#a matter of congressional record now

[thewitchoftheweed]

i’m a lifelong UFO weirdo so here’s some highlights of the House Oversight Committee’s public hearing on UAPs/UFOs:

- There’s no chance these craft are from secret US government testing programs because they have specific testing fields that assets in development cannot leave without significant notice and military approval.

- Other world governments also know about this phenomenon. A declassified treaty included parameters for joint international de-escalation in the event of a “malevolent UAP event.”

- All of the craft defy our current understanding of physics. They also look real weird. Descriptions given include a floating metal sphere with no visible propulsion and a black cube encased in a clear sphere.

- Nonhuman biologics have been recovered with crashes. Documentation of this exists.

- Nonhumans are no more infallible than us and also experience “mission failures,” which result in occasional manned and unmanned crashes.

- The first documented UFO incidents by the US military predate most of our advanced programs (1940s).

- UAPs have retaliated against humans, but the how’s and why’s were not given.

- There is a section of government that has been aggressively covering up the existence of UAPs/nonhuman remains, and they have used violence/the threat of violence to silence witnesses.

- There is a list of witnesses, which will be provided to the committee in a closed door session, that have firsthand knowledge/interaction with these craft. There is also a list of US defense contractors in possession of UAPs that is also being given to Congress in the closed door session.

- UAPs are difficult to document, even with our current technology, because they can shut down information collection systems in our most advanced planes. One photo of a UAP shot down recently had to be taken manually by the pilot.

- UAP encounters are now so common that they’re included as part of military pilots’ pre-flight briefings.

- “Has the US government contacted or communicated with nonhumans?” (long pause) “That is not a question I’m allowed to answer publicly.”

- At the end of the hearing: “We’ve made history here today.”

- Congress intends to follow up on this matter, and will invoke specific laws to bypass security classifications if necessary.

[mariacallous]

The Biden administration is launching a new initiative to end the war in Sudan—one of the world’s deadliest conflicts—with fresh peace talks following months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, according to five current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The United States plans to convene talks between Sudan’s two warring parties in Switzerland next month to revive long-stagnant efforts to end a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of people and pushed millions more to the brink of famine. Switzerland and Saudi Arabia will co-host the talks, and other regional powers and institutions with stakes in the conflict, including the United Nations, African Union, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, will be invited to observe, the officials said. The talks are scheduled for mid-August.

The U.S. special envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, plans to brief congressional overseers on the plan this week and will be actively involved in convincing top negotiators from both sides of the conflict to attend the upcoming talks, several officials said. If both sides signal their seriousness about ending the conflict and send senior negotiators, then U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield—both of whom have been closely involved in Sudan policy—could open or preside directly over the talks, the officials said. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Despite ongoing humanitarian efforts, Sudan’s war is worsening following 15 months of fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the rival Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group. U.S. officials estimate that around 150,000 people have been killed—though precise figures are hard to come by—and as many as 11 million have been displaced due to the conflict.

“Sudan right now is probably the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and yet it’s not getting the attention it deserves,” Blinken said during an interview at the Aspen Security Forum on July 19.

A senior State Department official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Blinken was “very personally engaged on Sudan policy, including forthcoming initiatives.”

“Far too much of the world is looking at this crisis saying ‘it’s far too complicated,’ or they’re looking away, and we’re looking at this crisis and saying, ‘yes, it is that complicated, and we have to find a way,’” the senior official said.

The conflict in Sudan has also become a locus of foreign powers competing for influence, which analysts say is prolonging and worsening the war. The SAF is backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, while the United Arab Emirates backs the RSF. Iran is supplying the SAF with weapons, and the Russian government is courting the SAF, offering military support in exchange for access to a Sudanese port on the strategic Red Sea corridor. Russian mercenary groups, meanwhile, have reportedly armed the RSF.

Earlier this month, the head of the SAF, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, hosted Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for talks in Port Sudan, Sudan’s provisional capital under the SAF. (Both sides are still vying for full control over the capital city of Khartoum.) Since June, the RSF has seized swathes of territory near the borders to Ethiopia and South Sudan, heightening the risk of the conflict spilling into new territories or derailing the fragile peace process in Ethiopia’s Tigray region following a devastating war there that ended in 2022.

Both the SAF and RSF have been accused of widespread atrocities, including mass rape, torture, and civilian massacres. The United States has also concluded that the RSF is responsible for ethnic cleansing. Republican lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee have criticized the Biden administration for not having a coherent Sudan policy and introduced resolutions recognizing the atrocities in Sudan as acts of genocide—a step that the administration has yet to take.

Officials and aid workers focused on Sudan warn that while it is being overshadowed by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, Sudan risks becoming the world’s deadliest conflict and could spiral into a full-blown regional crisis without international intervention. Perriello has warned in the past that the conflict could become a “Somalia on steroids.” Around half of the people of Sudan, some 25 million people, face a food crisis. Of them, some 8.5 million people are acutely malnourished and more than 750,000 are on the brink of starvation, according to a report released last month by a group of experts from U.N. agencies and top aid organizations.

In 2021, Burhan seized power in a coup with the help of the head of the RSF, Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as “Hemeti,” derailing a yearslong effort to transition Sudan to a democracy. Tensions between the two leaders mounted as both jockeyed for power and influence, until they erupted into war in April 2023.

Past efforts to broker a peace deal in a format of talks hosted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, have failed, prompting Perriello and other envoys to push for a reset in a new venue with buy-in from other regional powers and the United States. This initiative follows recent efforts by the U.N. envoy for Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, to bring both RSF and SAF representatives to indirect talks in Geneva, focusing on the limited goals of expanding humanitarian aid access and protecting civilians. The two delegations did not directly meet, though the U.N. called the talks an “encouraging initial step in a longer and complex process.”

The U.S.-brokered negotiations are designed to achieve broader ambitions of bringing both sides face-to-face with a goal of ending the war.

“If a new round of peace talks do come to fruition, it would mean that all these outside actors who have been driving the conflict would now be on board with a peace process,” said Cameron Hudson, an expert on U.S.-African affairs  “If that is true, and everyone is rowing in the same direction, that would give us some cause for some hope in Sudan, really for the first time.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos:

Congressional Republicans, always eager to show that they put pleasing Donald Trump far ahead of doing anything productive for their constituents, are calling for an investigation into the debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Trump lost that debate badly. That loss is reflected in post-debate polls where Harris has seen a boost from a performance in which she was reassuringly calm while baiting Trump into dozens of unforced errors—including his baseless claims about immigrants eating pets. But Republicans are now claiming that ABC News, which hosted the debate, provided Harris with questions in advance and promised to fact-check Trump while leaving Harris unhindered. They’re also claiming that there is a “whistleblower” willing to detail how ABC helped Harris—though they can’t seem to decide if that whistleblower is dead or alive.

Trump’s real problem is that he’s a loser who never wants to admit he lost. That was true in 2020, and it’s still true today. To cover up his losing, Trump employs a three-part plan: insist in advance that his opponents will cheat, claim to have won no matter how badly he lost, and then spread conspiracy theories about why he lost. That certainly fits the pattern for the debate. Days before Harris and Trump met, Trump was already pushing his claim that ABC was going to provide Harris with the questions in advance. When Trump was shellacked on stage, he came down to the spin room to toss out a series of numbers that seemed made-up, claiming that polls showed he had won. “It was the best debate, personally, that I have ever had,” Trump said. “Polls are indicating that we got 90 percent, 60 percent, 72 percent, 71 percent and 89 percent.” He didn’t answer a reporter’s questions about where he got those numbers—though a review of his social media suggest he got them from some bogus right-wing “polls.” 

[...] There appears to be absolutely no evidence for this claim, or for the existence of this whistleblower, outside of some posts on Twitter. The claims originated from a Twitter account of an acknowledged MAGA supporter who wrote "I will be releasing an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower regarding the debate. I have just signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney of the whistleblower.” This claim was picked up and repeated by accounts with over 1 million followers.

