alternet--2020-10-13--New signs of historically high turnout emerge on Georgia's first day of voting

On Monday , a video that showed residents of Gwinnett County , Georgia outside Atlanta waiting in an insanely long line to vote inspired a lot of complaints that there should have been more polling places open .
But that video also showed how enthusiastic Georgia residents were about early voting .
And according to Associated Press reporter Kate Brumback , the heavy voter turnout in Georgia on Monday was historic .
`` More than 128,000 Georgians went to the polls Monday — a record for the first day of early voting in the state , according to the secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports .
`` The high turnout surpassed the nearly 91,000 votes cast on the first day of early voting in 2016 and saw eager voters waiting in hours-long lines across the state to cast their ballots . ''
Brumback , however , also reports that some Georgia voters were irate on Monday when they `` turned up… .
only to find their county offices closed for the Columbus Day holiday . ''
For example , Brumback notes , `` Effingham County resident Tony Grimes told WTOC-TV he took the day off work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door locked at the county 's main elections office . ''
Brumback notes that the heavy turnout on Monday included Fulton County , which Atlanta is a part of .
The AP reporter observes , `` In Fulton County , the state 's most populous county , close to 20,000 people voted in person on Monday — second only to the last day of early voting in 2016 , when about 26,000 voted , county elections director Rick Barron told reporters .
County election officials expect that more than 30,000 people will show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting this year , and Barron encouraged people to vote on other days to avoid long lines . ''
Tuesday morning on MSNBC 's `` Morning Joe , '' host Joe Scarborough pointed out that some voters in Georgia were , on Monday , willing to wait in line up to 11 hours — which the Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman stressed , showed serious `` determination . ''
And one of the guests on `` Morning Joe , '' liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson , viewed the long lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Donald Trump .
Although Georgia is a light red state at this point , Atlanta Proper is largely African-American and heavily Democratic — and the Atlanta suburbs have been trending more Democratic in recent years .
Polls have been showing the presidential race to be surprisingly close in Georgia , with Trump slightly ahead in some polls and former Vice President Joe Biden slightly ahead in others .
And Robinson pointed out that all those voters waiting in line in the most Democratic parts of Georgia were likely to be Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would be very nervous if I were with the Trump campaign . ''

On Monday, a video that showed residents of Gwinnett County, Georgia outside Atlanta waiting in an insanely long line to vote inspired a lot of complaints that there should have been more polling places open. But that video also showed how enthusiastic Georgia residents were about early voting. And according to Associated Press reporter Kate Brumback, the heavy voter turnout in Georgia on Monday was historic.
"More than 128,000 Georgians went to the polls Monday — a record for the first day of early voting in the state, according to the secretary of state's office," Brumback reports. "The high turnout surpassed the nearly 91,000 votes cast on the first day of early voting in 2016 and saw eager voters waiting in hours-long lines across the state to cast their ballots."
Brumback, however, also reports that some Georgia voters were irate on Monday when they "turned up…. only to find their county offices closed for the Columbus Day holiday." For example, Brumback notes, "Effingham County resident Tony Grimes told WTOC-TV he took the day off work to vote and was frustrated to find the door locked at the county's main elections office."
Brumback notes that the heavy turnout on Monday included Fulton County, which Atlanta is a part of. The AP reporter observes, "In Fulton County, the state's most populous county, close to 20,000 people voted in person on Monday — second only to the last day of early voting in 2016, when about 26,000 voted, county elections director Rick Barron told reporters. County election officials expect that more than 30,000 people will show up for the final day of early voting this year, and Barron encouraged people to vote on other days to avoid long lines."
Tuesday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough pointed out that some voters in Georgia were, on Monday, willing to wait in line up to 11 hours — which the Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman stressed, showed serious "determination." And one of the guests on "Morning Joe," liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, viewed the long lines in and around Atlanta as bad news for President Donald Trump.
Although Georgia is a light red state at this point, Atlanta Proper is largely African-American and heavily Democratic — and the Atlanta suburbs have been trending more Democratic in recent years. Polls have been showing the presidential race to be surprisingly close in Georgia, with Trump slightly ahead in some polls and former Vice President Joe Biden slightly ahead in others. And Robinson pointed out that all those voters waiting in line in the most Democratic parts of Georgia were likely to be Biden voters.
Robinson told Scarborough, "I would be very nervous if I were with the Trump campaign."


alternet--2020-10-13--Trump and Pence adopt a strategy of authoritarian white masculinity

After the debate between Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence , commentators contrasted Pence 's reserved demeanor with the belligerence President Donald Trump exhibited in his debate with former Vice President Joe Biden the previous week .
NPR Congress editor Deirdre Walsh asserted that Pence 's debate style was an “ almost polar opposite of the president 's . ''
New York Times conservative columnist Christopher Buskirk called Pence “ calm , professional , competent and focused , '' claiming that he was “ in some sense the answer to every criticism leveled at Trump after the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zurcher contended that Pence 's “ typically calm and methodical style served as a steady counterpoint to Trump 's earlier aggression . ''
These seemingly disparate styles , however , are two sides of the same coin – manifestations of a particular version of authoritarian white masculinity that has taken over the GOP since it became the party of Trump .
Not only do these styles perpetuate sexist assumptions about leadership , they also are fundamentally undemocratic because they try to silence dissent , foreclose debate and curtail the participation of anyone with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authoritarian white masculinity is a version of patriarchal authority that has asserted itself in U.S. politics in conjunction with the rise of Donald Trump .
It assumes that heterosexual white men are best suited to leadership and casts political leadership by women and people of color as inauthentic – for example , the “ birther movement '' – or threatening – for example , “ lock her up . ''
The Trump presidency is , in part , a backlash to the election of the nation 's first Black president and to Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first woman to top a major-party presidential ticket .
This reassertion of white patriarchal authority is presented as necessary for the nation 's stability and progress .
It 's one way Trump delivers on his promise to “ make America great again . ''
Authoritarian white masculinity has made a resurgence because it does n't only appeal to men .
People of all genders can be socialized into patriarchal systems , and white women , in particular , sometimes benefit from their proximity to , and participation in , authoritarian white masculinity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizenship , voting and participation , conservative authoritarianism aims to curtail it .
