#assembly elections live updates

[werindialive]

"Yes, both (BJP and the Congress) have tried reaching out to us,” confirms JD(s) party senior official

After the majority of exit polls predicted a hung assembly in Karnataka, HD Kumaraswamy's Janata Dal Secular on Thursday stated that they have started feeling signs of need from the Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party. Even though Mr Kumaraswamy is in Singapore, the senior official of the party had cleared that the decision has been taken for whom we should partner.

senior JD(S) leader Tanveer Ahmed during an exclusive interview with a leading news channel said, "The decision is done. It's taken. We will announce it to the public when it is the right time to."

On the other front, the Bhartiya Janta Party has cleared that it has not reached JD(S) and continued to exude confidence about a clear mandate.

BJP's Shobha Karandlaje was also a part of the interview during which she said, "no question of coalition at all, the BJP has not contacted the JD(S)".

"We are sure to get 120 seats. After gathering information on ground from our karyakartas yesterday, we have arrived at a number -- 120," she added.

When questioned about BJP denying the fact, JD(S) stated that the party has indeed reached out for forming a joint government.

"Yes, both (BJP and the Congress) have tried reaching out to us... The JD(S) is in such a position today that parties would like to reach out to us," said Tanveer Ahmed.

"The people of Karnataka wants us to keep check on both national parties for the betterment of the state. And I don't think there's any reason why a regional party wouldn't want to work for the development of Karnataka," he added.

when asked about their choice of party to partner with, Tanveer said, "The people who are going to work for the betterment of Karnataka and Kannadigas".

Answering a question about the number of seats the party has won, Tanveer said, "Nobody can form a government without us. That's a good number, I think. We could not match the resources of the national parties in terms of money, might, muscle. We were a weak party. But we know we performed enough to be a part of the government".

The JD(S) chief is in Singapore undergoing treatment for his bad health. he took the reign of the party after party patriarch HD Deve Gowda.

For more political news India in Hindi, subscribe to our newsletter.

[todayworldnews2k21]

LIVE Updates | Risod Assembly Election Result 2024: AMEET SUBHASHRAO ZANAK of Indian National Congress Is Leading

Risod, located in Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region, is a significant constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Known for its blend of rural and urban voters, Risod has experienced shifting political dynamics in recent years, making it a closely contested seat. Key Candidates In the 2024 elections, 13 candidates are contesting the Risod assembly seat, out of an initial 22 accepted…

[jacebeau]

Andhra Pradesh Latest News: Political Updates, AP Assembly Election 2024 News | Mango News Telugu

[mariacallous]

This is a gift article

“In normal times, Americans don’t think much about democracy. Our Constitution, with its guarantees of free press, speech, and assembly, was written more than two centuries ago. Our electoral system has never failed, not during two world wars, not even during the Civil War. Citizenship requires very little of us, only that we show up to vote occasionally. Many of us are so complacent that we don’t bother. We treat democracy like clean water, something that just comes out of the tap, something we exert no effort to procure.

“But these are not normal times.”

I wrote those words in October 2020, at a time when some people feared voting, because they feared contagion. The feeling that “these are not normal times” also came from rumors about what Donald Trump’s campaign might do if he lost that year’s presidential election. Already, stories that Trump would challenge the validity of the results were in circulation. And so it came to pass.

This time, we are living in a much different world. The predictions of what might happen on November 5 and in the days that follow are not based on rumors. On the contrary, we can be absolutely certain that an attempt will be made to steal the 2024 election if Kamala Harris wins. Trump himself has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election. He has waffled on and evaded questions about whether he will accept the outcome in 2024. He has hired lawyers to prepare to challenge the results.

Trump also has a lot more help this time around from his own party. Strange things are happening in state legislatures: a West Virginia proposal to “not recognize an illegitimate presidential election” (which could be read as meaning not recognize the results if a Democrat wins); a last-minute push, ultimately unsuccessful, to change the way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes. Equally weird things are happening in state election boards. Georgia’s has passed a rule requiring that all ballots be hand-counted, as well as machine-counted, which, if not overturned, will introduce errors—machines are more accurate—and make the process take much longer. A number of county election boards have in recent elections tried refusing to certify votes, not least because many are now populated with actual election deniers, who believe that frustrating the will of the people is their proper role. Multiple people and groups are also seeking mass purges of the electoral rolls.

Anyone who is closely following these shenanigans—or the proliferation of MAGA lawsuits deliberately designed to make people question the legitimacy of the vote even before it is held—already knows that the challenges will multiply if the presidential vote is as close as polls suggest it could be. The counting process will be drawn out, and we may not know the winner for many days. If the results come down to one or two states, they could experience protests or even riots, threats to election officials, and other attempts to change the results.

This prospect can feel overwhelming: Many people are not just upset about the possibility of a lost or stolen election, but oppressed by a sensation of helplessness. This feeling—I can’t do anything; my actions don’t matter—is precisely the feeling that autocratic movements seek to instill in citizens, as Peter Pomerantsev and I explain in our recent podcast, Autocracy in America. But you can always do something. If you need advice about what that might be, here is an updated citizen’s guide to defending democracy.

Help Out on Voting Day—In Person

First and foremost: Register to vote, and make sure everyone you know has done so too, especially students who have recently changed residence. The website Vote.gov has a list of the rules in all 50 states, in multiple languages, if you or anyone you know has doubts. Deadlines have passed in some states, but not all of them.

After that, vote—in person if you can. Because the MAGA lawyers are preparing to question mail-in and absentee ballots in particular, go to a polling station if at all possible. Vote early if you can, too: Here is a list of early-voting rules for each state.

Secondly, be prepared for intimidation or complications. As my colleague Stephanie McCrummen has written, radicalized evangelical groups are organizing around the election. One group is planning a series of “Kingdom to the Capitol” rallies in swing-state capitals, as well as in Washington, D.C.; participants may well show up near voting booths on Election Day. If you or anyone you know has trouble voting, for any reason, call 866-OUR-VOTE, a hotline set up by Election Protection, a nonpartisan national coalition led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

If you have time to do more, then join the effort. The coalition is looking for lawyers, law students, and paralegals to help out if multiple, simultaneous challenges to the election occur at the county level. Even people without legal training are needed to serve as poll monitors, and of course to staff the hotline. In the group’s words, it needs people to help voters with “confusing voting rules, outdated infrastructure, rampant misinformation, and needless obstacles to the ballot box.”

If you live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, you can also volunteer to help All Voting Is Local, an organization that has been on the ground in those states since before 2020 and knows the rules, the officials, the potential threats. It, too, is recruiting legal professionals, as well as poll monitors. If you don’t live in one of those states, you can still make a financial contribution.

Wherever you live, consider working at a polling station. All Voting Is Local can advise you if you live in one of its eight states, but you can also call your local board of elections. More information is available at PowerThePolls.org, which will send you to the right place. The site explains that “our democracy depends on ordinary people who make sure every election runs smoothly and everyone's vote is counted—people like you.”

Wherever you live, it’s also possible to work for one of the many get-out-the-vote campaigns. Consider driving people to the voting booth. Find your local group by calling the offices of local politicians, members of Congress, state legislators, and city councillors. The League of Women Voters and the NAACP are just two of many organizations that will be active in the days before the election, and on the day itself. Call them to ask which local groups they recommend. Or, if you are specifically interested in transporting Democrats, you can volunteer for Rideshare2Vote.

If you know someone who needs a ride, then let them know that the ride-hailing company Lyft is once again working with a number of organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of Negro Women, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Council on Aging, Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, and the Hispanic Federation. Contact any of them for advice about your location. Also try local religious congregations, many of whom organize rides to the polls.

Smaller gestures are needed too. If you see a long voting line, or if you find yourself standing in one, report it to Pizza to the Polls and the group will send over some free pizza to cheer everyone up.

Join Something Now

Many people have long been preparing for a challenge to the election and a battle in both the courts and the media. You can help them by subscribing to the newsletters of some of the organizations sponsoring this work, donating money, and sharing their information with others. Don’t wait until the day after the vote to find groups you trust: If a crisis happens, you will not want to be scouring the internet for information.

Among the organizations to watch is the nonpartisan Protect Democracy, which has already launched successful lawsuits to secure voting rights in several states. Another is the States United Democracy Center, which collaborates with police as well as election workers to make sure that elections are safe. Three out of four election officials say that threats to them have increased; in some states, the danger will be just as bad the day after the election as it was the day before, or maybe even worse.

The Brennan Center for Justice, based at NYU, researches and promotes concrete policy proposals to improve democracy, and puts on public events to discuss them. Its lawyers and experts are preparing not only for attempts to steal the election, but also, in the case of a Trump victory, for subsequent assaults on the Constitution or the rule of law.

For voters who lean Democratic, Democracy Docket also offers a wealth of advice, suggestions, and information. The group’s lawyers have been defending elections for many years. For Republicans, Republicans for the Rule of Law is a much smaller group, but one that can help keep people informed.

Talk With People

In case of a real disaster—an inconclusive election or an outbreak of violence—you will need to find a way to talk about it, including a way to speak with friends or relatives who are angry and have different views. In 2020, I published some suggestions from More in Common, a research group that specializes in the analysis of political polarization, for how to talk with people who disagree with you about politics, as well as those who are cynical and apathetic. I am repeating here the group’s three dos and three don’ts:

•Do talk about local issues: Americans are bitterly polarized over national issues, but have much higher levels of trust in their state and local officials. •Do talk about what your state and local leaders are doing to ensure a safe election. •Do emphasize our shared values—the large majority of Americans still feel that democracy is preferable to all other forms of government—and our historical ability to deliver safe and fair elections, even in times of warfare and social strife. •Don’t, by contrast, dismiss people’s concerns about election irregularities out of hand. Trump and his allies have repeatedly raised the specter of widespread voter fraud in favor of Democrats. Despite a lack of evidence for this notion, many people may sincerely believe that this kind of electoral cheating is real. •Don’t rely on statistics to make your case, because people aren’t convinced by them; talk, instead, about what actions are being taken to protect the integrity of the vote. •Finally, don’t inadvertently undermine democracy further: Emphasize the strength of the American people, our ability to stand up to those who assault democracy. Offer people a course of action, not despair.

As a Last Resort, Protest

As in 2020, protest remains a final option. A lot of institutions, including some of those listed above, are preparing to step in if the political system fails. But if they all fail as well, remember that it’s better to protest in a group, and in a coordinated, nonviolent manner. Many of the organizations I have listed will be issuing regular statements right after the election; follow their advice to find out what they are doing. Remember that the point of a protest is to gain supporters—to win others over to your cause—and not to make a bad situation worse. Large, peaceful gatherings will move and convince people more than small, angry ones. Violence makes you enemies, not friends.

Finally, don’t give up: There is always another day. Many of your fellow citizens also want to protect not just the electoral system but the Constitution itself. Start looking for them now, volunteer to help them, and make sure that they, and we, remain a democracy where power changes hands peacefully.

[f1ghtsoftly]

All The Women’s News You Missed Last Week 9/16/24-9/23/24:

Hi, this newsletter is late. On Thursday, September 19th, I was the victim of a crime and needed emergency medical care. I am currently recovering with family outside the city. This is the earliest I could get out this project. I appreciate your understanding at this time.

