lily-111 - Tumblr blog

lily-111 · 2 years

Video

undefined

tumblr

3 notes · View notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Former lawmakers sign brief countering Trump’s claims of executive privilege in Jan. 6 investigation A group of more than 60 former lawmakers have joined a legal brief that encourages a federal judge to dismiss former President Trump’s claims of executive privilege as they relate to the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The brief, as first reported by Politico, argues that Congress’s need for documents related to the Jan. 6 riot takes precedence over any potential claim of executive privilege by Trump, especially considering the president is a target of the probe. “Congress’s power to do so here is not reduced — and is likely elevated — where the targets of the investigation include a former President and sitting Members of Congress,” the 21-page brief, which entered the D.C. federal district court docket on Friday, reads. “Under these circumstances, no personal interests of Mr. Trump or disputed and unresolved questions of executive privilege could possibly tilt the scales against disclosing these records to the Select Committee,” the brief adds. The coalition of 66 lawmakers — made up of 24 Republicans and 42 Democrats — argues that Trump played an “outsized role” in the lead up to the deadly attack. “From what is publicly known, it is clear that (1) Donald Trump played an outsized — and likely central — role in orchestrating the events that gave rise to the January 6th attack,” the lawmakers wrote. “And (2) the various means he used or contemplated are documented in the records the Committee seeks and are still not known,” they added. The brief was filed under the purview of Protect Democracy, a nonprofit government watchdog. Protect Democracy has contended that Congressional lawmakers need to completely understand what happened on Jan. 6 in order to adequately write legislation that responds to the attack, according to Politico. Trump filed lawsuits against the House Jan. 6 select committee and the National Archives in an effort to prevent records from his time in the White House being released to the investigative panel. The select committee and National Archives and Records Administration are scheduled to submit a response to the lawsuits by Friday, then U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is set to hear the case next week, according to Politico. Trump is arguing that his records are protected by executive privilege. “As it relates to any materials being sought in situations like this, where fundamental privileges and constitutional issues are at stake and where a committee has declined to grant sufficient time to conduct a full review, there is a longstanding bipartisan tradition of protective assertions of executive privilege designed to ensure the ability to make a final assertion, if necessary, over some or all of the requested material,” the lawsuit reads. The president has also argued that the request for documents from the committee is too large to be lawful, lacks a legislative justification and would decrease privilege protections for future presidents, according to Politico. President Biden, however, has already rejected a number of Trump’s claims of executive privilege, concluding that the former president’s assertion of privilege “is not justified.” The former lawmakers also write in the brief that Trump’s authority to claim executive privilege should only be allowed for actions taken in his official presidential capacity, and not efforts he made that related to the campaign trail, according to Politico. “And as Senate Minority Leader [Mitch] McConnell explained, the efforts to overturn the election were not the official acts of a President; they were ‘a disgraceful dereliction of duty,’” the brief reads. “The executive privilege does not apply, thus ending the inquiry and dooming the motion presently before the Court.” Former Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), John Barrow (D-Ga.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) signed on to the brief, in addition to former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.). The Hill reached out to Trump for comment.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

纽约大游行再现亚裔聚集郭文贵楼下抗议闫丽梦造谣病毒起源

疫情期间，针对亚裔的袭击浪潮持续不断。近几个月来，愤怒的亚裔聚集在纽约、旧金山、洛杉矶，在全国范围内掀起了一场声势浩大的反对亚裔暴力和仇恨的游行，人们高喊“亚裔不是病毒”、“疫情谣言是病毒”等口号。4月24日，亚裔美国人前往纽约郭文贵楼下聚会抗议闫丽梦造谣病毒来源，用实际行动打击疫情污名化导致亚裔受歧视、暴力的幕后制造者。

一、幕后制造者是谁？

自从疫情大流行开始以来，来自香港的前病毒研究员闫丽梦为了一己私利，在郭文贵和川普幕僚班农的精心策划下上演了一场新冠病毒起源于中国实验室的闹剧，该阴谋论获得美国右翼媒体和郭文贵资助的GTV媒体的热捧，内容迎合西方日益高涨的反华情绪，分散人们对当时川普政府应对疫情失败的关注，最终导致反亚裔骚扰和暴力在全国激增，攻击往往与亚裔是冠状病毒传播的罪魁祸首的误解有关。这种病毒是在中国武汉首次发现，目前世卫组织、美国现任政府、情报部门等全球政府、机构以及全球顶尖病毒专家、学者在严谨调查中表态尚未发现病毒起源于何处，然而郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦为个人私利急不可待炮制的疫情起源谣言最终导致了亚裔受歧视、受暴力侵害事件的发生。

二、前所未有的冲击

郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦毫无事实依据的病毒起源论给亚裔的经济造成无可挽救的损失，给亚裔群体人身安全带来梦魇般的灾难。

亚裔经济收入面临巨大萎缩。纽约联邦储备委员会和美国退休人员协会（AARP）2021年3月发布��报告显示，在2019年，陷入财务"困境"的亚裔美国人企业约为 9%，略高于白人所有的公司（6%）但远低于黑人企业（19%）、拉美裔拥有的企业（16%）。进入疫情危机后，根据摩根大通研究所的研究显示，在3月底，亚裔美国企业的销售额同比下降了 60% 以上，比其他小型企业的降幅都大。