On Friday, Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall called for a congressional investigation and said he would demand “all correspondence, records, and potential coordination” between ABC and Harris ahead of the debate. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, always near the bleeding edge of any conspiracy theory, was quick to pile on in a series of tweets culminating with a Sunday claim that this unknown whistleblower had died in a mysterious accident.

Greene then had to walk back her claim after it became clear that the story she had cited came from a fake news site filled with stories written using AI—a site that also attempted to spread a virus to anyone who followed the link. But even if the whistleblower isn’t dead, there’s apparently no evidence that they have anything to do with ABC or any knowledge about the debate, or exist. ABC has denied the veracity of the right-wing claims. The same account that said it was in touch with the whistleblower released a portion of the claimed affidavit on Sunday. The affidavit includes claims that Harris was unfairly provided with a podium “significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump” to make her look better and that there was an agreement to not ask her about “her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions.”

House Republicans are calling for a partisan Keystone Kops investigation into ABC News over its handling of last Tuesday’s debate, a debate that Donald Trump lost handily to Kamala Harris fair and square.

[ridenwithbiden]

Read the letter President Biden sent to House Democrats telling them to support him in the election

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden wants Democrats in Congress to know he has no intention of exiting this year's election, sending them a letter on Monday on his personal letterhead.

Here is Biden's letter to the congressional Democrats whose backing he likely needs:

"Fellow Democrats,

Now that you have returned from the July 4th recess, I want you to know that despite all the speculation in the press and elsewhere, I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump.

I have had extensive conversations with the leadership of the party, elected officials, rank and file members, and most importantly, Democratic voters over these past 10 days or so. I have heard the concerns that people have — their good faith fears and worries about what is at stake in this election. I am not blind to them. Believe me, I know better than anyone the responsibility and the burden the nominee of our party carries. I carried it in 2020 when the fate of our nation was at stake. I also know these concerns come from a place of real respect for my lifetime of public service and my record as President, and I have been moved by the expressions of affection for me from so many who have known me well and supported me over the course of my public life. I’ve been grateful for the rock-solid, steadfast support from so many elected Democrats in Congress and all across the country and taken great strength from the resolve and determination I’ve seen from so many voters and grassroots supporters even in the hardest of weeks.

I can respond to all this by saying clearly and unequivocally: I wouldn’t be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024.

We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively. I received over 14 million votes, 87% of the votes cast across the entire nominating process. I have nearly 3,000 delegates, making me the presumptive nominee of our party by a wide margin.

This was a process open to anyone who wanted to run. Only three people chose to challenge me. One fared so badly that he left the primaries to run as an independent. Another attacked me for being too old and was soundly defeated. The voters of the Democratic Party have voted. They have chosen me to be the nominee of the party.

Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?

I decline to do that. I feel a deep obligation to the faith and the trust the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.

I have no doubt that I — and we — can and will beat Donald Trump. We have an historic record of success to run on. From creating over 15 million jobs (including 200,000 just last month), reaching historic lows on unemployment, to revitalizing American manufacturing with 800,000 jobs, to protecting and expanding affordable health care, to rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, highways, ports and airports, and water systems, to beating Big Pharma and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, including $35 a month insulin for seniors, to providing student debt relief for nearly 5 million Americans to an historic investment in combatting climate change.

More importantly, we have an economic vision to run on that soundly beats Trump and the MAGA Republicans. They are siding with the wealthy and the big corporations and we are siding with the working people of America. It wasn’t an isolated moment for Trump to stand at Mar-A-Lago and tell the oil industry they should give him $1 billion and he will do whatever they want.

That’s whose side Trump and the MAGA Republicans are on. Trump and the MAGA Republicans want another $5 trillion in tax cuts for rich people so they can cut Social Security and Medicare. We will never let that happen. Its trickle-down economics on steroids. We know the way to build the economy is from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down. We are finally going to make the rich and big corporations pay their fair share of taxes in this country. The MAGA party is also still determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which could throw 45 million Americans off their coverage. We will never let that happen either. Trump got rich denying rental housing to Black people. We have a plan to build 2 million new housing units in America. They want to let Big Pharma charge as much as they want again. What do you think America’s seniors will think when they know Trump and the MAGA Republicans want to take away their $35 insulin — as well as the $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket prescription costs we Democrats just got them? Or what do you think American families are going to think when they find out Trump and the MAGA Republicans want to hit them with a new $2,500 national sales tax on all the imported products they buy.

We are the ones lowering costs for families — from health care to prescription drugs to student debt to housing. We are the ones protecting Social Security and Medicare. Everything they're proposing raises costs for most Americans — except their tax cuts which will go to the rich.

We are protecting the freedoms of Americans. Trump and the MAGA Republicans are taking them away. They have already for the first time in history taken away a fundamental freedom from the American people by overturning Roe v. Wade. They have decided politicians should make the most personal of decisions that should be made by women and their doctors and those closest to them. They have already said they won’t stop there — and are going after everything from contraception to IVF to the right to marry who you love. And they have made it clear they will ban abortion nationwide. We will let none of that happen. I have made it clear that if Kamala and I are reelected, and the nation elects a Democratic House and Senate, we will make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again. We are the ones who will bring real Supreme Court reform; Donald Trump and his majority want more of the same from the Court, and the chance to add to the right-wing majority they built by subverting the norms and principles of the nomination and confirmation process.

And we are standing up for American democracy. After January 6th, Trump has proven that he is unfit to ever hold the office of President. We can never allow him anywhere near that office again. And we never will.

My fellow Democrats — we have the record, the vision, and the fundamental commitment to America’s freedoms and our Democracy to win.

The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it’s time for it to end. We have one job. And that is to beat Donald Trump. We have 42 days to the Democratic Convention and 119 days to the general election. Any weakening of resolve or lack of clarity about the task ahead only helps Trump and hurts us. It is time to come together, move forward as a unified party, and defeat Donald Trump."

Sincerely,

Joe Biden

Joseph R. Biden Jr.

President of the United States of America

July 8, 2024|Updated July 8, 2024 11:48 a.m.

[portmantaur]

I don’t think the pet eating narrative is funny at all esp bc of my probably somewhat individualized history of growing up in the racist midwest and vividly remembering how that exact, almost note for note, rhetoric was levied violently against asian immigrants in the area

but something I’ve been chewing on that makes me kind of sad and also a bit flummoxed is how that “story” (racist & xenophobic fabrication-cum-rumor) was only widely televised/spread basically like, the night before the debate, and some of the staff at abc saw that and IMMEDIATELY clocked that a man who used to be president of the United States would so absolutely take that bait and try to use it to serve his agenda that they were like “we need to have that fact-check ready to go”

that’s such a devastatingly sad state of affairs. they were right of course, and despite me personally being put off by the meme-ifying of it all, I -do- think that outside of the cultishly devoted voter set that guy has, it actually did damage to his general image (especially among the target demographic of the debate, which is frankly not me and not most of the people in my general circles) — AND it gave Harris the very relevant opportunity to laugh at him publicly which, whatever my or anyone else’s feelings on the matter, will ABSOLUTELY track well as a strategy with that same target demographic.

it just gives me kind of a headache to know that that behavior is so predictable in this person. like does anyone remember growing up with the bush jr elections and believing that we had hit rock bottom in terms of scraping the barrel of competency and education/intelligence for presidential candidates? there was so much meme-ification of bush’s misspeaking and lack of understanding on certain topics. like that “jib jab” or whatever animation that got hot for a minute during his re-election/2nd term. and I remember being a literal child in middle school believing that it couldn’t get worse than this, we couldn’t lower our standards for candidates any further without hitting bedrock.

& now at the ripe age of 32 I watched a man more or less proudly announce that he doesn’t know the difference between tariffs and taxes on live television, and also be correctly predicted to take the most unreliable and ignorant bait imaginable such that not even his opponent but the moderators had to have “so reports say that is entirely untrue” right there in the chamber because everyone and their mother knew when that racist story got published that a dude who was literally already president for four years would fully and gleefully take that bait — and then defend himself against the necessary fact check by saying, will full confidence, “well I saw it on television.”