Male Violence/Femicide: 

US: Sean 'Diddy' Combs arrest live updates: Charged with sex trafficking and racketeering 

India: West Bengal Assembly in India passes bill mandating life in prison or death penalty for rape convictions

France: Shocking rape trial highlights the systematic struggles French sexual abuse victims face

Australia: Suspect in 1977 Melbourne cold case arrested in Italy

US: Several Mark Robinson campaign staffers quit as fallout over online posts continues

Italy: Italy holds a trial into the killing of a woman that sparked debate over femicide

US: Harvey Weinstein pleads not guilty to new sexual assault charge 

UK: Harrods' ex-owner Al Fayed raped, assaulted staff over decades, lawyers say 

Reproductive Rights in the USA/Special Focus:

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban 

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law

‘She should be alive today’ — Harris spotlights woman’s death to blast abortion bans and Trump

Western nations were desperate for Korean babies. Now many adoptees believe they were stolen

Euphoric two years ago, US anti-abortion movement is now divided and worried as election nears

US Senate IVF bill fails after Republicans block it, despite Trump support

Transgender News/Gender Critical:

Australia: Australian woman's complaint at hostel backfires as manager fires back: 'This guest is lucky we didn't press charges on her'

Women’s Achievements: 

US: 2 Black women could make Senate history on Election Day

Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka has more women voters than men but no female presidential candidates

US: ‘Hidden Figures’ of the space race receive Congress’ highest honor at medal ceremony

MISC: 

Sweden: Sweden charges woman with genocide, crimes against humanity in Syria

Arts and Culture: 

Music Review: Katy Perry returns with the uninspired and forgettable ‘143'

Why does ‘The Babadook’ still haunt? Its director, Jennifer Kent, has some answers

JoJo was a teen sensation. At 33, she’s found her voice again

'Agatha All Along' crafts a witch coven community run by women

Demi Lovato’s ‘Child Star’ Is Now Streaming on Hulu and Disney+

As always, this is global and domestic news from a US perspective covering feminist issues and women in the news more generally. As of right now, I do not cover Women’s Sports. Published each Monday afternoon.

I am looking for better sources on women’s arts and culture outside of the English-speaking world, if you know of any-please be in touch.

[beardedmrbean]

The newly elected 51st National Assembly of Bulgaria convened with the registration of 234 deputies. Silvi Kirilov, from the "There Is Such a People" (TISP) party, opened the session with a speech acknowledging the complex and dynamic political landscape both domestically and internationally. He emphasized the need for sober analysis of the country's political, economic, and social challenges. Kirilov expressed optimism, stating that the Bulgarian parliament could overcome the difficulties if political parties prioritize the national interest over narrow partisan goals. He concluded with confidence in the parliament's ability to make pragmatic decisions, wishing the 51st National Assembly success.

Toma Bikov, a member of GERB, addressed the session, emphasizing that the recent elections had reshaped Bulgaria’s political system. He noted that GERB remained the dominant force and that forming a stable government without the party would be impossible. He made it clear that GERB was ready to seek support and make necessary compromises but would not accept any attempt to undermine the voters' will. Bikov also reiterated GERB's position on governance, proposing a regular government with a four-year mandate and clear responsibility.

Nikolai Denkov of WCC-DB warned that, for the first time in 35 years, democracy in Bulgaria was at risk. He linked this danger to the attacks on the country’s democratic foundations, highlighting the control over elections and political institutions for selfish purposes. Denkov criticized the actions of Peevski and Borissov, claiming their aim was to downplay the electoral violations and pressure lawmakers and citizens into accepting the situation.

Kostadin Kostadinov, leader of "Revival," addressed the assembly, saying, "Dear fellow citizens, we must all prioritize being Bulgarians above all else. Let's reflect on the outcome of the October 27 elections. Nearly 1 million of you either sold your vote or were manipulated into voting, either by local power brokers or criminal groups operating within Parliament. Another 4 million of you chose not to vote, indicating a lack of interest in Bulgaria's future. I would like to thank the 325,000 supporters of 'Revival,' as it is on their efforts that the fight for Bulgaria's renewal rests."

"DPS - New Beginning" deputies did not address the parliament and left the building, with the leader, Delyan Peevski, instead stepping out to speak with some of the protesters outside.

Atanas Zafirov from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) remarked, "Dear colleagues, many of you have stubbornly clung to your own version of the truth—some of you didn’t even speak. Your stance is driven by the fear of losing your voter base, without considering the broader interests of the Bulgarian people. This is what is pushing people back into the streets. I call it party selfishness, and you all claim that we must put an end to it. For us, ending party selfishness means that each of us should be willing to make some personal sacrifices for the common good, and the common good is unity. Corruption is the absolute boundary—an issue that cannot be ignored or dismissed. If we head to new elections, what exactly will we achieve?"

Jevdet Chakarov from the "Alliance for Rights and Freedoms" (Dogan faction) expressed his concern during the first session of the 51st National Assembly, highlighting the challenges the country is facing. He pointed to the ongoing economic crisis, low living standards, and political instability, all of which complicate the formation of a stable government. Additionally, Chakarov emphasized the widespread public mistrust following the October 27 elections, citing serious legal violations, falsifications, and corporate vote manipulation. He reiterated the party's support for a declaration from WCC-DB to isolate Delyan Peevski, viewing it as a step toward restoring the rule of law and reducing the influence of oligarchic interests. Chakarov also proposed the creation of a temporary commission to investigate Peevski's role in the Corporate Commercial Bank and the Bulgarian Development Bank failures and his influence on the judiciary.

Stanislav Balabanov of TISP criticized the political, financial, and social turmoil in the country, stating that the nation is in a state of complete chaos, with most institutions collapsing. He argued that while the country's problems, such as healthcare and education reforms, and the demographic crisis, should be the focus, the political agenda is instead dominated by power struggles over who controls key institutions. Balabanov lamented that the political decisions being made are not addressing the real issues but rather are part of a broader effort to consolidate power.

Radostin Vasilev from MECH thanked the 112,000 Bulgarian citizens who supported his party in the recent elections. However, he expressed regret over the widespread vote manipulation, which he believes undermined the legitimacy of the elections and, by extension, the legitimacy of the current parliament.

Acting Prime Minister Dimitar Glavchev expressed hope for a regular and stable government to resolve the political crisis. He distanced himself from the ongoing coalition negotiations, stating that the formation of coalitions was not his responsibility. When asked about the protests in Sofia, Glavchev acknowledged the right to protest, as long as it did not disturb others.

The election of the new Speaker of the Parliament remains uncertain, with several parties nominating candidates. GERB has proposed Raya Nazaryan, while "Revival" has put forward Petar Petrov. "BSP - United Left" nominated Natalia Kiselova, an expert in constitutional law. There is also speculation whether Silvi Kirilov will be nominated for Speaker by "There Is Such a People." Meanwhile, MECH, DPS - New Beginning, and APS have not put forward any candidates for the position.

The session took place amidst seven protests in Sofia, the majority of which were concentrated in the so-called triangle of power.

[learnwithmearticles]

French Politics Update

Since the 2024 French elections earlier this year, we left off with a more balanced National Assembly. Left-wing politicians became the highest population at 188 seats with centrist Emmanuel Macron still the president. The centrist party is not far behind with 161 seats and the right-wing party with 142.

Many networks at the time discussed the expectation of a hung parliament, as no one party holds the 289-seat majority.

Some things stay the same. In July, the National Assembly voted to keep centrist party member Yaël Braun-Pivet as speaker, winning by 13 votes. Additionally, many people have called for Macron to step down as President, but he will likely stay for the rest of his term until 2027. 

New PM

On the other hand, there have been major changes. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal resigned in July, and was replaced by Michel Barnier in September. He is a conservative, the leader of the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiation, and his appointment was met with much criticism from the left-wing parties.

Days after his appointment, over 100,000 people participated in protests across France. Many people view President Macron’s PM choice as disruptive to democracy, as the PM is most often chosen from the dominant National Assembly party.

Macron states that he made this choice based on the belief that Barnier seemed the most capable of dealing with political deadlocks, as is expected of the Parliament with no party holding majority.

I have to wonder, though, if this was also out of spite for the left-wing parties winning more seats than his centrist party. Barnier’s politics are expected to rely on joint support from the centrist and conservative parties. If the right or center opposes him on anything, he almost certainly will face loss after loss with his proposed policies. Will this lead France backward after the left finally gained some political power?

Barnier’s Address

Barnier delivered his first parliamentary address on Tuesday, October 1st. Summarily, he emphasized the hazard of French finances and debts, and the environment.

France is more than 3 trillion euros in public and environmental debt, which Barnier addresses first. His goal is to bring the deficit down from 6% of the national GDP to 5% in 2025, with the goal of under 3% by 2029.

His outline for achieving this is reducing spending, being more efficient in government spending (addressing corruption and unjustified spending), and taxes. He phrases higher taxes as a temporary measure, and states that large companies as well as the richest and wealthiest French people will be asked for exceptional contributions.

Barnier also addresses environmental debt. He plans to continue reducing GHG emissions, and for France to be more active in the EU and in the Paris Agreements, which push for countries to collectively act against climate change. He also mentions encouraging industry transitions in energy and recycling, encouraging nuclear energy development, and developing renewable resources of energy more, like biofuels and solar energy.

He has also conceived of a large national conference to act on the matter of water, the scarcity of which is an imminent issue for France.

Additionally, he plans to propose a yearly day of citizens consultations. In his idea, doors will be open for citizens for people of all levels of government to ask questions and start discussions and debates on various topics.

Another noteworthy statement from Barnier is that the pension reform bill voted on in 2023 might have to be changed, which received a loud reply from the audience.

As someone living in a country where an entire political party is built on denying factual evidence and realities, it is surprising to hear someone who does not deny climate change, and calls for equitable taxes to address debt.

About 30 minutes into his address, though, New Caledonia comes up. This is more in line with expectations of conservatives. New Caledonia is still a colonized territory of France, and a recent bill from Macron was going to disadvantage native Kanak people for the advancement of French loyalists on the archipelago. After fatal protests, the bill has been suspended before ratification, likely to be readdressed in 2025.

Also in conservative spirit, Barnier calls for stricter immigration policies in effort to meet “integration objectives”. France faces a cost-of-living crisis and an affordable housing shortage that has buttressed the right’s stance on needing stricter border measures.

Le Pen Trial

Also straining politics, especially for right-wing support, is recent news about popular right-wing figure Marine Le Pen.

On September 30th, Le Pen faced charges of embezzling European Parliament money. The right-wing party Rassemblement National is accused of filing false employee records in order to improperly use funds to pay members of the party. Le Pen is one of many senior party members involved in the alleged embezzlement.

This trial is expected to go on for seven to nine weeks, so the final outcome is some time away. But for now we can expect this will have negative impacts if Le Pen still vies for presidential election in 2027. It will likely also decrease citizen’s trust in the conservative party’s ability to make responsible economic decisions.

If found guilty, Le Pen and the other defendants could face up to ten years in prison and lose the eligibility to run for office.

After the 2024 shock vote instigated by President Macron, the French National assembly gained a left-leaning majority, though not enough for an automatic 289-vote majority. In most cases, this would mean a left-wing Prime Minister as well as a left-wing president, though that’s because the presidential vote is usually shortly after that of the national assembly.

Contrarily, Macron went with a conservative candidate that he believed to be stronger for the job. This increases the political unrest in the country, and increases the likelihood of delays and blockages in legislation development.