亚裔人身安全受到极大威胁。总部位于旧金山的反亚裔歧视联盟（Stop AAPI Hate）在2020年收到了2800多份针对亚裔美国人的歧视和虐待的第一手报告，其中约240份涉及人身攻击。AAPI Emergency Response Network自2020年开始跟踪与新冠病毒疾病有直接关系的仇恨事件以来，已经收到了3000多份报告，亚裔美国人被吐口水、遭殴打、被割伤，甚至被人投掷化学品。纽约警察局2021年数据显示纽约市3月份针对亚裔的仇恨犯罪猛增，共为31起，其中有9起犯罪者提到了冠状病毒。其他7起案件包括反华言论，而2020年同月的记录则为零。西雅图2020年发生了14起反亚裔仇恨犯罪事件，这一数字比2019年增加了约55%。在洛杉矶，针对亚裔的仇恨犯罪增加了一倍多，从2019年的7起增至去年的15起。

在他们的分析中，官员们注意到“对华人社区的敌意与日俱增”。有分析人士指出在疫情危机中，是郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦造谣的疫情起源论造成美国当今社会对疫情起源的误解，引起美国社会族群的撕裂冲突，导致亚裔美国人莫名成为戴罪羔羊受到歧视、暴力伤害。

三、这场游行又称为“保护奶奶”的行动

发起于推特的“反对疫情污名导致亚裔受残害的正义大聚会”维权活动又称为“保护奶奶”的行动，该行动基于三藩市的亚裔老奶奶被无故击打、亚裔群体不时被讥讽为“你们这些冠状病毒人”而发起，号召网民于4月24日到疫情谣言的炮制者郭文贵住处为亚裔美国人维权。据悉，当天上午9时至11时亚裔美国人聚集在郭文贵住处楼下聚会抗议郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦、路德炮制的疫情起源污名闹剧，游行的人们唱着14岁亚裔美国少女Phoebe创作的《生为亚裔我自豪》歌曲，举着“停止仇视亚裔”、“闭嘴，不要制造关于新冠肺炎的假新闻”标语要求郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦。路德等人在新冠疫情谣言上闭嘴。期间，越来越多的人加入游行队伍中，高峰时游行人数达到上千人，大家一起高喊着口号：“Stop Asian Hate”、“请郭文贵不要再制造疫情假新闻祸害亚裔”、“我们一起建设美利坚合众国！”.....

参与游行的人不分亚裔族群，一些少数族裔以及白人还有原住民纷纷加入“反对疫情污名导致亚裔受残害的正义大聚会”游行活动中，揭发闫丽梦在郭文贵、班农操弄下制造疫情起源假谣言，抨击郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦制造的疫情污名让亚裔群体受歧视、受暴力伤害。不幸的是，4月19日发生的郭文贵支持者暴力殴打博讯记者西诺的厄运事件再次降临在游行队伍中，一小搓穿蓝衣服的郭文贵支持者（郭文贵的“新中国联邦”成员）直接冲进游行队伍中，未有说明情况下直接生拉硬扯游行标语，对稍有不从的游行人员凶狠暴力殴打，造成几名游行人员身体不同程度受伤。

四、我们还要做什么？

（一）反仇恨亚裔法案通过但歧视亚裔难消散

4月22日，美国国会参议院高票通过旨在解决针对亚裔仇恨犯罪的法案——“新冠仇恨犯罪法案”。至此，对反仇恨亚裔进行立法的行动取得重大进展。然而我们发现在郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦制造的疫情污名持续在网上传播情况下，针对亚裔的歧视、暴力事件并未消停，并大有在白人国家社会中蔓延的趋势，无论你是老人、年轻人，哪怕身份是联邦警探，只要身份是亚裔人都有可能受到侵害。

4月24日，疫情下失业的亚裔61岁老人马耀攀(Pan Ma Yao，音译)在纽约东哈林区街头捡拾易拉罐补贴家用时遭到暴徒暴力袭击至今昏迷不醒而暴徒不知去向；

相关新闻报道：Wife of Asian man stomped on NYC street pleads for justice。

4月25日，25岁的亚裔加拿大艾伯塔大学学生郑天佑（Tianyou Zheng，音译）在脸书上称其在火车上遭陌生男子殴打并遭刀伤事件。

相关脸书内容： I was attacked by a crazy stranger with a knife on the Univeristy Station platform

在一场合法种族平等示威游行活动中，攻击者泰瑞尔·哈珀突然对纽约亚裔警探文森特·庄出言不逊，使用针对亚裔的歧视用语，甚至暴力威胁文森特·庄的母亲。

（二）要从源头上消灭疫情谣言才能更好的保护亚裔家人、亲人

疫情危机的一年多时间里，郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦杜撰的疫情起源谣言像死神无时无刻不缠绕在每一个亚裔人的身边，像一盆脏水撒泼在每一个亚裔人的头上，亚裔人身体受到得伤害，经济上受到的损失，无不是郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦一手造成的。

有评论员指出，“4.24反对疫情污名导致亚裔受残害的正义大聚会”信息和行动已经惊动了制造疫情谣言的郭文贵、班农、闫丽梦等人。郭文贵资助的御用YouTube主播路德在大聚会未开展之日（4月22日路德对大聚会活动进行专题点评直播）就称不会有亚裔前往维权无非是贼人心虚又惊弓之鸟的表现；而郭文贵的支持者在当天冲进大聚会活动队伍中对游行人员进行暴力殴打行为，充分的体现了这帮人贼喊做贼以及流氓无赖的风格。

成功的“4.24反对疫情污名导致亚裔受残害的正义大聚会”活动已经让郭文贵、闫丽梦等人像老鼠一样畏畏缩缩，但是只有持之以恒的维权才能让杜撰疫情谣言者消声，才能保障亚裔不再受美国社会对新冠疫情起源的误解而针对亚裔的伤害、侵犯。在郭文贵指使他人暴力冲击游行队伍面前，游行队伍人员认为在疫情污名化面前，每一个亚裔都不能再做无辜的旁观者，只有我为人人，方能人人为我。

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Texas, Justice Dept. argue over role of federal courts as abortion law dispute heads to Supreme Court

The Biden administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that intervention is required to keep Texas from “nullifying” the constitutional right to abortion that the court established nearly 50 years ago.

