#Immigrant Development Center

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Two nonprofits have sued a white nationalist hate group in North Dakota, alleging that it committed racial intimidation by defacing businesses and public property around the city of Fargo with the group’s logo and other graffiti.

The lawsuit filed against Patriot Front in federal court on Friday alleges that the group, two of the group’s leaders and 10 others violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which the complaint says “was designed to prevent precisely the kind of conspiratorial racist activity that Defendants perpetrated in this case.”

The lawsuit, filed by the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, the Immigrant Development Center and the center’s executive director, says Patriot Front also posted “anti-immigrant propaganda” days after a man of Syrian descent fatally shot a Fargo police officer and wounded two others in July. The suit seeks a jury trial and damages of an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys’ fees and other relief.

No attorney is listed on the case docket for Patriot Front or the other defendants. Attorney Jason Lee Van Dyke, who has represented members of Patriot Front in other cases, did not respond to a message left with his office. Attorney Robert Sargent, who recently represented group members at a criminal trial in Idaho, said he knew nothing of the lawsuits against Patriot Front.

Patriot Front “is probably one of the most active white nationalist hate groups in the U.S.,” said Rachel Carroll Rivas of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors such groups but did not participate in the lawsuit.

The group emphasizes “public actions” such as posting racist flyers, holding demonstrations and engaging in public displays “meant to make people fearful,” said Carroll Rivas, deputy director for research and analysis with the center’s Intelligence Project.

The lawsuit filed Friday alleges that Patriot Front members vandalized businesses and public property in the summer and fall of 2022. It specifically cites Patriot Front logos and designs spray-painted on the International Market Plaza, an indoor market area for immigrant business owners, and defaced murals, including one depicting Black women wearing hijabs.

As a result of the vandalism, the complaint says, shopkeepers have lost customers, reduced their hours and fear for their safety.

Patriot Front’s actions “were intended to cause fear and deprive others — especially immigrants of color — of their rights, and, unfortunately, Patriot Front achieved that result,” the complaint states.

Vandalism also occurred near a Liberian-owned restaurant, in a pedestrian tunnel, and at a coffee shop and arts collective owned by LGBTQ people and people of color, according to the complaint.

Recent vandalism took place after the July 14 fatal shooting in Fargo carried out by 37-year-old Mohamad Barakat, a Syrian national who came to the U.S. in 2012 on an asylum request and became a U.S. citizen in 2019. North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said last month that Barakat’s motive remains unknown, but he appeared to be targeting police officers in what authorities have said was likely part of a larger, planned attack.

Other lawsuits in recent years have cited the Ku Klux Klan Act, including cases brought against former President Donald Trump and others in connection with the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A Black teacher and musician cited the law last month in his federal lawsuit alleging that Patriot Front members surrounded and assaulted him in a coordinated and racially motived attack last year in Boston.

The Reconstruction-era law seeks to protect the civil rights of marginalized groups of people. The statute has been cited in employment-law cases and in contract-dispute cases between corporations, and also in lawsuits alleging violence and terroristic fear since the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, said Ayesha Bell Hardaway, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law and director of the school’s Social Justice Law Center.

“It’s important, I think, for us to be mindful of the fact that violence ... and terrorism related to white supremacy isn’t a relic of the past,” she told The Associated Press.

[tanadrin]

Imagine that a century or two from now, the eastern half of the United States is conquered by the Canadian Empire, its intelligentsia deported, its land colonized by Canadian immigrants, and its remaining people mostly gradually absorbed into a Neo-Canadian identity. The West reorganizes, developing a new political and cultural center, and comes to regard itself as the "true" United States, with the remnant culture of the East (by now much changed by Canadian rule) as representing an unchanged tradition stretching back to the time of George Washington. The holdout western half is subsequently conquered by the Reformed Mexican Empire, and while most of the population remains in situ, its elite is taken to Mexico City. There, for three or four generations, they do their best to maintain their distinct American identity, focusing on the American "civil religion," the distinctive political ideals and cultural features that mark them out as Americans, and come up with a new way of interpreting their history that allows America to be a perennial idea, something not directly physically tied to the territory of the United States, which no longer exists. They compose a body of historical works based on Washington Irving's rather fabulistic approach to early American history, the half-remembered popular versions of the stories of Columbus and the Pilgrims, the First Thanksgiving, even the Revolutionary War. They don't have access to the original texts anymore--let's say this is all taking place in a post-Collapse North America where long-range travel and communication is difficult and a lot of history has been lost--but they do their best. They append to these books, or include in their text, of history a copy of the Constitution, big chunks of the United States Code, and Robert's Rules of Order.

Subsequently, the Empire of Gran Columbia invades, conquers southern and central Mexico, and its Emperor lets the captive Americans go home. They return north, mostly to California, find that the version of American history and civics that is remembered there isn't the same as the version they have (not that the Californian one is correct--the Mexican Empire has suppressed English-language education and high culture in its Aztlani provinces), and set about reforming and reorganizing the Western States (as they're now called) to be more in line with the forms they brought back from the exile. In the meantime, other bits of important literature start being kept in libraries next to copies of the received histories: some bits of early American literature, like Hawthorne, the Song of Hiawatha, some highly abridged Herman Melville, Thomas Paine--heck, even some John Locke, and quotes or fragments from Shakespeare. Some traditionalists now argue the capital of the United States has always been located in San Francisco, and that Washington, D.C. only because the capital later, under the influence of Eastern heretics.

In the following centuries, the Western States retain their independence for a time, but eventually become a secondary battleground for a lot of other empires--the Mexicans, the Canadians, the Pan-Pacific Federation, and so forth. American culture remains distinctive, insulted in part by its unique traditions, though now everybody speaks Future Spanish, and only learns English to read the old texts. In this period additional material, including later compositions, continues to accrete, forming a distinct body of sacred American scripture, although it does not exist in a single canonical form. Attempts to reconcile distinct sources, like more literal and historically-grounded accounts versus the simplified narratives of figures like Irving, produce hybrid texts that sometimes are full of internal conflicts.

Oh, and through all this, some institutions of American government like the Supreme Court still function, although their rulings only apply to Americans, and there isn't much in the way of a federal bureaucracy.

Finally the Great and Sublime Brazilian Potentate conquers most of the Americas, sets up an American client state that roughly coincides with the heartland of the old Western States (California, Oregon, most of Washington and Nevada), and allows the Americans to elect their own President (subject, of course, to Brazilian approval). During this period, an apocalyptic street preacher from Los Angeles claims to have inherited the authority and power of George Washington, and is executed by the Brazilians; his later followers point to the prophecies of Emperor Norton, and out-of-context bits of a Quebecois translation of Moby-Dick and some Mark Twain stories to say no, really, he was George Washington. Inexplicably, a version of this religion becomes the dominant faith of the Brazilian Empire before it collapses. But long before then the American state in California fails, crushed when it tries to revolt against Brazilian rule; the remnant Easterners likewise dwindle down to only a few hundred souls living in a village in Alexandria, Virginia. Centuries from now, as the descendants of the descendants of the Brazilians colonize Mars, they will point to the sacred Americanist scriptures, the Neo-Americanist narratives of their prophet's life, and the letters written by the early leaders of Neo-Americanism, and say, "all of this was written by the spirit of George Washington, and is free from contradictions." Meanwhile the remnant Americanists, who have been writing about Americanism and how it applies to their everyday lives in the centuries since, and whose commentary has formed around the copies of the last editions of the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter (SCOTUS managed to outlast the final American state by a hundred years or so) plus the thoughts of the remaining Americanist community in Mexico, continue to regard their traditions as the unbroken and unaltered practice of American culture, politics, and ideals as they existed since the Revolutionary War.

This is, as far as I can tell, approximately how the Bible was composed.

