, he doesnt think constitutionally, and says and does things no president should do or say.

That seems like a pretty big downside! But, Lowry continued, at the end of the day, were asked to either favor Trump or root for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden or Mayor Pete, who oppose us on basically everything. So its a pretty simple calculation.

The irony of all this is that Christian conservatives are likely hastening the future they most fear. In our conversation, Jones told me about a 2006 survey of 16- to 29-year-olds by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling firm, that asked 16- to 29-year-olds for their top three associations with present-day Christianity. Being antigay was first, with 91 percent, followed by judgmental, with 87 percent, and hypocritical, with 85 percent. Christianity, the Barna Group concluded, has a branding problem.

It seems unlikely that that branding problem will be fixed by a tighter alliance with Trump, who polls at 31 percent among millennials and 29 percent among Generation Z. If young people are abandoning Christianity because it seems intolerant, judgmental, and hypocritical well, intolerant, judgmental, and hypocritical is the core of Trumps personal brand.

That said, I take William Barr at his word. I believe he looks out at the landscape of contemporary America and sees a country changing into something he doesnt recognize, that he believes Christianity is under an assault from which it may not recover and Trump, whatever his faults, is their last, best hope. And its the support of Republicans like Barr that ensures Trumps survival.

This form of Flight 93ism is more widespread on the right than liberals recognize, and it both authentically motivates some establishment Republicans to enthusiastically embrace Trump, and creates coalitional dynamics by which other Republicans feel they have no choice but to defend Trump against the left. Some protect Trump on the merits, others protect Trump as a form of anti-anti-Trumpism, and others protect Trump as a way of protecting their future careers. But all of them protect Trump as a way of protecting themselves, and a future they feel slipping away.

The fundamental question raised by the impeachment hearings isnt: What did Trump do? The hearings have added details and witnesses to the account first offered by the whistleblower and later confirmed by the White House call record, but the narrative stands largely unchanged.

Instead, the question raised is: Why is the Republican Party accepting, and even defending, what Trump did?

Barrs speeches, and the worldview they describe, are a big part of the answer.

See the article here:

William Barr, Donald Trump, and the post-Christian culture wars - Vox.com

The Supreme Court halted a subpoena for Trump’s financial records. Here’s what happens next – CNBC

Posted on by

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to greet Boyko Borissov, Bulgaria's prime minister, not pictured, at the South Portico of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Nov. 25, 2019.

Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

President Donald Trump won a temporary victory at the Supreme Court this week, when a majority of the justices voted to temporarily halt a subpoena issued by Congress for his financial records.

That move was largely expected. In fact, the subpoena had already been halted by Chief Justice John Roberts in order to give the court time to consider the issue. The court's move on Monday evening extended that freeze with a vote from the full panel.

The subpoena was issued by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee in April to Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars USA, and seeks a wide variety of financial documents including both personal and business records.

Trump has bucked recent precedent by refusing to voluntarily disclose his financial records. He is the first president in more than four decades not to release his tax returns.

The real action happens next. In its order, the court gave the president until Dec. 5 to file his formal appeal, known as a petition. The fact that the panel asked for the president's filing so soon likely means that the court intends to rule on the matter in its current term, which ends in June.

The president's petition will ask the court to review a decision against him issued by a 2-1 vote of a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., in October.

The court is already weighing whether it will review a separate decision over the president's financial records issued by a federal appeals court in New York. The three-judge panel in that case ordered Mazars USA to turn over the president's financial records to the Manhattan district attorney.

Experts expect that the court will agree to take the cases, but it's not clear if the president will ultimately prevail. It takes four justices on the nine-member panel to agree to hear a case. The court currently has a 5-4 conservative majority, including two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

If the court agrees to take the cases, it will likely hear oral arguments some time between February and April. The cases will join what is already a packed term of cases on issues involving guns, abortion, and the DACA program that protects 700,000 "Dreamers," which could focus attention on the court's new conservative majority during a contentious election year.

The court generally releases its most high-profile opinions in June. In May, Trump wrote in a post on Twitter that he hoped the fight for his tax returns would be "part of the 2020 Election." He's likely to get what he asked for.

The top court has never settled the specific legal questions at the heart of the two cases involving the president's financial records, according to Marty Lederman, a former Justice Department attorney.

It has not had the opportunity to do so. No president has ever asked the court to review a subpoena for his personal papers that predate his time in office, or for one issued by a state prosecutor targeting him in a criminal investigation.

But Lederman said he expects that the justices will ultimately rule against the president. In the two cases that most closely resemble Trump's appeals, involving Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court voted unanimously against the commander in chief.