& I have substantial issues with harris’ (sort of vague) platform and her refusal thus far to differentiate from the current administration on foreign policy specifically, AND her apparent insistence on running center in comparison to her congressional record to capture those (perceived) votes, and boy howdy did she say some really disappointing things —

but knowing that the debate is not really the stage for announcing new policy and also knowing me and like-minded people are not the target of the debate, AND seeing the performance of the opponent she’s up against im just.

im very tired man. everything happens so much.

[tanadrin]

...what exactly is the correct, good faith description of how common law constitutional systems work, then? i had conservative parents where extremely literal interpretation of the constitution was always assumed - never really got any perspective on living constitutionalism than that it was always just vague hogwash to justify doing whatever the speaker's exact policy preferences are. i understand that originalism/textualism as used are exactly the same, sure, but that's why i thought the only recourse was to dispense with constitutionalism and even the idea of "rights" altogether and go with a hobbes/schmitt (yes i know he's a nazi) bent. this isolates me from most other politics people on the internet a great deal, obviously! but if there's actually a case for living constitutionalism that doesn't reduce to "everything i want is always mandatory, everything my opponents want is always illegal" that can convince me that'd be great!

Originalism and textualism are not the same thing.

Originalism is the legal philosophy that the meaning of a law is based on the intent of the drafters of the law. In the U.S., this is actually not so hard a problem, because the Constitution was drafted in the 1780s, there was a big ratification debate which involved a lot of the people who participated in the drafting, and they made their own understanding of the text quite clear. Subsequent amendments were drafted even later, and like laws drafted by Congress, there are records of congressional debates and the like in which lawmakers lay out their stances very clearly.

Now, the problem with originalism as a legal philosophy is that you have to actually be good at historical research to apply it correctly. And if you are any good at historical research, and do not arbitrarily cherry-pick citations, you will unfortunately find that a lot of the dogmas of the conservative legal movement are actually not in evidence in the historical debates around the Constitution, its amendments, and significant U.S. statute laws. For this reason, among others, later conservative legal scholars have tried to make textualism a thing.

Textualism is the legal philosophy that the meaning of a law is based on the commonly understood meaning of the law at the time it was adopted. This is a weird approach! Like, I don't know much about (say) customs law, which is a complicated subject; if I tried to apply a customs law adopted in 2024 I would very probably fuck it up at some point. Even a highly trained criminal attorney or intellectual property lawyer might easily do so--the legal profession is big, and requires a lot of specialization! So why do non-expert opinions matter? And if expert opinions are what we are after, who is a better authority than the people who actually drafted a law?

Nonetheless, textualism is a highly motivated approach at avoiding the limits of originalism, and the key to applying textualism is to do your historical research even worse than if you were trying to do originalism. For example, D.C. v Heller (2008) found that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right to bear arms; but this is a terrible decision from both an originalist point of view and a textualist point of view, because we have lots of gun control legislation from much closer to the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791 that would violate the 2nd amendment as interpreted in 2008; it is clear that the 2nd amendment was certainly not commonly understood at the time of its adoption to protect an individual right to bear arms, but was more about protecting the rights of states to raise and arm militias--which also happens to be consonant with a lot of the other historical evidence we have around why the 2nd amendment was adopted, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was, vis a vis the restraint of federal power against the states (cf. the Federalist Papers).

A big problem for any attempt at a purely deterministic, mechanistic application of law is that law is not a magical or mathematical formula with a single unambiguous meaning, because we create law through language, and that's not how human language works. Human language is not infinitely flexible, but it is equally not perfectly precise; it frequently admits ambiguity. And how we understand texts, and the values that are key to interpreting those texts, evolve over time: the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," but what is considered "cruel and unusual" in 2024 is very different from what was "cruel and unusual" in 1791. Should the literal meaning of 1791 prevail--in which case the law can only possibly regulate things which actually existed in 1791, and it's perfectly OK for the Feds to ransack your email without a warrant because it's not within your 'houses, papers, and effects'--or should the general principle which is shared between 1791 and 2024 prevail--in which case it's not insane to read the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" as a prohibition on the death penalty if we come to understand the death penalty as cruel or unusual?

All texts require us to negotiate their meaning. This does not mean communication is impossible, or that a text can say anything you want it to mean. What it means is that ambiguity in communication is unavoidable. Law is an effective tool because it is a Schelling point for cooperation, which is what lets us build peaceful and ordered societies, and allows us to do politics without killing each other. Textualism and originalism not only deny the very inarguable fact of ambiguity in language, I think they work pretty hard against law being an actually useful Schelling point, and attempt to turn it into a brute exercise of power. Which is not good if you want a society to actually function!

Outside of originalism and textualism there are lots of different views on legal philosophy and they are complicated. Legal realism and legal positivism are two historically popular schools of thought. The general question of legal philosophy is called "jurisprudence," which is both thinking about what the law is and what it should be; there are literally whole textbooks on the subject. Law is complicated! There is a reason you can get advanced degrees in this stuff!

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

By Don Ford

I’ve heard more folks than I can count say that the risk of COVID exposure has kept them from seeking needed medical care, and it shouldn’t be this way.

On our Twitter Spaces calls we’ve tried our best to build strategies that can help folks through this process, so they can be COVID safe, advocate for themselves, and also while receiving adequate medical care.

But there are so many people, and we could never help everyone if we take it case by case. As with many problems that are laid on the individual, this is a greater institutional problem, and we need that to be reflected in our government.

If that sounds about right, then oh boy, do I have something for you.

A federal agency wants to hear from you if you have had trouble accessing healthcare because of COVID… or rather, realistic concerns of COVID exposure.

x.com/StinkRatsCharms/status/1853117035699487229 Technically, this survey is not COVID specific…

But is there a greater accessibility issue for medical care?

While the framing is identifying barriers for disability access, that should include things that can make you disabled, and as this is the Congressional watchdog group who gathers data for the purpose of “accountability, integrity, and reliability”…

This action could be one of our best opportunities to push for regulatory changes.

The agency behind this has an excellent record of their results being widely accepted.

Here is an additional link —→ gaosurvey.gao.gov/jfe/form/SV_4NqcK4po5BfajZA

I should point out that this is limited to Americans, generally speaking.

Now, this isn’t going to instantly solve our problems, or be the final move in advocating for ourselves, but it is a VERY strong step forward.

The data this group creates is generally considered to be extremely valuable when dealing with Federal regulatory agencies.

We need to reach as many folks as possible to find those affected.

So, please, share this information with your communities.

And, speaking of reaching people…

The election is, of course, on people’s minds. There is going to be an additional call to action soon directed at the FDA, regardless of who wins the election tomorrow…

Hopefully, it’s decided tomorrow and not dragged out.

But regardless of who wins, the fight continues… just in different forms.

However, the President doesn’t actually change until January 20th, 2025.

That means there are two and a half months to advocate before anything officially shifts. So, regardless of who wins, we can push forward for as much as we can before the agencies could potentially change.

No matter what happens, it’s a different President, which means regulatory shifts.

And that means, it’s an excellent time to make some last minute pushes…

Specifically, pediatric Novavax access. The kid’s version is not some separate vaccine; it’s the same vaccine.

It’s tested and safe but the FDA is playing games to restrict market access.

Expect more information on this soon, but the FDA and CBER are making Novavax go in circles to prove their vaccine is functional, while vaccines go unused. Shots that could be protecting our children going to waste because of manipulative regulatory hurdles is extremely frustrating.

So, we’re going to need support from everyone who has needed Novavax or benefited from it, because if only parents who needed it for their kids did it alone, then we would never create the access that parents and society as a whole desperately need.

Until then, we brace for impact for our election results and no matter what happens we will continue pushing forward for that better tomorrow.