As a result , progressive women and candidates of color face a complex set of stereotypes and constraints when challenging the white patriarchy on which the U.S. political system is built .
As a political communication scholar who has studied gender and the U.S. presidency for 25 years , I have observed how talented and driven women have been held back from reaching the nation 's highest office by a culture that rewards authoritarian masculinity .
But I also study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose ability to navigate an inequitable political system makes them formidable .
Trump 's approach to the debate on Sept. 29 was to establish himself as someone who leads through dominance .
CNN reported that he “ dominated the discussion , talked over his rival , [ and ] steamrolled the moderator — often without any interruption . ''
Trump characterized Biden as someone who could easily be “ dominated '' by what he called “ socialists '' in the Democratic party .
Trump was unconstrained by either expectations of civility or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more disruptive , the better .
Drawn in by Trump 's provocations , Biden urged Trump to “ shut up , man '' and called him a “ clown . ''
Debate observers likened the event to a schoolyard brawl or a bar fight .
Although some commentators cheered Pence 's ostensible civility during the vice presidential debate , Pence persistently ignored the rules to which his campaign had assented , speaking past his time limit , refusing to answer many of moderator Susan Page 's questions , and supplanting the moderator 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own questions to Harris .
Pence 's authoritarian masculinity is the genteel version favored in the patriarchal religious and regional communities that compose Trump 's most loyal base : Southern conservatives and white evangelical Christians .
During the debate , Pence said it was a “ privilege to be on the stage '' with Harris and repeatedly thanked the moderator while ignoring her authority .
When Page moved to a new topic , Pence said , “ Well , thank you , but I would like to go back to the previous topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time was up , he kept speaking as though no one had said anything .
When he wanted to interrupt Harris , he placidly insisted , “ I have to weigh in . ''
Harris ' response to the vice president 's interruptions were popular with women who have experienced similar rudeness .
Harris refused to be steamrolled .
Her gender insulated her from being drawn into a competitive masculinity display , as Biden was in his debate with Trump .
But that does n't mean her task was easy .
As noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ navigate stereotypes that pigeonhole Black women as angry and aggressive , and less qualified that white men . ''
Harris ' strategy was to meet Pence 's authoritarian masculinity with an authoritative assertion of her own : “ I 'm speaking . ''
Without appealing to the moderator to intervene on her behalf , she did what men routinely do : she took up space .
She claimed time .
She articulated her qualifications .
But she was careful to do it all with a smile .
Twitter lit up as women saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routinely encounter in their own lives .
The “ dominance '' strategy did not work well for Trump or Pence , other than garnering the expected partisan praise .
But neither is likely to abandon it .
More than a campaign tactic , authoritarian masculinity appears to be baked into their worldviews .
As Trump 's electoral prospects dwindle , his belief in his inherent entitlement to authority appears to be fostering a host of anti-democratic practices : contesting election procedures to reduce voter participation ; declining to commit to accepting the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sabotaging or boycotting debates .
When Trump told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that he planned to stage a rally instead of debating Biden in a COVID-19-safe virtual format , it was revealing .
Debates are rituals of democracy , dating back to the classical Greek agora , flourishing in the Continental Congress that birthed the United States , and held up as the ideal form of campaign communication after those made famous by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas .
Rallies , on the other hand , are authoritarian political theater popularized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attraction of authoritarian masculinity seems to be shared by other Republican politicians .
On the night of the vice presidential debate , Sen. Mike Lee posted a tweet that implied that something other than democratic governance might be required in order for “ the human condition to flourish . ''
Presidential campaign cycles present voters with the opportunity to think about the expectations they have of political leaders , who those standards benefit and constrain , and how they promote or impede democratic engagement .
As such , campaign communication and presidential debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They build – or break – American democracy .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Karrin Vasby Anderson, Colorado State University
After the debate between Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence, commentators contrasted Pence's reserved demeanor with the belligerence President Donald Trump exhibited in his debate with former Vice President Joe Biden the previous week.
NPR Congress editor Deirdre Walsh asserted that Pence's debate style was an “almost polar opposite of the president's." New York Times conservative columnist Christopher Buskirk called Pence “calm, professional, competent and focused," claiming that he was “in some sense the answer to every criticism leveled at Trump after the last debate." The BBC's Anthony Zurcher contended that Pence's “typically calm and methodical style served as a steady counterpoint to Trump's earlier aggression."
These seemingly disparate styles, however, are two sides of the same coin – manifestations of a particular version of authoritarian white masculinity that has taken over the GOP since it became the party of Trump.
Not only do these styles perpetuate sexist assumptions about leadership, they also are fundamentally undemocratic because they try to silence dissent, foreclose debate and curtail the participation of anyone with whom they disagree in our democracy.
An inequitable system
Authoritarian white masculinity is a version of patriarchal authority that has asserted itself in U.S. politics in conjunction with the rise of Donald Trump. It assumes that heterosexual white men are best suited to leadership and casts political leadership by women and people of color as inauthentic – for example, the “birther movement" – or threatening – for example, “lock her up."
The Trump presidency is, in part, a backlash to the election of the nation's first Black president and to Hillary Clinton's nomination in 2016 as the first woman to top a major-party presidential ticket. This reassertion of white patriarchal authority is presented as necessary for the nation's stability and progress. It's one way Trump delivers on his promise to “make America great again."
Authoritarian white masculinity has made a resurgence because it doesn't only appeal to men. People of all genders can be socialized into patriarchal systems, and white women, in particular, sometimes benefit from their proximity to, and participation in, authoritarian white masculinity.
Where progressive political power aims to expand citizenship, voting and participation, conservative authoritarianism aims to curtail it. As a result, progressive women and candidates of color face a complex set of stereotypes and constraints when challenging the white patriarchy on which the U.S. political system is built.
As a political communication scholar who has studied gender and the U.S. presidency for 25 years, I have observed how talented and driven women have been held back from reaching the nation's highest office by a culture that rewards authoritarian masculinity.
But I also study the rhetorical ingenuity of candidates like Harris, whose ability to navigate an inequitable political system makes them formidable.
Authoritarian white masculinity as debate strategy
Trump's approach to the debate on Sept. 29 was to establish himself as someone who leads through dominance.