The brief was submitted in advance of Monday’s hastily scheduled hearing on the Texas law that has virtually shut down abortion within the state’s borders. Texas, the federal government, abortion providers and individual citizens who want to enforce the law called S.B. 8 each made their cases.

“Texas insists that the Court must tolerate the state’s brazen attack on the supremacy of federal law because S.B. 8’s unprecedented structure leaves the federal judiciary powerless to intervene,” acting solicitor general Brian H. Fletcher wrote in the government’s brief. “If Texas is right, no decision of this Court is safe.”

Texas countered that its law may be challenged in state court when it is enforced, but rejected the notion the federal government has a role to play in trying to stop it at this point.

“Texas does not cause the United States injury by the mere existence of an allegedly unconstitutional state law that may affect private parties,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in his brief.

“Not even the United States can obtain an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Texas’s law by suing Texas.”

The cases the court will hear Monday raise complicated legal procedure questions precisely because S.B. 8 was drafted to avoid federal court review. Its effect is to ban abortions after about six weeks — before many know they are pregnant. But its enforcement structure was designed to keep it from being stopped by federal judges before it can go into effect — the fate of other state laws prohibiting abortion earlier than Supreme Court precedent allows.

Abortion providers said the court’s attention is warranted because the technique will quickly spread.

“If Texas gets away with this ploy, the constitutional right to abortion will be the first but certainly not the last target of States unwilling to accept federal law with which they disagree,” said the brief filed by Whole Women’s Health, which has clinics in the state.

The Texas case is only the leadoff in what could be a momentous term for reproductive rights at the Supreme Court. The justices on Dec. 1 will consider a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks.

That case, unlike the Texas law, will have implications for Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the cases that, respectively, first established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 and reaffirmed it in 1992.

In political spotlight, Supreme Court embarks on controversial term

In United States v. Texas and Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, both to be argued Monday, the justices will examine unique enforcement policy for the law’s prohibition on abortions after cardiac activity is noted in the embryo, as early as about six weeks. There is no exception for rape or incest, and the abortion patient cannot be sued.

Usually in challenging abortion restrictions, opponents seek to enjoin government officials from enforcing laws that violate the constitutional protections the Supreme Court has recognized. Numerous state laws that would have banned previability abortions were struck by federal courts on those grounds.

But the Texas law is enforced by private citizens rather than the state government. Any individual can sue anyone who aids or abets a prohibited abortion. Successful lawsuits would result in an award of at least $10,000 to the person who filed the complaint.

When the Supreme Court considered a request from abortion providers to keep the state law from going into effect, the majority’s one-paragraph opinion cited the law’s “complex and novel” procedural questions and said it was not clear that abortion providers challenging the law were suing the proper defendants.

“Federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves,” the majority wrote in allowing the law to go into effect. The majority consisted of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., along with President Donald Trump’s three nominees, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The group said the law presented “serious” constitutional questions.

The court’s three liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — said it was clear to them the law was, in Sotomayor’s words, “flagrantly unconstitutional.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. provided a fourth vote for blocking the law, saying it required additional judicial scrutiny. “The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. He would have allowed more time for courts to consider “whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.”

After the suit brought by abortion providers was turned away, the Justice Department got involved, suing the state of Texas on behalf of those who it said were being denied their constitutional rights. A federal district judge agreed with the government. U.S. District Judge Robert L. Pitman halted the law, writing, “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

Two days later, however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overruled him and reinstated the law. It said it would consider the merits of the law in December. But the Supreme Court agreed to the request from abortion providers and the Justice Department not to wait for the 5th Circuit to rule on the merits.

In its brief Wednesday, the Justice Department counters Texas’s claim that those affected by the law can violate it and assert in state court that the law is unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court’s precedents.

“That path is not even theoretically available to pregnant women — whose rights S.B. 8 directly violates — because they cannot be sued under the law,” the Justice Department states. “And S.B. 8 is designed to ensure that the threat of enforcement suits deters providers from performing covered abortions altogether.”

But Texas counters that does not mean the federal government has a right to stand in their place.

Jonathan Mitchell, one of the law’s architects who represents private citizens wishing to bring suits, agreed in his brief to the court that the executive branch lacks authority.

“Congress has never authorized the United States to sue a state whenever it violates the constitutional rights of its citizens,” he writes.

He added: “What is deterring abortion providers is not the procedural structure of SB 8 or its threatened penalties, but the uncertain status of the right to abortion” given the court’s decision to take up the Mississippi case.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Restrictive Texas abortion law back in effect as appeals court issues temporary stay

A panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary administrative stay Friday night that will allow state courts in Texas to continue accept lawsuits under the state's restrictive abortion law.

President Joe Biden's Justice Department had sued the state of Texas last month after it instituted a ban on abortions once doctors detect cardiac activity -- about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a woman would even know she was pregnant. The law, which is civil instead of criminal, allows anyone to sue someone they "reasonably believed" provided an illegal abortion or assisted someone in getting it in the state.

The ruling late Friday will again reinstate the law, at least as the appeals process continues to unfold.

"IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is temporarily held in abeyance pending further order by this motions panel," the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its ruling. "Appellee is directed to respond to the emergency motion by 5 pm on Tuesday, October 12, 2021."

"IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s alternative motion for a temporary administrative stay pending the court’s consideration of the emergency motion is GRANTED," the court, comprised of Judges Carl E. Stewart, Catharina Haynes and James C. Ho, added.

MORE: Texas clinics resume abortion services after 6-week ban paused

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman had issued an emergency injunction barring enforcement of the controversial new abortion law and effectively allowing abortions after six weeks again.

The state of Texas immediately appealed that injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In addition to the emergency injunction, Pitman had denied Texas' request to put a pause on his ruling while the state appeals it. But that was undone Friday.

"That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Pitman wrote.

In the meantime, as the appellate court waited to rule Friday, some abortion providers in Texas had already begun to offer services again to people past six weeks into pregnancy.

"We reached out to some of the patients that we had on a waiting list to come in to have abortions today, folks whose pregnancies did have cardiac activity earlier in September," Whole Woman's Health founder Amy Hagstrom Miller said during a press briefing with the Center for Reproductive Rights Thursday. "And we were able to see a few people as early as, 8, 9 this morning, right away when we opened the clinic."

MORE: Texas appeals judge's temporary injunction barring enforcement of abortion law

The 113-page ruling from Pitman Wednesday was scathing in targeting the state in how he says it schemed to evade judicial review in its implementation of this law.

"A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established," Pitman wrote. "Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that."

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Gen. Milley calls Chinese weapon test ‘very concerning’

WASHINGTON (AP) — China recently conducted a “very concerning” test of a hypersonic weapon system as part of its aggressive advance in space and military technologies, the top U.S. military officer says.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the first Pentagon official to confirm on the record the nature of a test this year by the Chinese military that the Financial Times had reported was a nuclear-capable hypersonic weapon that was launched into space and orbited the Earth before re-entering the atmosphere and gliding toward its target in China.

Milley said he could not discuss details because aspects involved classified intelligence. He said the United States also is working on hypersonic weapons, whose key features include flight trajectory, speed and maneuverability that make them capable of evading early warning systems that are part of U.S. missile defenses. The U.S. has not conducted a hypersonic weapon test of the sort Milley said China had achieved.

“What we saw was a very significant event of a test of a hypersonic weapon system, and it is very concerning,” Milley said on “The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations” on Bloomberg Television.

“I think I saw in some of the newspapers, they used the term Sputnik moment,” he added. “I don’t know if it’s quite a Sputnik moment, but I think it’s very close to that. So it’s a very significant technological event that occurred, or test that occurred, by the Chinese. And it has all of our attention.”

The launch of a Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957 stunned the world and fed U.S. fears that it was falling behind technologically in an accelerating arms race in the early stages of the nuclear age.

China has disputed Western news reports about its test, saying it was working on technology for a re-useable space vehicle for peaceful purposes.

Asked about Milley’s remarks, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said he was conveying concern about China’s military modernization.

“They continue to pursue capabilities that increase tensions in the region,” she said. “And we continue to have concerns about that. And I think that was reflected in his comments.”

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby declined to comment on the test or on Milley’s remarks beyond saying that China’s work on advanced hypersonic weaponry is among a “suite of issues” that cause the Biden administration to be concerned by “the trajectory of where things are going in the Indo-Pacific.”

Asked about progress on U.S. hypersonic weapon technologies, Kirby said it “is real, it’s tangible, and we are absolutely working toward being able to develop that capability.” He declined to provide specifics.

Some U.S. defense experts say the worry about China’s work on a hypersonic weapon that could deliver a nuclear weapon from space are overblown.

James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in an essay last week that the United States has long been vulnerable to a Chinese nuclear attack.

“While the prospect of a nuclear attack against the United States is terrifying, this is no Sputnik moment — partly because it’s not entirely clear what was tested, but mostly because the threat of a Chinese nuclear attack on the United States isn’t remotely new,” Acton wrote.

In addition to its advances in hypersonic weapons, China has been expanding its network of underground silos that could be used to launch intercontinental-range nuclear missiles, and it has rebuffed U.S. calls to join nuclear arms control talks. The U.S. also has raised concerns about what it calls Chinese efforts to intimidate Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as part of its territory, and to claim disputed islands and other land features in the South China Sea.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

US, China sparring over Taiwan heats up anew

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States and China are stepping up their war of words over Taiwan in a long-simmering dispute that has significant implications for the power dynamic in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

Amid a surge in Chinese military activity near the island that China regards as a renegade province and has vowed to reclaim by force if necessary, Washington and Beijing have launched new campaigns for global support for their respective positions, each using the stern and lofty language of sovereignty and international precedent. And neither is backing down.

While the disagreement over Taiwan isn’t new and has long vexed relations between the countries, recent developments suggest the two are coming closer to confrontation. Last week, President Joe Biden set off alarm bells in Beijing by saying the U.S. has a firm commitment to help Taiwan defend itself in the event of a Chinese attack.

China protested and the Biden administration sought to play down the comments. White House, State Department and Pentagon officials all said the president did not mean to imply any changes in the U.S. “one-China policy,” which recognizes Beijing but allows informal relations and defense ties with Taipei.

State Department spokesman Ned Price declined to elaborate on what the administration would define as “meaningful participation.”

Blinken’s statement came just five days after Biden’s remarks about Taiwan’s defense and only two days after the State Department announced that senior U.S. and Taiwanese officials met virtually to discuss expanding Taiwan’s participation in UN and other international groupings.