The first case, U.S. v. Nixon, arose out of the Watergate scandal that ultimately doomed Nixon's presidency. The court rejected Nixon's claims of immunity on the basis of "executive privilege," and ordered him to deliver tape recordings as part of a court proceeding against some of his closest aides.

In the second, Clinton v. Jones, the court considered whether Clinton was immune to a sexual harassment suit brought against him while he was in office. The court rejected Clinton's claim of immunity, though it noted that there could exist exceptional circumstances in which such immunity could exist.

In both cases, justices voted against the president who appointed them, including three Nixon appointees and two Clinton appointees. Those Clinton appointees, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as Justice Clarence Thomas, who was on the court in Clinton v. Jones and was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, remain on the bench.

Ashwin Phatak, who serves as counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, said that some of the broader propositions from the Nixon and Clinton cases are relevant in Trump's battles.

"If the court rules in favor of the president, that would be a sea change in how people think about this issue of presidential immunity," he said.

But Elizabeth Slattery, a legal researcher at The Heritage Foundation who hosts the popular "SCOTUS 101" podcast, said that Trump is looking to distinguish the current case from those past rulings. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank.

Slattery said that a point in the president's favor is the appearance that Congress is attempting to add a qualification to the presidency namely, the disclosure of personal financial information.

"Congress cannot expand or alter the qualifications for the office of the president," she said.

And, she said, congressional subpoenas are not the method that the Constitution provides for probing a sitting president.

"It all comes back to the fact that impeachment is the way that Congress can investigate, not through pseudo law enforcement tools," she said.

Ultimately, if the court takes the cases, the deciding vote could be Roberts, who is known to care about the court's reputation and, alongside Kavanaugh, occupies the panel's ideological center.

Trump has faced major challenges to his presidency at the end of each of the last two Supreme Court terms, and in each case, Roberts has written the court's 5-4 opinion.

In June of 2018, Roberts sided with the majority to uphold an iteration of the president's travel ban. But the next year, Roberts flipped sides in a case involving the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, effectively killing the proposal.

See the original post here:

The Supreme Court halted a subpoena for Trump's financial records. Here's what happens next - CNBC

Kushner reportedly overseeing construction of Trump’s border wall – NBC News

Posted on by

President Donald Trump has tapped his son-in-law, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, to oversee construction of the ballyhooed border wall the president has promoted since the onset of his presidential campaign, The Washington Post reported.

The move further expands Kushner's already large portfolio, which includes working on a Middle East peace deal, overhauling the legal immigration and criminal justice systems, pushing trade policy, modernizing the federal government and taking a lead role on Trump's 2020 reelection campaign.

The Post reported that Kushner leads biweekly West Wing meetings focused on the wall's progress, officials familiar with the matter said. Kushner is pushing both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers to seize hundreds of parcels of private property so that the government has a chance to meet Trump's goal of building 450 miles of wall along the southern border by the end of next year, with aides telling the Post it is paramount to Trump that 400 of those miles be completed by Election Day.

Trump defended his border wall efforts in a Tuesday tweet, saying it's "wrong" to say the new wall is not being built when old barriers are being replaced. Since Trump took office, the vast majority of wall construction has been for replacement border fencing, not a new wall in places where it didn't exist previously.

Trump resorted to pulling funding from the Defense Department after Congress refused to appropriate money for the project. The Pentagon said in September that it would use $3.6 billion in military construction money to build the wall, in addition to previously making $2.5 billions of counter-drug money available.

Trump declared a national emergency at the border in February in a bid to circumvent Congress and fund wall construction. The border wall was one of Trump's earliest campaign promises during the 2016 election. He initially said it would be paid for by Mexico.

Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

Read the rest here:

Kushner reportedly overseeing construction of Trump's border wall - NBC News

First lady Melania Trump loudly booed at opioid event on same day that President Trump donates salary to drug-fighting efforts – CNBC

Posted on by

First lady Melania Trump was greeted with resounding boos by students at an opioid awareness event in Baltimore on Tuesday, even as her husband, President Donald Trump, donated his salary for the third quarter of the year to combat the opioid crisis.

Melania Trump was loudly booed as she was introduced at the B'More Youth Summit on Opioid Awareness at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County by Jim Wahlberg, brother of the actors Mark and Donnie Wahlberg.

And the boos continued as she thanked Wahlberg for "the warm introduction," and began speaking to the audience, which was comprised primarily of middle school and high school students.

"I hope that the knowledge you gain here will help you tackle the tough decisions you may be faced with, so that you can live a healthy and drug-free life," she said at the event, wich was organized by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Mark Walhberg Youth Foundation.