CNN reported that he “dominated the discussion, talked over his rival, [and] steamrolled the moderator — often without any interruption." Trump characterized Biden as someone who could easily be “dominated" by what he called “socialists" in the Democratic party.
Trump was unconstrained by either expectations of civility or the rules of the debate. The more disruptive, the better. Drawn in by Trump's provocations, Biden urged Trump to “shut up, man" and called him a “clown." Debate observers likened the event to a schoolyard brawl or a bar fight.
Although some commentators cheered Pence's ostensible civility during the vice presidential debate, Pence persistently ignored the rules to which his campaign had assented, speaking past his time limit, refusing to answer many of moderator Susan Page's questions, and supplanting the moderator's authority so that he could pose his own questions to Harris.
Pence's authoritarian masculinity is the genteel version favored in the patriarchal religious and regional communities that compose Trump's most loyal base: Southern conservatives and white evangelical Christians. During the debate, Pence said it was a “privilege to be on the stage" with Harris and repeatedly thanked the moderator while ignoring her authority.
When Page moved to a new topic, Pence said, “Well, thank you, but I would like to go back to the previous topic." When she informed him his time was up, he kept speaking as though no one had said anything. When he wanted to interrupt Harris, he placidly insisted, “I have to weigh in."
Harris: 'I'm speaking'
Harris' response to the vice president's interruptions were popular with women who have experienced similar rudeness.
Harris refused to be steamrolled. Her gender insulated her from being drawn into a competitive masculinity display, as Biden was in his debate with Trump. But that doesn't mean her task was easy.
As noted by Politico, Harris had to “navigate stereotypes that pigeonhole Black women as angry and aggressive, and less qualified that white men."
Harris' strategy was to meet Pence's authoritarian masculinity with an authoritative assertion of her own: “I'm speaking."
Without appealing to the moderator to intervene on her behalf, she did what men routinely do: she took up space. She claimed time. She articulated her qualifications. But she was careful to do it all with a smile.
Twitter lit up as women saw Harris weaving around familiar roadblocks that they routinely encounter in their own lives.
Dominance or democracy?
The “dominance" strategy did not work well for Trump or Pence, other than garnering the expected partisan praise. But neither is likely to abandon it. More than a campaign tactic, authoritarian masculinity appears to be baked into their worldviews.
As Trump's electoral prospects dwindle, his belief in his inherent entitlement to authority appears to be fostering a host of anti-democratic practices: contesting election procedures to reduce voter participation; declining to commit to accepting the results of the election if he loses; sabotaging or boycotting debates.
When Trump told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that he planned to stage a rally instead of debating Biden in a COVID-19-safe virtual format, it was revealing. Debates are rituals of democracy, dating back to the classical Greek agora, flourishing in the Continental Congress that birthed the United States, and held up as the ideal form of campaign communication after those made famous by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas.
Rallies, on the other hand, are authoritarian political theater popularized by demagogues and dictators.
And the attraction of authoritarian masculinity seems to be shared by other Republican politicians. On the night of the vice presidential debate, Sen. Mike Lee posted a tweet that implied that something other than democratic governance might be required in order for “the human condition to flourish."
Presidential campaign cycles present voters with the opportunity to think about the expectations they have of political leaders, who those standards benefit and constrain, and how they promote or impede democratic engagement. As such, campaign communication and presidential debates are about much more than political strategy. They build – or break – American democracy.
Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-13--Why Trump's claims to be a peacemaker are absurd on their face

The United States has the dubious distinction of being the world 's leading arms dealer .
It dominates the global trade in a historic fashion and nowhere is that domination more complete than in the endlessly war-torn Middle East .
There , believe it or not , the U.S. controls nearly half the arms market .
From Yemen to Libya to Egypt , sales by this country and its allies are playing a significant role in fueling some of the world 's most devastating conflicts .
But Donald Trump , even before he was felled by Covid-19 and sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have cared less , as long as he thought such trafficking in the tools of death and destruction would help his political prospects .
Look , for example , at the recent `` normalization '' of relations between the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) and Israel he helped to broker , which has set the stage for yet another surge in American arms exports .
To hear Trump and his supporters tell it , he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for the deal , dubbed `` the Abraham Accords . ''
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eager to brand himself as `` Donald Trump , peacemaker '' in advance of the November election .
This , believe me , was absurd on the face of it .
Until the pandemic swept everything in the White House away , it was just another day in Trump World and another example of the president 's penchant for exploiting foreign and military policy for his own domestic political gain .
If the narcissist-in-chief had been honest for a change , he would have dubbed those Abraham Accords the `` Arms Sales Accords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , induced to participate in hopes of receiving Lockheed Martin 's F-35 combat aircraft and advanced armed drones as a reward .
For his part , after some grumbling , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to one-up the UAE and seek a new $ 8 billion arms package from the Trump administration , including an additional squadron of Lockheed Martin 's F-35s ( beyond those already on order ) , a fleet of Boeing attack helicopters , and so much more .
Were that deal to go through , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than ample military aid commitment from the United States , already slated to total $ 3.8 billion annually for the next decade .
This was n't the first time President Trump tried to capitalize on arms sales to the Middle East to consolidate his political position at home and his posture as this country 's dealmaker par excellence .
Such gestures began in May 2017 , during his very first official overseas trip to Saudi Arabia .
The Saudis greeted him then with ego-boosting fanfare , putting banners featuring his face along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; projecting a giant image of that same face on the hotel where he was staying ; and presenting him with a medal in a surreal ceremony at one of the kingdom 's many palaces .
For his part , Trump came bearing arms in the form of a supposed $ 110 billion weapons package .
Never mind that the size of the deal was vastly exaggerated .
It allowed the president to gloat that his sales deal there would mean `` jobs , jobs , jobs '' in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most repressive regimes in the world to bring those jobs home , who cared ?
Not he and certainly not his son-in-law Jared Kushner who would develop a special relationship with the cruel Saudi Crown Prince and heir apparent to the throne , Mohammed bin Salman .
Trump doubled down on his jobs argument in a March 2018 White House meeting with bin Salman .
The president came armed with a prop for the cameras : a map of the U.S. showing the states that ( he swore ) would benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- you wo n't be surprised to learn -- the crucial election swing states of Pennsylvania , Ohio , and Wisconsin .
Nor will it surprise you that Trump 's jobs claims from those Saudi arms sales are almost entirely fraudulent .