[thatstormygeek]

The U.S. Senate voted 72-11 Tuesday night to reject a proposal to require a State Department report on Israel’s human rights record amid the U.S. ally’s war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders brought the resolution under a little-known provision in federal law that allows Congress to order a State Department investigation of any foreign country receiving U.S. military aid. A simple majority vote in the Senate would have forced a State Department report within 30 days. Before the vote, Sanders said Israel was within its right to retaliate against Hamas after its terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, but that the counteroffensive by Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, affecting nearly 2 million civilians. Israel’s military campaign has been aided by U.S. supplies, he said, making congressional oversight necessary. The resolution would only order a report, he said. Any further action would have to be approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president. “We must ensure that U.S. aid is being used in accordance with international human rights and our own laws,” Sanders said in a floor speech just before the vote. “A vote for this resolution is only to request more information on a tragic situation… No matter what your view on this terrible war may be — you agree with me, you don’t agree with me — we cannot bury our eyes in the sand.”

Not that it's surprising the country that refuses to allow tracking of gun deaths also refuses to be concerned about funding human rights abuses.

The federal law Sanders used to bring the resolution “was never intended to be used against an ally in a war,” Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said.

And this is why the Dems will never actually prevail. They don't stand for anything, either. You give a shit if your aid money is going to human rights abuses or you don't. It shouldn't matter if you're applying the law to an ally or opponent. In fact, you should be more likely to apply it to your allies, because those are the guys you're standing with.

Then again, this country would have to think it's bad to commit human rights abuses to be willing to hold our allies to that, and they say actions speak louder than words, so....

“Israel has the right to defend itself and go to war with Hamas, who started this whole situation,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “Israel does not have the right to go to war with the entire Palestinian people ��� And sadly that is what is happening right now.”

I'm sure the Pussy Hat Brigade is crowing about how antisemitic Bernie Sanders is since they've had a serious hate boner going for him for years. But he's not wrong here.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

THE GOP DOUBLES DOWN

TCinLA

I thought waking up this morning to see a photo of Trump at his hatealong last night in Waco with him standing in front of photos of the January 6 insurrection while the “song” “Justice for All” he recorded with the “J6 Prison Choir,” the insurrectionists he claims are patriotic Americans who participated in a “righteous protest” - essentially watching him remove the mask and admit he did in fact incite the insurrection and saying “Yeah, I did it - what are you going to do about it?” - was as strange as things were going to get this final Sunday in March, 2023.

I thought having a confessed statutory rapist and draft dodger - one-hit wonder Ted Nugent - calling Volodomyr Zelenskyy a “homosexual weirdo” was a about as crass a new low for the MAGAts as things were going to get.

I thought having Marjorie Traitor Goon publicly creating an alternative reality by calling the J6 defendants political prisoners who are being “badly treated” in a facility where they have access to computers and the internet, exercise and health services - all completely unavailable to the average inmate of the DC Jail - was a completely laughable denial of reality.

I was wrong.

Yesterday, the three blind mice - Gym Jordan and his co-conspirators masquerading as chairmen of three House committees - responded to District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s reply to their first letter sent this past week by doubling down in a second letter on their intention to intervene in the New York City investigation ahead of possible criminal charges against Trump, revealing they plan to to consider whether Congress should take legislative action on three separate issues “to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials.” In other words, to find a way to make such a prosecution of Donald Trump impossible.

Trump admits his complicity in the January 6 insurrection and leaders of the Republican Party take steps to insulate him from accountability before they even know what specific charges he will be indicted on.

The Republicans declare war on reality and the rule of law. THAT is as strange as things got on this final weekend of March, 2023.

Bragg responded to the letter after it became public last night, writing, “We evaluate cases in our jurisdiction based on the facts, the law, and the evidence. It is not appropriate for Congress to interfere with pending local investigations. This unprecedented inquiry by federal elected officials into an ongoing matter serves only to hinder, disrupt and undermine the legitimate work of our dedicated prosecutors. As always, we will continue to follow the facts and be guided by the rule of law in everything we do.”

A spokesperson for Oversight Committee Democrats has stated, “Chairman Jordan, Comer, and Steil believe former President Trump is above the law. This outrageous position is further evidence of former President Trump and MAGA extremists’ hold on Congressional Republicans.”

The MAGA Republican Party has now officially declared war on the rule of law.

Here are the high points from the Letter:

“Notably, your reply letter did not dispute the central allegations at issue—that you, under political pressure from left-wing activists and former prosecutors in your office, are reportedly planning to use an alleged federal campaign finance violation, previously declined by federal prosecutors, as a vehicle to extend the statute of limitations on an otherwise misdemeanor offense and indict for the first time in history a former President of the United States.”

No, you morons, it wasn’t “previously declined” by federal prosecutors. The Trump-appointed Attorney General Bill Barr, citing the so-called “Nixon rule” that a sitting president cannot be indicted and prosecuted, ORDERED the DOJ attorneys to drop the case.

“Contrary to the central argument set forth in your letter, this matter does not simply involve local or state interests. Rather, the potential criminal indictment of a former President of the United States by an elected local prosecutor of the opposing political party (and who will face the prospect of re-election) implicates substantial federal interests, particularly in a jurisdiction where trial-level judges also are popularly elected. If state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (former or current) for personal acts, this could have a profound impact on how Presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office. For example, a President could choose to avoid taking action he believes to be in the national interest because it would negatively impact New York City for fear that he would be subject to a retaliatory prosecution in New York City.”

This is wholly and completely specious, but what Republican argument about anything isn’t?

“Likewise, because the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical safety of former or current Presidents, any decision to prosecute a former or current President raises difficult questions concerning how to vindicate that interest in the context of a state or local criminal justice system. For these reasons and others, we believe that we now must consider whether Congress should take legislative action to protect former and/or current Presidents from politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials, and if so, how those protections should be structured.”

“Second, the Committees’ inquiry has an obvious legitimate legislative purpose and is “a subject on which legislation could be had.” To begin with, as discussed above, Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former Presidents by elected state and local prosecutors, particularly those tried before elected state and local trial-level judges. Therefore, the Committee on the Judiciary, as a part of its broad authority to develop criminal justice legislation, must now consider whether to draft legislation that would, if enacted, insulate current and former presidents from such improper state and local prosecutions. These legislative reforms may include, for example, broadening the existing statutory right of removal of certain criminal cases from state court to federal court.”

Here is the argument to use the federal government to protect Trump.

“Moreover, as discussed above, your prosecutorial decision to indict a former President may cause a potential confrontation between federal and local law-enforcement authorities. Federal law requires the United States Secret Service to protect a former President.8 Therefore, your unprecedented prosecutorial decision raises the potential for conflict between the federal law-enforcement officials required to protect the former President and local law-enforcement officials required to enforce your indictment and exercise control of him throughout his presence in the local criminal justice system. Such a novel and potentially fraught collision of federal and local law-enforcement officials with the safety of a former President at stake is certainly a matter of interest for the Committees. The Committees’ oversight is necessary to inform potential legislation that would address or remedy any potential conflicts between federal and local authorities.”

You mendacious morons! It has already been established that state and local law enforcement would COOPERATE with the Secret Service, which would coordinate Trump surrendering after indictment. There is no possibility whatsoever of any “shoot out” happening.

This is the most audacious assault on the rule of law by the Republicans. They are ALL, each and every one of them, traitors to their oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, because ALL THEM ARE THE DOMESTIC ENEMY.

[TCinLA]

[beardedmrbean]

Republicans are calling out Democrats for their hypocrisy within their diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda, as California Democrats ban Hispanic Republicans from joining the state's Latino Legislative Caucus.

The midterms yielded a record number of Latino lawmakers elected to the state legislature, but that didn't change the generations-long trend of excluding GOP lawmakers from the minority-based caucus. 

California State Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R) and California State Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez (R) both spoke out against the exclusion, calling out their Democratic colleagues for the double standard. 

REPUBLICANS MAKE HUGE GAINS AMONG BLACK AND LATINO VOTERS AS DEMS FEAR ‘PARADIGM-SHIFT': POLL

"When you have a diverse group of people qualifying and ever advocating and having the discussions on any issue, you bring more balanced policy," Ochoa Bogh told Pete Hegseth on "Hannity" Tuesday night. "So I think… at the bottom of it all, it's just it has to do with fear, at least now, but I think it's a great opportunity right now to reassess where we are as a state and reassess where the Latino caucus is in California."