"Get involved and be a part of the solution."

The first lady's Be Best public awareness initiative is focused on promoting well-being and online safety for children, as well as combating opioid abuse.

The opioid crisis has been blamed for the majority of the 70,000 fatal overdoses of Americans in 2017.

Later Tuesday, Melania Trump, through White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, issued a statement in response to the heckling at the event.

"We live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the fact is we have a serious crisis in our country and I remain committed to educating children on the dangers and deadly consequences of drug abuse," said the first lady.

Baltimore was targeted by President Trump in July, when the president lashed out at Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat whose district included parts of Baltimore city and Baltimore County.

Cummings' "district is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess," Trump tweeted at the time. "If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place."

Cummings has since died.

Kate Bennett, a CNN reporter and the author of a new biography about Melania Trump, said on Twitter that the audience's reaction to the first lady at the Baltimore event "was the worst booing she has received at a public event where she has given solo remarks."

President Trump in 2017 donated a quarter of his $400,000 annual salary toward efforts to stem the crisis. On Tuesday, the president repeated that donation for that effort.

The president since taking office has committed to donating his entire salary to various causes.

US First Lady Melania Trump arrives to address the B'More Youth Summit in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 26, 2019.

Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images

Follow this link:

First lady Melania Trump loudly booed at opioid event on same day that President Trump donates salary to drug-fighting efforts - CNBC

President Trump’s dictator-like administration is attacking the values America holds dear – NBC News

Posted on by

Were up against a crisis I never thought Id see in my lifetime: a dictator-like attack by President Donald Trump on everything this country stands for. As last weeks impeachment hearings made clear, our shared tolerance and respect for the truth, our sacred rule of law, our essential freedom of the press and our precious freedoms of speech all have been threatened by a single man.

Our shared tolerance and respect for the truth, our sacred rule of law, our essential freedom of the press and our precious freedoms of speech all have been threatened by a single man.

Its time for Trump to go along with those in Congress who have chosen party loyalty over their oath to solemnly affirm their support for the Constitution of the United States. And its up to us to make that happen, through the power of our votes.

When Trump was elected, though he was not my choice, I honestly thought it only fair to give the guy a chance. And like many others, I did. But almost instantly he began to disappoint and then alarm me. I dont think Im alone.

Get the think newsletter.

Tonight it pains me to watch what is happening to our country. Growing up as a child during World War II, I watched a united America defend itself against the threat of fascism. I watched this again, during the Watergate crisis, when our democracy was threatened. And again, when terrorists turned our world upside down.

During those times of crises, Congress came together, and our leaders came together. Politicians from both sides rose to defend our founding principles and the values that make us a global leader and a philosophical beacon of hope for all those seeking their own freedoms.

What is happening, right now, is so deeply disturbing that instead of the United States of America, we are now defined as the Divided States of America. Leaders on both sides lack the fundamental courage to cross political aisles on behalf of what is good for the American people.

Were at a point in time where I reluctantly believe that we have much to lose it is a critical and unforgiving moment.

Were at a point in time where I reluctantly believe that we have much to lose it is a critical and unforgiving moment. This monarchy in disguise has been so exhausting and chaotic, its not in the least bit surprising so many citizens are disillusioned.

The vast majority of Americans are busy with real life; trying to make ends meet and deeply frustrated by how hard Washington makes it to do just that.

But this is it. There are only 11 months left before the presidential election; 11 months before we get our one real chance to right this ship and change the course of disaster that lies before us.

Lets rededicate ourselves to voting for truth, character and integrity in our representatives (no matter which side were on). Lets go back to being the leader the world so desperately needs. Lets return, quickly, to being simply ... Americans.

Related:

Robert Redford

Robert Redford is an actor, director, producer and activist.

Go here to see the original:

President Trump's dictator-like administration is attacking the values America holds dear - NBC News

Donald Trump Confessed, Again – Mother Jones

Posted on by

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, as recently as Thursday, have argued President Donald Trump did not direct a freeze on $400 million in US aid to Ukraine in exchange for the country announcing investigations that would help Trumps campaign in 2020. But Trump, as ever, is making his apologists look dumb. In a 53-minute phone call this morning to Fox & Friends, Trump pretty much confessed, again, to the actions for which he faces impeachment.

Theres tremendous corruption, Trump said during the call. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when theres this kind of corruption?

To be sure, the presidents defenders can note that Trump asserted here that he was worried about corruption. But moments earlier, Trump defined just what he meant by corruption. And its not actually corruption.