While the conservative Prime Minister has stated many intentions that people in the U.S.A. might call left-leaning, regarding climate change and tax targets, his appointment has upset many. His views on immigration, especially, contrast with most left-wing groups who want integration and safety for others. Overall, this decision from Macron calls into question his loyalty and dedication to the wants of the French people.

Additional Resources

1. New Prime Minister

2. Barnier on Borrowed Time

3. Le Pen on Trial

4. Barnier Address

5. Barnier Address Summary

[7vyntheefaerie]

Poetics of Black Becoming: A Manifesto/Syllabus by 7vyn

A Prelude:

i am 7vyn. that is a self-given name that i claim in exploration of my gender and its manifestation of xpression through the digital. 7vyn is dislocated and pixelated embodiedment. a dis-spirit(ed) alien(ated) straddling human and monstrous livlihood. as 7vyn and thru this account, i hope to host a pilot of a manifesto/syllabus that crafts a tangible imaginative world that centers decolonial praxis. i wanted to create a place where texts central to themes of interest for me could live together on the same throughline to think with, around, and beyond each other.

why syllabus?

this is a tradition that came long before my attempts at uniting the scholarly and the activist for more fluid models of knowledge production and sharing. some considerations that made the syllabus a useful tool for me include:

proclamation, this syllabus is not making an argument as much as it is just saying, uniting threads of information. this syllabus is not engaged in any larger debate as much as it is a declaration of a more considerate, passionate, just world and its maintainance and flourishing needs. this syllabus/manifesto is the bare bones of a lineage of thought greater than my own wing-span, so rather than declare and leave thought to the wind as many in the tradition of manifesto do, i insist on the collabortative intention and nature of this piece. as in, this syllabus can be added to. this syllabus will remain malleauble and engaged.

invitation to learning, this syllabus/manifesto is creating a sort of index library or guide map of thinking toward decolonization in a Black trans-cyber-anarchafeminist tradition. this manifesto is uninterested in interacting with and sharing knowledge in such a way designed to exlude nonmembers of academia. so, i use my institutional access to create knowledge beyond academic spaces, straddling the line between academia and activism and daring myself and other producers of knowledge and culture to be intentional about the the work we do to prioritize and care for our audiences of intention. because this is a collaborative work, i most aim for Black transfeminists with specific niches related to the digital and decolonization (broadly) or even beyond to progress and advance the thinking of this syllabus. i encourage all others to engage this manifesto/syllabus as a learning tool.

accessible. this manifesto does not privilege knowledge. by this i mean, i am not the owner of this knowledge, i am merely an assembler, a curator. i also reject bullshit academic vernacular because i believe that is a method of exclusion and i want everyone, even people this is not useful for to at least be able to meaningfully engage with the information offered. i elect to spark enthusiasm and curiousity, not headaches.

translatable. because i think of this manifesto/syllabus as a useful learning tool, i believe that it should also have a flexibility that supports it as a learning model. this means i currently understand the syllabus/manifesto as a zine, twine game, installation, digital exhibition, and on a decentralized platform. these are initiatives i hope to take up later in the life of the manifesto/syllabus, hopefully in direct collaboration with other scholars, organizations, activists, cultural & knowledge workers, etc.

this is a living document + post. i will return as needed to update information, offer specificity, add resources, activities, prompts, and more. this post will serve as the original and masterlist. below you can gain access to some preliminary writing on the sources I have decided to include, key concepts I am drawing from them, and why they are useful to my thinking (and potentially yours too!). as i may have stated earlier in this post, this is just the pilot of this project for me. so what you see as of now (5/17/2024) is just the bare bones of something i will be building outward as long as i need to.

Solidarity (tag: #solid, where strength lies)

Accomplices Not Allies by Indigenous Action

Insurrectionary Mutual Aid by Curious George Brigade

Power Makes Us Sick Issue #3

Resistance (tag: #push/pull)

My Gender is Marronage by Nsambu Za Suekama/Bl3ssing

Them Goon Rules by Marquis Bey

Rave:n by Kelela

Sabotage (tag: #set aflame)

Random Acts of Flyness by Terrence Nance

The Poetics of Difference by Mecca Jamilah Sullivan

Play With The Changes by Rochelle Jordan

thank you for reading! my placemaking & writing on process does not end here, so stay tuned!

with care,

7vyn

[thekristen999]

For those who want to know more about Walz from Washington Post. And can't get away from the paywall.

By Tyler Pager, 

Amy B Wang and 

Sabrina Rodriguez

Vice President Harris has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, opting for a former high school teacher and Midwestern Democrat to complete a newly assembled presidential ticket, according to three people familiar with the pick, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that is not yet public.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

The choice of Walz, 60, creates a ticket that many Democrats have said would be politically beneficial. Harris, 59, who is Black and Indian American and spent much of her career in deep-blue California, chose from a list of finalists populated by White men, including Walz, who have represented more competitive swaths of the country.

The selection culminates an increasingly intensive process in recent days, as the Harris team narrowed down the prospects and various factions of the Democratic Party lobbied for their favorites. Over the weekend, Harris interviewed three finalists: Walz, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly.

Compared with some of the other prospects who Harris considered as potential running mates, Walz is less well-known and has faced less scrutiny on the national stage.

Skip to end of carousel

2024 presidential election

Vice President Harris has told allies that he she has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, according to three people familiar with the pick. Follow live updates.

Trump and Harris have officially secured their party’s presidential nominations. Trump chose Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate. We broke down options for Harris’s vice-presidential pick.

(The Washington Post)

Check out how Harris and Trump stack up according to The Washington Post’s presidential polling averages of seven battleground states.

Sign up for The Campaign Moment, reporter Aaron Blake’s guide to what you really need to know about the 2024 election.

A second-term governor and chair of the Democratic Governors Association, Walz does not hail from a traditional battleground state — Minnesota has supported a Republican presidential candidate only once since 1960. But Walz’s credentials as a veteran and gun owner who previously represented a Republican-leaning, rural part of Minnesota in Congress could help Harris appeal to working-class White voters who have turned away from Democrats and helped fuel Donald Trump’s political rise.

Follow Election 2024

Walz catapulted onto the national radar as it became clear that Harris was considering him for the ticket after Biden ended his reelection bid July 21. He repeatedly criticized Trump and other Republicans as “weird” in cable news appearances, an unusual formulation that attracted attention. Other Democrats followed with the same line of attack, which appeared to strike a nerve in some Republicans, who have felt compelled to push back.

Walz now faces the urgent task of introducing himself to the country with about three months left before an election that has already been rocked by historic turmoil. The political tests ahead include a potential debate against Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), whom Trump tapped as his running mate in July.

Harris will hold her first rally with Walz on Tuesday in Philadelphia, the first stop in a four-day tour of battleground states that includes visits to Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and elsewhere.

Harris’s choice of a running mate was among the most closely watched decisions of her fledgling campaign, as she sought to bolster the ticket’s prospects for victory in November and rapidly find someone who could be a governing partner. In picking Walz, she has selected a seasoned politician with executive governing experience, and signaled the importance of Midwestern battleground states such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

Walz’s foray into politics came later in life: He spent more than two decades as a public school teacher and football coach, and as a member of the Army National Guard, before running for Congress in his 40s. In 2006, he defeated a Republican to win Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District — a rural, conservative area — and won reelection five times before leaving Congress to run for governor.

Walz was first elected governor in 2018 and handily won reelection in 2022. He emerged publicly as one of the earliest names mentioned as a possible running mate for Harris, and in the ensuing days he made the rounds on television as an outspoken surrogate for the vice president.

“These are weird people on the other side. They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room. … They are bad on foreign policy, they are bad on the environment, they certainly have no health-care plan, and they keep talking about the middle class,” Walz told MSNBC in July. “As I said, a robber baron real estate guy and a venture capitalist trying to tell us they understand who we are? They don’t know who we are.”

More on Tim Walz

 

Tim Walz’s journey from high school football coach to VP candidate

 

Harris has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as VP pick

 

Could Tim Walz go from teaching history to being part of it?

Walz also has faced criticism from Republicans that his policies as governor were too liberal, including legalizing recreational marijuana for adults, protecting abortion rights, expanding LGBTQ protections, implementing tuition-free college for low-income Minnesotans and providing free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren in the state.

But many of those initiatives are broadly popular. Walz also signed an executive order removing the college-degree requirement for 75 percent of Minnesota’s state jobs, a move that garnered bipartisan support and that several other states have also adopted.

“What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions,” Walz said sarcastically in a July 28 interview with CNN when questioned on whether such policies would be fodder for conservative attacks, later adding: “If that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the [liberal] label.”

Walz also spoke at a kickoff event in St. Paul for a Democratic canvassing effort, casting Trump as a “bully.”

“Don’t lift these guys up like they’re some kind of heroes. Everybody in this room knows — I know it as a teacher — a bully has no self-confidence. A bully has no strength. They have nothing,” Walz said at the event, sporting a camouflage hunting hat and T-shirt.

Walz has explained that he felt some Democrats’ practice of calling Trump an existential threat to democracy was giving him too much credit, which prompted his decision to denounce the GOP nominee instead as being “weird.”

“I do believe all those things are a real possibility, but it gives him way too much power,” Walz said on CNN’s “State of the Union” regarding the Democrats’ rhetoric. “Listen to the guy. He’s talking about Hannibal Lecter, shocking sharks, and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind.”

Walz was rewarded for his willingness to attack the Trump-Vance ticket and his embrace of the liberal label, earning the endorsement of a coalition of left-leaning groups that touted him as “a credible and respected voice that has a track record of winning over and exciting an electorate, especially the ability to turn out young voters, immigrants, and independents in swing states.”

If Walz is elected vice president, under state law, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D) would assume the governorship for the rest of his term. Minnesota Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, a Democrat, would become lieutenant governor.

In picking Walz, Harris passed over several other Democratic governors who were under consideration, including Shapiro, Andy Beshear of Kentucky and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.

Harris faced an effective deadline of Aug. 7 to select a running mate. That is when Democratic National Committee officials had hoped to formally nominate its ticket to avoid running afoul of ballot qualification deadlines in various states.

Amy B Wang, Michael Scherer, Sabrina Rodriguez and Patrick Svitek contributed to this report.

Election 2024

Vice President Harris has told allies that he she has chosen Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, according to three people familiar with the pick. Follow live updates.

Kamala Harris: Harris has officially secured the Democratic presidential nomination. She has narrowed her search for a running mate to six finalists, according to two people familiar with the process.

Presidential polls: Check out how Harris and Republican Donald Trump stack up according to The Washington Post’s presidential polling averages of seven battleground states.

Trump VP pick: Trump has chosen Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) as his running mate, selecting a rising star in the Republican Party. But Vance has had a challenging start as the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee, leaving the Trump campaign to try to clean up his controversial past comments.