In that Oct. 22 meeting, administration officials “reiterated the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the World Health Organization and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and discussed ways to highlight Taiwan’s ability to contribute to efforts on a wide range of issues,” the State Department said.

Apart from complaining about Biden’s initial comments, China reacted angrily to that discussion, slamming the administration for making “irresponsible statements” that encourage Taiwanese independence and demanding a halt to U.S. “official contacts” with the island’s government.

“Taiwan’s participation in activities of the international organizations must be handled in accordance with the one-China principle,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said. “Taiwan’s attempts to expand its so-called ‘international space’ with foreign support are in nature seeking to expand the space for ‘Taiwan independence’ and secession. It will surely end in failure.”

The back-and-forth is playing out against a backdrop of increasing belligerence by both sides toward the other, even as they profess to have common interests on issues ranging from trade to climate to North Korea. Relations have plunged to new lows since nosediving under the Trump administration, which adopted a confrontational approach on trade, visas, diplomatic representation and educational exchanges.

While both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden have been firm in their opposition to Chinese activities in Tibet, Hong Kong, China’s western Xinjiang region and the South China Sea, the Taiwan issue pre-dates most of those irritants.

China has recently upped its threat to bring Taiwan under its control by force if necessary by flying warplanes near the island and rehearsing beach landings.

China and Taiwan split during a civil war in 1949. The U.S. cut formal diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979 in order to recognize Beijing. The U.S. does not openly contest China’s claim to Taiwan, but is committed by law to ensure the island can defend itself and to treat all threats toward it as matters of grave concern.

Under President Xi Jinping, who is also Communist Party leader and head of the armed forces, China has been stepping up military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Taiwan. Over its National Day weekend at the beginning of the month, China sent a record 149 military aircraft southwest of Taiwan in strike group formations, prompting Taiwan to scramble aircraft and activate its air defense missile systems.

China has also recently held beach landing exercises on its side of the roughly 160-kilometer-wide (100-mile-wide) Taiwan Strait, which, like the aircraft incursions, it described as a warning to Tsai Ing-wen’s administration.

The U.S. has reinforced its support for Taiwan with military sales.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Democrats narrowly best GOP in House campaign fundraising

WASHINGTON -- The fundraising committee aiming to help Democrats maintain control of the House said Thursday it raised $106.5 million through the end of last month, narrowly edging the $105 million its Republican counterpart announced collecting over the same period.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said it had its best third quarter ever for an off-election year, taking in $38.5 million between July 1 and Sept. 30. Its latest haul included $14.5 million in September alone.

That announcement came mere hours after the National Republican Congressional Committee called its nine-month haul a 74% increase over last cycle, noting that it raised $25.8 million just in the third quarter. The group said it now has $65 million cash on hand, nearly triple what it had at this time two years ago.

The Democratic committee reported slightly less in its campaign coffers, saying it had $63 million in cash on hand.

The impressive off-year fundraising by both parties is yet another indication of how hotly contested the 2022 elections will be — when Republicans have vowed to erase Democrats' narrow control of both chambers of Congress.

Rep. John Yarmuth, the lone Democratic member of Congress from Kentucky and chair of the influential House Budget Committee, said this week that he won't seek reelection. Though both parties have seen members of Congress announce their retirements or plans to leave their seats to run for other offices, the loss of a high-ranking Democrat has sparked speculation that the party could be facing further political headwinds next year.

“House Democrats are sprinting toward the exits because they know their days in the majority are numbered and we look forward to keeping up the pressure," Tom Emmer, chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement.

Republicans say their figures show a party energized heading into the midterms, as President Joe Biden's popularity wanes and with history on their side. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections.

The Democrats' congressional fundraising arm announced last month that it had raised $10 million in August — besting the Republican House campaign committee's $6.5 million.

But the NRCC outraised the Democratic House committee $45.4 million to $36.5 million through the year’s second quarter, which ended June 30.

The NRCC's total announced Thursday includes $19.4 million transferred from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, $10.3 million from House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and $1.2 million from Elise Stefanik, who earlier this year replaced Rep. Liz Cheney, a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, as the House Republican Conference chair.

The Democratic committee did not immediately announce how much of its fundraising totals came from transfers from the campaign accounts of other top party leaders.

——— This story has been corrected to show the group’s $65 million cash on hand is nearly triple what it had two years ago, not four years ago.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

CNN guest accuses GOP of trying to 'dump anthrax in the water supply' over debt ceiling fight

CNN guest James Fallows equated the GOP with extremist groups threatening to throw anthrax in the water supply due to their lack of cooperation with Democrats over the debt ceiling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and 10 other Republicans voted for a short-term increase to the federal debt increase on Thursday. But McConnell told President Biden that he and many of his colleagues will not vote to raise the debt ceiling in December should Democrats face "another avoidable crisis."

"Last night, Republicans filled the leadership vacuum that has troubled the Senate since January," McConnell said in a letter to Biden. "I write to inform you that I will not provide such assistance again if your all-Democrat government drifts into another avoidable crisis."

Fallows, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, appeared to take the Democrats' side, making an unflattering comparison for the GOP.

"It's an outright threat to the welfare of the country," Fallows said Sunday on "Reliable Sources," hosted by Brian Stelter. "An extreme example would be a group saying we're going to dump anthrax in the water supply unless you do X, Y, or Z."

"That is a threat," he continued. "It's not a public health threat but it's a threat that can have real economic implications."

"Using the filibuster to renege on the credit of the United States is not a normal disagreement," Fallows, a frequent guest of Stelter's, said.