They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee, Trump said. The FBI went in and they told them, get out of here, were not giving it to you. They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever its called, which is a countrywhich is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBIs never gotten that server. Thats a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?

This is a nonsense conspiracy theory that even unctuous Fox hosts werent endorsing. Crowdstrike, based in California, is not owned by a wealthy Ukrainian. The DNC did not have one server. They had about 140. Crowdstrike imaged them and then gave the data to the FBI, not Ukraine. Trumps claim is part of a false argument that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election. Russia, which US intelligence agencies have concluded interfered in the 2016 election, has promoted the lie that Ukraine was responsible. This is an apparent Kremlin effort to deflect blame from its own intelligence agents.

But putting that aside, Trumps words were revealing. Asked by host Steve Doocy: Are you sure? Trump bore down: Well, thats what the word is, the president said. Thats what I asked, actually in my phone call. (This refers to Trumps July 25 call with Ukraines President, Volodymyr Zelensky.)

I asked it very point-blank, because were looking for corruption, Trump continued. Theres tremendous corruption. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when theres this kind of corruption. If you look at my call, I said, you know, corruption.'

In fact, Trump did not once say the word corruption in the reconstructed transcript of his call with Zelensky that the White House released in September. Instead, Trump mentioned the same conspiracy theory. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, Trump said. They say CrowdStrikeI guess you have one of your wealthy peopleThe server, they say Ukraine has it.

So when Trump referred on Fox and Friends to this kind of corruption what he actually meant was his conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian oligarch has the DNC server. Trump and his chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, have made similar statements that seemed to confirm a quid pro quo involving aid to Ukraine. But as Business Insider notes, this was the first time that Trump explained that his supposed worry about corruption in Ukraine related to the server issue.

Trump is telling everyone that he froze military aid to Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation into Ukraines alleged involvement in the 2016 election. Congressional Republicans should listen to him.

Read the original post:

Donald Trump Confessed, Again - Mother Jones

Millions of Latinos are Trump supporters. Here’s what they’re thinking. – USA TODAY

Posted on by

Ruben Navarrette Jr., Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET Nov. 26, 2019 | Updated 8:02 a.m. ET Nov. 26, 2019

Latino voters in California make up a large percentage of the electorate in the newly minted Super Tuesday behemoth. USA TODAY

Despite his harmful rhetoric, President Trump's policies and fierce attitude have attracted a certain subset of those in the Latino community.

San Diego Its like chickens for Colonel Sanders.Why would any self-respecting Latino vote to re-elect President Donald Trump, arguably the most anti-Latino chief executive in U.S. history?

Thats what my non-Latino friends want to know. I get that question all the time, often accompanied by a tilted head and a confused look.

In the 2020 election, Trump seems likely to get between 25%-30% of the Latino vote. A recent poll by Telemundo found that 1 in 4 American Latinos would vote to re-elect him.

In 2016, according to exit polls, Trump got 28% of the Latino vote.He did better than Sen. Bob Dole, who got 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, and Sen. Mitt Romney, who got 27% in 2012. But he couldnt match Sen. John McCain, who got 31% of the Latino vote in 2008, or President George W. Bush, who got 40% in 2004. Anything north of 30% is a decent showing for a Republican, and anything beyond 40% will make a GOP candidate virtually unbeatable.

Latino voters count for a lot. Three reasons: theyre a young populationthat is adding new voters at a staggering rate; Theyre well-represented in so-called battleground states such as Colorado, Nevadaand Florida; And close to two-thirds of Latinosare Mexicansor Mexican-Americans, whotend to be swing voters.

Latinos are now poised to be the largest racial orethnic minority group to be eligible to vote in a presidential election, according to the Pew Research Center.By 2020, an estimated 32 million Latinos will be eligible to vote, which is just slightly more than the 30 million voters who are African-Americans. According to Pew, Latinos are expected to be about 13.3% of the electorate in 2020.

Heres what you need to know about the Latino vote: there is no such thing. That is, Latinos arent monolithic and we dont vote as a bloc.

A rally in Dallas on Oct. 17, 2019.(Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)

Yet, Trump is likely to do better than expected with Latino voters.

Its not just because of a strong economy, low unemployment rates among Latinos, etc. Its also because many Latinos are willing to look past Trumps anti-Latino bigotry. After all, they tell themselves, the president is not talking about people like them.

The problem is that, when it comes to Latinos, Trump cant stop talking trash. Heres a look at his rant sheet.