Election 2024

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

CorpMedia #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava “Communal elections the first step towards Free Syria” [UPDATES]

Democratic Northern Syria Federation Executive Council described the communal elections as the first step towards Free Syria, and said they are now preparing for the second stage which is the election of municipality, district and canton assemblies…

RELATED UPDATE: 8th turbine in Euphrates Dam on probation

RELATED UPDATE: The seventh turbine returns to work in the Euphrates dam

https://sdf-press.com/en/2018/06/the-seventh-turbine-returns-to-work-in-the-euphrates-dam/

RELATED UPDATE: Turkey seizes Euphrates water, cutting electricity in northeast Syria

RELATED UPDATE: Welcome No More: How Turkey Targets Increasingly Vulnerable Syrians

RELATED UPDATE: 'Jin, Jiyan Azadî' conference in Rome

RELATED UPDATE: WATCH Rojava revolutionary leader warns escalation could lead to World War III

RELATED UPDATE: WATCH PYD’s Saleh Muslim on escalating Middle East conflict, Rojava revolution

RELATED UPDATE: Seventy-minute footage of the revolutionary guerrilla operation in Zap

FURTHER READING:

[cokeraita]

Marjorie Taylor Greene on Ukraine, Speakership Fallout, Big Tech, CIA/FBI and More Video Transcript: System Update #33