In fits of fancy , he 's even insisted that he 's creating as many as half a million jobs linked to weapons exports to that repressive regime .
The real number is less than one-tenth that amount -- and far less than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way of a good story ?
Donald Trump is far from the first president to push tens of billions of dollars of arms into the Middle East .
The Obama administration , for example , made a record $ 115 billion in arms offers to Saudi Arabia during its eight years in office , including combat aircraft , attack helicopters , armored vehicles , military ships , missile defense systems , bombs , guns , and ammunition .
Those sales solidified Washington 's position as the Saudis ' primary arms supplier .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boeing F-15 aircraft , the vast bulk of its tanks are General Dynamics M-1s , and most of its air-to-ground missiles come from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin .
And mind you , those weapons are n't just sitting in warehouses or being displayed in military parades .
They 've been among the principal killers in a brutal Saudi intervention in Yemen that has sparked the world 's worst humanitarian catastrophe .
A new report from the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy ( which I co-authored ) underscores just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern weapons market .
According to data from the arms transfer database compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , in the period from 2015 to 2019 the United States accounted for 48 % of major weapons deliveries to the Middle East and North Africa , or ( as that vast region is sometimes known acronymically ) MENA .
Those figures leave deliveries from the next largest suppliers in the dust .
They represent nearly three times the arms Russia supplied to MENA , five times what France contributed , 10 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 times China 's contribution .
In other words , we have met the prime weapons proliferator in the Middle East and North Africa and it is us .
The influence of U.S. arms in this conflict-ridden region is further illustrated by a striking fact : Washington is the top supplier to 13 of the 19 countries there , including Morocco ( 91 % of its arms imports ) , Israel ( 78 % ) , Saudi Arabia ( 74 % ) , Jordan ( 73 % ) , Lebanon ( 73 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the UAE ( 68 % ) , and Qatar ( 50 % ) .
If the Trump administration goes ahead with its controversial plan to sell F-35s and armed drones to the UAE and brokers that related $ 8 billion arms deal with Israel , its share of arms imports to those two countries will be even higher in the years to come .
None of the key players in today 's most devastating wars in the Middle East produce their own weaponry , which means that imports from the U.S. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those conflicts .
Advocates of arms transfers to the MENA region often describe them as a force for `` stability , '' a way to cement alliances , counter Iran , or more generally a tool for creating a balance of power that makes armed engagement less likely .
In a number of key conflicts in the region , this is nothing more than a convenient fantasy for arms suppliers ( and the U.S. government ) , as the flow of ever more advanced weaponry has only exacerbated conflicts , aggravated human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and injuries , while provoking widespread destruction .
And keep in mind that , while not solely responsible , Washington is the chief culprit when it comes to the weaponry that 's fueling a number of the area 's most violent wars .
In Yemen , a Saudi/UAE-led intervention that began in March 2015 has , by now , resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians through air strikes , put millions at risk of famine , and helped create the desperate conditions for the worst cholera outbreak in living memory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100,000 lives and the U.S. and the United Kingdom have been the primary suppliers of the combat aircraft , bombs , attack helicopters , missiles , and armored vehicles used there , transfers valued in the tens of billions of dollars .
There has been a sharp jump in overall arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia since that war was launched .
Dramatically enough , total arms sent to the Kingdom more than doubled between the 2010-2014 period and the years from 2015 to 2019 .
Together , the U.S. ( 74 % ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounted for 87 % of all arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia in that five-year time frame .
In Egypt , U.S.-supplied combat aircraft , tanks , and attack helicopters have been used in what is supposedly a counterterror operation in the Northern Sinai desert , which has , in reality , simply become a war largely against the civilian population of the region .
Between 2015 and 2019 , Washington 's arms offers to Egypt totaled $ 2.3 billion , with billions more in deals made earlier but delivered in those years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced that it was offering a package of Apache attack helicopters to Egypt worth up to $ 2.3 billion .
According to research conducted by Human Rights Watch , thousands of people have been arrested in the Sinai region over the past six years , hundreds have been disappeared , and tens of thousands have been forcibly evicted from their homes .
Armed to the teeth , the Egyptian military has also carried out `` systematic and widespread arbitrary arrests -- including of children -- enforced disappearances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and forced eviction . ''
There is also evidence to suggest that Egyptian forces have engaged in illegal air and ground strikes that have killed substantial numbers of civilians .
In several conflicts -- examples of how such weapons transfers can have dramatic and unintended impacts -- U.S. arms have ended up in the hands of both sides .
When Turkish troops invaded northeastern Syria in October 2019 , for instance , they faced Kurdish-led Syrian militias that had received some of the $ 2.5 billion in arms and training the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous five years .
Meanwhile , the entire Turkish inventory of combat aircraft consists of U.S.-supplied F-16s and more than half of its armored vehicles are of American origin .
In Iraq , when the forces of the Islamic State , or ISIS , swept through a significant part of that country from the north in 2014 , they captured U.S. light weaponry and armored vehicles worth billions of dollars from the Iraqi security forces this country had armed and trained .
Similarly , in more recent years , U.S. arms have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian-backed militias operating alongside them in the fight against ISIS .
Meanwhile , in Yemen , while the U.S. has directly armed the Saudi/UAE coalition , its weaponry has , in fact , ended up being used by all sides in the conflict , including their Houthi opponents , extremist militias , and groups linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula .
This equal-opportunity spread of American weaponry has occurred thanks to arms transfers by former members of the U.S.-supplied Yemeni military and by UAE forces that have worked with an array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Just four companies -- Raytheon , Lockheed Martin , Boeing , and General Dynamics -- were involved in the overwhelming majority of U.S. arms deals with Saudi Arabia between 2009 and 2019 .
In fact , at least one or more of those companies played key roles in 27 offers worth more than $ 125 billion ( out of a total of 51 offers worth $ 138 billion ) .
In other words , in financial terms , more than 90 % of the U.S. arms offered to Saudi Arabia involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons makers .
In its brutal bombing campaign in Yemen , the Saudis have killed thousand of civilians with U.S.-supplied weaponry .
In the years since the Kingdom launched its war , indiscriminate air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have hit marketplaces , hospitals , civilian neighborhoods , water treatment centers , even a school bus filled with children .