[gothhabiba]

[ID: Map of the partition plan approved by the UN general assembly on November 29, 1947. It marks the "Jewish state" in green (all the border to the east with Syria, much of the south and the inland west including the southern half of the Dead Sea; and most of the northern coastline with the Mediterranean Sea) and the "Arab state" in orange (a strip on the western border with Egypt and southern part of the border with the Mediterranean, including Rafah and Gaza; and the mostly inland north including the area where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. In purple the "Jerusalem district" in the center of the country is marked. End ID]

But how fair, balanced, pragmatic, and practicable was the UN 1947 partition plan itself? In gross terms, the partition resolution awarded 55.5 percent of the total area of Palestine to the Jews (most of whom were recent immigrants) who constituted less than a third of the population and who owned less than 7 percent of the land. The Palestinians, on the other hand, who made up over two thirds of the population and who owned the vast bulk of the land, were awarded 45.5 percent of the country of which they had enjoyed continuous possession for centuries.

Looking at the situation in greater detail, Palestine was a country of 27 million dunams (4 dunams = 1 acre). Its population in December 1946 was just under 2 million (1,972,000): 1,364,000 Palestinians and 608,000 Jews. The partition plan divided the country into eight sections: three Jewish, three Palestinian, an international enclave (corpus separatum) including municipal Jerusalem and the surrounding villages, and an enclave for Jaffa that would be part of the Palestinian state, albeit completely surrounded by the Jewish state [...].

At the time, one of the arguments frequently raised by the Jews against a unitary state in Palestine had been the unfairness of Arab majoritarian rule over the Jewish minority. Commenting on this argument, the Pakistani delegate at the UN, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, remarked: "If it is unfair that 33 percent of the population of Palestine [the Jews in the proposed unitary state] should be subject to 67 percent of the population, is it less unfair that 46 percent of the population [the Arabs in the proposed Jewish state] should be subject to 54 percent?" [...]

In terms of land ownership, despite over seventy years of intensive, centrally organized and internationally financed colonization since the early 1880s, Jewish-owned land on the eve of the partition resolution amounted, according to Jewish sources, to 1,820,000 dunams, or less than 7 percent of the total land area of the country. Now, at the bang of his gavel [...], the president of the UNGA [...] "awarded" the Jews 15,000,000 dunams for the Jewish state. Within the borders of this state, Jewish-owned land at its most inflated estimate amounted to 1,678,000 dunams, or 11.2 percent. [...]

But it was not only the extent of the land allotted to the Jewish state that was at issue. The best lands were incorporated within it—most of the fertile coastal plains (from Jaffa to Haifa) and all the interior plains (from Haifa to Baysan and Tiberias). These included almost all the citrus and cereal producing areas. Half of the former and the vast bulk of the latter were owned by Palestinians. Citrus was the main export crop of the country, accounting before World War II for 80 percent of the total value of exports. [...] As if this were not enough, a full 40 percent of Palestinian industry and the major sources of the country's electrical supply fell within the envisaged Jewish state.

[...] Jaffa [...], the historical Palestinian port and vibrant center of Palestinian cultural and social life, was not only confined within its municipal borders, with no living space for any growth or development, but was also cut off from the orange groves that bore its name and were its principal source of economic livelihood. Haifa—the main port of Palestine, the terminal of the oil pipeline from Iraq, the petroleum depot for the entire country, seat of the most active entrepreneurial sectors of Palestinian society [...]—fell squarely within the Jewish state. Many of the other major Arab towns included in the Palestinian state [...] were left just inside its borders but without their most fertile lands or economic hinterlands. The upper reaches of the Jordan River, and therefore control of the major source of riverine water supply to the Palestinian state, were vested in the Jewish state. The whole of Lake Tiberias and its rich fishing industry, traditionally in Palestinian hands, was incorporated within the Jewish state. The bulk of the Palestinian state, restricted to the central highlands, was landlocked with no direct access to the Red Sea southward or the Mediterranean westward. Its two other coastal towns (apart from isolated Jaffa) had no harbors or port facilities. The only airport (near Lydda) in the country with international connections went to the Jewish state, leaving the Palestinian state with no air access either.

– 1997. Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies 27.1, pp. 5-21.

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #17

May 3-10 2024

Vice President Harris announced 5.5 billion dollars to build affordable housing and address homelessness. The grants will go to 1,200 communities across all 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico. 1.3 billion will go to HUD's HOME program which builds, buys, and rehabs affordable housing for rent or ownership. 3.3 billion is headed to Community Development Block Grants which supports housing as well as homeless services, and expanding economic opportunities. Remaining funds focus on building housing for extremely low- and very low-income households, Housing for people struggling with HIV/AIDS, transitional housing for those with substance-use disorder, and money to support homeless shelters and homeless prevention programs.

At the 3rd meeting of the Los Angeles Declaration group in Guatemala Security of State Blinken announced $578 million in new US aid to Latin America. The Los Angeles Declaration is a partnership between the US and 20 other nations in the Americas to address immigration, combat human trafficking, and support economic development and improved quality of life for people in poor nations in the Americas. The bulk of the aid, over $400 million will go to humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan people. Inside of Venezuela over 7 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance due to decades of political and economic instability. Over 7 million more have been forced to flee the country and live in poverty across the Americas. The aid will help Venezuelans both inside and outside of Venezuela.

The Department of Energy lead an effort to get the G7 to agree to phase out coal by the early 2030s. The G7 is a collection of the 7 largest Industrial economies on Earth, the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Italy. To avoid catastrophic climate change the International Energy Agency believes coal needs to be phased out by 2035. However this has been a sticking point with the G7 since 1/3rd of Japan and 1/4th of Germany's energy comes from Coal. This agreement to phase out represents a major breakthrough and the US plans to press for even wider agreement on the issue at the G20 meeting in November.

President Biden announced a major investment deal in Racine, Wisconsin, site of the failed Trump Foxconn deal. In 2018 then President Trump visited Racine and declared the planned Foxconn plant "the eighth wonder of the world.". However the promised 13,000 jobs never materialized and the Taiwan based Foxconn after bulldozing 100s of homes and farms decided not to build. President Biden inked a deal with Microsoft for the land formally given to Foxconn which will bring 2,000 new jobs to Racine to help replace the 1,000 job losses during Trump's Presidency in the community.

200 tribal governments and the US territories of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, published climate action plans. The plans were paid for by the Biden Administration as part of a 5 billion dollar Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program. The federal government is supporting all 50 states, territories, DC, and tribal governments to draft climate action plans, which will be used to apply for more than 4 billion dollars in grants to help turn plans into reality

As part of marking Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), the Biden Administration announced a number of action aimed at combating antisemitism and supporting the Jewish Community. This included $400 million in new funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. The Program has supported Synagogues and Jewish Community Centers with security improvements like bullet proof windows and trainings for staff in how to handle active shooter and hostage situations. The Department of Education issued guidance to all schools districts and federally funded colleges stressing that antisemitism is banned under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These actions come as part of the Biden Administration's National Strategy To Counter Antisemitism, the first ever national strategy addressing the issue by any Administration.

USAID announced $220 million in additional humanitarian aid to Yemen. This new funding will bring US aid to Yemen over the last 10 years to nearly $6 billion. Currently 18 million Yemenis are estimated as needing humanitarian assistance, 9 million of them children, and the UN believes nearly 14 million face imminent risk of famine. The US remains the single largest donor nation to humanitarian relief in Yemen.

The Department of Interior announced nearly $150 million to help communities fight drought. The funds will support 42 projects across 10 western states. This is part of the President's $8.3 billion dollar investment in the nations water infrastructure over the next 5 five years.

[girlactionfigure]

🧵𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝: 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐭? 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭: 𝐈𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐬.