As a candidate, Trumpdeclared that Mexico isnot sending their bestbut ridding itself of those who arebringing drugsbringing crime,labeled Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, promised to deport bad hombres, praised the 1954mass deportation program called "Operation Wetback," promised a deportation force,and attacked the integrity of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel a U.S.-born citizen of Mexican descent by questioning whether Curiel could fairly adjudicate a lawsuit against Trump University because, Hes a Mexican.

Dear progressives: Hispanics are not 'Latinx.' Stop trying to Anglicize our Spanish language.

As president, Trump pardoned Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio after the former lawman was found guilty of racially profiling Latinos and defying court orders, ended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), "leaving"more than 700,000 young peoplepotentially subject to deportation, targeted birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, embraced policies that would cutlegalimmigration in halfand separated thousands of refugee families to the point where nearly 70,000 immigrant children were held in U.S. custody at some point in the last year.

Even as he campaigns for re-election, Trump still cant seem to refrain from sticking his foot in this mouth when it comes to Latino voters.

He talks often about how the United States is facing an invasion from the south.Thats the same word that 21-year-old Patrick Crusius used in a racist manifestohe penned before walking into a Walmart in El Paso, Texason Aug 3 to, as he allegedly told police,kill as many Mexicans as possible.Crucius killed 22 people, many of them Mexicanand wounded 25others.

Several weeks ago, when Trump traveled to New Mexico to court conservative Latinos, he doted on CNN commentator Steve Cortes, a pro-Trump immigrant from Colombia who the president declared looks more like a WASP than I do.Trump put Cortes on the spot, asking him,Who do you like more,the country or the Hispanics?Cortes answered The country.

Most of the Latinos who back Trump are not so buffoonish about their support. But theyre no less devoted to their guy.

As a Mexican-American Never Trumper, I wanted to understand these people. Besides, as a journalist who is trained to talk to strangers, the idea of Latinos who support Trump sounded plenty strange to me.

So, I went out and interviewed a couple dozen Latinos for Trump.

What I found is that, in many cases, these folks are not really Latino at all. Theyre post-Latino. They see themselves as Americans. Theyre ambivalent about their heritage, relatives, ancestors. They dont take offense when Trump insults Mexican immigrants because even for Mexican-Americans they see the people hes talking about as another species.

It's time to take a stand: After El Paso shooting, Mexican Americans can no longer be ambivalent minority

Consider the views of Chris Salcedo, a conservative Mexican-American radio host in Texas who bills himself as a liberty loving Latino.

Ive always resented the hell out of liberals, in the press and out of the press, who have said that I, because of my Latino surname, have anything in common with someone who is breaking into my country without our permission, Salcedo told me. When the president cracks down on illegal border crossings and human trafficking, I do not believe hes attacking me because I also want to stop those same things.

I get it. But I also recognize a familiar song when I hear one. Other ethnic groups know this one by heart. The Irish, Italians andJewsall have people in their community who dont identify with their heritage or who think theyre better than others in their tribe, when theyre really just better off. These are the folks who were born on third basebut tell themselves they hit a triple.

Now some Latinos have found their way to Trump. Good for them. But make no mistake. In a larger sense, theyre lost.

Ruben Navarrette Jr., a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Groupand host of the daily podcast, Navarrette Nation. Follow him on Twitter:@RubenNavarrette

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/26/latinos-for-trump-supporters-hispanics-mexicans-attacks-immigrants-column/4224954002/

Excerpt from:

Millions of Latinos are Trump supporters. Here's what they're thinking. - USA TODAY

Can Anyone or Anything Dislodge Trump From the White House? – The New York Times

Posted on by

Bret: I understand his weakness with African-American voters but remain mystified by why he isnt polling better with the younger electorate. Even so: Wouldnt it be nice to have a president who makes you enjoy the English language every time he speaks?

Gail: Mayor Pete is certainly a good speaker, but hell be even better when he runs again a few years down the line. I dont think its a rejection if you just feel he could use a little more political experience outside of South Bend.

And speaking of mayors, are you still high on Mike Bloomberg? Talk about terrible poll numbers. How much do you think hed need to spend to turn things around? More or less than the national budget of Canada?

Bret: He is my first choice by far, whatever misgivings I might have about his micromanaging style. (We former Republicans have to stick together.) Im convinced he can trounce Trump in a general election, and he would have a winning message to the so-called exhausted majority that is sick of our hyper-ideological, polarized politics. And I wouldnt read too much into his poll numbers right now. Hes a candidate of the head, not the heart. He has the money to keep going all the way to the convention, which might prove very useful if, as I think is entirely possible, the Democrats wind up with a brokered convention between two or three uncertain or unpalatable front-runners.