American-made bombs have repeatedly been used in such incidents , including an attack on a wedding , where 21 people , children among them , were killed by a GBU-12 Paveway II guided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dynamics 2,000-pound bomb with a Boeing JDAM guidance system was used in a March 2016 strike on a marketplace that killed 97 civilians , including 25 children .
A Lockheed Martin laser-guided bomb was utilized in an August 2018 attack on a school bus that slaughtered 51 people , including 40 children .
A September 2018 report by the Yemeni group Mwatana for Human Rights identified 19 air strikes on civilians in which U.S.-supplied weapons were definitely used , pointing out that the destruction of that bus was `` not an isolated incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gruesome [ Saudi-led ] Coalition attacks involving U.S .
weapons . ''
It should be noted that the sales of such weaponry have not occurred without resistance .
In 2019 , both houses of Congress voted down a bomb sale to Saudi Arabia because of its aggression in Yemen , only to have their efforts thwarted by a presidential veto .
In some instances , as befits the Trump administration 's modus operandi , those sales have involved questionable political maneuvers .
Take , for instance , a May 2019 declaration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to push through an $ 8.1 billion deal with the Saudis , the UAE , and Jordan for precision-guided bombs and other equipment that simply bypassed normal Congressional oversight procedures completely .
At the behest of Congress , the State Department 's Office of Inspector General then opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that declaration , in part because it had been pushed by a former Raytheon lobbyist working in State 's Office of Legal Counsel .
However , the inspector general in charge of the probe , Stephen Linick , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo for fear that his investigation would uncover administration wrongdoing and , after he was gone , the ultimate findings proved largely -- surprise !
-- a whitewash , exonerating the administration .
Still , the report did note that the Trump administration had failed to take adequate care to avoid civilian harm by U.S. weaponry supplied to the Saudis .
Even some Trump administration officials have had qualms about the Saudi deals .
The New York Times has reported that a number of State Department personnel were concerned about whether they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abetting war crimes in Yemen .
If Donald Trump is re-elected , do n't expect U.S. sales to the Middle East -- or their murderous effects -- to diminish any time soon .
To his credit , Joe Biden has pledged as president to end U.S. arms and support for the Saudi war in Yemen .
For the region as a whole , however , do n't be shocked if , even in a Biden presidency , such weaponry continues to flow in and it remains business as usual for this country 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peoples of the Middle East .
Unless you 're Raytheon or Lockheed Martin , selling arms is one area where no one should want to keep America `` great . ''
William D. Hartung , a TomDispatch regular , is the director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy and the co-author of `` The Mideast Arms Bazaar : Top Arms Suppliers to the Middle East and North Africa 2015 to 2019 . ''
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World War II .

The United States has the dubious distinction of being the world's leading arms dealer. It dominates the global trade in a historic fashion and nowhere is that domination more complete than in the endlessly war-torn Middle East. There, believe it or not, the U.S. controls nearly half the arms market. From Yemen to Libya to Egypt, sales by this country and its allies are playing a significant role in fueling some of the world's most devastating conflicts. But Donald Trump, even before he was felled by Covid-19 and sent to Walter Reed Medical Center, could not have cared less, as long as he thought such trafficking in the tools of death and destruction would help his political prospects.
Look, for example, at the recent "normalization" of relations between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel he helped to broker, which has set the stage for yet another surge in American arms exports. To hear Trump and his supporters tell it, he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for the deal, dubbed "the Abraham Accords." In fact, using it, he was eager to brand himself as "Donald Trump, peacemaker" in advance of the November election. This, believe me, was absurd on the face of it. Until the pandemic swept everything in the White House away, it was just another day in Trump World and another example of the president's penchant for exploiting foreign and military policy for his own domestic political gain.
If the narcissist-in-chief had been honest for a change, he would have dubbed those Abraham Accords the "Arms Sales Accords." The UAE was, in part, induced to participate in hopes of receiving Lockheed Martin's F-35 combat aircraft and advanced armed drones as a reward. For his part, after some grumbling, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to one-up the UAE and seek a new $8 billion arms package from the Trump administration, including an additional squadron of Lockheed Martin's F-35s (beyond those already on order), a fleet of Boeing attack helicopters, and so much more. Were that deal to go through, it would undoubtedly involve an increase in Israel's more than ample military aid commitment from the United States, already slated to total $3.8 billion annually for the next decade.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
This wasn't the first time President Trump tried to capitalize on arms sales to the Middle East to consolidate his political position at home and his posture as this country's dealmaker par excellence. Such gestures began in May 2017, during his very first official overseas trip to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis greeted him then with ego-boosting fanfare, putting banners featuring his face along roadways leading into their capital, Riyadh; projecting a giant image of that same face on the hotel where he was staying; and presenting him with a medal in a surreal ceremony at one of the kingdom's many palaces. For his part, Trump came bearing arms in the form of a supposed $110 billion weapons package. Never mind that the size of the deal was vastly exaggerated. It allowed the president to gloat that his sales deal there would mean "jobs, jobs, jobs" in the United States. If he had to work with one of the most repressive regimes in the world to bring those jobs home, who cared? Not he and certainly not his son-in-law Jared Kushner who would develop a special relationship with the cruel Saudi Crown Prince and heir apparent to the throne, Mohammed bin Salman.
Trump doubled down on his jobs argument in a March 2018 White House meeting with bin Salman. The president came armed with a prop for the cameras: a map of the U.S. showing the states that (he swore) would benefit most from Saudi arms sales, including -- you won't be surprised to learn -- the crucial election swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Nor will it surprise you that Trump's jobs claims from those Saudi arms sales are almost entirely fraudulent. In fits of fancy, he's even insisted that he's creating as many as half a million jobs linked to weapons exports to that repressive regime. The real number is less than one-tenth that amount -- and far less than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
American Arms Dominance
Donald Trump is far from the first president to push tens of billions of dollars of arms into the Middle East. The Obama administration, for example, made a record $115 billion in arms offers to Saudi Arabia during its eight years in office, including combat aircraft, attack helicopters, armored vehicles, military ships, missile defense systems, bombs, guns, and ammunition.