Marjorie Taylor Greene on Ukraine, Speakership Fallout, Big Tech, CIA/FBI and More Video Transcript: System Update #33 Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald February 02, 2023 post photo preview Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Wednesday, February 1, 2023. Going forward, every new transcript will be sent out by email and posted to our Locals page, where you'll find the transcripts for previous shows. Watch System Update Episode #33 Here on Rumble. Virtually everything that can be said about our guest tonight, Marjorie Taylor Greene, has been said, often without the slightest regard for whether or not it is true. But whatever one's views of her may be, there is no denying that in a very short period of time – she is just now entering her second term in Congress – she has become one of the most prominent, influential and popular politicians in America. As The New York Times recounted in an article on her complex history with current House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, when Democrats were plotting to strip her of all of her Committee assignments due to controversial comments she made on the Internet before she was even elected to Congress, she “stormed into Mr. McCarthy's office in the Capitol late one night, in February 2021, and handed him a letter signed by local Republican leaders in her district, urging him to keep her on committees. They had received “countless messages”, they said, from their voters who were intent on supporting her.” Many things interest me about the Republican Congresswoman representing Georgia’s 14th Congressional District – her strident opposition to bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington, the still escalating U.S. role in the war in Ukraine, her opposition to the evils of the U.S. Security State and Big Tech: all of which we'll talk about – but one often overlooked aspect of her quick rise to prominence is the Founders’ aspiration to have a country free of a professionalized political class, but instead one that would be governed by “citizen-legislators” – people who have other jobs and professions beyond “politician” and who go to Washington for a few years after a lot of experience elsewhere to serve in the model of public service and then go back to their regular lives. Anyone who was able to construct a prominent political profile without decades of striving for political power, without drearily climbing the career ladder from low-level political office and trying to take a step up every few years, without the benefit of a famous political parent or a famous family name – in other words, a self-made person in Washington – is automatically someone who will be of greater interest to me than people who seemingly popped out of the womb dreaming of one day being in the U.S. Senate. Whatever else one might think of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, that's true of her, and it's at least equally true of Congresswoman Greene. Look at the two most senior politicians who lead their respective parties in the Senate. Republican leader Mitch McConnell has been a senator since 1985 – for almost 40 years. Other than a few years in the early 1970s when he worked as a lawyer, McConnell has never had any job outside of being a politician. The Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, was elected to the New York State Assembly at the age of 24. He was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1980 at the age of 30, and then to the U.S. Senate in 1999. He's been in Congress for 43 years. It's impossible to find people more insular and insulated and aberrational than they – their lives bear not even the slightest resemblance to those whom they pretend to represent. When AOC first ran for Congress, in 2018, almost nobody paid attention to her primary race, in large part because nobody had even heard of her opponent, Joe Crowley. That was the case, even though Crowley was one of the most powerful members of Congress: entrenched in House Democratic leadership and touted as the likely successor to Nancy Pelosi. But almost nobody in his district even knew who he was. He barely visited Queens, the district he nominally represented. There was no such thing as a “Joe Crowley supporter”. His extremely significant power had nothing to do with any popular support – he had none – and it has everything to do with his ability to navigate the backrooms of Congress, where a lobbyist for Google and Raytheon lurk, telling party leadership, both parties, what they want, as they hand over massive checks to build their war chests. That's the reality of how Washington works and has worked for decades in both parties. Marjorie Taylor Greene's power comes exclusively from popular support. Her relevance depends only upon one thing: the fact that, whether you like it or not, millions of Americans trust her, support her and will stand behind her. And that's what should matter. Regardless of what you think about her causes and her ideology – and she is, needless to say, a deeply polarizing figure, as is almost everyone who holds genuinely passionate convictions as a matter of principle – I think one could say without much controversy that she's the most organic and authentic representation in Congress of the MAGA movement that attracted the support of tens of millions of Americans from every walk of life, from every racial and ethnic group and from every part of the country. And that just has to matter in politics. The fact that someone actually has large amounts of popular support. In Washington, for those who know how to wield it – and she has learned a lot about how to do so in the past two years – that's real power. There was a reason that “citizen-legislators”, rather than a professionalized political class, was what the Founders envisioned. By definition, people have lived most of their lives without political power and political office has far more in common with those they are supposed to represent. They tend to be far more willing to learn, to grow, to evolve – not as the result of calculating careerist decisions, but simply because people who arrive in Washington afresh are not yet dependent upon it. They typically end up seeing things and learning things about how the country really works, and that, in turn, makes them less captive to party and dogma and more open to growth and change. Congresswoman Greene is no ordinary member of Congress, and she's no ordinary Republican either. Many of her most passionately held views are ones that were utterly anathema to the Republican Party until Donald Trump came along in 2016 and became the Republican nominee for president not by affirming and validating long standing Republican orthodoxies – voters already had Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio if they wanted that – but instead, by denouncing and vowing to uproot his own party's establishment orthodoxies. For that reason, Greene often inspires more anger and contempt in establishment Republican circles than she does among American liberals. Many of her views, her worldview, and her approach to politics, are a threat to subvert the GOP establishment and they know that. And that's why many of them despise her. But conservative voters also know that she's a threat to subvert the GOP establishment and that's why so many of them trust and support her. There are a lot more views I have to share about Congresswoman Greene but rather than take more time for me to express those, I'd rather spend our time letting her speak for herself. I'm thrilled that she's here tonight to do just that. G. Greenwald: Congresswoman, good evening. It's great to see you. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us. Rep. Greene: Hi, Glenn. I'm thrilled to be here. Thank you for having me. G. Greenwald: Absolutely. So, I was just talking about one of the things that I find interesting about your rise to prominence in such a short period of time, which is the pre-political trajectory you had, you didn't spend a lot of time plotting how to get elected to politics. You never ran for office. Previously, you had what I would describe as a life that has a lot in common with ordinary Americans. Talk about just in general, what your life was before you became Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and how that shapes the work you do in Washington. Rep. Greene: Well, I am just a regular American. I've never been in politics before, never held political office. I never even went to a meeting. As a matter of fact, I'm a business owner. Very proud mom, that's the best part of my life. And I just became angry over time with the failures that I saw in Washington, D.C., that regular Americans were able to get done every single day in our and our normal lives. Being a business owner and growing up in a family business, serving our customers was the most important thing we could do. I was raised with the belief that the customer is king, and I see the American taxpayer as the customer of the federal government. But I see complete failure from our federal government. We're basically on the brink of falling apart. So, I decided that instead of complaining on Facebook or social media or to my friends, I thought, okay, I'll step up to the plate and take a swing at this and see if I can do a better job. G. Greenwald: So, speaking of Facebook and social media and the like and your use of it before you got to Congress, it's part of what makes you polarizing in certain circles that you said and published things on those platforms that you ultimately came to disregard and repudiate. It's an experience I know I had, too, when I was a lawyer, and I then first became a journalist and was able to kind of delve into, in a full-time way, political realities. I realized that a lot of things that I had been led to believe previously when I was just kind of able to only pay partial attention turned out to be untrue. I think it's true for everybody. What's rare is to actually acknowledge and admit that as you've done. Talk a little about that process, what it was like to navigate through things you believe, and come to reaffirm some of them, reject others. What has that process been like for you? Rep. Greene: Well, it's been, honestly, a really easy one, Glenn, and I'll tell you why. You see, it's not just people on the right, it's people on the left that are victims of conspiracy theories all over the Internet and social media. You know, so I did go through a process where I had to say, look, I'm sorry, I said a few things on social media. But to be honest with you, as a regular American, when you look at Washington, D.C., it doesn't make sense why we're in such pitiful debt that we're in. When as an American at home I could pay my bills every day and be able to save money and I wasn't in debt. And I'm not in debt now. And then looking also at our government failures, it's like, why doesn't our government care about our southern border or our border period? But yet we're obsessed with every other country's border across the world. And there were just so many injustices. It's easy to believe things that you read on the Internet. You know, there are a lot of people that believe insane lies about me, that they read on social media, on the Internet. And then we have major media companies, large corporations that have told lies every single day, 24 x7 on cable news, not only to Americans but all over the world. And so, see, I think everyone is a little bit of a victim of so-called misinformation, but I don't think that's anything to be totally ashamed of. But it's really easy to say you're sorry and move forward. You know who I am as a person. I've never broken a law. I've always paid my taxes. I've done everything right in my life, you know, And I'm pretty successful and I'm proud of that. If I believe something wrong and had to say I'm sorry for it. Well, you know what? Everyone makes mistakes. G. Greenwald: You know, it was very soon when I when we announced that I was going to be speaking to you tonight, there was a wide range of reactions, including rage, as you might imagine, the idea that a journalist will actually interview a member of Congress apparently has become something that is now regarded as immoral or a cause of anger. But one of the things that also I found very bizarre about the reaction saying, oh, why would you talk to her if she spread conspiracy theories, if you want to talk about strange conspiracy theories, you know, what prompted me to get into politics and journalism was the fact that I watched every major American institution endorse what turned out to be an outright falsehood, namely that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons programs that led to a war that killed in excess of a million people, depending on how you count. All of those people who did that are now in all of the respectable precincts and welcomed on every show. We had a 2008 financial crisis that wiped out generational wealth for millions of Americans. And then we spent the last four years hearing the most prominent members of society, the most prestigious media outlets, claiming that the Kremlin had taken over the United States, and had seized control of the levers of power. Do you think that one of the reasons why Americans fall victim to conspiracy theories that aren't true, as you've acknowledged was true of you, is because there has been such a breakdown of trust in institutional authority and the legitimacy of institutions? And on some level, people don't know what to believe any longer. Rep. Greene: Yeah, I think that's so true and so well said. I really appreciate the way you put that, and I share a lot of what you said. I mean, here, our country, after 9/11, went straight into war looking for so-called weapons of mass destruction. And we didn't find any, but we lost thousands of lives, of American military lives, and we saw our brothers and friends and cousins and uncles and fathers come back home, maimed and disfigured and suffering from PTSD and committing suicide. There are so many things that we have been told are true by our trusted leaders but then we watch things unfold and, you know, it ends up being where things don't add up and people don't know what to believe anymore. I mean, we can talk about… here's things that have been said about me that are absolutely shocking to me every single day. If I look in my comments, someone will accuse me of being the pipe bomber on January 5th, and that's absurd. But there's a whole bunch of people that believe it, a bunch of Hollywood celebrities and so-called smart people. You know, probably some of the people that were outraged that you would dare interview me on your show. Every single day, there are people that think that I said a phrase called “Jewish space lasers,” a phrase that I never said. As a matter of fact, it was created and invented in a story that a bunch of people read in the news, and they believe that about me. But in fact, that's something I never said. And I don't hold any type of beliefs like that at all. But now we look at our leaders in Washington and we should be able to trust our leaders in Washington. We should be able to trust all of our leaders and believe what they tell us and trust them that they're going to do a good job. But they haven't done it for so long now that they have failed us. And people are grasping, no matter where they are in the political spectrum, they're grasping and trying to figure out, well, what do we believe and who do we believe? And I believe it's causing a very dangerous situation in a certain percentage of our population where they're becoming so fed up and so angry that they don't believe anyone and they can't be satisfied no matter what solution you present, no matter what you tell them, even if you're telling them the straight facts, they still don't believe you. And so, I think we're going down a very dangerous road. But this is what happens when governments fail their people so severely. We're over $34 trillion in debt, Glenn, and we're looking at having to raise our debt ceiling again so that we don't default. And that's extremely important. But at the same time, we're having to fight our president, President Biden, over reducing spending, which is hard to fathom because just as you listed, this man has spent decades in Washington and he can't connect with regular Americans like I can. And he can't even figure out why people think this overspending is a problem. He's more interested in what's happening over in Ukraine and figuring out how to get Crimea. And he's willing to go as far as possible, mean maybe even nuclear, in order to do that. But yet he's disconnected from what's happening at the southern border. He doesn't care that people are dying of fentanyl every single day. He doesn't hear that over 5 million people are flooding into our country. And he doesn't understand why the youth, the young people, young adults in this nation aren't pursuing jobs and careers. So, I think there is such a disconnect between our so-called leaders, who people should trust and what they believe on the Internet to the point where –think about this, Glenn, people will believe a perfect stranger that they have never met in their life that may have some kind of interesting name that they call themselves. And because they have a podcast, not only will they believe them, but they'll donate money to them. And I think that's a very dangerous place for us to be. G. Greenwald: Yeah. I mean, if you look at, I think, history and see a societal breakdown and genuine civil strife, it's almost always because there becomes this breach, this enormous gap between how elites are living, you know, kind of the classic wall behind the Versailles, of France, and the entire rest of the population. So let me ask you, though, because there is this kind of unavoidable irony in a sense, which is you start off as an outsider, you're angry about what's going on in Washington, but now you're in Washington, you're inside the kind of halls of power you have all the passes that let you in. In 2010, I read a book by the host on MSNBC, Chris Hayes. It was quite a good book. It was called “Twilight of the Elites”. And one of the arguments Chris made in this book was that elite institutions are extremely adept from decades of practice in taking anybody who enters their institutions, and no matter how well-intentioned they may be, no matter how smart they might be, how genuine they might be about trying to kind of subvert the institutions from within, and, over time, they can kind of co-opt you. They can say, here's a little benefit that we're willing to give you if you play ball a little bit with us here. And his argument was, no matter how well-intentioned, and determined you are to avoid that, it's basically inevitable that you'll be cognitively captured. And I remember asking Chris, “well, you just got a primetime show on MSNBC. What are you doing to protect yourself and shield yourself from that?” And he said, ‘Well, you know, actually, I haven't really thought about it.’ Watching him over the years turned into a Democratic Party mouthpiece and little else, I wish that he had thought about it. But let me ask you that. What are you kind of aware of those temptations, of those machinations, of the ability of D.C. institutions to take someone like yourself who arrives ready to battle, ready to fight, and kind of co-opt you? And do you feel like you have a plan to insulate yourself from that? Rep. Greene: Yeah. And this is such a big subject. There are multiple layers to this. So, I think one place to start is something that people might find interesting is political donations. Now, I'm very lucky and I'm very blessed to be supported by so many regular Americans. I received small-dollar donations. So, for me, that is not a problem. And I'm so grateful for that. But there's a lot of members of Congress that come here and a lot of senators as well, that just don't rise in popularity, may not have a good fundraising operation put together, and it comes time for reelection and they really need help. And in their primary, they may be facing a challenger or multiple challengers and they need help getting reelected. And so that's where the lobbyists come in. That's where Big Techs come in, and that's where people can maybe fall in line and not stay the true fighters that they were when they came to Washington. It's more where they fall in line and listen to a lobbyist that literally will say this – because I've heard it before – they just say that, you know, listen, Congressman, if you will just vote with us about 60% of the time, that's all we ask, 60% of the time, we're going to need you on some key bills like appropriations, the NDAA and some other things. And then the other 40% of the time, you know, you can take your issues, you can fight whether you're far-right, moderate, wherever you are, and you can fight on those issues. But we're going to need you right here about 60% of the time. And that's what creates what I call, Glenn, the Uniparty – that creates the Uniparty. And so, where you have – and that doesn't mean lobbyists are bad people – they're salespeople. That's what people need to understand. These are salespeople and their customers, the clients that they're selling for are large corporations. They're industries that need their needs met, too. And so, they hire lobbyists, send them in to talk to people like me, so that they can get what they need, put in bills to help their industry, protect their business, so they can keep going, so they can keep receiving funding or whatever it may be. But the problem is, Glenn, there's not a lot of lobbyists here for regular Mr. and Mrs. American, you know, like mom and pop shops, the single mom trying to make it, that the guy, the average white male trying to climb the corporate ladder when his problem is being a white male. So, there's that people in here fighting for regular Americans, you just have lobbyists fighting for big corporations and industries. And so that's one layer of the problem. The other layer of the problem is the nature of this job. It keeps members of Congress and senators in Washington so much of the time, too much of the time, to be honest with you, that we don't get to go home and spend more time with our families, our friends, you know, all in our district, or maybe just be “regular” people because this job is so demanding and it's turned into practically year around. And for those of us in the House of Representatives, we have to run for Congress every two years. So, you're practically campaigning nearly the entire time that you're here serving as a representative. So that's just a couple of examples that I can give you that I believe is a recipe for disaster. And that's how people just fall into this social club. I would call it a social club here in Washington, D.C. Now, for me, I have no interest in that. I really don't. And I'll tell you why. Becoming a member of Congress has made my life miserable. I made a lot more money before I got here. I've lost money since I've gotten here. I have people come up to me and say crazy things to me out of the blue, in public places, that they believe because they read it on the Internet or saw it on some news show about me. So, it's not a life that I think is like something that I enjoy because I don't enjoy it. But I'm committed to this job because I believe in it. I sincerely believe that the federal government is failing the American people so badly, like so badly that it disgusts me every single day. And I like to solve problems. That's who I am. I like to fix it. And I honestly hate the two-party system. I really do. People don't understand that about me. But I really hate the two-party system because it creates a divide in Congress and it takes away from the fact that we should just be working for all Americans. And that may surprise people to hear me say that. But I do believe that we should be working for all Americans because – guess what? – this is all of our country. And so, I'm not interested in being co-opted or changing the way I do things. As a matter of fact, that would upset me because I wouldn't sleep well at night. And I really do enjoy getting good sleep at night. G. Greenwald: Yeah. You know, I've told this story before, but I remember when I was working with Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, an incredibly stressful moment, we had no idea whether at any moment Chinese authorities or Hong Kong authorities or the CIA were going to bust down the door and none of us could sleep – the journalists working with him. But every night at 10 p.m. he said, “Hey, guys, I'm going to hit the hay.” He went to bed and slept like a baby. And at one point I finally asked him, you know, how are you able to do this when all of us can barely get an hour of sleep, even with sleeping aids? And he said because there's nothing like having a clean conscience that lets you sleep at night. And even though he's an exile, I always say he's probably the most internally peaceful and fulfilled person I know, despite these material deprivations. I don't want to spend a lot of time on the whole what ended up, I think, being more of a drama over the House speakership fight but I do want to ask you a couple of questions about it while I have you. To begin with, I did start noticing even before the Republicans gained control of Congress, that Kevin McCarthy was saying things about you along the lines of, “look, you may not like it, you may like it, the reality is Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks for millions of people within our party and deserves the platform that goes along with that.” He obviously was opposed to stripping you of committees, at least while he was saying those sorts of things. The people who are kind of the holdouts to Kevin McCarthy were people who are typically aligned with you, or that's the perception at least, and some people were surprised that you weren't one of them. They ended up getting some concessions in exchange for ultimately allowing Kevin McCarthy to become the Speaker. I'm just wondering either informally or formally, was your willingness to support Kevin McCarthy as speaker based on your perception that he would allow you to do the things that you felt you wanted to do or at least give you the space and the power in order to do them? Rep. Greene: Well, I think what people can take away from it is the fact that I supported Kevin McCarthy going into that Speaker's vote is that I will make decisions independently, that I'm not going to make decisions because my group of friends or the Freedom Caucus or the people I normally vote with are planning to do something. I will take and weigh all the information that I have, and I'll make that decision on my own. And I'm willing to do that at all times. It doesn't matter what the issue is, what the votes are going to be, what the bill is, I will continue to do that and I'll do what I believe is the right thing. And so, I had a different path than the 20 that opposed Kevin McCarthy going into January 3rd. My path was this: I had gotten kicked off a committee. One of the things I had been told by a lot of people is that it was Kevin McCarthy that kicked me off. But I found out – and it was well over a year after I had been here – from Devin Nunes, one night we were at a party and I found out from him that, in fact, that was not true because he was in the room when it happened and Kevin McCarthy was very angry and was screaming at Steny Hoyer over the fact that they were going to kick me off of committees and told them there's going to be paybacks and we won't forget this once you start this process, he said, we will continue it. And sure enough, everybody saw what happened. He removed Adam Schiff, and Eric Swalwell from the Intel committees. And we are getting ready to remove Ilhan Omar from Foreign Affairs for anti-Semitic comments and stances and views towards Israel. And so Kevin McCarthy held true to his word. But another thing that I did that was different from not having committees is I spent a lot of time on the House floor. And I really feel like I learned how Congress works. And I watch committees and I was able to observe and learn probably more than any member of Congress has ever been able to do. But I also went and talked to Kevin McCarthy, which was something different that none of them ever did. They more assumed his opinion, assumed his stances, and grew in their belief that he would be a bad Speaker and wouldn't be conservative, wouldn't put America First and they chose to oppose him, where I spent months and months going to meet with him and talk to him because I truly felt like, okay, I need to be talking to leadership and I need to tell leadership exactly how regular Americans think and feel and tell them, here's what's important. This is what we believe. This is what we want. And so, I had developed a relationship with Kevin McCarthy by going to him and sometimes fighting with him, sometimes arguing with him, but really earning his ear and his trust and explaining to him, here's what America First looks like. This is what MAGA Republicans feel like. This is what small business owners think and feel. This is what's important to my district. This is what's important for traditional values and conservatives. And then I would say, here's what I think we need to do. I give my opinion on a lot of things. But I also got to hear back from him, Glenn, and that's how you make a decision on whether you're going to support someone: you watch their actions, you listen to their words, you develop a relationship, and then you make your decision. But there's something also very important that most people don't realize. I also knew there was nothing to gain by opposing Kevin McCarthy. As a matter of fact, I knew there was a lot at risk. We could risk losing the gavel to the Democrats or to more of a Uniparty group from Democrats and Republicans, that could pull together and get 218 members on their own and elect someone for Speaker that none of us really want except that big moderate group. And to me, that was reckless and dangerous because we worked very hard to earn the majority and after two years without committees, you know what? I wanted the gavel and I wanted the gavel to belong to someone that I could support and someone that would help me and listen to me achieve the things over the next two years that I believe will help us win the White House and help us get control of the Senate so that we can truly make real changes to get things done. And so that's how my decision process worked. And so, once I get into something, I'm going to fight like hell for it. And I fought to support Kevin McCarthy, and it seemed like an unpopular thing to do. But I think people are realizing that I made the right choice and they're finding out that Kevin McCarthy is not Mitch McConnell and he's going to do a good job for us. G. Greenwald: So you mentioned the Ilhan Omar thing, and I want to actually ask you about that in just a second but before I get to that, just to kind of sum this all up, I realize you made a different choice than the 20 holdouts. I've heard you before, and again, you explained your reasoning. I think it's very clear, regardless of whether people agree with it or not. But what I do want to ask is that there were some concessions that were ultimately extracted in exchange for letting him ascend to the House speakership – but this was five days that didn't go on for weeks. It was just a few days that were designed to decentralize the decision-making process. And this kind of grip, the stranglehold that party leadership has had on Congress going back to the days of Paul Ryan and then John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi, all of whom basically stripped individual members of any kind of real power, at least some of these procedural changes and concessions restored to individual members, some power. Do you acknowledge or agree with the view that some of those concessions that they extracted did