Enough is enough, Let’s set the record straight: the claim that Arabs welcomed Jews to Israel after the Holocaust is a false narrative and just a lie. The reality is that it's a much more complex and challenging history. Here’s a comprehensive look at the real dynamics of Jewish immigration and the reception in Israel.

1/ An Ancient Bond: Jews and the Land of Israel.

Let me first say that The idea that Jews arrived in Israel only as Holocaust refugees disregards their ancient and continuous connection to the land. Jews have maintained a consistent presence in Israel for thousands of years, documented in ancient texts and archaeological findings. Cities like  Jerusalem, Hebron, and  Safed were significant centers of Jewish life long before the 20th century. This deep-rooted connection shows the significance of Israel to the Jewish people throughout history.

2/ The status of Israel in the 1880s

By the 1880s, when the First Aliyah began, Israel was largely neglected and in disrepair. The region suffered from economic stagnation, sparse infrastructure, and minimal habitation. Many areas were desolate, with abandoned villages and a general lack of modern amenities. Public health conditions were dire, with widespread malaria and typhoid fever, and there was a severe shortage of medical facilities and basic health care. The land had been left in a state of neglect by previous rulers and local inhabitants, who had not invested in its development.

3/ The Transformation by Jewish Immigration.

Jewish immigrants arriving in the 1880s faced severe conditions but undertook significant efforts to transform the land. They joined the local Jewish community and they established agricultural settlements, drained swamps, and developed irrigation systems, turning barren land into productive farmland. New towns and cities emerged, such as Tel Aviv, which started as a small neighborhood and grew into a bustling urban center. Their work laid the foundation for the modern state of Israel, significantly enhancing living conditions and infrastructure.

4/ Hostility from Local Arab Populations.

Despite the historical presence of Jews, the arrival of Jewish immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was met with increasing hostility from local Arabs. Many of these Arabs, who began migrating to Israel around the same time as the First Aliyah, viewed the Jewish newcomers with growing animosity. This hostility manifested in violent confrontations and revolts, such as the 1929 Hebron massacre, where 67 Jews were killed, and the Arab revolt from 1936 to 1939, which targeted Jewish settlements and British authorities. This resistance reflects the significant opposition Jews faced, contrary to claims of a warm welcome.

5/ The Arab Mufti’s Alliance with Nazi Germany.

The situation grew more complex during World War II. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of  Jerusalem, sought an alliance with Nazi Germany. In 1941, he met with Adolf Hitler, offering support for the Nazi regime and advocating for anti-Jewish policies in Palestine. This collaboration proves again the intense hostility Arab leaders had towards Jews and their aspirations, complicating the notion of Arab support for Jewish migration.

6/ The Efforts of Local Jews to Aid Holocaust Survivors

In stark contrast to the hostility faced, local Jewish communities in Palestine went to extraordinary lengths to assist Holocaust survivors. As the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Jewish organizations in Israel, including the Jewish Agency and various relief committees, worked tirelessly to find refuge for survivors. They orchestrated complicated immigration operations, known as Aliyah Bet, to bypass British restrictions and bring Jews to Israel. The efforts of these local Jewish organizations were instrumental in providing sanctuary and rebuilding lives.

7/ The Birth of modern Israel and the 1948 War.

The Holocaust heightened the urgency for a Jewish homeland. Despite restrictive British immigration policies, many Jews found refuge in Israel. The establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 was met with fierce opposition from neighboring Arab countries, who rejected the creation of a Jewish state. This rejection led to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, driven by the refusal to accept a Jewish state and resulting in significant losses for the Arab forces.

8/ Displacement and Historical Complexity.

The narrative that Jews “took away” Arab land oversimplifies a complex situation. The land of Israel has always been home to a diverse population, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The 1948 war and subsequent conflicts led to significant displacement on both sides, including the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and the creation of Palestinian refugees. This complexity reflects a turbulent history rather than a simple story of land grabbing.

9/ Refuting the “Jews Left” Myth.

The claim that Jews left Israel and returned only after the Holocaust is misleading. The fluctuating Jewish population in Israel over the years does not negate the fact that Jews have consistently maintained a presence there. The migration waves of the 1880s and 1920s demonstrate a profound connection to the land, driven by historical and spiritual significance, not by temporary circumstances.

Saying that Jews left Israel and came back only after the Holocaust is like saying that pasta isn’t Italian because there was a shortage in the 1930s. The essence of our connection to the land has remained unbroken, despite periods of challenge and fluctuation. Just as Italian cuisine remains Italian regardless of temporary shortages, the historical and spiritual bond of Jews to Israel endures despite the changing dynamics over time.

11/ Conclusion: Resilience Through Truth

The ongoing attempts to distort, manipulate, or deny Jewish heritage and historical facts only serve to strengthen our resolve and unity. No one welcomed us to Israel after the Holocaust but the local Jewish community, who worked tirelessly to provide refuge and rebuild lives. Despite the efforts to alter or obscure these historical truths, they remain steadfast and undeniable.

We will not let you change our history. No matter how much people try to change this fact, it won’t work. Throughout history, countless attempts have been made to erase or undermine the Jewish people, and each time, these efforts have failed. Today, with a strong and thriving State of Israel, it is not only misguided but delusional to believe that such attempts can succeed. The more history is challenged or distorted, the closer and stronger we become as a people. Our connection to the land, our historical narrative, and our cultural identity are deeply ingrained and resilient, reinforcing our unbreakable bond to the land and our unwavering strength as a nation.

@AP_from_NY

[decolonize-the-everything]

The modern feminism we all see that claims to includes all women while also leaving the most marginalized behind is a recent development. Initially it was only for white women.

When suffragists gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848, they advocated for the right of white women to vote. The participants were middle and upper-class white women, a cadre of white men supporters and one African-American male — Frederick Douglass. The esteemed abolitionist had forged a strong working relationship with fellow abolitionists and white women suffragists, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. No Black women attended the convention. None were invited.

According to author Koa Beck, “The goal of white feminism is not to alter the systems that oppress women—patriarchy, capitalism , imperialism—but to succeed within them.” For too long, women from other racial and ethnic backgrounds bought into the false promises of equality. Now is the time to pull apart the differences between “white feminism” and, as I like to call it, “inclusive feminism,” and hold the former accountable for its inadequacies. I identify as an inclusive feminist because, in many ways, it allows me to identify with parts of my existence that others do not acknowledge. I face discrimination based on several factors besides my gender identity: skin color, cultural background, accent, religious identity, and even immigration status. My struggles, triumphs, and tribulations result from my efforts to surmount all those inequities, not just my gender. Some may think the term “inclusive feminism” is another phrase in America’s “woke” lexicon. However, it represents my experiences wholly and unapologetically. I have never felt connected to the ideology of white feminism, which, to me, has exclusively focused on white women and girls. It is less about dismantling broader racial and cultural inequities and more about closing the gaps with preexisting privileged groups—white men versus white women, for example.

White women have benefited tremendously from affirmative action in employment, benefits, education, and more. According to the Economic Policy Institute*, in 2017, “the median annual earnings for full-time, year-round white women workers was just over $46,513. That is 21 percent more than the annual earnings of Black women, whose average salary was $36,735*. Hispanic women earned even less, just $32,002 per year.” Also, looking at men’s income by race tells a story of further advantage for white women. While the acceptance and practice of interracial marriage have increased dramatically, white people are least likely of all racial groups to marry outside their race*. One might conclude that white women marrying white men further increases income disparities between races, given that white men are the highest-earning group in the United States. White feminism falls into the trap of being performative at times due to its narrow focus on gender alone.