Gail: Ah, yes, a brokered convention. The last one was so exciting. King George VI had just died, the hydrogen bomb was about to get its first test and people were talking about the great new picture Singin in the Rain.

We havent had one since 1952, Bret. But tell me what youre envisioning.

Bret: Imagine a scenario in which Buttigieg wins Iowa, Warren wins New Hampshire, Biden wins South Carolina and then goes on to win Super Tuesday, causing Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race. Some Sandernistas will go to Biden, but I suspect most of his supporters then shift to Warren. The rest of the field drops out for lack of funds except, of course, for Bloomberg. At that point, the Democratic Party takes a deep breath, clenches some posterior muscles and realizes the former mayor offers the best shot at dethroning Trump, who at that point will be celebrating his impeachment victory after an acquittal in the Senate.

Am I 100 percent insane, or just 95 percent?

Gail: Hesitant to dismiss any wild possibility in the current climate. But when crazy stuff happens, its always because of Donald Trump. On the Democratic side things are actually pretty boring considering that weve got a wide-open presidential race.

Read the original post:

Can Anyone or Anything Dislodge Trump From the White House? - The New York Times

Could Donald Jr. or Lara Trump Run for Office in New York, and Win? – The New York Times

Posted on by

In some Republican circles, the notion of President Trumps children running for political office is not only a parlor game its a matter of finding the right opportunity for the right Trump.

Could that opportunity exist in blue New York? And could it happen now?

Some state Republicans are eager to give it a try. With Representative Peter King, a Republican, not seeking re-election on Long Island next year, the circumstance may never be better for a younger Trump to run.

But which one?

Donald Trump Jr., the presidents elder son and the member of the family who is most naturally fluent in the language of the Republican base, has frequently been mentioned as a possible candidate for office.

He attracts a younger contingent of Republicans to events, organizers say, and has demonstrated his ability to raise big money for congressional candidates on Long Island.

Lara Trump, who is married to the presidents son Eric, is a senior adviser on the presidents re-election campaign; her potential for future office has also been mentioned by some close to the family.

Among Republican voters, Trump is still a magic name, Mr. King said in a telephone interview. Ive been with Don Jr. several times on Long Island. Was with Lara once at a fund-raising event. She handles herself very well. Shes good with people.

The buzz around a potential junior Trump candidacy heightened last week, when a poll surfaced in New York that showed Lara Trump winning by more than 30 points in a hypothetical Republican primary for Mr. Kings seat.

The poll, conducted this month and paid for by an influential conservative anti-tax group, the Club for Growth, was picked up by the right-wing site, Breitbart, and quickly gained steam.

Word spread rapidly about the poll, said John Jay LaValle, the former chair of the Suffolk County Republican Party and a Trump surrogate in 2016. I have not heard one person say a negative thing about it.

David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth, acknowledged that Ms. Trump had nothing to do with the poll; he said the committees intent was to show Ms. Trump how popular she was in order to lure her into the open race.

Ms. Trump hails from North Carolina and now lives in Manhattan. She is not currently a candidate on Long Island, or anywhere else.

We often do that to test people who we think would be a good candidate, Mr. McIntosh said of including her in the survey, which the group said cost about $3,000.

Ms. Trump declared herself incredibly honored by the results of the poll but uninterested in running.

For now.

While I would never close the door on anything in the future, right now I am focused on winning a second term for President Trump, Ms. Trump said in a statement.

The poll might have been a lark. Or perhaps it was a way for Club for Growth, staunchly opposed to Mr. Trump in the 2016 election, to ingratiate itself to the president and his supporters. (The group is backing his re-election.)

Some local Republicans saw it as a bit of political score-settling in the way it showed Ms. Trump soundly besting the only other named candidate, Rick Lazio, a former Long Island congressman. Mr. McIntosh called the moderate Mr. Lazio a repeat loser, but added: I like Rick Lazio. Theres no personal animosity there.

Asked about the poll, Mr. Lazio said in an email that to the best of my knowledge I have never met Lara Trump, and added that he had no knowledge as to whether she has ever lived in, been employed in and has had a meaningful involvement with the people of the Second Congressional District.

Whatever the reason for the survey, it underscored the popularity of the Trumps, particularly on Long Island.

The children are popular among party activists in New York, so much so that Republican fund-raisers practically swoon over the idea of getting one of them to headline an event. Donald Trump Jr., has been particularly prolific and lucrative, making several trips this year to Long Island.

Theyve been extremely helpful to the local party, Mr. LaValle said of the presidents family. Theyre certainly a known commodity here.

They come frequently for social and political events, Mr. LaValle said, including on Thursday night, when Donald Trump Jr. headlined a fund-raiser for Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican who represents eastern Suffolk County.