end up having real value? Rep. Greene: Well, actually, let me give a little information on that. All the agreements that came together on our rules package happened all before January 3. So, I supported our Freedom Caucus rules package and we worked with leadership and we worked in our conference. And all of those meetings and votes happened before the very first Speaker vote on January 3. As a matter of fact, the rules package was printed on January 1, ok?, and then the final printed version of the rules package on January 6, when we took our bill, I guess it was early hours, January 7, our 15th round where we finally voted and established Kevin McCarthy speakership. The only change in the rules package from January 1, all the way to January 6, during that big week fight from January 3 to January 7, early a.m. was one thing. One thing I'm not kidding you. It's like 55 pages both times. But the only change was it took the motion to vacate from 5 members to 1 member. That was it. So, people don't understand that. All of that, the debate and coming to this where we were returning power to members of the House and taking it away from leadership and taking the appropriation bills to 12 separate bills and all these wonderful things that happened, that all of that was done before January 3. The only thing that happened that week was a change in motion to vacate from five members to one. But there were a lot of meetings behind closed doors, and there were things requested that I didn't agree with. Those are the backroom deal-type things that I never was a part of. And, you know, they might have gotten some of them, but none of that is public. G. Greenwald: All right. So, let's talk about the question of whether Ilhan Omar should be taken off the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Kevin McCarthy promised that he would remove Adam Schiff, for example, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee or ranking member, because he clearly lied to the public repeatedly and abused his position by doing so, vesting a lot of lies and conspiracy theories with the kind of aura of credibility that comes from that position. He constantly leaked classified information from political reasons to CNN and a bunch of other outlets. So, there's a clear reason why you would remove Adam Schiff from this committee. When it comes to Ilhan Omar, it seems as if the argument for removing her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee is similar to the argument that was made by Democrats for why you should be stripped from your committee positions, namely not that she abused her power or engaged in ethical violations – but instead that she expressed views that a lot of people dislike. And I want to just show you – you probably already saw it but for our audience – what Matt Gaetz said, a few days ago, in an interview about why he's at least not yet willing to support the campaign to remove Ilhan Omar from this committee. And I want to hear your reaction to it. (Video 42:16) Rep. Matt Gaetz on Newsmax: So, let's go ahead and show that Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell are dangerous to our country. They lied about intelligence. They created a structure of leaks and then embroidered those leaks on to other lies. You just saw Adam Schiff lying about his contact with whistleblowers. Even CNN had to recognize that point. But I have to tell you, Jen, I view the Schiff and Swalwell matter somewhat differently than I view the Ilhan Omar matter. Ilhan Omar didn't lie about our intelligence agencies. She didn't say that Trump was a Russian agent based on information from a particular committee that was just totally bogus. The reason I think a lot of Republicans want to kick Ilhan Omar off of the Foreign Affairs Committee is that they don't like what she has to say. And like I was just saying. Newsmax: She should have remained on. Rep. Matt Gaetz on Newsmax: That, well, I'm undecided on that question because the Democrats moved the Overton window. And I do believe Speaker McCarthy deserves deference. And so I want to hear him out. But I am undecided as of tonight as to whether or not I would vote to remove Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee, because it's one thing to do dangerous things to the country with intelligence, it's quite another to say, I don't like your viewpoint and thus I want to remove you. I don't support that with Direct TV and Newsmax, I didn't support it when it was directed at my friend and colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, and it makes me uncomfortable that the case against Ilhan Omar, you know, isn't being subjected to any due process. G. Greenwald: Do you see any validity to that argument? M. Greene: No, I don't. And I'll tell you why. There's a major difference. Number one, I was removed from all committees, not allowed to serve on any committee in the House of Representatives for so-called comments and things on Facebook or social media before I ever became a candidate for Congress. But Omar is quite a different case. All of her statements and views have been made as a sitting member of Congress, and that's where it poses a problem. And her stances and views towards Israel are dangerous, very dangerous for the Foreign Affairs Committee because that committee does deal with Israel. And her support for Hamas, her support for terrorist organizations against Israel is not the type of viewpoint. And that's not what we should see out of members of Congress for the United States sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee. And then the other differences. Guess what? Democrats can assign her to any other committee in the House of Representatives, just not the Foreign Affairs Committee. So, it's a night and day difference between how they treated me and what we are doing with Ilhan Omar and my friend Matt Gaetz, who I really like and admire, he's just wrong. But I will tell you, I'm pretty sure Matt Gaetz is going to be voting to remove Omar when we take that to the floor. G. Greenwald: That could definitely be the case. Let me just probe a little bit more on that, because you did mention Ilhan Omar, and his views with respect to Israel. Regardless of one's views on Israel, Israel is a foreign country. It's not part of the United States. It's actually a foreign country. A lot of Israelis have a better quality of life than a lot of our fellow citizens of the United States. Israel is a major recipient of enormous amounts of U.S. aid in the billions and billions and billions of dollars range that Obama signed with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Even if you support U.S. aid to Israel and can reconcile that with an America First ideology – which I want to talk about in a second, what that means – surely it has to be the prerogative of a member of Congress to be able to question whether that policy is the right one or even to oppose it without being punished. Isn't that something that we want to foster in Congress and our country generally, which is the ability to express views that others disagree with without being punished for them? Rep. Greene: Yeah, absolutely. But I don't think it should be views expressed through hatred or any type of negative feeling towards a country based on their identity. And that's the problem with Omar. You know, it's one thing for her to say we shouldn't be sending foreign aid or something like that. But that's not her view. Her views are negative. Her views are more anti-Israel because it's Israel, because of Palestine and that situation that lies there. But it's not one of more freedom of speech with policy. So that's a clear difference. Ilhan Omar is also someone that supported bailing out criminal rioters, Antifa, BLM rioters that were burning down American cities during the summer of 2020 and her daughter was involved with those riots on the ground. So, I mean, we can go further. We can talk about the fact that she married her brother, and broke immigration laws, and that's something I think we should look into. So. So, in my opinion, Glenn, there's a lot more we should be doing with Ilhan Omar than just removing her from foreign affairs. But that's the offer that's on the table. So that's the only one that I can talk about at this time. G. Greenwald: Yes. There's something we're going to have to leave to the side with a lot of disagreement, I think. I think we could at least agree that before someone can be treated as guilty of a crime or punished as a crime, they need due process. They need to be charged with that crime, given a trial. None of this has happened in her case with respect to things like immigration. So let me ask you the broader question, though, which relates to the question that I raised about Israel, but just in a much broader way, leaving Israel to the side In 2016, people forget that one of the things that Donald Trump actually did that got him not just elected president, but first, the nomination of his own party, was he ran against the establishment ideology of not just the Democratic Party, but also the Republican Party. And he did so in almost every sector – economic policy, trade policy, but particularly foreign policy, arguing that we should stop going around the world in changing other people's governments to try and make them better. But rather than have me describe what you regard as America First ideology when it comes to foreign policy, what do you understand that to be? And which parts of his critiques of Republican orthodoxy did you agree with on foreign policy? Rep. Greene: Well, I have America First views because of my life, because of my life experience. And that's why I supported President Trump because what I've lived and what I see, where I'm from in Georgia, and also all over America is that it's very sad. So, let's talk about that for a few minutes. You know, decades ago, the leaders in Washington joined together with big corporations and started to make trade deals. And this is what led to many of our manufacturing jobs, blue-collar jobs being sent overseas to foreign countries where they started manufacturing goods. And guess what? Manufacturing plants, steel plants, and many types of great American jobs disappeared and those manufacturing plants shut down. And so that affected every rural part of America. And small-town America today is suffering from that. And that's where America lost policies. So where big corporations made big profits on slave labor and cheap labor overseas, Americans here at home lost their jobs. And here's the result of that, Glenn. That meant that the breadwinner of the family, the father of the family, lost his job, came back home to his family and had a very difficult time replacing that salary and replacing that job because there weren't jobs that really exist anywhere in small town USA. And so, there's devastating things that happen from that. I mean, we're talking about divorce, alcoholism, depression. People just didn't recover over the past decades. And then you combine that and, Glenn, this is where we probably agree, the never-ending foreign wars added to that. And this is where our sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, all friends were shipped overseas, fought in these foreign wars, and then came back home, damaged goods and addicted to opioids and then drug use and suicide. And that also affected small-town America, because not only did you have families that got broken through a divorce or just never recovered from losing these jobs, their sons were addicted to drugs; kids just got confused. And small-town America basically rots away. And so if you drive through my district or you drive through rural America, you drive through any small town in the United States and you're going to see Main Street USA with a lot of empty storefronts, a lot of very sad people, very, very poor people, and a lot of people that don't have hope anymore. And when President Trump ran for president in 2016, that was something that he understood and talked about. And that's why average Americans, people like me, and people all over America supported his America First message. That's what I believe in. I believe we have to fight for the regular American. We have to fight to revitalize small-town America. We have to fight to bring hope back. We have to fight to bring jobs back. We have to actually care about our country and our people. And you can't put a political party on that and you can't put an identity on that or an ideology. It's very simple. It's just loving your country, loving your neighbor, loving one another, and wanting all of us to succeed. And the way to make that happen is to put our country first. It's very simple. America First. That's what Make America Great Again really means. And it's not something to be afraid of or hated. It's actually something that all of us should embrace. And it is certainly something that I believe in. G. Greenwald: So, let's talk about a couple of specific examples of where that ideology, as you described it, manifests. You have been certainly one of the most vocal opponents of the Biden White House's war policy in Ukraine, namely sending tens of billions of dollars with seemingly no end in sight, increasingly sophisticated weaponry, almost no safeguards, which isn't really even the Biden White House policy. It's the policy of both parties. And even Joe Biden himself says that the world is closer to nuclear annihilation right now as a result of the U.S. role in that war and the possibility of direct military confrontation with Russia than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the two countries really came close to blowing up the entire planet. For years. Obama even was saying, ‘Why would we go to war with Russia or risk conflict with Russia over Ukraine? It has nothing in it that is of any interest to the American people’, even those horrible Middle East wars, at least there was oil there. There was like a rational reason why the U.S. would be interested there. How do you explain the fact that 100%, the Democratic Party, and 80% of your party is willing to pour gigantic sums of money into this war to risk all kinds of very dangerous implications, given all the suffering you just described in our country over Ukraine. Being in the middle of it, what do you think explains that? Rep. Greene: Well, again, there's a lot of layers to that. And I'll tell you one thing is war is big business. That's what it's always about. And it usually involves energy. The Middle Eastern wars were all about oil, but guess what? In Ukraine, they possess a lot of rare earth minerals, and those are very valuable now, especially with the climate agenda that we're seeing all over the world, especially out of the Democrat Party. Another thing is the military-industrial complex. Guess what? When we have a war going on, we get to manufacture weapons. We get to manufacture military equipment, and we keep that industry warmed up and cooking and they make a lot of money. We also sharpen up our military and they get to try out different exercises and war plans. And so, you see there's many things that happen across the board when there's a war going on and they get to practice it in another country that's not here at home. And you see, I think this is something that's a major problem. I do believe in having a very strong military. As a matter of fact, I want America's military to be the strongest in the world because I'm concerned about China. But I think what we're doing is reckless. It's endangering lives all over the world with this war in Ukraine. I think it's wrong. I think Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And I think Zelensky is not the person we should be supporting. Ukraine is not the 51st state of America. Ukraine is a foreign country and it's very far away from home. There's other things that I believe in. I believe we are going down a path that I'm not sure we're going to turn around from. There's a lot of egos that are posturing in this. And they've gotten themselves pretty far out there. And here we are. We just sent tanks over to Ukraine and now they want F-16 fighter jets. And what are they going to want next and where will it stop? And there's a bunch of them saying that they'll stop at nothing. And that is like blind fools driving our ship and guaranteeing and controlling our future. The other reason why I was against the war in Ukraine is because I knew it was going to drive inflation and I knew it was going to hurt poor people all over the world. And we've seen that happen. Inflation has gone up, energy costs have gone up, the price of food has gone up. And that hurts everyone. It doesn't help anyone. It hurts everyone. But Russia has proven something that I also warned everyone about. Russia has proven that they don't need the United States to make trades. They don't need the United States to sell their oil and natural gas. And that is another dangerous thing that Russia proved to the world that's going to hurt the United States of America because the dollar has been the world currency but Russia has shown in its trade with China and other countries that they're willing to sell oil and natural gas and they won't have to use the dollar. They can pick and choose which currency they want to use. So, I think the leaders here in Washington and the neocons and everyone involved and war games and Russia are endangering not only our lives, but they're endangering our economy and they're endangering the entire world while China is rising, Glenn. China has the fastest growing military in world history, and China is serious about what they're doing and they don't have to get it done tomorrow or next week. They're willing to wait years to get it done, and they are not deterred one single bit, while we're over here in the United States with our political pendulum, if you will, swinging back and forth between right and left. So, I think the United States needs to get a serious grip on reality. We need to get Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table for peace. We need to end it. And we need to turn our focus on the Mexican cartels who are murdering Americans every single day. G. Greenwald: Right. So let me see. You mentioned China several times on that question, and I'm glad you did, because whenever I point out that the energy behind opposing American interventionism, American wars, is actually much more on the populist right than on the populous left, the argument I'll hear is, no, that is a fraudulent agenda they're selling. They're not actually opposed to going to war with other countries. They're just angry that we're at war with the wrong country. They want to stop the war in Russia. So, they can actually go have a war with China. And they say they're opposed to preventing Russia from taking over Crimea, that that shouldn't be our business. And yet they're willing to go to war with China in order to protect Taiwan, which is also a foreign country, not the 51st state on the other side of the world. Is there any circumstance in which you would defend – other than, of course, a direct attack by the Chinese government on America or its people around the world – is there any circumstance in which you would actually support a direct hot war between the United States and China, including China's potential invasion of Taiwan? Rep. Greene: I hope we never see anything like that ever happen. I think that we're looking at World War III, if that were to happen and the problem that we have is what I started with – when I said - decades ago they sent our jobs overseas so we wouldn't have to be concerned about defending Taiwan if we had our manufacturing if we had our critical supplies and if we had many of the things that we depend on, like microchips made right here in the United States, we wouldn't have to worry about any of this and we wouldn't worry about China either. And that's what I think that America needs to do. We need to turn inward and we need to look at ourselves when it does. We need to make things here in the United States so that we don't have to look at China and worry about what they're doing. So, we don't have to watch Taiwan, we don't have to worry about Ukraine. Of course, we don't want to see wars erupting all over the world. And we hate seeing innocent lives being murdered. But we have serious problems right here that we should be focusing all of our energy on, so that we don't have to be so concerned about what's happening and in the political and military landscape of other countries. No, I don't want to support a war with China because I don't want to see one ever erupt because we are a nuclear power and so is China. And that's bad for every single person all over the world, just like it is with Russia and the United States. But we have to be realistic about what China says. You see, we should listen to our enemies and believe them when they say it. China says that they want to be the number one world superpower, both economically and militarily, and they really mean that. So, we have to take them seriously and we have to be prepared if something terrible were to happen. And I hope it really never does. But again, Glenn, I'll go back to – I'm more concerned about three people down in Walker County, in Georgia, in my district from fentanyl poisonings this week, then than I am concerned about what's happening in Ukraine or possibly, God forbid, China ever, ever, you know, doing anything to provoke the United States. I seriously think and I warn everyone here in Washington, we need to turn inward here in America and start solving our own problems and putting our country first. Because when we do that – then guess what? – we're independent and we're more powerful than ever before. G. Greenwald: Yeah, if we were independent in terms of microchips and the like, Taiwan would be a lot less important to the United States strategically. We just have a few minutes left, there are a couple of topics, though, that I have to ask you about in these few minutes. So let me do that. I want to be very respectful of your time. First of all, when it comes to the abuse of Big Tech, I think it's very interesting that in Washington – I think on a bipartisan basis – people are finally coming to the realization that these companies are way too powerful to be reconcilable with a healthy democracy. Obviously, there are different concerns that people have, conservatives there tend to be more concerned about their power to censor, whereas Democrats are concerned about the economic power and this monopolistic ability. So, I just want to ask you a couple of specific questions about what you support in terms of reining them in. Just this week, the Biden administration sued Google, asking that their advertising business be broken off from Google, a similar lawsuit to the one that the Trump DOJ brought in 2020 about Google search engines. There's also legislation pending in both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support to rein in their monopolistic powers to break them up. Obviously, in Republican politics, it used to be almost gospel that the government should just let big corporations do whatever they want. The government has no role in interfering in big business. What is your view in terms of what are acceptable means to start trying to control and constrain this seemingly endless expansion of Big Tech power? Rep. Greene: Well, I'll start from a big picture. Big picture point of view of mine is we need to get the politics out of big corporations. That's a major problem. There's too much political alignment with our government and many big corporations, not just Big Tech. We're talking about many corporations where we see political policy forced on employees and customers when really these big corporations should just worry about doing a good job for their customer and leaving their political beliefs to the side and their political donations in their own wallets, not involving their companies. That's the big-picture view. But as far as Big Tech is concerned, we need to see the government and Big Tech break up, and the intelligence community and Big Tech break up. I have a bill that I introduced last Congress that Senator Hagerty introduced in the Senate. And what our bill does and it's really good because of their companion bills. If we got one in the House and one in the Senate that is the same and they're going to do a good job, then we can get it passed and hopefully have a president that will sign it into law. But what it can do, what we want to do is we want to get rid of section 230, number one. The second thing I want to see happen is I want to see Big Tech treated like a common carrier. Common carriers are like cell phone companies, telephone companies. FedEx is a common carrier. And what common carriers do is they treat every single customer the same. And it would stop censorship. And we need to end political censorship on these platforms where people's First Amendment is protected and their freedom of speech is protected as well. At the same time, we need to make sure there aren't things on there like child porn and dangerous criminals and terrorists, and so forth. I think that's important to watch out for those bad actors and immoral filth as well. But this bill would do a lot and it would go a long ways. And I think the biggest thing, again, is to break up the government and Big Tech and make sure that those two stay away from each other. G. Greenwald: So last question, which is, you know, it's been a focus of mine pretty much from the moment I began writing about politics and doing journalism, which was the abuses of the U.S. security state, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, all of those agencies with this incredible power they have to operate in the dark to interfere in our domestic politics, to really operate without any constraints of any kind. Obviously, in 2005, when I began writing, it was at the height of the War on Terror, the idea was just to give them all the power they want. I feel like I'm living in this bizarre, surreal, twisted dream where it used to be a staple of liberal politics to oppose these institutions. And throughout the Cold War, they were more or less revered by the American right. And everything is now shifted where the only kind of skepticism and opposition and concern about these agencies comes from your sector of the Republican Party. Just talk a little bit about whether the skepticism was always something that you had toward these agencies or if there are things recently that have caused it. And what do you hope to see with things like this new Church Committee and other ways to finally rein in the power of these agencies that have plagued us since the end of World War II? Rep. Greene: Well, Glenn, I really feel like our intelligence agencies and our Department of Justice and FBI, certain parts of them, have become weaponized against the American people, and they're extremely dangerous. I also think there's parts of our intelligence community more interested in globalization and global politics than they ever cared about politics for the United States. And they've forgotten who pays their paychecks and funds or agencies, and that's the American taxpayer. And I think that's extremely dangerous. It’s hard for me to understand how we're living in a time where Congress – we can't rein them in and we can't really control them. And they're continuing down the path that they're going down, regardless of who tells them to stop, especially the American people who they should be serving. So, I think this is a dangerous time in our country. And I agree with you. These agencies have grown so big and powerful that they're more of a government of their own. And when that gets to be the case, we're all in trouble. And I don't think any agency that operates through our government or from our government should ever have a budget that nobody can see. I think that's another big, big problem. And I don't like that very much at all…. G. Greenwald: It's a parallel…. Rep. Greene: Well I would also say we do need intelligence agencies? There is a role that they play, of course. And it would be naive to ignore that. And we do need a Justice Department and we need an FBI that goes after the bad guys. So, there's that fine line, right? But what we've seen is a major shift where the average agent is the ones out in the field. You know, there are still some good guys left, but guess what? They're either at retirement age or a few years past it. And the new generation that's come in is very woke. And they don't believe like most Americans believe. As a matter of fact, they're buying into the things that are being taught to them and trained into them – that is the very problem. G. Greenwald: Yeah, this is just the real last question, which is a major reason we know about these agencies in the last decade or so is because of whistleblowers who have been willing to sacrifice their own personal freedom to tell Americans what they've been doing to in particular Julian Assange, who's rotting away in a prison and Edward Snowden, who is exiled in Russia, are two people whom you have spoken out in support of, have asked for or urged a pardon of. What is it that led you to do that? Why do you think that what they did was more of a public service than something that deserves punishment? Rep. Greene: Well, I believe that any time you see someone risking their life to tell the truth about an issue, being a real whistleblower, that's a person that is using an extreme amount of courage. But when you see the government come down on them trying to silence them – like you mentioned Julian Assange rotting away in prison – they're basically slowly murdering him. But that's when we see real danger there, when a government is trying to stop the truth from being told to its people, that's something to pay attention to. And I think we need to protect our whistleblowers. We need to protect the media who are willing to publish those stories that need to be told to the people. Because, after all, that's what freedom of the press is all about. And I truly support it. And I know that sounds kind of funny, Glenn, because I've been persecuted by the press. I've been demonized by the press, but I'm probably one of the few members of Congress that would fight harder than anyone to protect the freedom that the press has here in the United States because I believe in it. And I think we have to do everything we can to protect those whistleblowers who are risking their lives to tell the truth. G. Greenwald: So, I really want to thank you. I think these kinds of conversations where you can take the time to delve into things deeply are way more illuminating than little 3-minute-heads or having people hear about you from organizations paid to distort what you're saying. There was a lot we didn't get to and II would love to have you back. We're going to be hectoring you and pursuing you to have you come back on the show. But I really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks so much for taking the time. M. Greene: Thank you, Glenn. I appreciate it. G. Greenwald: Have a great evening. Bye. M. Greene: You, too. So that concludes our show for tonight. We are thrilled to have been able to spend an hour talking to the congresswoman about some incredibly important issues. The idea of the show is to avoid the constraints of cable news that require everything to be said in 30 seconds or 60 seconds or at most, 90 seconds, and to take the time to delve in. I wish we had had more time, actually, because there were a lot of things I would have liked to have pressed further on and raised with her. But we will definitely be asking the congresswoman back on, as well as a lot of other people in her position as well. Thank all of you for continuing to watch. The success of the show is enabling us to get more gas and to continue doing the kind of journalism we want to do. We really appreciate your tuning in and hope you will come back tomorrow night and every night at 7:00 pm EST, exclusively on Rumble. Have a great evening.