According to The Sacramento Bee, the caucus was created five decades ago, and Republicans have always been barred from joining. 

The Bee reported even as Ochoa Bogh was elected as the first "Republican Latina senator in state history," there were no exceptions for her to the generations-long rule. 

Sanchez said she was "surprised" at first that she was not allowed to partake in the caucus, but then quickly noted the "hypocritical" nature of the policy as far-left Democrats continue the diversity, equity, and inclusion campaign.

REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING THE LATINO VOTE BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS ON THE BALLOT

Despite being excluded, Sanchez noted it will not hinder her efforts to represent everyone in her district, regardless of partisanship. 

"My colleagues and I have discussed at length we are focused on delivering for the district," Sanchez said. "That means we work on inflation… We work on education, making sure that children receive quality education no matter their zip code, and then we work on making our communities safer."

They didn't ask if I was a Latino Republican or a Democrat," she continued. "They wanted us to deliver results. They wanted to know we would fight for them."

But this issue isn't exclusive to California. 

And it's not happening just at the state level, either. 

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds (R) has also been excluded from the Black congressional caucus at the federal level. 

"So much for DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. It's their favorite thing, except when it applies to people that don't agree with them," said Hegseth.

Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock argued the ban could come in an effort to preserve the party's reach, despite claiming it advocates for "Black progress."

"I think you could have 25 Black Republicans in the Congressional Black Caucus and still try to keep them out because they're not really about Black progress, they're about the advancement of big government liberalism, big government socialism, and the preservation of the Democrat Party's political power," Murdock said. 

"It's less about celebrating Black achievement than maintaining the ongoing power of the Democrat Party," he continued. "That's really what they're all about, and having a bunch of Republicans in the room does not that doesn't help that objective at all."

[mariacallous]

China’s leaders confront mounting domestic social, economic, and public health-related stresses in 2023. If past is prologue, it is reasonable to expect China’s leaders will respond by seeking to calm their external environment to concentrate on challenges at home. To help counter scrutiny of their domestic governance record, they will want to present an image to their people of being afforded dignity and respect abroad. Nowhere will such symbolism matter more than in the U.S.-China context. How China’s leaders are seen to be managing relations with the United States often is a factor in how their performance is perceived at home. Even as the broadly competitive framework of the U.S.-China relationship is unlikely to change, opportunities may emerge for the United States to advance discrete affirmative priorities with China in the year ahead.

To be clear, there are no credible indicators of any softening in China’s foreign policy toward the United States, nor any accommodation of American concerns about Chinese behavior. In his 20th Party Congress work report, President Xi Jinping emphasized repeatedly that China will need to “struggle” in the face of Western opposition to China’s rise. Other Chinese officials similarly echoed at the Party Congress that the spirit of “struggle” will define the country’s foreign policy.

Don’t bet on lessening of tensions

If anything, China in the coming year likely will double-down on its pressure on Taiwan and its efforts to impose its will on Hong Kong. Beijing will continue to exert an iron fist against any hints of domestic dissent. It will maintain a tight grip over regions with large minority ethnic populations, including Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia. Beijing will continue to favor state intervention in its economy and likely will intensify efforts to acquire intellectual property from abroad by hook or crook. China’s diplomatic activism is unlikely to abate. The People’s Liberation Army will expand its range and frequency of operations as its capabilities grow. China will not do the United States any favors on North Korea. Xi also will continue to invest in his — and China’s — relationship with Putin and Russia.

Washington also will take actions that Beijing will view as heightening competitive dynamics in the relationship. There will be further high-level Congressional visits to Taiwan. A Republican-controlled House will dial up public criticism of Chinese activities, including by probing the origins of COVID-19. Republican presidential candidates will compete to outdo each other in their hawkishness on China. The Biden administration will invest in coalitional efforts to strengthen deterrence in the Asia-Pacific and in limiting China’s technological advances in national security-sensitive areas.

Even so, Beijing may still see virtue in calming tensions with the United States. In the 1950s, Mao used a strategy of “fight, fight, talk, talk” to buy time to regroup, study the opponent, and collect strength to reenter prolonged struggle. A similar effort may be unfolding in Beijing now.

Such an approach would allow Beijing to concentrate on restoring the veneer of governance competence. It also would lessen America’s capacity to form issue-based coalitions that challenge China’s interests. And with Xi traveling to the United States in November for the APEC leader’s meeting, a calmer environment would support his interest in being accorded preferential treatment by U.S. President Joe Biden.

Beijing will want to give as little as possible to get the benefit of stabilized relations and preferential public treatment for its leaders. From China’s perspective, a natural next step for advancing these objectives will be to negotiate with American counterparts on principles to steer the U.S.-China relationship. Xi previously has articulated that the relationship should be guided by mutual respect, mutual benefit, and shared commitment to peaceful coexistence. There is negligible benefit for American diplomats to get pulled into negotiations over such principles. Even if mutually adopted, they would not constrain Chinese behavior or solve any of the underlying stresses in the relationship.

How the United States should respond to China

Rather than reacting to Chinese efforts to negotiate principles for guiding the relationship, the Biden administration would be wise to present its concrete objectives for the year ahead. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s trip to China in the first quarter of 2023 provides an opportunity for the United States to set the agenda. By laying out concrete goals and signposts for advancing them, Blinken could orient the relationship toward America’s top priorities and concerns. China’s focus on positive optics for Xi’s visit to the United States in November will offer an opportunity to leverage form for substance.

On the security front, both sides could take practical steps to lower risk. These include reaching agreement on limits around uses of new and emerging technologies in areas where both sides are vulnerable and no rules presently exist. For example, both sides would benefit by establishing limits on uses of artificial intelligence-enabled autonomous weapons systems. As a first step, both sides could agree that humans must be responsible for all nuclear launch decisions and that such decisions must never be delegated to artificial intelligence-enabled systems. Similarly, both sides have demonstrated destructive anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons systems. They could agree to limit future testing of ASAT weapons to prevent the creation of orbital debris.

Both countries also are vulnerable to future pandemics. They have mutual self-interest in the creation of a global disease surveillance network to detect future virus outbreaks before they spread. A similar logic applies to climate change. Methane plays a major role in rising temperatures. Both sides would benefit from pooling capabilities to advance research into methane emission reduction challenges and solutions.

The opioid epidemic in America also demands attention. Chinese officials argue that the problem is one of demand, not supply. Nevertheless, U.S. and Chinese officials must think more creatively about practical steps to reduce the flow of fentanyl with Chinese-origin precursor chemicals into the United States.

This list of priority issues is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. There are other critical areas where mutual self-interest should compel common purposes, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, ensuring unimpeded energy flows and greater food security, combating ocean pollution, and coordinating on debt distress in the developing world. The point is that there is a robust menu of issues where both sides could take parallel or coordinated actions that would serve mutual self-interest.

Is the risk worth the benefit?

Skeptics will argue that there is little point in pursuing a positive agenda with China, given the inherent competitiveness of the relationship and the unlikelihood that China will respond favorably to American proposals. Such skepticism may be proven true, but it should first be tested. In 2022, such pessimism would have precluded America from successfully lobbying China to withhold materiel support to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. It would have prevented Biden from drawing Xi out on China’s opposition to Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling. It also would have impeded America’s Public Company Auditing Oversight Board from successfully securing full transparency from Chinese regulators on the books of Chinese companies listing on America’s stock exchanges.

Others will warn that China will insist on issue linkage, i.e., demand that the United States reduce its pressure on China in other sensitive areas, as a precondition for coordination on common challenges. The implication of such warnings is that Washington should not get suckered into softening its stance on Taiwan or Xinjiang in pursuit of cooperation. In fact, this is not new. The way to get past Chinese requests that the United States “create favorable conditions for cooperation” is to make clear first that Washington is prepared for the relationship to improve or worsen depending upon China’s choices, and second that Washington would recognize Chinese contributions and welcome its leadership in addressing challenges. This allows China to enjoy international recognition in return for the United States securing concrete Chinese contributions on U.S. priorities.