The event, at a St. James, N.Y., catering hall, drew more than 350 people and raised more than $200,000 for Mr. Zeldins re-election, according to his campaign.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly been floated by supporters as a potential future candidate for president, and, much less realistically, for New York City mayor, a tall order given the citys strong Democratic base and its intense dislike for the president.

Listen, I dont ever rule anything out, Mr. Trump said on CBS This Morning this month when asked about his political future. He declined to comment for this article.

A year earlier, he told The New York Times that he loved the intensity of campaigning, but admitted that he was less sure how much he would love aspects of the actual job.

The fund-raiser on Thursday appeared to be at least the third time that Mr. Trump helped raise money for Mr. Zeldin, who has risen to party prominence as a vocal defender of the president and his family.

Nobody, other than the president himself, brings more star power, excitement and energy than members of the Trump family, Nick Langworthy, the state Republican Party chairman, said in a statement. Its a special phenomenon that no other president has enjoyed, outside of maybe the Kennedys.

At the same time, the political window for Lara Trump or any other Trump relative to run in a place like Long Island may be closing. Democrats now outnumber Republicans among registered voters, making gains in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

And the Trump name is almost equally galvanizing among Democrats as it is magnetic among Republicans, and a local race involving one of them could draw big money from activist donors from both parties.

Theres real solid support and real solid opposition to the president, Mr. King said of his district. A tremendous amount of anti-Trump energy.

Ms. Trump could win, he said. At the very least it would be very competitive.

Link:

Could Donald Jr. or Lara Trump Run for Office in New York, and Win? - The New York Times

For Trump, Impeachment Is a Show – The New York Times

Posted on by

The point is proven. The corruption has been established.

Its rather simple: Donald Trump abused his power as president to extort a foreign country into investigating a political rival.

There is no remaining doubt that this happened.

Furthermore, the conspiracy of people involved in the execution of this plan, as well as pursuing the debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton, rather than Russia interfering to help Trump, is also coming more into focus.

It is clear that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. (Some people around him may also have committed prosecutable crimes.) The only remaining question is whether some honorable Republicans might join Democrats in voting for whichever articles of impeachment might be drawn up in the House of Representatives.

At present, it appears that few or none would do so. That is a sad indictment of our country and of the Republican Party.

I have contended from the beginning that impeachment was important regardless of Republican support, regardless of the chances of conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is important because our system of democracy is being tested. The Constitution is being tested. And, not moving to impeach would in a way enshrine abuse of power as a precedent.

And yet, it is still remarkable to see the way partisans are choosing to behave in this moment. It is still remarkable to see the disinformation coming from conservative media. It is still remarkable to see just how many fellow citizens have bought into deception.

This is one of the great successes (if that word can be used in this way) of the Trump presidency: He has succeeded in eroding truth and bending reality among those who support him. He has succeeded in commandeering conservatism and twisting it into something nearly unrecognizable.

And now, all of Trumps supporters and defenders are erecting a protective hedge around him. The cult of Trumpism cant be allowed to fall.

They are devoted to Trumps version of the truth and his version of reality. In it, he is a tough-talking tough guy who uses colorful language and sharp elbows to change things in their interest and in their favor. In this reality, he is unfairly and incessantly maligned by those obsessed with hating him as a person and for his supposed successes. In this reality, Trump is being bullied.

Also, nothing said about him is to be believed, no matter who says it and how much proof is presented. Conversely, believing him, a compulsive liar, happens by default.

For instance, poll results published last month by Monmouth University found that 67 percent of self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning voters believe Trumps baseless claim that Joe Biden probably did pressure Ukrainian officials to keep them from investigating his sons business interests there, while just 16 percent said Trump made promises or put pressure on Ukraines president to investigate Biden, even though Trump had already admitted it and the partial transcript confirms it.

This is both confounding and frightening. How is a democracy supposed to survive when this many people deny a basic common set of facts? How does one engage in political debate with someone lost in a world of lies?

And of course, this is just as Trump wants it. He has spent his entire life bending the truth and flat-out lying. It was one thing when he did it as a private citizen, to puff up his chest and inflate his wealth. There were no real consequences for the country in the telling of those lies.

But now he has brought his lie loudly tactic to the White House, and he has realized that there is a section of America hungry for a show, willing to believe anything the carnival barker says and be thoroughly entertained by it.

Trump realized something that few people are willing to acknowledge: That politics is theater first. It is about appearance and performance to a disturbing degree. People want a story, a vision, a fascinating protagonist. Politics loves a star.