[metalotaku-da]

The only thing I can add to this is there are alot of machines like this out there in all kinds of industries. My only experience, we have a Lazer cutter at my work. When it was brand new factory made this big fella ran on punch cards. As in the code that you input into this machine so it knew where to cut was made by taking a piece of card stock like an old school (bush vs gore) election ballot, and using a fancy hole punch to make fun patterns and then you put into the machine and that was how it knew what to do. We are talking early computing. Before dos. This machine has been updated a few times. The most we have been able to upgrade and retrofit it, is windows 95. It can't talk to a newer operating system. We have to back convert it through 3 computers to make files for this machine to run. Heaven forbid in the conversion something ends up off. We have to maintain 3 out of service computers to keep this machine running. This machine is still made, by the same company. (We pay a retired employee from that company to work on this machine and it's slightly newer buddy who we got to windows 10. Cause he lives in town.) Brand new version is 500k and more powerful. We don't need more power (we don't want that added electric bill either.) and we don't have a million sitting around for new machines we are a small factory. We got these machines and got them up and running for 100k. A tenth of the cost. It keeps them out of land fills, it keeps them working towards lowering their carbon cost of manufacturing them. They allow our factory to to keep more assemblers employeed. Forcing people to keep buying newer versions of things that work just fine is an utter waste over digital code.