His comments were followed by Brian Stelter and Yahoo! News White House correspondent Brittany Shepherd complaining that the press were reporting that the Democrats were in "disarray." Stelter wondered if it would be more accurate to say "Congress was in disarray." Shepherd agreed, saying that message from the media gave "political game chips to both people." She added that it allows moderate Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema, Ariz., and Joe Manchin, W. Va., the opportunity to have one-on-ones with the president and have "unbridled power."

Sens. Sinema and Manchin have been targeted by both progressives and liberal media for refusing to join their colleagues and voting in favor of a $3.5 trillion spending package.

Several Republicans were not on board with last Thursday's vote to raise the debt ceiling. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said they "folded" on the matter.

"At the end of the day, we blinked," Graham said on "Hannity." "Two things have happened: We let our people down, and we made Democrats believe that we are all talk and no action."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Former President Trump also sounded off on the GOP's move, accusing McConnell of throwing a "lifeline" to the Democrats.

"The Republican Senate needs new leadership," Trump said.

"Mitch is not the guy, not the right guy, he's not doing the job," he added. "He gave [Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and his Democrats] a lifeline – it's more than a lifeline, he gave them so much time to figure out what to do because they were in a big bind; they were unable to do anything."

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Remains of Marine who died in Kabul airport blast returned home on 9/11

The remains of a U.S. Marine who died in an attack on Afghanistan’s international airport late last month returned home on the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Sgt. Sgt. Johanny Rosario Pichardo, 25, was one of 13 American service members who were killed on Aug. 26 when a suicide bombing occurred Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul.

The attack was believed to be carried out by ISIS-K.

Pichardo’s remains returned to Massachusetts on Saturday, according to CBS Boston.

People lined the highways in Pichardo’s hometown of Lawrence, Mass., as a vehicle processional made its way through the city, the news outlet reported.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker ®, Boston Mayor Kim Janey (D) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) paid their respects to Pichardo’s family at the airport, according to The Associated Press.

Pichardo is one of the last fallen American service members to return home following the attack, according to Reuters. She enlisted with the 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade after graduating from high school in 2014.

According to an obituary from Farrah Funeral Home, Pichardo died as she was screening women and children at the Abbey Gate.

A public visitation is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 14. She will be buried in her hometown of Lawrence.

Pichardo’s return comes at a sobering time on the 20th anniversary of the terror attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked and crashed at three sites in the U.S. including New York City, the Pentagon in Virginia and Shanksville, Pa.

Overall the events caused nearly 3,000 deaths and sparked America’s longest war in Afghanistan. The U.S. withdrew the final troops from Afghanistan on Aug. 31, days after the attack on the airport.

Many of those who died in last month’s attack were between the ages of 20 and 25, meaning they were just children when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred.

0 notes

lily-111 · 2 years

Text

Remains of Marine who died in Kabul airport blast returned home on 9/11 The remains of a U.S. Marine who died in an attack on Afghanistan’s international airport late last month returned home on the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Sgt. Sgt. Johanny Rosario Pichardo, 25, was one of 13 American service members who were killed on Aug. 26 when a suicide bombing occurred Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. The attack was believed to be carried out by ISIS-K. Pichardo’s remains returned to Massachusetts on Saturday, according to CBS Boston. People lined the highways in Pichardo’s hometown of Lawrence, Mass., as a vehicle processional made its way through the city, the news outlet reported. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker ®, Boston Mayor Kim Janey (D) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) paid their respects to Pichardo’s family at the airport, according to The Associated Press. Pichardo is one of the last fallen American service members to return home following the attack, according to Reuters. She enlisted with the 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade after graduating from high school in 2014. According to an obituary from Farrah Funeral Home, Pichardo died as she was screening women and children at the Abbey Gate. A public visitation is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 14. She will be buried in her hometown of Lawrence. Pichardo’s return comes at a sobering time on the 20th anniversary of the terror attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Four planes were hijacked and crashed at three sites in the U.S. including New York City, the Pentagon in Virginia and Shanksville, Pa. Overall the events caused nearly 3,000 deaths and sparked America’s longest war in Afghanistan. The U.S. withdrew the final troops from Afghanistan on Aug. 31, days after the attack on the airport. Many of those who died in last month’s attack were between the ages of 20 and 25, meaning they were just children when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred.

0 notes

lily-111 · 3 years

Text

Progressives warn against ‘false choice’ in Biden bill trims

Progressive leaders in Congress are warning colleagues against a “false choice” over what to keep or cut as Democrats scale back President Joe Biden’s now-$2 trillion package of social services and climate change strategies.

In a letter Wednesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus argue the package should not simply be narrowed as centrist lawmakers prefer, but instead kept as Biden’s bigger vision but for fewer than 10 years — “shorter, transformative investments” that could be started quickly and then revisited.

“Much has been made in recent weeks about the compromises necessary to enact this transformative agenda,” wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and other leaders of the 96-member progressive caucus in their letter, obtained by The Associated Press.

“We have been told that we can either adequately fund a small number of investments or legislate broadly, but only make a shallow, short-term impact. We would argue that this is a false choice.”

It’s a debate that has been raging behind the scenes and spilling into public as Biden and his allies in Congress have reached another stalemate, working to chisel what had been a sprawling $3.5 trillion package to the still sizable sum of about $2 trillion — to be paid for with tax increases for corporations and the wealthy.

With the calendar slipping toward a new deadline, Pelosi has warned “difficult decisions” must be made to reach consensus ahead of a self-imposed Oct. 31 deadline for passage.

Republicans are dead set against the package. So Biden and his party are left to deliberate among themselves, with all eyes still on two key holdouts, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, whose votes are crucial in the evenly divided Senate.