Those sales solidified Washington's position as the Saudis' primary arms supplier. Two-thirds of its air force consists of Boeing F-15 aircraft, the vast bulk of its tanks are General Dynamics M-1s, and most of its air-to-ground missiles come from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. And mind you, those weapons aren't just sitting in warehouses or being displayed in military parades. They've been among the principal killers in a brutal Saudi intervention in Yemen that has sparked the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.
A new report from the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy (which I co-authored) underscores just how stunningly the U.S. dominates the Middle Eastern weapons market. According to data from the arms transfer database compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in the period from 2015 to 2019 the United States accounted for 48% of major weapons deliveries to the Middle East and North Africa, or (as that vast region is sometimes known acronymically) MENA. Those figures leave deliveries from the next largest suppliers in the dust. They represent nearly three times the arms Russia supplied to MENA, five times what France contributed, 10 times what the United Kingdom exported, and 16 times China's contribution.
In other words, we have met the prime weapons proliferator in the Middle East and North Africa and it is us.
The influence of U.S. arms in this conflict-ridden region is further illustrated by a striking fact: Washington is the top supplier to 13 of the 19 countries there, including Morocco (91% of its arms imports), Israel (78%), Saudi Arabia (74%), Jordan (73%), Lebanon (73%), Kuwait (70%), the UAE (68%), and Qatar (50%). If the Trump administration goes ahead with its controversial plan to sell F-35s and armed drones to the UAE and brokers that related $8 billion arms deal with Israel, its share of arms imports to those two countries will be even higher in the years to come.
Devastating Consequences
None of the key players in today's most devastating wars in the Middle East produce their own weaponry, which means that imports from the U.S. and other suppliers are the true fuel sustaining those conflicts. Advocates of arms transfers to the MENA region often describe them as a force for "stability," a way to cement alliances, counter Iran, or more generally a tool for creating a balance of power that makes armed engagement less likely.
In a number of key conflicts in the region, this is nothing more than a convenient fantasy for arms suppliers (and the U.S. government), as the flow of ever more advanced weaponry has only exacerbated conflicts, aggravated human rights abuses, and caused countless civilian deaths and injuries, while provoking widespread destruction. And keep in mind that, while not solely responsible, Washington is the chief culprit when it comes to the weaponry that's fueling a number of the area's most violent wars.
In Yemen, a Saudi/UAE-led intervention that began in March 2015 has, by now, resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians through air strikes, put millions at risk of famine, and helped create the desperate conditions for the worst cholera outbreak in living memory. That war has already cost more than 100,000 lives and the U.S. and the United Kingdom have been the primary suppliers of the combat aircraft, bombs, attack helicopters, missiles, and armored vehicles used there, transfers valued in the tens of billions of dollars.
There has been a sharp jump in overall arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia since that war was launched. Dramatically enough, total arms sent to the Kingdom more than doubled between the 2010-2014 period and the years from 2015 to 2019. Together, the U.S. (74%) and the U.K. (13%) accounted for 87% of all arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia in that five-year time frame.
In Egypt, U.S.-supplied combat aircraft, tanks, and attack helicopters have been used in what is supposedly a counterterror operation in the Northern Sinai desert, which has, in reality, simply become a war largely against the civilian population of the region. Between 2015 and 2019, Washington's arms offers to Egypt totaled $2.3 billion, with billions more in deals made earlier but delivered in those years. And in May 2020, the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced that it was offering a package of Apache attack helicopters to Egypt worth up to $2.3 billion.
According to research conducted by Human Rights Watch, thousands of people have been arrested in the Sinai region over the past six years, hundreds have been disappeared, and tens of thousands have been forcibly evicted from their homes. Armed to the teeth, the Egyptian military has also carried out "systematic and widespread arbitrary arrests -- including of children -- enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, collective punishment, and forced eviction." There is also evidence to suggest that Egyptian forces have engaged in illegal air and ground strikes that have killed substantial numbers of civilians.
In several conflicts -- examples of how such weapons transfers can have dramatic and unintended impacts -- U.S. arms have ended up in the hands of both sides. When Turkish troops invaded northeastern Syria in October 2019, for instance, they faced Kurdish-led Syrian militias that had received some of the $2.5 billion in arms and training the U.S. had supplied to Syrian opposition forces over the previous five years. Meanwhile, the entire Turkish inventory of combat aircraft consists of U.S.-supplied F-16s and more than half of its armored vehicles are of American origin.
In Iraq, when the forces of the Islamic State, or ISIS, swept through a significant part of that country from the north in 2014, they captured U.S. light weaponry and armored vehicles worth billions of dollars from the Iraqi security forces this country had armed and trained. Similarly, in more recent years, U.S. arms have been transferred from the Iraqi military to Iranian-backed militias operating alongside them in the fight against ISIS.
Meanwhile, in Yemen, while the U.S. has directly armed the Saudi/UAE coalition, its weaponry has, in fact, ended up being used by all sides in the conflict, including their Houthi opponents, extremist militias, and groups linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This equal-opportunity spread of American weaponry has occurred thanks to arms transfers by former members of the U.S.-supplied Yemeni military and by UAE forces that have worked with an array of groups in the southern part of the country.
Who Benefits?
Just four companies -- Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics -- were involved in the overwhelming majority of U.S. arms deals with Saudi Arabia between 2009 and 2019. In fact, at least one or more of those companies played key roles in 27 offers worth more than $125 billion (out of a total of 51 offers worth $138 billion). In other words, in financial terms, more than 90% of the U.S. arms offered to Saudi Arabia involved at least one of those top four weapons makers.
In its brutal bombing campaign in Yemen, the Saudis have killed thousand of civilians with U.S.-supplied weaponry. In the years since the Kingdom launched its war, indiscriminate air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have hit marketplaces, hospitals, civilian neighborhoods, water treatment centers, even a school bus filled with children. American-made bombs have repeatedly been used in such incidents, including an attack on a wedding, where 21 people, children among them, were killed by a GBU-12 Paveway II guided bomb manufactured by Raytheon.
A General Dynamics 2,000-pound bomb with a Boeing JDAM guidance system was used in a March 2016 strike on a marketplace that killed 97 civilians, including 25 children. A Lockheed Martin laser-guided bomb was utilized in an August 2018 attack on a school bus that slaughtered 51 people, including 40 children. A September 2018 report by the Yemeni group Mwatana for Human Rights identified 19 air strikes on civilians in which U.S.-supplied weapons were definitely used, pointing out that the destruction of that bus was "not an isolated incident, but the latest in a series of gruesome [Saudi-led] Coalition attacks involving U.S. weapons."