abandonware should be public domain. force companies to actively support and provide products if they don't wanna lose the rights to them

[todayworldnews2k21]

Jammu East Vidhan Sabha Result 2024 Live: Bharatiya Janta Part (BJP), Yudhvir Sethi Leads

Jammu and Kashmir Election Results 2024 Live: The stage is all set for Jammu & Kashmir’s Jammu East to elect its Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) after a long wait of around 10 years. The counting of votes for the 90 assembly constituencies of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly is taking place today starting at 8 AM. Jammu & Kashmir went to the polls in three phases on September 18,…

[5th-pillar]

Get Real-Time Vidhan Sabha Election Updates on 5th Pillar

Navigating the complexities of state elections can be challenging, but 5th Pillar makes it easy with our real-time coverage of Vidhan sabha election news. Whether it’s breaking news, interviews with key political leaders, or voter sentiment analysis, we provide a holistic view of the electoral landscape. Our interactive features, such as live result tracking and expert panel discussions, ensure an engaging experience for our readers. Stay informed about the candidates, constituencies, and policies shaping your state with the trusted reporting of 5th Pillar.

[mariacallous]

To the rest of the world, Finland is often held up as a beacon of progressivism. Various international indices have ranked it among the world’s most stable, best governed, least corrupt, and most socially progressive countries on earth. But the parliamentary antics surrounding recent efforts to reform the country’s Indigenous law are likely to shatter any illusions that Finland is either well-governed or progressive.

The Indigenous Sámi people are native to Arctic Europe and number approximately 80,000 across Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. In Finland, they are represented by a constitutionally recognized Indigenous assembly known as the Sámi Parliament. Working with the national Finnish parliament, the self-governing body has the power to propose and consult on legislation that affects Indigenous cultural practices in the country, though it does not have veto power over these measures.

Or—at least it is supposed to be self-governing. Sámi visions for their parliament were diluted in negotiations to create the body in the 1990s. And since 2011, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court—which includes no Sámi members—has also repeatedly overruled the Sámi Parliament’s decisions on who should be eligible to vote in elections to the body. In practical terms, this means the court has decided who in Finland can be considered Indigenous—admitting claimants who many Sámi say have a spurious connection to their community.

Last year, the United Nations ruled that those legal verdicts were in violation of international law because they deprived Finland’s Sámi community of the right to self-determination. The U.N. opinion put Finland’s international reputation at risk and supercharged efforts within the country to reform the Sámi Parliament Act, the law that governs the body.

Even before the U.N. ruling, reforms to clarify who is eligible to vote in Sámi elections and their consultative rights had become a central concern of Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who called updates to the Sámi Parliament Act “one of the most important human rights issues facing Finland.” Both in her government’s 2019 platform and during a visit to the Sámi capital of Inari in June last year, she promised to see the act reformed. And in November 2022, with limited time left in her legislative term, Marin even forced a draft reform bill to parliament over the objections of her coalition partners—contravening long-held norms in Finnish politics that coalition governments only act with unanimity.

But in the months since, the reforms have become the center of a vicious culture war, pitting the tiny Sámi Indigenous community and its allies against the forces of Finland’s rural and reactionary right. Marin’s attempt at reform fell victim to this conflict—stymied last month by an alliance between her conservative coalition partners and critics within her own party, who deployed political chicanery and strategic absences to kill the bill in committee.

It was a personal embarrassment for Marin, who could not maintain the cohesion within her party necessary to pass a key piece of legislation and who now faces an uphill battle to win reelection in an April 2 vote that is seeing a resurgence of Finland’s nativist far right. It was also an escalation of a long-simmering conflict that may come to dominate the agenda of Finland’s next government.

Finland’s Sámi community is the smallest of the three Nordic countries, numbering around 10,000 people. They have lived for millennia across a broad region of Arctic Finland known as Lapland. Finnish colonization of Lapland began in the 16th century, and Sámi were quickly outnumbered in many of their own communities by Finnish settlers known as Laplanders. To survive the rugged terrain, Laplanders adopted many of the livelihoods that defined Sámi culture, such as hunting, fishing, foresting, and reindeer herding.

For centuries, colonial governments forced discriminatory and assimilationist policies upon Sámi. In church- and state-run boarding schools, Sámi children were prevented from using their native language, while Sámi communities were often forcibly relocated for the construction of dams and reservoirs. Politically, Sámi had little recourse—a tiny minority in their own homeland, they were subject to the whims of colonial governments.

That began to change in the 1990s. Amid a growing international push for Indigenous rights, Sámi activists lobbied Helsinki to form the Sámi Parliament and create an autonomous Indigenous government for their community. The campaign was immediately met with strong objections from Laplanders, who saw any advancement of Indigenous rights as an infringement on their own.

In 1995, the Finnish government succeeded in passing the Sámi Parliament Act, which created the Sámi Parliament and formalized its consultative role in Finland. But in the almost 30 years since, it’s become clear that the law was deeply tainted by compromise with the Laplander majority, who occupied the steps of parliament to oppose special rights for their Sámi neighbors.

The act provides two ways for a person to define themselves as Sámi. The first is a connection, within three generations, to someone who spoke a Sámi language as their first language. Other Nordic countries use this definition to delineate their Sámi communities, and Sámi leaders say it is the most accurate.

But the act also allows for a second definition of Sámi identity known as the “Laplander criteria.” This makes eligible for Sámi status anyone with an ancestor who practiced a rural livelihood such as hunting, foresting, or fishing in Lapland, as registered in records going back to the 16th century.

Hannele Pokka was Finland’s justice minister when the Sámi Parliament act was drafted and today serves as a member of the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. She told Foreign Policy that the Laplander criteria definition was written to satisfy a Laplander constituency that wanted the same legal protections for their historical cultural practices as those afforded to the Indigenous group.

The Laplanders were animated by a fierce opposition to exclusive rights for Sámi—in particular, fears that the Sámi Parliament would gain veto rights over unwanted economic development projects in Lapland. In recent years, Sámi territory has been increasingly targeted for logging, mining, and green energy projects, often over the objections of Sámi leadership.

“The people who were against this act … wanted to be some kind of original Lappish people who have [their own] rights,” Pokka said.

But after the creation of the Sámi Parliament, that strategy changed. “I met these people, who were protesting on the stairs of Parliament House in 1995 … opposing Sámi rights,” said Kukka Ranta, a Finnish doctoral researcher and author who has written extensively on Finnish-Sámi relations. After the parliament was created, she said, “these very same people tried to get access to the Sámi Parliament.”

In the almost three decades since the body was created, these Laplander groups have succeeded in muddying the waters of Sámi identity itself (in the eyes of the Finnish majority, at least—Sámi themselves have little doubts about who qualifies as Sámi). Since 2011, with the help of the Supreme Court decisions, the groups have gained voting rights to the Sámi Parliament, electing members who oppose efforts to expand Sámi land rights and contain private developments in their Arctic territory.

Many Sámi fear that, without reforming the act, their own institutions may become captured by forces opposed to the traditional Sámi way of life. “It could be that the Sámi have to start protesting [their] own parliament and claiming that it doesn’t represent the Sámi view anymore,” said Petra Laiti, a Sámi youth activist from Inari. “If that happens, that’s going to be a whole mess of a situation.”

Marin’s reforms would have strengthened requirements for resource companies and the Finnish government to consult with the Sámi Parliament on projects in Lapland. It would have also removed the Laplander criteria. Some critics went so far as to call the latter proposal an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

This combination of targets ultimately made for a powerful alliance between reactionary rural Laplander groups and the landed interests of Finland’s north. Both are represented largely by the Centre Party—the coalition partner of Marin’s Social Democrats, which threw up the biggest roadblocks to reform. Ultimately, however, it was members of Marin’s own party with connections to Laplander groups and industrial interests who conspired to ensure the bill’s failure.

The outcome leaves the Sámi community and its allies within Marin’s coalition in a tenuous position. The Sámi Parliament has moved to eject Laplander voters admitted by the Supreme Court before its own election in the fall. But it’s not yet clear whether that decision will also be challenged in court.

Marin and the Social Democratic Party still have the support of many Sámi activists, but they appear poised to lose power in this Sunday’s election. Few politicians have felt the need to comment on the failure of a reformed Sámi Parliament Act on the campaign trail, focusing instead on climate change, immigration, and NATO membership. Polls have recorded surging support for Finland’s nativist party and others in the center-right.

Many Sámi say they have little choice but to continue fighting for reform to the Sámi Parliament Act. But it’s anyone’s guess who will be sitting opposite them at the negotiating table after Sunday’s election. Finland’s debate over Sámi issues has unleashed a community vocally opposed to progress on Indigenous issues—and may well push the whole country further to the right.