“This will help make the case for our party’s ability to govern, and establish a track record of success that will pave the way for a long-term extension of benefit,” they wrote.

They also argued against linking the programs to low or modest income levels, saying all Americans should be able to benefit.

Despite the rising ranks of progressives in the House, Pelosi has appeared to side with some of the more centrist lawmakers, who are among those most at risk of losing their seats, and the party’s slim hold on the majority, in next year’s midterm elections.

“Overwhelmingly, the guidance I am receiving from members is to do fewer things well,” Pelosi said in her own letter this week to colleagues.

The moderate lawmakers have argued that it would better to narrow the scope of the legislation and make any changes more lasting.

Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington state, chair of the New Democrat Coalition, made that case during a meeting of moderate lawmakers last month at the White House.

The group has focused on just a few main priorities, including two that emerged in the COVID-19 aid packages — extending the child tax credits that are funneling about $300 a month to most families but expire in December, and making permanent the higher health care subsidies that were offered during the pandemic to those who buy their insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Those moderates also want to expand the ACA into states, largely those run by Republican governors, that have rejected it under previous federal funding proposals.

Time is growing short for the president on his signature domestic policy initiative, which has consumed much of his fitful first year in office.

Biden’s approval rating is down after a turbulent summer, and impatience is growing, particularly among House members heading into tough elections and eager to show voters an accomplishment.

Conversations continue quietly with Manchin and Sinema, who have infuriated their colleagues by holding up the package while not making fully clear what they are willing to support or reject.

Manchin’s priorities are largely in line with his party on the tax side of the equation, according to a memo he shared over the summer with Senate Majority Leader Schumer, but diverge on spending.

The Democrats propose raising corporate taxes to the 26.5% rate in the House bill, and the top individual income tax rate to 39.6% on earning beyond $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples.

But that is leading to tough questions: Should Biden keep the sweep of his proposals — free childcare and community college; dental, vision and hearing aid benefits for seniors — or scale back to a few key health and education programs that could be more permanent?

The progressives have held great sway so far in the debate, but unless Manchin and Sinema come on board, there is no clear path to a deal, risking its collapse.

In their letter Wednesday, the progressives said their constituents are depending on them to deliver on the far-ranging package of health care, childcare, family leave, education and other investments, including those to fight climate change.

“If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly, we strongly encourage you to choose the latter,” they wrote.

The idea, the progressives said, is start the programs “as quickly as possible,” but for shorter durations, with lawmakers free to campaign in the future for their renewal.

0 notes

lily-111 · 3 years

Text

The scoundrel listened to the slanderous rumor that he wanted to be a scoundrel to the end and declared bankruptcy to prevent the fine from being paid

In the past few days, the huge fine surrounding Guo Wengui has kept him in a state of high stress, even using sleeping pills that have "no side effects". After all, Guo Wengui himself has never been one to respond positively to such negative news, but today, Mr. Tang Han's tweet shows that Guo Wengui did not pay the fine, but chose to find ways to continue to bypass it, and even chose to file for bankruptcy for this reason, listening to the slanderous words of “ants”， treat the U.S. law as a child's play?

The company has been banned from leaving the United States because of various lawsuits, as Guo Wengui revealed in his live broadcast that he could not travel to the United Kingdom and Japan, which "invited him". In the past few days, there has been controversy over whether or not Guo Wengui will pay the fine. 134 million dollars is by no means a small amount for Guo Wengui, who has just returned 480 million dollars in GTV fraud and paid more than 30 million dollars in fines, with H-coin not being able to replenish the huge deficit, and when the news was announced on the 9th, Guo Wengui had said on air that he would "sue the court" because the regulations invoked by the court and the resulting sentence violate the law, the yacht does not belong to them, so the court cannot require them to pay the fine for the yacht. Such an operation looks very exciting, only to have no effect on the injunction that has been issued, the fine that should be paid will not be less than one point.

0 notes

lily-111 · 3 years

Text

California becomes first state to require ethnic studies for high school graduation

California students will soon be required to take ethnic studies to graduate high school, the first mandate of its kind to ensure K-12 students are taught about ethnic and racial groups whose history and traditions have been traditionally overlooked.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the legislation Friday, ending a years-long debate over drafting a model ethnic studies curriculum that more closely reflects the diverse population in California classrooms. It also comes amid a conservative movement to halt teachings even slightly related to critical race theory, a study of structural and systemic racism’s impact.

These Texas teens stayed silent about racism. Then their Black principal was suspended.

Despite the vocal protests at school board meetings against lessons related to race, a few other states have moved in the same direction as California. Last year, Connecticut became the first state to require high schools to offer Black and Latino studies, and New Jersey passed a law requiring public schools to offer courses on diversity and inclusion.

In California, school districts will develop coursework that delves into the contributions and struggles of Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans throughout the nation’s history. Courses must be offered beginning in the 2025–26 school year.

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers from the five diversity caucuses — Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, Black, Jewish and Native American — of the California state legislature, argue the bill comes at a critical time. More than 25 Republican-led states have passed or proposed restrictions on how teachers can discuss racism and sexism amid a larger, coordinated effort by right-leaning groups to attack lessons about systemic racism as divisive.

Critical race theory was the hot topic on Fox News this summer. Not so much anymore.

Advocates point to research showing the academic benefits of such curriculum, including a study that found ethnic studies courses offered in San Francisco schools increased attendance by 21 percent and raised cumulative grade point averages by 1.4 points.

“America is shaped by our shared history, much of it painful and etched with woeful injustice,” Newsom wrote in a signing statement. “Students deserve to see themselves in their studies, and they must understand our nation’s full history if we expect them to one day build a more just society.”