It should be noted that the sales of such weaponry have not occurred without resistance. In 2019, both houses of Congress voted down a bomb sale to Saudi Arabia because of its aggression in Yemen, only to have their efforts thwarted bya presidential veto. In some instances, as befits the Trump administration's modus operandi, those sales have involved questionable political maneuvers. Take, for instance, a May 2019 declaration of an "emergency" that was used to push through an $8.1 billion deal with the Saudis, the UAE, and Jordan for precision-guided bombs and other equipment that simply bypassed normal Congressional oversight procedures completely.
At the behest of Congress, the State Department's Office of Inspector General then opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that declaration, in part because it had been pushed by a former Raytheon lobbyist working in State's Office of Legal Counsel. However, the inspector general in charge of the probe, Stephen Linick, was soon fired by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for fear that his investigation would uncover administration wrongdoing and, after he was gone, the ultimate findings proved largely -- surprise! -- a whitewash, exonerating the administration. Still, the report did note that the Trump administrationhad failed to take adequate care to avoid civilian harm by U.S. weaponry supplied to the Saudis.
Even some Trump administration officials have had qualms about the Saudi deals. The New York Times has reported that a number of State Department personnel were concerned about whether they could someday be held liable for aiding and abetting war crimes in Yemen.
Will America Remain the World's Greatest Arms Dealer?
If Donald Trump is re-elected, don't expect U.S. sales to the Middle East -- or their murderous effects -- to diminish any time soon. To his credit, Joe Biden has pledged as president to end U.S. arms and support for the Saudi war in Yemen. For the region as a whole, however, don't be shocked if, even in a Biden presidency, such weaponry continues to flow in and it remains business as usual for this country's giant arms merchants to the detriment of the peoples of the Middle East. Unless you're Raytheon or Lockheed Martin, selling arms is one area where no one should want to keep America "great."
William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy and the co-author of "The Mideast Arms Bazaar: Top Arms Suppliers to the Middle East and North Africa 2015 to 2019."
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 William Hartung


alternet--2020-10-13--Sen. Whitehouse details the 'dark money' right-wing scheme to ‘rig’ the federal courts

During her Senate confirmation hearings this week , Judge Amy Coney Barrett — President Donald Trump 's far-right nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — has been questioned by Democratic senators who include Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California , Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island .
Whitehouse , during his questioning , focused heavily on some of the conservative groups and judicial activists that are pushing aggressively for Barrett 's confirmation — and Whitehouse laid out , in detail , the right-wing scheme to `` rig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charts to make his point , Whitehouse noted that Barrett 's supporters include the Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society and described the connections between those groups .
One chart depicted dollar signs and was broken down into three parts : the Network , the Society and various `` legal groups . ''
The Rhode Island Democrat , holding up that chart , explained , `` This , more and more , looks like it 's not three schemes , but it 's one scheme — with the same funders selecting judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then , showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do . ''
Whitehouse argued , `` It 's a $ 250 million dark money operation , ( and ) $ 250 million is a lot of money to spend if you are n't getting anything for it .
So , that raises the question : what are they getting for it ? ''
The things that `` dark money operation '' wants , Whitehouse stressed , include rulings hostile to gay rights , same-sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referenced Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges , two Supreme Court rulings that infuriated social conservatives , as well as rulings that upheld the Affordable Care Act of 2010 .
`` That 's where the contest is , '' Whitehouse warned .
`` That 's where the Republican Party platform tells us to look : at how they want judges to rule to reverse Roe , to reverse the Obamacare cases and to reverse Obergefell and take away gay marriage .
That is their stated objective and plan .
Why not take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judicial Crisis Network is headed by right-wing activist Carrie Severino , a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas .
And Sheldon noted that Barrett 's supporters are strident opponents of Obamacare .
If Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court this month , one of the first cases she might be asked to decide after the presidential election is a Republican lawsuit that seeks to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional .
Whitehouse said of Severino , `` The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not an issue here .
And by the way , the Judicial Crisis Network funds the Republican attorneys general — funds RAGA , the Republican Attorneys General Association .
And it funds individual Republican attorneys general .
And guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care Act case ?
Republican attorneys general . ''
Sen. Whitehouse Gives Presentation On 'Dark Money ' Influence On Supreme Court Nomination | MSNBC

During her Senate confirmation hearings this week, Judge Amy Coney Barrett — President Donald Trump's far-right nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court — has been questioned by Democratic senators who include Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Whitehouse, during his questioning, focused heavily on some of the conservative groups and judicial activists that are pushing aggressively for Barrett's confirmation — and Whitehouse laid out, in detail, the right-wing scheme to "rig" the federal courts.
Displaying some charts to make his point, Whitehouse noted that Barrett's supporters include the Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society and described the connections between those groups. One chart depicted dollar signs and was broken down into three parts: the Network, the Society and various "legal groups."
The Rhode Island Democrat, holding up that chart, explained, "This, more and more, looks like it's not three schemes, but it's one scheme — with the same funders selecting judges, funding campaigns for the judges, and then, showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do."
Whitehouse argued, "It's a $250 million dark money operation, (and) $250 million is a lot of money to spend if you aren't getting anything for it. So, that raises the question: what are they getting for it?"
The things that "dark money operation" wants, Whitehouse stressed, include rulings hostile to gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion rights. The senator referenced Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, two Supreme Court rulings that infuriated social conservatives, as well as rulings that upheld the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
"That's where the contest is," Whitehouse warned. "That's where the Republican Party platform tells us to look: at how they want judges to rule to reverse Roe, to reverse the Obamacare cases and to reverse Obergefell and take away gay marriage. That is their stated objective and plan. Why not take them at their word?"
The Judicial Crisis Network is headed by right-wing activist Carrie Severino, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas. And Sheldon noted that Barrett's supporters are strident opponents of Obamacare. If Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court this month, one of the first cases she might be asked to decide after the presidential election is a Republican lawsuit that seeks to strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.