[...]White feminism has also tainted our view of history. For instance, suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are typically credited with helping to pass the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. But this version of history conveniently ignores the contributions of BIPOC women, such as African American suffragist and activist Mary Church Terrell, as well as Chinese-born Mabel Ping-Hua Lee and Indigenous activist Gertrude Simmons Bonnin (Zitkála-Šá), to name a few

Time and again, not only have white women in the U.S. leveraged their proximity to white men in order to ground themselves firmly in a society with a clear racial and socioeconomic hierarchy, whether through creating a space within or preserving existing systems of oppression, but they have also imposed or are imposing their version of feminism in other countries around the globe as a blanket solution to women’s liberation.

State wage gaps calculated by National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) are based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates. National wage gap calculated by NWLC is based on 2017 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Earnings are in 2017 dollars. Figures are for full time, year-round workers. ”Lifetime Losses Due to Wage Gap” is what a Black woman would lose, based on today’s wage gap, over a 40-year career. Figures are not adjusted for inflation. Ranks based on unrounded data. “Age at which a Black woman’s career earnings catch up to white, non-Hispanic men’s career earnings at age 60” assumes all workers begin work at age 20. Assuming white, non-Hispanic men have a 40-year career, this is the age at which Black women are able to retire with the same lifetime earnings as their male counterparts.

Wayback link to statistic about white interracial marriage

[arkipelagic]

Asian slaves, indigenous Americans, and identity in colonial era Mexico

The Spanish Philippines had a diverse slave population for local labor and export, including Filipino Indians [i.e. natives; indios], Muslim war captives (moros), and foreign slaves from as far away as Portuguese India.

… Upon their arrival, chino slaves [i.e. any Asian slave, not just Chinese] were absorbed by the urban economy of Mexico City, where they mainly worked as domestic servants or in textile mills (obrajes) … For their part, working in the city provided chinos with some possibilities for manumission. Chinos in domestic service were especially apt to embrace the limited opportunities available to them and to experience some social mobility. In the obrajes, chinos had few of the freedoms given to domestic servants, but they did benefit from government oversight of the industry. During official visits, chino slaves appealed for protection from overt exploitation by claiming that they were Indians (even if they were from Portuguese India). Remarkably, visiting inspectors listened to their complaints, and they often responded by liberating individual chinos under the assumption that they were indeed native vassals and could thus not be held in bondage. The overall experience of chinos in the viceroyal capital confirms the benefits of living close to the center of colonial power.

The presence of free indigenous immigrants from the Spanish Philippines in Mexico reinforced the idea that all chinos were Indians. The complex governing structure of colonial Mexico involved two republics or political communities (the república de indios and the república de españoles); this organization separated the indigenous majority from everyone else to facilitate the collection of tribute and the ministry of the Catholic Church … [N]ative immigrants from the Philippines purposely sought to confirm their membership in the Republic because corporate status provided personal advantages. They asked to be tallied in tribute rolls in Mexico to benefit from concomitant privileges, such as trading rights and legal representation through the General Indian Court. At the same time, free Filipinos were frequently confused with chino slaves - a situation that had serious consequences for Filipinos' relations with colonial institutions and enslaved individuals. Some immigrants resented having their indigenous identity questioned and sought to maintain a sense of their Indian-ness by keeping their distance from chino slaves. The majority, however, expressed solidarity with chino slaves. Filipino artisans, for example, took on chino slaves as apprentices and taught them marketable skills. Similarly, Filipino traders incorporated chinos into their own credit networks to facilitate self-purchase.

Individual chinos who were manumitted also embraced an Indian identity, regardless of whether they were from Goa, Macau, or other places in South and Southeast Asia. In this way, chinos challenged official attempts to define them solely as former slaves. Instead, they sought to join the free republic. The possibility for this kind of social integration caused widespread concern among slave owners. To defend their property rights, masters started to brand chino slaves on the face, rather than on the chest or arm as they did with Africans, in order to dissuade them from fleeing and "passing" as free Indians. This horrifying development shows that Indian communities welcomed runaway chino slaves and, by extension, that slave owners sought visible markers of their slaves' status.

Excerpt from the Introduction to “Asian Slaves in Colonial Mexico: From Chinos to Indians” (2014) by Tatiana Seijas

[daily-instruments]

Daily Instrument — Appalachian Dulcimer

The Appalachian dulcimer is an American fretted zither, developed by Celtic immigrants in the Appalachia. It's the first major instrument that was created in America, and dates back to the early 1800s. The dulcimer has a wooden sound box that comes in many shapes such as an hourglass, teardrop, rectangle, or a narrow trapezoid. Along with 2 or 4 sound holes, a fret board centered on the soundbox, 2 melody strings and 2 drone strings. The dulcimer is typically played with pick or hand, but traditionally with a quill.

[mimi-0007]

****†** EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. ****Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory—which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Unitary executive theory is a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor of fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of various federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. .

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other government agencies, or terminated. Scientific research would receive federal funding only if it suits conservative principles. The Project urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and to restrict access to contraception. The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank that leads the development of Project 2025, asserted in April 2024 that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state" while driving the country to emulate totalitarian nations, such as North Korea. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity, stating in its Mandate that "freedom is defined by God, not man." Project 2025 proposes criminalizing pornography, removing protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action. The Project advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and to direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. It recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants across the country. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted that it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many people to join the government in order to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future President to "regain control" of the federal government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation has developed Project 2025 in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA, led by its executive director Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America, led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal, led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller. The Project is detailed in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a version of which Heritage has written as transition plans for each prospective Republican president since 1980. Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.

[randomly--accessed--memories]

Overlord Niffty backstory because why not

She was born Nancy Sada in 1931 to two first-generation Japanese immigrants in middle America. She had a relatively happy childhood, mostly confined to her local Japanese American community. However, after the US entered WWII, she was suddenly under enormous pressure to acculturate herself into mainstream American society in order to prove her and her family's loyalty to the country.

As she aged, Niffty developed an obsession with perfection– being the perfect American, the perfect woman, the perfect everything. She began molding herself to fit these roles, making herself smaller, sweeter, more demure, all in hopes of achieving the ideal self. It wreaked havoc on her self-esteem and mental health, and more often than not it felt as though it was all in vain since society was so hostile to her due to her ethnicity.

However, when she was 19, Niffty finally made some progress towards her goal of achieving the post-war ideal; a handsome young man had taken an interest in her. Niffty jumped at the opportunity, falling head-over-heels for him (or at least, the idea of him), and agreeing to marry him the moment he asked. This was it. She had the perfect, all American husband and she was going to be his perfect wife.

Things were fine for a while. Niffty was perfectly happy to stay home running the household all day while her husband was at work. She enjoyed housework and even if she was a bit lonely, she knew she'd make friends with the other women in the neighborhood eventually, and if not, then her future children would fill her days. But as time went on, that sunny outlook started to seem more and more naive. The neighborhood women were cold to her due to her ethnicity, she wasn't getting pregnant no matter how hard she tried, and her husband was becoming increasingly callous and neglectful, treating her more like a maid than a wife.

The isolation took its tool on Niffty and she started edging her way towards a nervous breakdown. She tried to suppress her anxieties by committing even harder to the Perfect Housewife persona, but that only made things worse as now she was not only unhappy, she was failing at her goals. Things eventually came to a head in 1953, when she discovered her husband had been cheating on her with someone at work. Niffty felt as though her world was crumbling around her and, in a fit of rage and grief, she stabbed her husband to death with a kitchen knife. The neighbors heard the screams and called the police, who promptly shot Niffty three times in the chest when she refused to drop the knife.