Newsom vetoed a similar bill last year, citing a “concern that the initial draft of the model curriculum was insufficiently balanced and inclusive and needed to be substantially amended.”

In the latest draft, lesson plans were added to represent groups previously left out: Sikh, Jewish, Arab and Armenian Americans. The bill also removed college-level terms related to ethnic studies such as “cisheteropatriarchy” and “hxrstory.”

The governor touted the law’s “guardrails,” which he said ensured that courses would not be exclusionary, biased or bigoted.

But, despite the governor’s approval and overwhelming support in the legislature, the new law has critics, including some of those involved in the inception of the legislation who have since demanded their names be removed because they say the law’s proposed curriculum erases necessary context.

Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, a consulting group made up of educators and experts, including those behind the initial draft, says the curriculum is “a watered-down version” of history, pointing to lessons excluded, such as “the true causes of police brutality” against Black Americans.

Addressing the criticism, the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Jose Medina (D) said the bill was adapted to make the curriculum more comprehensible for students not yet at the collegiate level. He said he expects school districts will work in conjunction with universities and state colleges to build their lesson plans.

Medina said he wouldn’t be surprised to see the bill adopted in other states, saying this summer marked “a moment of reckoning on education” after last summer’s racial justice protests in response to the murder of George Floyd.

“I very much think California is leading the way in education as it does,” Medina said.

0 notes

lily-111 · 3 years

Text

Shock!!! America's ten bans on China, for peaceful evolution of China!

Ten Commandments for the peaceful evolution of China

The CIA's top-secret "How-do Manual" on dealing with the People's Republic of China was originally written in 1951, when China-US relations were severely antagonized. Since then, it has been constantly revised as China-US relations have changed. Up to now, there are altogether 10 items, which are known as the "Ten Commandments". It was only recently revealed. We were amazed! The us plot for peaceful evolution is terrible!

The ten commandments are reproduced below

First, try to entice and corrupt their youth with material things and encourage them to scorn, despise and further openly oppose the ideological education, especially communist dogma, which they feared. Create opportunities and interests for them to engage in sexual promiscuity. Let them not be ashamed of superficiality and vanity. Be sure to destroy their emphasis on hard work.

Second, we must do everything possible to spread the word, including movies, books, television, radio waves... And the spread of new religions. As long as they aspire to the way we dress, feed, house, travel, entertain and educate, that's half the battle.

Third, they must divert the attention of their youth from the government-centered tradition. Focus their minds on sports shows, pornography, pleasures, games, criminal movies, and religious superstitions.

Fourthly, from time to time, they create some uneventful issues for their people to discuss openly. This plants the seeds of division in their subconscious. In particular, they should seek good opportunities among their ethnic minorities to split their regions, their nationalities, their feelings and create old and new animosities between them. This is a strategy that cannot be ignored at all.

Fifth, to constantly make news, vilify their leaders. Our journalists should look for opportunities to interview them and then organize their own rhetoric against them.

Sixth,Promote democracy under all circumstances. At every opportunity, whether large or small, visible or invisible, we should seize the opportunity to launch democratic movements. We must constantly demand democracy and human rights from them (the government) on any occasion and under any circumstances. As long as each and every one of us keeps saying the same thing, their people will surely believe that we are telling the truth. We capture a person is a person, we occupy a territory is a territory.

Seventh,Encourage them (the government) to spend as much as possible, encourage them to borrow from us. Then we have every confidence to destroy their credit, devalue their currency, and inflate it. As soon as they lose control of prices, they will fall completely in the eyes of the people.

Eighth,We should use our economic and technological superiority to attack their industries in tangible and intangible ways. As long as their industries are imperceptibly paralyzed, we can encourage social unrest. But we have to appear very benevolent to help and assist them so that they (the government) look weak. A weak government brings greater unrest.

Nine, to use all the resources, even gestures, words and laughter, are enough to destroy their traditional values. We will use everything to destroy their moral conscience. The key to destroying their self-esteem and self-confidence is to break their spirit of hard work as much as possible.

Tenth,Secretly transport all kinds of weapons to equip all their enemies, as well as those who might become their enemies.

Beware of sugar-coated shells from western countries

President Nixon of the United States wrote such a book "Victory without War", based on the Master Sun's Art of War.

In his book, he said, "When the young Chinese no longer believe in the teachings of their forefathers and their traditional culture, we Americans will win without a fight..."

The US is plotting a peaceful evolution of China. They tried to beat us without firing a single shot, using only the wisdom of our ancestors. Think about it. They teach us about sexual liberation, and they're anti-abortion. They deprived the Chinese of family responsibilities, but they emphasized monogamy, ethics. The great American President Clinton, he has only one affair, should be severely impeached, what does this show? They brought Chinese children into the electronic age very quickly, and our parents were caught off guard and immediately became illiterate. The only children, without hard work to earn money, can live free and unrestrained. They wear designer clothes, eat in restaurants, sleep in hotels, and don't need anyone but their friends.

MAO had long anticipated this intention, saying in "Quotations from MAO" : "We have won a victory, but we must not be proud." Because of victory, the bourgeoisie may also come out to support it. Facts have proved that the enemy's force cannot conquer us. Some comrades have never been conquered by the enemy with guns. They deserve the title of heroes in front of the enemy. But they can't afford people's sugar-coated attacks, they will lose in the face of sugar bombs.

0 notes

lily-111 · 3 years

Text

Avant-garde Warrior: Recommending the Thought-provoking Essay "Ten Commandments"