At a strategic level, America’s leaders are receiving a strong demand signal from their international partners to manage competition with China responsibly. Thus, even if Beijing refuses to abide by America’s efforts to advance a positive agenda, the world will be put on notice as to where the obstacle lies. This, in turn, will open political space for America to enlist partners on common projects in Asia.

Situating China among global challenges

Finally, China will be one of many pressing challenges confronting the Biden administration in the new year. The White House would be in a stronger position to manage its myriad challenges — e.g., the pandemic, mass migration, global recession, global warming, Ukraine, food and energy shortages, and North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear aspirations — if it is able to situate China within a set of global challenges it must address. This does not mean giving China a pass or yielding ground on sensitive issues such as Taiwan, technology, or human rights. America must remain steadfast in defending U.S. interests and the values it shares with its closest partners. Rather, it means recognizing that there are few major challenges in the world where China does not factor in as a partner or a problem.

Ultimately, the United States and China are locked into a long-term competition to determine which governance model can best solve global problems and improve the lives of its citizens. Performance will drive perceptions of power. America is strongest when it is improving its condition at home and galvanizing global efforts to tackle common challenges, not when it is consumed by competition with an ambitious but constrained power.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Molly Redden at HuffPost:

In his Democratic primary challenge to Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Wesley Bell, the St. Louis County prosecutor, is raising money hand over fist — and not all of it from Democrats. Bell’s latest campaign finance filings include donations from notable sources such as Steven Tilley, a GOP former Missouri House speaker who’s now a lobbyist, and Daniel Loeb, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Third Point, who has donated millions to Republican causes.

David Steward, a billionaire tech CEO from St. Louis, has also supported Bell. Steward recently served as the finance chair of a super PAC that supported Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) run for president. All told, Bell raised more than $65,000 from donors who also gave to one of Missouri’s two Republican senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, in their most recent campaigns, or Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, the leading Republican candidate for governor. The influx of money for Bell from donors who normally back Republicans comes after the prosecutor abandoned a Senate campaign against Hawley in order to challenge Bush. Bell jumped races in late October, a decision he partly credits to Bush’s stance on Israel’s military action in Gaza. Shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, Bush introduced a resolution for a cease-fire and condemned Israel’s retaliatory military action as an “ethnic cleansing campaign.”

Around that time, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the deep-pocketed pro-Israel lobbying group, unveiled a plan to spend up to $100 million to unseat Bush and her fellow Israel critics. The group endorsed Bell in February. “Wesley Bell is a progressive prosecutor who will stand up for President Biden’s agenda and oppose MAGA extremists and Donald Trump ― and everyone who supports or donates to his campaign knows that’s exactly what to expect from Wesley,” said Anjan Mukherjee, an adviser to Bell’s campaign. “Cori Bush has proven she would rather get headlines and protest than do the work of getting progressive results for St. Louis.”

[...] Bush, a nurse, became a political activist after the 2014 police killing of Mike Brown and the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In 2020, with support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and progressive groups that helped elect other left-wing Squad members, Bush pulled off a shocking upset of longtime incumbent Rep. Lacy Clay Jr. She has become an advocate for Black maternal health, abortion rights and diverting money from law enforcement to public services. Bell’s political career was forged in Ferguson, too, where he became a city councilmember after the unrest. In 2018, Bell rode a wave of enthusiasm for progressive prosecutor candidates to become the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney. Bell is campaigning on elements of his record, such as his efforts to reduce the number of people jailed for minor offenses. But some activists who helped elect him claim he failed to differ much from his predecessors, starting with when he declined to seek charges over Brown’s death.

If you thought that Wesley Bell was going to primary incumbent Rep. Cori Bush (D) a year ago and raising money from Republicans and pro-Israel Apartheid folk, you'd been laughed out the room.

In the #MO01 Democratic Primary, a pair of politicians who had their rise fueled by the Ferguson protests in the wake of the killing of Mike Brown nearly 10 years ago are facing off against each other.

Bell initially was gonna run for #MOSen, but switched instead to the Congressional set currently occupied by Bush due to her resolutely pro-Palestinian stances on the Israel/Hamas War and Gaza Genocide.

[omamervt]

Can't believe I have to point this out, but 47% of people under 29 is an incredibly minor drop compared to the last two elections.

What the above graph has shown me is that even with Biden's approval rating going down month over month, and it looks like that was a year before the mask-off genocidal maniac arc began, only 3% of voters had become disengaged?

And let's be real, the reason that somewhere in the ballpark of 50% of youth voters consistently is considered "Record numbers" if you look back through basically any election since at least the 2000s is because youth have to fight against a significant amount of disenfranchisement. People under 30 have virtually no job security, so they risk losing employment if they have to miss a few hours to make sure their vote's in before polls close. They're not "supposed" to retaliate for stuff like that but fighting it costs time and money most of us don't have. And if you also happen to be a minority? forget it, assuming you HAVE access to a polling location you might risk facing violence for trying to do so, and the police will side with the aggressors assuming they AREN'T the aggressors. Fix that shit if you wanna see youth engagement go anywhere above "roughly half."

And I can't speak to the current number of people committed to vote, as I haven't seen those numbers, but I do know that disengagement likely hasn't been affected THAT much considering how big the "Undecided" vote was in some states. That's not people who are shut down or refusing to vote. That's people using their vote in a context where the results literally don't matter to send a message. They're engaged. Count your fucking blessings, those people are still gonna vote for blue candidates in at LEAST the state/local elections, probably their congressional representatives too, assuming those people didn't also mask off as genocidal monsters.

I personally am threatening to withhold my vote from Biden, a game of chicken I am willing to play from now until either November 5 or an end to military aid to Israel, and a lot of the "Democrats are also evil" sentiment is shared by people who ARE politically engaged, but don't see any value in declaring a side unless one of those sides is gonna do the right thing in regards to at least ONE of the three literal genocides our government has been funding, some of them going since before I was born.

Oh and let's not forget we're still losing, minimum, 4000 people per month to Covid, and even the survivors are becoming increasingly disabled. That's probably also having an effect on people's voting habits. If you don't see the connection, YOU have a problem.

Decrying the lack of youth voters without addressing their issues beyond saying, "if you don't show up, the republicans WIN!" isn't magically gonna make those issues go away.

Saying "voting doesn't matter" might reach your younger peers online but it certainly hasn't reached Clangus Hargbarg who was part of the kkk in 1951 and still sends in his ballot. He hasn't missed a one.

[bllsbailey]

The Background on the Alleged Suspect in New Trump Assassination Attempt Is Something Else

Fox News has reported that the alleged suspect in the second Trump assassination attempt is Ryan Wesley Routh, as we reported earlier. 

He allegedly aimed a rifle through the fence on the golf course where Trump was. He was about 300-500 yards away. Law enforcement claimed he had an AK-47 with a scope and a Go-Pro camera at the fence. He also had a bag with ceramic plates. The Secret Service fired at him and he fled in a black SUV. A citizen saw him and took a picture of his license which the citizen gave to police. The suspect was later caught on the highway by the Martin County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff William Snyder said the suspect was "calm" and not armed when he was stopped. He is now in custody. This 

READ MORE: NEW: Fox Has Identified Suspect in New Assassination Attempt on Trump, Per Law Enforcement Sources

UPDATED: Press Conference Reveals Key Details in Second Trump Assassination Attempt

HOT TAKES: Left and Liberal Media Shame Themselves Over Second Trump Assassination Attempt

Now there's more information about this man and it's concerning. 

According to the Sacramento Bee, 

[He had a] criminal history in North Carolina that includes convictions between 2002 and 2010 of possession of weapons of mass destruction, carrying a concealed gun, hit and run, possession of stolen goods and resisting law enforcement, among other charges. He’s registered in North Carolina as an unaffiliated voter. In North Carolina, unaffiliated voters can choose which primary they want to vote in. Routh chose Democrats.

The News and Record had a 2002 report about a Ryan Routh who barricaded himself inside United Roofing and then faced charges including having a "weapon of mass destruction" because they said he had a "fully automatic machine gun." 