Niffty was devastated when she woke up in Hell. She'd spent her entire life being as sweet and kind and good as possible, but all of it had been for nothing. She'd killed the person who was supposed to be the center of her world and was now damned for eternity because of it. She'd failed. Despite how heartbroken she felt, Niffty wasn't willing to just roll over and die or let herself be swept up in the violence of Hell. She was only 22– she wanted to live, and live well at that. She'd wasted her whole life being good and submitting to everyone who crossed her path and it'd gotten her nowhere, so why not try the opposite?

Niffty never did things by halves. She fully committed herself by seizing back her agency by any means necessary. Using her small size and cute demeanor to her advantage, she started carving out a life for herself in Hell. She got herself a job in the fashion industry (one of her great passions in life that she'd abandoned for her husband) as a seamstress and settled into a typical sinner's life. However, she wasn't satisfied with the state of things for long; she didn't want to just be another face in the crowd, she wanted to make her mark on the world.

Slowly, she started tricking people into contracts. It wasn't hard– so many sinners saw her as weak and harmless that they easily agreed to deals that they would've been far more cautious of had they been dealing with a more physically intimidating demon. Networking, exchanging favors for favors, building up her status– all of it paid off in the end when the previous Overlord of the fashion industry was killed, leaving a power vacuum that people were rushing to fill. Niffty managed to start her own business using the connections she'd made, and while all the other wannabe Overlords were fighting over the old Overlord's power and territory, she positioned herself to start gaining power of her own.

Her business was successful and began to grow, starting to swallow up smaller fashion studios left and right. Niffty's tireless pursuit of her goals was starting to pay off and she was not about to let up now. She pushed her employees to work harder, work faster, and within only a few years, she was the head of the most successful clothing brand in the Pride Ring. It was child's play to topple the person who'd come out on top in the scramble for the title of Overlord of Fashion and claim it for herself. By the end of the 1950s, tiny, humble little Niffty had clawed her way to the top of Hell's hierarchy.

For the next several years, things stayed that way. Niffty felt as though she'd finally reclaimed her personal power and was content to protect that power at all costs. She made sure her brand was always putting out the best clothes they could possibly make; she became very territorial and would crush any competitors who threatened her power like bugs; she decided that while she may never be the most powerful Overlord, she could be the most perfect one.

She developed a toxic work culture within her company, telling her employees/contractees that they were all one big, happy family, with her as the doting mother. She was genuinely sweet and affectionate with her workers and did whatever she could to make them like her– other than improving the sweatshop conditions of her factories, of course. Then, when a problem arose or they fell behind on their quotas, she would leverage that emotional connection against them and punish the whole group for the actions of a few, using the justification of "mother knows best."

Niffty started to open herself back up to men again after several years of ignoring them to focus on her career. She started leaning towards the "bad boys" she'd admired in her youth, since the perfect, seemingly wholesome option had worked out so badly for her. Despite all her power, she was still scared of entering into a real relationship though; if she let her guard down, things could so easily turn abusive again and she'd be back to being someone's little toy on a string again. She eventually decided that she liked men more as aesthetic objects more than as people. She ended up with a little collection of breathtakingly handsome male models who'd signed their souls away to her– she never engaged with them sexually or romantically, but instead got her kicks from displaying them like taxidermied butterflies, reveling in the total control she had over the people who had once had such control over her. She'd occasionally hook up with men outside of her employ, but she never entered into a significant, long-term relationship ever again.

Niffty sat comfortably on top of the hierarchy until the late 1960s. She'd met Alastor in passing a few times during Overlord meetings/events, but she'd never exchanged more than a few polite words with him. She didn't feel particularly in danger from him– his huge Overlord massacre had been over thirty years ago at that point and while he still did topple one every once in a while to keep himself fresh in everyone's minds, he usually went after far bigger fish than her, power-wise. Sure, business was booming, but she was a 4 foot tall bug woman without any of the big, flashy powers most Overlords had; she'd be too easy a target for him to get much of a thrill out of, right? She felt utterly secure that day, sitting in her office, drawing up new designs for the upcoming season, completely invested in her work. And then everything went black.

[ngdrb]

Positives about Joe Biden and Negatives about Donald Trump

Positives about Joe Biden

Over the years, Joe Biden has demonstrated an evolution on key issues. Notably, on criminal justice, he has moved far from his much-criticized "tough-on-crime" position of the 1990s. His proposed policies aim to reduce incarceration, address disparities in the justice system, and rehabilitate released prisoners .

Accomplishments: Throughout his extensive political career, Joe Biden has dedicated himself to serving the American people. As a U.S. Senator and Vice President alongside Barack Obama, he has been involved in various initiatives and policies aimed at fighting for Americans .

Leadership and Resilience: Despite facing challenges and uncertainties, President Biden has demonstrated resilience and leadership. His administration has achieved significant milestones, such as the passage of the infrastructure bill, which had been a longstanding goal for previous administrations.

Public Perception: Joe Biden's favorability ratings have been relatively positive, with a net favorability rating of +9 points in recent high-quality live interview polls. His favorability rating is above his unfavorable rating in almost all polls, reflecting a generally positive public perception .

Health and Vigor: Despite facing health challenges, including testing positive for COVID-19, President Biden has shown vigor and determination in fulfilling his duties as the head of state.

Likability and Personal Conduct: According to a Pew Research Center study, voters are more likely to view Joe Biden as warm and likeable compared to Donald Trump. A larger percentage of voters give Biden warm ratings, with about one-in-three voters expressing intensely positive feelings about him .

Accomplishments: President Biden has outperformed Trump on various fronts, including inequality, green spending, and crime. His third year in office was marked by an economy that remained resilient despite challenges like inflation and surging borrowing costs.

Personal Qualities: Despite a decline in public impressions of Biden's personal qualities, he is still perceived as able to manage government effectively. Additionally, a significant percentage of voters believe that Biden cares about the needs of ordinary people.

In summary: Joe Biden's presidency has been considered highly positive due to several key factors. His administration managed to implement significant legislation aimed at economic recovery, infrastructure development, and climate change mitigation. Biden also re-established international alliances and restored a sense of stability and decorum to the presidency. His efforts in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, including successful vaccination campaigns, were pivotal in saving lives and reviving the economy.

Negatives about Donald Trump

Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by various controversies and criticisms, as evidenced by a range of factors and public opinion.

Worker Safety and Health: The Trump administration has been criticized for disregarding negative impacts on worker safety and health, such as proposing rules that could endanger young workers and patients.

Handling of Race Relations: Trump received negative marks for his handling of race relations, with a majority of adults expressing concerns about his approach and the divisions along racial, ethnic, and partisan lines.

COVID-19 Response: Trump's legacy has been defined by the controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread criticism of his administration's response to the crisis.

Controversial Statements and Actions: Throughout his political career, Trump has been associated with a series of controversial statements and actions, including derogatory remarks about immigrants and divisive rhetoric.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions: Trump has been criticized for questioning the legitimacy of democratic institutions, including the free press, federal judiciary, and the electoral process, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.

Tax and Financial Practices: Trump's financial practices, including tax-related issues and potential conflicts of interest, have been the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

Policy Priorities: Critics argue that Trump's policy priorities have favored corporations and the wealthiest few at the expense of other segments of the population.

Public Perception: Public opinion reflects stronger negative views on the potential downsides of a Trump presidency, with concerns about his personality traits, views on immigration, and the economy.

In summary, Donald Trump's presidency has been marked by a range of controversies and criticisms, including concerns about worker safety, race relations, the COVID-19 response, controversial statements, erosion of democratic institutions, financial practices, policy priorities, and public perception. These factors have contributed to a complex and divisive public perception of his presidency.

[stellanslashgeode]

So the Bad Bachelors show never answered why Omega and Emerie are girls, what the purpose behind creating female clones would be, so I used Occam's Razor to put my headcanon out there in You Look Just Like Him. This is an exchange between Doctor Emerie Karr and Senator Riyo Chuchi.