The derisive clich, Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, coined by Democratic strategist Paul Begala, has lasted so long because there is a grain of truth in it. Its simply another version of Hollywood, where great tales are packaged and sold, where great actors teach people to believe in ephemera.

Its just that the show in Washington controls the national budget and the national arsenal and affects real peoples real lives.

But, Trump knows that the impeachment inquiry can simply be seen as part of the show, and if he can put on a bigger, better show, he can survive it. Trump is not concerned about truth, protocol, tradition or the sanctity of the Constitution.

Trump cares about Trump. Trump cares about the Trump brand and the Trump show. Trump will reduce this country to rubble before he will submit to correction. And, hell portray our destruction as his greatest show.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram.

Continued here:

For Trump, Impeachment Is a Show - The New York Times

What the Impeachment Hearings Look Like From Europe – The New York Times

Posted on by

HAMBURG, Germany A couple of years ago I took a vacation to Sicily. I had parked my car in a public lot when a local guy approached me to ask for money. I pointed to a sign that read free parking, so why did he think he could demand anything of me? He said that of course I was not obliged to pay him, but if I wanted to make sure my car was undamaged upon my return, Id better be friends with him and give him a couple of euro.

We had a deal.

I thought back to this episode when I watched the Trump impeachment hearings last week. To European eyes, what is on display there is more than just a controversy over whether Donald Trump abused his presidential powers. Rather, it looks like the defining battle between two ideas of America: America as a partner and America as a bully. The bigger question hanging over the entire impeachment question is whether a majority of Americans believe that coercing a country like Ukraine into cooperation for the sake of the Republican Party is acceptable foreign policy.

From everything we know, Mr. Trump put President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-dont situation: Either you deliver political ammunition against the Democrats by publicly announcing investigations against the son of Joe Biden, or I will freeze our military assistance to you. To a country at war with Russia, this choice basically meant: become a pawn in my political campaign, or risk serious damage.

Only a slim majority of Americans endorse the proceedings which means that for tens of millions of Americans, Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, and theyre O.K. with it. Democrats believe it was an abuse of power; everyone else, it seems, believes President Trump was just trying to do a deal.

That view is not surprising. Since the end of the Cold War, America has gained little from the liberal world order on which it spent more dollars, blood and lives than any other nation. Free trade and democracy? They came back to haunt Americas industry when China and its state-subsidized manufacturers outcompeted everyone in the World Trade Organization, without opening its own markets.

A free and united Europe? The continent that America protected and supported for 70 years has profited nicely from integrating low-wage economies into the eurozone, which enabled cheap exports.

A rules-based international order? While the European Union would be happy to include Ukraine, a swing state between liberalism and authoritarianism, into its economic realm, the bloc does little to help defend its neighbor from Russias overwhelming military force. Instead, its up to the United States to deliver the anti-tank missiles. Bad deal, indeed.

And of course, such voters have a point. There are plenty of reasons America should demand more equitable burden sharing and reforms to international rule books, starting with the World Trade Organization.

But thats no excuse for dumping the fundamentals of American leadership in favor of a more transactional, debased form of nation-state influence peddling. The old principles (even if they have not always been honored) would still be worth applying, especially the idea that partnership as opposed to bullying for personal gain creates trust, a trust that creates further partnership, which sets in motion a virtuous circle of ever greater mutual respect and gain that is, ultimately, to everyones benefit.

Listening to Ambassador Bill Taylor at the hearings, a nonpartisan career diplomat last stationed in Kyiv, one of his principled statements seemed to have almost fallen out of time: If we believe that nations get to decide on their own economic, political and security alliances, we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor.

In other words, building a level playing field surely comes at a price for the one who provides the machinery. But it will pay off. Short-term costs can create long-term gains. Wealth is created by non-zero-sum exchanges, as economists say.

Maybe the loss of precisely this belief is what lies at the core of Trumpism: Why care about trust when you can exert coercive power? There is no foreign policy principle involved unless it is that the president, as the sole representative of America abroad, should be able to do whatever he wants. That is why, whatever you think about whether Mr. Trump abused his constitutional powers at home, he certainly violated a core principle of American leadership abroad.

Mr. Trumps Art of the Deal approach to the world is the opposite of what made America great. It replaces trust with suspicion and turns partners into skeptics. It is a global version of the Sicilian world order I encountered in that parking lot everyone, even the smallest con, using whatever they have to advance their interests. Is that what America wants? If not, it needs to put more trust in what used to be its greatest quality: creating trust.

Jochen Bittner is a co-head of the debate section for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

View post:

What the Impeachment Hearings Look Like From Europe - The New York Times