The News & Observer said Routh was interviewed in 2022 by Newsweek Romania and in 2023 by The New York Times for helping to recruit civilian volunteers to help Ukraine fight the war against Russia.

“If governments won’t send their official military, then we civilians have to pick up the torch and make this happen,” Routh told Newsweek.

You can also see a report on Semafor where they covered Routh in passing and his effort to raise volunteers for Ukraine. 

According to the NY Times: 

In the interview, Mr. Routh said he was in Washington to meet with the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, known as the Helsinki Commission “for two hours” to help push for more support for Ukraine. The commission is led by members of Congress and staffed by congressional aides. It is influential on matters of democracy and security and has been vocal in supporting Ukraine.

Routh allegedly has also made small donations to Democrats through ActBlue. He purportedly made 19 donations since 2019, including for individual 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). He has not donated to Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. 

According to what people have seen of what is believed to be his X account, he was a huge supporter of Ukraine and he's also made a lot of bizarre posts, like this one to Elon Musk.

“I would like to buy a rocket from you. I wish to load it with a warhead for Putin’s Black Sea mansion bunker to end him. Can you give me a price please. It can be old and used as not returning,” Routh wrote

You can see more of what appears to be his X account here. I was looking at it as it went down, so thanks to Billboard Chris for preserving it. 

According to the NY Post:

He advised Biden, 81, in an April 22 X post when he was still running for reelection, to run a campaign around keeping “America democratic and free.” He claimed Trump wants to “make Americans slaves against master.” “We cannot afford to fail,” Routh continued. “The world is counting on us to show the way.”

While he had been in North Carolina, he relocated to Hawaii. 

What isn't clear is how he knew Trump would be there at that time at the golf course, since that wasn't on Trump's public schedule. That raises even more questions. 

[revlyncox]

This Refulgent Summer (2024)

Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson are significant figures in Unitarian Universalist history, and their legacy brings us challenges as well as gifts. Somewhere in the center of our living faith, we can find a balance between love in the present, savoring the world, and reaching together for the truth and justice that might yet unfold. 

This sermon was presented to The Unitarian Society in East Brunswick, NJ, on June 23, 2024, via pre-recorded video. The video is available on YouTube.

***

“The heart knoweth”, says Emerson in "Friendship." “The whole human family is bathed with the element of love like a fine ether.” Joys and sorrows, injustices and reconciliations, all together form this world, “in which our senses converse.”

It surprises me that I am inclined to agree, given that I was almost destined to be a cynic. I was born six blocks from the White House during the Watergate investigation. I grew up in the DC suburbs. I heard traffic reports pretty much every week about someone’s rally or candlelight vigil or festival to raise awareness and funds for an important cause. And I noticed that, somehow – even though there was a constant stream of voices clamoring to be heard in Washington – somehow the Post and the Star and then the Times continued to come up with bad news, as if nothing was getting better. I know now that bad news sells advertisements and subscriptions, despair supports the status quo, and if we want the whole truth we have to look for it.

Growing up near DC had its good moments and its tough moments, and it didn’t affect everyone the same way, but for me there were certainly times when the evidence suggested that nothing mattered. Some days, it seemed like organizing for justice was futile, and that the only thing I could do was speak up for myself.

My first public witness event was the Rally for Women’s Lives in 1995. Being friends with congressional interns and clinic escorts and peer educators had pushed me over from cynicism to believing that putting hands and feet and wheels on your beliefs made a difference. The sun was so bright that day, the speeches so resonant, the people so filled with life, that one was constrained to respect that this world had yet some perfection in it. The feeling didn’t last forever.

I still have bouts of despair and cynicism. Some days caring about the world seems futile. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the poet, social critic, and Unitarian minister, knew about this empty feeling. He referred to it in his “Divinity School Address” in July of 1838. This was a speech he made to the senior class of Harvard Divinity School and that was published afterwards. He was trying to give a charge to new ministers to stay connected with soul and spirit, and to share that authentic spirituality with their congregations. Emerson said that when we lose inspiration, something is missing from our observation of the world.

Miracles, prophecy, poetry; the ideal life, the holy life, exist as ancient history merely; they are not in the belief, nor in the aspiration of society; but, when suggested, seem ridiculous. Life is comic or pitiful, as soon as the high ends of being fade out of sight, and man becomes near-sighted, and can only attend to what addresses the senses.

Emerson said that all people have divine nature, and that being open to that divine nature gives a person the intuition to recognize truth because it resonates with what is eternal. Being aware of this connection leads a person to revel in beauty, to lead a moral life, and to actively remove the barriers that hide divine nature in others. Without this awareness, the world seems flat, “comic or pitiful.” When this awareness or, as he puts it, intuition is active, the world seems poetic.

Emerson and the other Transcendentalists of the mid-1800’s believed in creating literature and art and education that would awaken people to this intuition. They agitated against slavery and for women’s rights because of their belief in the unfolding powers of the divine within every person. Many of the Transcendentalists were Unitarians.

In 1838, the year of the Divinity School Address, horror abounded, and every person with enough privilege to make a choice had to decide how much resistance and how much complicity they could embrace. Injustice in that time was nothing new. 

The violence, theft, and destruction that are synonymous with slavery are woven into our nation’s founding and in our enduring institutions. Even in Emerson’s Massachusetts, where the practice of slavery within the state had ended by 1790, textile mill owners and shipping company investors continued to build wealth based on labor that was stolen from enslaved people in cotton fields, sugar plantations, and rum distilleries. Anybody with wealthy friends, patrons, or parishioners knew someone who benefited directly from slavery. 

Then, as now, Americans had to either come to terms with the truth of the atrocities being committed in their name, or maintain an ongoing practice of mental gymnastics to avoid the truth. We can only imagine that Emerson was aware of Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831, in which about 70 enslaved and free Black people joined a revolt in Southampton County, Virginia. He knew that radical resistance was possible. Emerson did speak out against slavery, frequently and clearly. Yet it’s possible he could have done more. 

The Transcendentalists weren’t perfect, but they were remarkable. For better or for worse, these are some of our UU ancestors. They knew as many of you know that working for education and for beauty and for justice is both tough and spiritual. Emerson hints at some ways to deal with that. He would be the first to tell you, though, that each person should discover wisdom anew. Tradition is good if it invokes what the soul knows to be true.

For instance, we have discovered since the 1830’s that using “man” to mean “humanity” does not reflect the unfolding divinity in all people. I will leave Emerson’s quotes intact and hope that we can hear them with new understanding.

The question that Emerson and the other Transcendentalists pose is, can we attend to the “high ends of being,” to maintain connection with the divine nature that runs through all of us and our world, while being truthful about the injustices of our time? 

Unitarian Universalist tradition invites us to both be in love with the world and to seek ways to relieve suffering, to incite change for the better. There is a danger, on the one hand, of being infatuated with the world until we become complacent, unable to see the injustices that require our attention. On the other hand, there is the danger of being so focused on creating change that we fall out of love with the world as it is, we lose the ability to appreciate the beautiful and the sacred that abide in the midst of brokenness. We might become cynical or burned out. Somewhere in the center of our living faith, we can find a balance between love in the present and reaching together for what might yet unfold. 

II. Be Present to Beauty

Direct experience with beauty in the world comes whether we are equipped with words or not. There are moments when a flash of beauty invokes awe and wonder, and the memory of that moment is repeated over and over, until it becomes a prayer.

Emerson’s Divinity School Address begins this way:

In this refulgent summer, it has been a luxury to draw the breath of life. The grass grows, the buds burst, the meadow is spotted with fire and gold in the tint of flowers. The air is full of birds, and sweet with the breath of the pine, the balm-of-Gilead, and the new hay. Night brings no gloom to the heart with its welcome shade. Through the transparent darkness the stars pour their almost spiritual rays. 

He goes on to say a lot about direct experience and spirituality and what religious communities could be. He begins with beauty. 

In this refulgent summer, it has been a luxury to draw the breath of life …

“Refulgent” is a delicious word. It means “shiny.” Not just shiny in the sense that a new penny is shiny, but bright with an intensive force. Shiny in the sense that the “meadow is spotted with fire and gold in the tint of flowers.” Bright like the shine of students on their graduation day.