  During the flight to Imperial Center the Senator, Emerie, and the rest of her staff gathered to discuss opportunities and possible pitfalls for the next legislative session. It was a while before the group disbanded. And a bit after that before she could get some time alone with her.

  “Emerie, how are you holding up?”

  “I am doing alright, I guess.”

  “Your new identity will hold up at immigration, don’t you worry about that. I won’t let anyone take you away.”

  Emerie smiled and nodded in response.

  Riyo looked contemplative for a moment as if assembling her thoughts, or working up to committing to something.

  “Emerie, I’ve been curious about something, but was worried it would be rude to ask.”

  “Please ask away, Senator.”

  “Why did the Kaminoans create female clones?”

  Emerie stuck out her bottom lip, thinking it over. “It never occurred to me to ask, and Nala Se never volunteered why. But I can surmise for you if you wish.”

  “I wish.” She put her hand on Emerie’s arm and she momentarily lost concentration.

  “Knowing her, it was probably just curiosity. To see if she could.”

  “Omega told me she was an exact clone of Jango Fett. How is that possible?”

  “Well, Riyo. All humans are female at early stages in embryonic development. It was a simple matter to shut off some genes and turn on others relating to gonad and hormonal development. Nala Se probably thought of it as an intriguing challenge, as our XY chromosomes may lack what was considered to be essential information for the female genotype. She may have found work-arounds in our junk DNA to make up the difference.”

  Riyo frowned. “So it was a purely intellectual exercise?”

  “I do not know why she made her decisions. But likely, yes. The Kaminoans considered genetic experimentation akin to an artform. They cloned themselves as well, to the extent that they no longer reproduce sexually.”

  “And why don’t you have more sisters?”

  “I probably had dozens of older sisters who were not viable. You don’t get something like that correct on the first try.”

  “Oh,” She swallowed. “Thank you for indulging me.”

  She had no more questions. But she took the seat next to her and read off her datapad. Emerie could not help but look over and admire her frequently during the remainder of the flight.

[icedax]

I think people arent understanding min’s chapter, like at all. While also widely relatable, this game is specifically about the 2nd gen asian american experience. Min’s chapter isn’t simply about the ability of racial minorities to be racist to other minorities. It’s about how the experience of being an asian american born to an immigrant leads to a specific pain, which often manifests in the kind of racism/ignorance we see in min. “I suffered in silence so they should too.”

It’s the myth of the model minority in action, one that she is shown internalizing from her dad: the model minority myth offers to asian immigrants the idea that if they don’t make trouble and aim for success within the parameters of (white-dominated, patriarchal, culturally Christian) American capitalism, they’ll be rewarded by the system - and part of that means rejecting solidarity with other minority groups, which results in the kind of antiBlackness and other forms of divisive racism found in asian communities. This issue is culturally specific to asian american immigrants - this particular attitude of “putting your head down and suffering in silence” is many older asian immigrants’ response to the adversity & racism that they faced in America. Min’s dad embodies this very clearly - he states explicitly in the game that when people discriminated against him for his accent and culture, he simply worked harder instead of causing a problem, and he tries to force Min to adopt the same mentality. 

Min’s chapter is both a wider commentary on the asian community and character growth. BS outlines incredibly clearly that Min’s own aggression was in survival to her immigrant dad’s own aggression, which was in response to a hostile racist world he had to learn to survive in. Her aggression is often shown in a generally positive (or humorous) light, protecting herself and her friends, but in this ch, it’s shown how misdirected it can become. And when she decides to break that cycle by the end of the end of the ch, it’s a great show of growth for her.

As an asian american to an immigrant dad and being within these communities, min’s ch resonated deeply. Older asian people can be incredibly racist and conservative, but it’s not in the same way a white person can be racist and conservative. It’s its own brand, which developed in response to the particular forms of anti-asian racism they’ve faced, and I really applaud brianna’s willingness to tackle such an uncomfortable and often ignored subject within her game, especially with a main lead character. 

I’m frustrated because i have yet to see anyone provide any specific criticism of how brianna handled the ch that isnt some flavor of “it made me uncomfortable because I like min,” and how unnecessary they felt it was. I think it’s complicated because a lot of online activism stresses the importance of centering the feelings of the victim, and min’s chapter is centered on her feelings, not ester’s. But it’s from a certain pain min experienced herself as a victim of racism that leads to her hyper-aggression in response to being called out. I think its an experience worth talking about, and it’s absolutely not excused within the text.

to paint this as brianna making her beloved character a racist for no reason is a gross misrepresentation and simplification of what literally happens within the text of the game, and potentially shutting down an important subject just on the basis of it being uncomfortable. it’s irresponsible and unproductive. she doesnt owe you a digestible and agreeable character in her game talking about her own experience as a 2nd gen asian american.

[mariacallous]

As 400 million Europeans get set to elect 720 EU parliamentarians in June, polls are predicting big gains for right-wing populists. As a result, for the first time since the European Parliament was directly elected in 1979, it is expected to have a solid majority on the right. This will mark a “sharp right turn” for Europe, the European Council of Foreign Affairs (ECFR) recently noted. The consequences for European politics and policy are already coming into view.

The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the left-leaning Socialists and Democrats party (S&D) are again expected to finish in first and second place, although both may lose a handful of seats. The EU’s far-right groups, Identity and Democracy (ID) and the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), will improve their tally mainly at the expense of liberals and Greens. According to ECFR, populists are likely to be the top vote-getter in nine countries, including Austria, the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Poland, and Italy. In nine others, including Spain and Germany, they could emerge as strong second or third-place contenders.

ID—which includes the main anti-immigrant and Eurosceptic parties in Germany (Alternative for Deutschland or AfD), France (National Rally), and Italy (the League or Lega)—is likely to become the EU parliament’s third-largest group after elections are held between June 6 and 9. The ECR is led by Georgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister and leader of the post-fascist Brothers of Italy party, and is home to Sweden’s Sweden Democrats and Poland’s Law and Justice party (PiS). If authoritarian Hungarian leader Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party, a member of the EPP until a few years ago, joins the ECR as expected, the far-right could claim a quarter of the total seats.

Political machinations already seem to be underway among some establishment parties to create cooperation with this newly powerful bloc. Experts say if the EPP, the strongest conservative party in the EU, welcomes far-right politicians in its fold or co-opts their policies, as it has lately been accused of, the balance of power in Europe will decisively shift to the right and have major implications for not just the EU’s common agenda but may also influence how member states decide critical policies.

“I think in our campaign we will ask the EPP to be pragmatic, to pick the alternative to a center-left majority,” Marco Campomenosi, a Lega politician and the head of the Italian delegation in ID, told Foreign Policy.

Experts say any such shift will have major implications for the EU as a whole, tainting its recent promises to pursue a humane migration policy and to establish rule of law at home that encourages democratic checks and balances. An empowered far-right may also keep coordination on a common defense policy to the bare minimum in the face of a looming threat from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The EU’s flagship Green Deal climate framework, which has set a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, is also at stake, as the populists try to push the EU to erode its commitment to renewable energy development and other climate policies.

Charlie Weimers, a member of the far-right Sweden Democrats that supports Sweden’s minority center-right government, said, his party’s priority is to push for a “Migration Pact 2.0,” with more stringent measures to stop the influx of immigrants than already listed in the new migration pact. “We need to stop asylum,” he told FP over the phone. “We need breathing space to deal with the immigrants already here otherwise we can never catch up.”

Lega’s Campomenosi said, “it’s not about the money” but about the “trouble” immigrants make. (Under the new migration pact an EU member state which refuses to accept an asylum seeker should pay a sum of 20,000 euros to an EU fund.) “If there are too many immigrants they can’t be integrated,” he added.

Three far-right parliamentarians told FP that with bigger numbers in Parliament they will be able to apply more pressure on the EU commissioner to throw out or dilute the green deal.

It “needs to go away,” Joachim Kuhs, the acting head of the AfD delegation in EU which is polling as the second strongest party in Germany, told FP in his office in the parliament. “It should be repealed and replaced,” Weimers added.

The liberal groups say the center-right has strengthened the far-right by co-opting its policies and forming alliances in individual member states.

Pedro Marques, a vice president of the S&D group, said the EPP parties have been “eroding the Cordon Sanitaire,” erected to keep the far-right out of governments and important positions. “The EPP is dancing with the far right,” he added, with grave consequences for the future of the union.

The cordon sanitaire is crumbling in many European nations. In Italy, the far-right is in power, in Sweden the center-right government is backed by the far-right. In Austria, center-right and far-right have been in a coalition, and the latter is polling ahead of all others in the run up to national elections. In France, Marine Le Pen is leading the polls, and in Germany, the conservatives have hinted at future cooperation at a regional level with the far-right AfD.

The legitimization of the far-right isn’t limited to member states. Ursula Von Der Leyen, a member of the EPP and EU commissioner, has alluded to Meloni’s inclusion in her grouping. She said it wasn’t clear which parties will remain in the ECR after the elections and which will leave, and “join EPP.”

Hans Kundnani, writer of a book called Eurowhiteness, said the boundaries between the ID, ECR and the EPP have always been “very fluid.”

“As soon as Meloni indicated she won’t be disruptive in the Eurozone, that she won’t be pro-Russian, centrist pro-European EPP said that’s great, we don’t mind,” Kundnani said. “The center right has no problem with far-right at all, they just have a problem with those who are Eurosceptic.”

Experts say Von Der Leyen has often backed off on key policies to appease the far-right. Just over the last few months as the farmers protested against the provisions of the green deal, the far-right found another issue to mobilize against mainstream parties. During election season, Von Der Leyen quickly conceded and granted several concessions to the agriculture sector that will affect the 2050 net zero target.

The best example of how the EU commissioner validated the far-right’s worldview, Kundnani argued, was when she created a post for an EU commissioner to promote a European way of life.

“The big theme of the European far-right is that the immigrants threaten European civilization,” he said. When Von Der Leyen created the position, she framed “immigration as a threat to the European way of life,” and in doing so legitimized the far-right.

It is unclear if co-opting the far-right’s talking points benefits the center right in keeping their traditional voters from moving towards populists, but there is an emerging consensus that it strengthens the radical right in the longer run. For its part, the far-right has moderated its own positions on many issues to appeal to the voters more to the center. The far-right parties say they are no longer calling for an exit from the EU, but merely to reform it from within. They say they back Ukraine and not Putin.

Many parties on the far-right advocate return of border controls in violation of the EU’s founding principle of free movement of people and goods. Last year, the AfD described the EU as a “failed project,’’ while Sweden Democrats said they had “good reasons to seriously reevaluate our membership in the union.” There is still a lingering suspicion that the rank-and-file members of the far-right parties harbor sympathy for Putin. Last month, Lega’s leader Matteo Salvini deflected when asked if he blamed Putin for Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s sudden death.

The parliamentarians of the ID and ECR with whom FP spoke expressly rejected Von Der Leyen’s proposal to appoint a dedicated defense commissioner to improve coordination among member states on matters of defense.

“We say that we want to manage immigration in a humane way, we can do better to manage the borders,” added Marques of the S&D. In response to the far-right’s demand to externalize the screening of asylum seekers, he said it was difficult to find credible partners. “We did this agreement with the Tunisian authorities, but when we tried to go there to check the conditions, to see how European money will be spent, they said we don’t want your agreement anymore. These have to be credible partnerships.”

The center-left S&D party simply dismisses the moderated stances of far-right parties as a charade. They believe the far-right simply wants the benefits of being in the union, not the costs that sometimes come with upholding its values. “They want an EU without the rule of law, without humanity,” Marques said. “That’s not what we built after the Second World War. They want to change the EU into something that it isn’t. Their values are not European.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trump loyalist Russ Vought pushes fascistic ‘post-Constitutional’ vision for second Trump term

Beth Reinhard at WaPo:

A battle-tested D.C. bureaucrat and self-described Christian nationalist is drawing up detailed plans for a sweeping expansion of presidential power in a second Trump administration. Russ Vought, who served as the former president’s budget chief, calls his political strategy for razing long-standing guardrails “radical constitutionalism.” He has helped craft proposals for Donald Trump to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations — and that’s just on Trump’s first day back in office. Vought, 48, is poised to steer this agenda from an influential perch in the White House, potentially as Trump’s chief of staff, according to some people involved in discussions about a second term who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Since Trump left office, Vought has led the Center for Renewing America, part of a network of conservative advocacy groups staffed by former and potentially future Trump administration officials. Vought’s rise is a reminder that if Trump is reelected, he has said he will surround himself with loyalists eager to carry out his wishes, even if they violate traditional norms against executive overreach.

“We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.” Vought aims to harness what he calls the “woke and weaponized” bureaucracy that stymied the former president by stocking federal agencies with hardcore disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration. The proposals championed by Vought and other Trump allies to fundamentally reset the balance of power would represent a historic shift — one they see as a needed corrective. “The president has to be able to drive the bureaucracy instead of being trapped by it,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who led the GOP’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Vought did not respond to interview requests and a detailed list of questions from The Washington Post. This account of his plans for Trump’s potential first day back in office and the rest of a second term comes from interviews with people involved in the planning, a review of Vought’s public remarks and writings, and Center for Renewing America correspondence obtained by The Post.

[...] Vought’s long careera s a staffer in Congress and at federal agencies has made him an asset to Project 2025, an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, to lay the groundwork for a second Trump term. Vought wrote the chapter on the executive office of the president in Project 2025’s 920-page blueprint, and he is developing its playbook for the first 180 days, according to the people involved in the effort. “We’re going to plant the flags now,” Vought told Trump’s former strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on his far-right podcast. “It becomes a new governing consensus of the Republican Party.”

[...]

From fiscal hawk to MAGA warrior

Vought was raised in Trumbull, Conn., the son of an electrician and a teacher and the youngest of seven children. Brought up in what he has characterized as a “very strong, Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching church,” he attended Christian camps every summer. He received a bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school in Illinois, and headed to Capitol Hill near the end of the Clinton administration. Vought mastered the federal budget working for fiscal conservatives, including Sen. Phil Gramm and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, both Texas Republicans, while getting his law degree from George Washington University.

Years before the Freedom Caucus enforced right-wing ideology on Capitol Hill, Vought was the bomb-throwing executive director of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. His prime targets: big government and entitlement spending. He worked under Pence, then a congressman, who called him “one of the strongest advocates for the principles that guide us” in 2010. That year, as the populist tea party movement was surging, Vought joined the Heritage Foundation’s new lobbying arm. From a Capitol Hill townhouse dubbed the “frat house,” Vought and his other brash, young male colleagues tormented Republican leaders by grading their fealty to fiscal conservatism. “Russ was determined to make our scorecard tougher than others out there,” said Republican strategist Tim Chapman, who worked closely with Vought at Heritage Action. “He wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Joining the Trump transition allowed Vought to put his principles to paper. Later, Pence cast the tiebreaking vote for his confirmation in 2018 as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought ascended to the top post in 2019. But instead of slashing spending as Vought and other budget officials recommended, Trump resisted significant reductions to domestic programs and backed trillions in emergency pandemic assistance. The national debt ballooned by more than $8 trillion. Vought blamed Congress. And he stood by Trump throughout his tumultuous presidency, as a procession of other Cabinet officials balked at breaching what they viewed as ethical and legal boundaries. “A bunch of people around him who were constantly sitting on eggs and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, he’s getting me to violate the law,’” was how Vought later described the mat a Heritage Foundation event. By contrast, Vought found workarounds to fulfill the president’s ambitions that tested legal limits and his own record opposing executive overreach and deficit spending.