In the refulgent summer of 2024, it has been a luxury to negotiate with the isopods and dissuade them away from young seedlings in my garden and toward the feast of decomposing leaves elsewhere in the yard. It has been a luxury to feel the heat of the relentless summer sun over my head, and then give thanks for the coolness of the creek at the edge of my neighborhood. It has been a luxury to observe from afar as my teenaged offspring learn things for themselves that I did not and could not teach them. There is so much beauty. 

Even without the distractions of mundane tasks, it’s hard to stay present to beauty all the time because there’s only so much refulgence a person can take. Too much shine can be glaring. Emerson suggests that beauty provides relief from itself.

The cool night bathes the world as with a river, and prepares his eyes again for the crimson dawn.

Even so, nonstop awareness of the refulgent summer will quickly lead to a realization: it’s hot. And kind of smelly in some places. And there are cracks in the sidewalk that I’m going to trip on if I’m always looking at the sky. Then what? What happens to being in love with the world when something less poetically inspiring comes across our awakened senses?

It would seem that being open to beauty where I don’t expect it means being open to seeing things I might have wished to ignore. It means honoring the spaces in between. On a good day, all of these experiences lead me to an unconditional love for the world. The spiritual work is to maintain a mature love for the world, one that sees the hidden beauty as well as the obvious. Mature love sees the flaws and the challenges as well as the growth potential. I believe that it’s this kind of mature love that Emerson is praising in the refulgent beauty of summer. This mature love will help sustain a life of justice, equity, and compassion.

III. Be Present to Truth

Being present to beauty is one strategy for balancing love for the world and engagement for positive change in the world. Another strategy is being present to truth. Truth can be upsetting. It has been a difficult year to be a human being. For some of our neighbors, drawing the breath of life is not a luxury they continue to be afforded.

It has been a difficult year to be human. We have reacted with horror at the October 7 terror attacks and with a mix of dismay, rage, and grief over the Netanyahu government’s response that has killed thousands of civilians. We have mourned with the families who have lost loved ones to gun violence and police brutality. Having celebrated Juneteenth just this past week, we give thanks for liberation and for those who came before us in perseverance and resilience, and we also clearly see that there is repair work yet to be done to dismantle the legacy of slavery. We have held each other in support and sympathy as the cascading impacts of the pandemic continue to resonate. We have watched the effects of the climate crisis play out at the farmer’s market and in world migration. Our government’s response to immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers continues to fall far short of what justice and love demand. In this Pride month, we need our joy and creativity and resilience more than ever as politicians try to legislate away our existence with health care bans and book bans and even credible plans to turn back the clock on marriage equality. There is horror in our own time. 

All the while, our coping resources have been engaged with the same life events they always have, deaths and divorces and diagnoses, distance from those we love, a drifting sense of purpose. How do we hold all of this truth? How do we stay anchored to the high ends of being?

A steady diet of outrage and despair makes it hard to sustain the kinds of actions that have the most impact. We must nourish the parts of our hearts and souls that harbor hope and lead us to collaboration. There’s the advocacy route: helping to suggest legislation, lobby for votes, lose, lobby for votes again the next year, and eventually win. There is the congregation based community organizing route where we build strong relationships with partners like UU Faith Action and the New Brunswick NAACP and go forward in solidarity together. There’s the direct action route: following the lead of people most impacted to disrupt business as usual and bring people together in building something new. There’s the healing and support route: tending to the safety and well-being of our most vulnerable neighbors, and boosting their voices in public witness. There are several paths of productive response, and they are largely fueled by love, though anger and sadness also have their places. Uninterrupted outrage makes it hard to trust other people enough to organize effectively for change.

Somewhere in our response to the fullness of truth, there must be room for creativity. Somewhere in our response must be the acknowledgement that beauty persists. Listen to the spoken word poets who are out marching in the streets as they spin syllables into being. Watch the murals go up in response to a community tragedy. Hold on to the splendor of people continuing to care for one another.

Being present to truth means continuing to be receptive to it, in all of its surprising forms. This is part of what Transcendentalism was about – that the human ability to experience truth is shaped by the Transcendent. When people are open to being surprised by truth, the theory goes, they are open to what is essential and Divine. Sometimes truth leads to anger, and that’s real, but there is also the truth that love grows, that beauty persists, and that hope is a lived experience.

Truth can’t just sit there. It has to be spoken, sung, and acted upon. Emerson wrote about that in the Divinity School Address.

If utterance is denied, the thought lies like a burden on the man. Always the seer is a sayer. Somehow his dream is told: somehow he publishes it with solemn joy: sometimes with pencil on canvas; sometimes with chisel on stone; sometimes in towers and aisles of granite, his soul's worship is builded; sometimes in anthems of indefinite music…

Being fully present to the truth involves equal parts observation and action. The complete truth is that we have both wholeness and brokenness. Actively appreciating the wholeness and seeking healing for the brokenness – hope in action – helps keep that truth from going stale. And, as Emerson points out, once we are fully present to the complete truth, we cannot help but share it.

V. Conclusion

Being fully present with our neighbors – in times of joy and times of sorrow – being present with one another brings peace, even if we don’t have easy answers about the meaning of joy or sorrow. In the midst of brokenness, we can love the current world and also the possible world.

Be present to beauty, the obvious and the hidden. Be present to truth, even when it contradicts itself. Through these, may we become present to the faith that is kept between people in community. May the traditions of our ancestors and the revelations of your own soul sustain you.

[arpov-blog-blog]

Former President Donald Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an IRS inquiry uncovered by ProPublica and The New York Times. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million.https://audm.herokuapp.com/player-embed/?pub=nyt-core&articleID=trump-audit-buettner-kiel

The 92-story, glass-sheathed skyscraper along the Chicago River is the tallest and, at least for now, the last major construction project by Trump. Through a combination of cost overruns and the bad luck of opening in the teeth of the Great Recession, it was also a vast money loser.

But when Trump sought to reap tax benefits from his losses, the IRS has argued, he went too far and in effect wrote off the same losses twice.

The first write-off came on Trump’s tax return for 2008. With sales lagging far behind projections, he claimed that his investment in the condo-hotel tower met the tax code definition of “worthless,” because his debt on the project meant he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Trump reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, ProPublica and the Times found.

There is no indication the IRS challenged that initial claim, though that lack of scrutiny surprised tax experts consulted for this article. But in 2010, Trump and his tax advisers sought to extract further benefits from the Chicago project, executing a maneuver that would draw years of inquiry from the IRS. First, he shifted the company that owned the tower into a new partnership. Because he controlled both companies, it was like moving coins from one pocket to another. Then he used the shift as justification to declare $168 million in additional losses over the next decade.

The issues around Trump’s case were novel enough that, during his presidency, the IRS undertook a high-level legal review before pursuing it. ProPublica and the Times, in consultation with tax experts, calculated that the revision sought by the IRS would create a new tax bill of more than $100 million, plus interest and potential penalties.

Trump’s tax records have been a matter of intense speculation since the 2016 presidential campaign, when he defied decades of precedent and refused to release his returns, citing a long-running audit. A first, partial revelation of the substance of the audit came in 2020, when the Times reported that the IRS was disputing a $72.9 million tax refund that Trump had claimed starting in 2010. That refund, which appeared to be based on Trump’s reporting of vast losses from his long-failing casinos, equaled every dollar of federal income tax he had paid during his first flush of television riches, from 2005 through 2008, plus interest.

The reporting by ProPublica and the Times about the Chicago tower reveals a second component of Trump’s quarrel with the IRS. This account was pieced together from a collection of public documents, including filings from the New York attorney general’s suit against Trump in 2022, a passing reference to the audit in a congressional report that same year and an obscure 2019 IRS memorandum that explored the legitimacy of the accounting maneuver. The memorandum did not identify Trump, but the documents, along with tax records previously obtained by the Times and additional reporting, indicated that the former president was the focus of the inquiry.