When Congress blocked additional funding for Trump’s border wall, the budget office in early 2020 redirected billions of dollars from the Pentagon to what became one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in U.S. history. And it was Vought’s office that held up military aid to Ukraine as Trump pressed the government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, prompting the president’s first impeachment. Vought defied a congressional subpoena during the impeachment inquiry, which he mocked as a “#shamprocess.” The Government Accountability Office concluded that his office broke the law, a claim Vought disputed.

Near the end of Trump’s presidency, Vought helped launch his biggest broadside at the “deep state” — an order to strip the civil service protections of up to tens of thousands of federal employees. The administration did not have time to fully implement the order.

After the 2020 election, as Trump refused to concede, Biden officials complained that Vought was impeding the transition. Vought rejected that accusation — but wrote that his office would not “dismantle this Administration’s work.” He was already planning ahead; bylaws for what would become the Center for Renewing America were adopted on the day of Biden’s inauguration, records show. “There’s a marriage of convenience between Russ and Trump,” said Chapman, senior adviser at Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom. “Russ has been pursuing an ideological agenda for a long time and views Trump’s second term as the best way to achieve it, while Trump needs people in his second term who are loyal and committed and adept at using the tools of the federal government.”

Radical constitutionalism

Since Biden took office, Vought has turned the Center for Renewing America into a hub of Trump loyalists, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer later charged in Georgia with trying to overturn Biden’s victory in 2020. Vought called Clark, who has pleaded not guilty, “a patriot who risked his career to help expose voter fraud.” “I think the election was stolen,” Vought said in a 2022 interview with Trump activists Diamond and Silk. He is no longer in touch with Pence, his longtime patron, who has said Trump’s efforts to overturn the vote disqualified him from serving as president again, according to people familiar with the relationship who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive topic. The Center for Renewing America is among several pro-Trump groups incubated by the Conservative Partnership Institute, founded in 2017 by former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The center, a tax-exempt group that is not required to publicly disclose its donors, raised $4.75 million in 2023, according to its annual report.

As Vought and other Trump allies work on blueprints for a second term, he is pushing a strategy he calls “radical constitutionalism.” The left has discarded the Constitution, Vought argues, so conservatives need to rise up, wrest power from the federal bureaucracy and centralize authority in the Oval Office. “Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins,” he wrote in the 2022 essay. “It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it.”

In practice, that could mean reinterpreting parts of the Constitution to achieve policy goals — such as by defining illegal immigration as an “invasion,” which would allow states to use wartime powers to stop it. “We showed that millions of illegal aliens coming across, and Mexican cartels holding operational control of the border, constitute an invasion,” Vought wrote. “This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.”

Vought also embraces Christian nationalism, a hard-right movement that seeks to infuse Christianity into all aspects of society, including government. He penned a 2021 Newsweek essay that disputed allegations of bias and asked, “Is There Anything Actually Wrong With ‘Christian Nationalism?’” He argued for “an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society.” Looking at immigration through that lens, Vought has called for “mass deportation” of illegal immigrants and a “Christian immigration ethic” that would strictly limit the types of people allowed entry into the United States. At a 2023 conference organized by Christian and right-wing groups, he questioned whether legal immigration is “healthy” because, in a politically polarized climate, “immigration only increases and exasperates the divisions that we face in the country.”

WaPo reports that Trump loyalist Russ Vought is set to push for a fascistic "post-Constitutional" vision for second Trump term should Donald Trump get elected.

[saddiedotdk]

Kamala Harris accomplishments as VP:

Cast tie-breaking vote for the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

Passed the American Rescue Plan, resulting in $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus.

Extended the Child Tax Credit through the American Rescue Plan.

Extended unemployment benefits through the American Rescue Plan.

Passed the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for electric school buses in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding to combat wildfires and droughts in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for replacing lead water service lines.

Engaged with lawmakers at least 150 times for infrastructure investment.

Led diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico to address migration issues.

Launched the "Central America Forward" initiative.

Secured $4.2 billion in private sector commitments for Central America.

Visited Paris to strengthen US-France relations.

Visited Singapore and Vietnam to bolster economic and strategic ties.

Visited Poland to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Visited Romania to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Launched the "Fight for Reproductive Freedoms" tour.

Visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

Passed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.

Promoted racial equity in pandemic response through specific initiatives.

Chaired the National Space Council.

Visited NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to promote space policies.

Passed the Freedom to Vote Act in the House.

Passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the House.

Built coalitions for voting rights protections.

Supported the Affordable Care Act through specific policy measures.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Passed initiatives for debt-free college education.

Hosted a STEM event for women and girls at the White House.

Championed criminal justice reform through specific legislation.

Secured passage of the bipartisan assault weapons ban.

Expanded background checks for gun purchases through legislation.

Increased the minimum wage through specific policy actions.

Implemented economic justice policies.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Secured funding for affordable housing.

Secured funding for affordable education initiatives.

Launched the "Justice is Coming Home" campaign for veterans' mental health.

Proposed legislation for easier legal actions against financial institutions.

Strengthened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Secured investment in early childhood education.

Launched maternal health initiatives.

Launched the "Call to Action to Reduce Maternal Mortality and Morbidity".

Made Black maternal health a national priority through policy actions.

Increased diversity in government appointments.

Passed legislation for renewable energy production.

Secured funding for combating climate change.

Passed infrastructure development initiatives.

Secured transportation funding through the infrastructure bill.

Developed a plan to combat climate change.

Reduced illegal immigration through policy actions.

Equitable vaccine distribution through specific policy measures.

Supported small businesses through pandemic recovery funds.

Secured educational resources during the pandemic.

Promoted international cooperation on climate initiatives.

Secured international agreements on climate change.

Passed economic policies benefiting the middle class.

Criticized policies benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

Promoted racial equity in healthcare through specific actions.

Promoted racial equity in economic policies.

Reduced racial disparities in education through specific initiatives.

Increased mental health resources for underserved communities.

Secured funding for affordable childcare.

Secured federal funding for community colleges.

Increased funding for HBCUs.

Increased vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secured policies for pandemic preparedness.

Ensured equitable vaccine distribution through policy actions.

Secured international cooperation for COVID-19 responses.

Reduced economic disparities exacerbated by the pandemic.

Passed digital equity initiatives for broadband access.

Expanded rural broadband through specific policies.

Secured cybersecurity policies through legislation.

Protected election integrity through specific actions.

Secured fair and secure elections through policy measures.

Strengthened international alliances through diplomacy.

Supported the Paris Climate Agreement through policy actions.

Led U.S. climate negotiations through international initiatives.

Passed initiatives for clean energy jobs.

Secured policies for energy efficiency.

Reduced carbon emissions through specific legislation.

Secured international climate finance.

Promoted public health policies through specific initiatives.

Passed reproductive health services policies.

Supported LGBTQ+ rights through specific actions.

Secured initiatives to reduce homelessness.

Increased veterans' benefits through legislation.

Secured affordable healthcare for veterans.

Passed policies to support military families.

Secured initiatives for veteran employment.

Increased mental health resources for veterans.

Passed disability rights legislation.

Secured policies for accessible infrastructure.

Increased funding for workforce development.

Implemented economic mobility policies.

Secured consumer protection policies through legislation.

Engaged in community outreach through public events.

Organized public engagement efforts.

Participated in over 720 official events, averaging three per day since taking office.

Supported efforts to modernize public health data systems.