Whitehouse said of Severino, "The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA. Don't say the ACA is not an issue here. And by the way, the Judicial Crisis Network funds the Republican attorneys general — funds RAGA, the Republican Attorneys General Association. And it funds individual Republican attorneys general. And guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care Act case? Republican attorneys general."
Watch the clip below:


alternet--2020-10-13--Trump destroyed the legitimacy of the judiciary by trying to entrench far-right minority rule

Late Monday night , after the first day of Amy Coney Barrett 's nomination hearings had wrapped up in Washington , a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court and gave a green light to Texas Governor Greg Abbott 's order limiting the number of drop-boxes for absentee ballots in the Lone Star State to one per county .
The result is that big , urban counties where Democrats are competitive -- Harris County ( Houston ) , Dallas County , Tarrant County ( Fort Worth ) , Bexar County ( San Antonio ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will each have a single drop-box for between one and five million residents just like the 87 rural counties in Texas that have fewer than 10,000 residents .
The judges who issued the 3-0 ruling were all appointed by Donald Trump .
Their average age is 49.7 .
One of them , James Ho , was profiled by NPR in a piece titled , `` Legal Opinions Or Political Commentary ?
A New Judge Exemplifies The Trump Era . ''
The panel found that Abbott 's order had actually increased voters ' access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down in this packed federal judiciary .
As a result of Republicans ' unprecedented blockade of Barack Obama 's nominees , he was only able to appoint three judges to the 5th Circuit during his 8 years in office .
Trump has appointed six in under four years .
When Trump won the Electoral College , he tapped Ho -- along with the other members of the panel that ruled on Monday night , Don Willett and Kyle Duncan -- to fill three of the 116 vacancies on the federal bench that Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the final years of Obama term in office .
With Barrett 's confirmation barreling along , it 's likely that the last guardrails will be removed from the nation 's highest court .
Chief Justice John Roberts ' concern for the legitimacy of the institution will no longer be an effective constraint on a majority that includes Justices Barrett , Alito , Thomas , Gorsuch and Kavanaugh .
Those justices are now poised to relitigate broad swaths of what had been long-settled law .
The last shreds of the Court 's legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be torn apart .
It will be the culmination of the GOP 's long campaign to counter demographic headwinds by insulating itself from democratic accountability -- through extreme gerrymandering , voter ID laws and other means of suppressing minority votes and turning the federal judiciary into a third political branch dominated by Republican appointees .
The result will be intolerable in a democratic republic , and if Democrats win the White House and Senate , the most pressing question they 'll face is how a legitimate , democratically-elected government should handle a judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with lifetime appointments to the bench and a clear hostility to every aspect of the Democrats ' agenda .
Something must break .
Joe Biden says he is `` not a fan of court-packing , '' but a campaign is underway , Barrett has n't yet been confirmed and if she is , it wo n't only be the left flank of the Democratic Party advocating for structural reform of the federal courts .
There would be an intra-coalition debate if Dems find themselves with unified control next year , and with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrounding judicial appointments , ideas that used to be considered radical -- like expanding the Court , or rotating justices back and forth from the appellate courts -- are fast becoming mainstream , liberal propositions .
I favor expanding the Court in keeping with Republicans ' philosophy that a party can and should do anything within the bounds of the Constitution to advance its agenda -- or to create a deterrent against that kind of thinking .
But that should n't be the end of the conversation .
Last year , I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would not only rebalance the courts over the near-term , but also lower the temperature of nominations in the future and in some cases , limit the judicial branch 's power to veto laws enacted by the elected branches .
All of them carry some risk .
But the danger of living in a country with entrenched rule by a far-right minority party is much greater .

Late Monday night, after the first day of Amy Coney Barrett's nomination hearings had wrapped up in Washington, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court and gave a green light to Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order limiting the number of drop-boxes for absentee ballots in the Lone Star State to one per county. The result is that big, urban counties where Democrats are competitive--Harris County (Houston), Dallas County, Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Bexar County (San Antonio) and Travis County (Austin)--will each have a single drop-box for between one and five million residents just like the 87 rural counties in Texas that have fewer than 10,000 residents.
The judges who issued the 3-0 ruling were all appointed by Donald Trump. Their average age is 49.7. One of them, James Ho, was profiled by NPR in a piece titled, "Legal Opinions Or Political Commentary? A New Judge Exemplifies The Trump Era." The panel found that Abbott's order had actually increased voters' access to the ballot box. Up is down in this packed federal judiciary.
As a result of Republicans' unprecedented blockade of Barack Obama's nominees, he was only able to appoint three judges to the 5th Circuit during his 8 years in office. Trump has appointed six in under four years. When Trump won the Electoral College, he tapped Ho--along with the other members of the panel that ruled on Monday night, Don Willett and Kyle Duncan--to fill three of the 116 vacancies on the federal bench that Mitch McConnell and his caucus had held open for the final years of Obama term in office.
With Barrett's confirmation barreling along, it's likely that the last guardrails will be removed from the nation's highest court. Chief Justice John Roberts' concern for the legitimacy of the institution will no longer be an effective constraint on a majority that includes Justices Barrett, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Those justices are now poised to relitigate broad swaths of what had been long-settled law.
The last shreds of the Court's legitimacy as a politically neutral body will soon be torn apart. It will be the culmination of the GOP's long campaign to counter demographic headwinds by insulating itself from democratic accountability--through extreme gerrymandering, voter ID laws and other means of suppressing minority votes and turning the federal judiciary into a third political branch dominated by Republican appointees.
The result will be intolerable in a democratic republic, and if Democrats win the White House and Senate, the most pressing question they'll face is how a legitimate, democratically-elected government should handle a judicial branch packed with young, activist jurists with lifetime appointments to the bench and a clear hostility to every aspect of the Democrats' agenda. Something must break.
Joe Biden says he is "not a fan of court-packing," but a campaign is underway, Barrett hasn't yet been confirmed and if she is, it won't only be the left flank of the Democratic Party advocating for structural reform of the federal courts. There would be an intra-coalition debate if Dems find themselves with unified control next year, and with the Republicans' relentless destruction of the norms surrounding judicial appointments, ideas that used to be considered radical--like expanding the Court, or rotating justices back and forth from the appellate courts--are fast becoming mainstream, liberal propositions.
I favor expanding the Court in keeping with Republicans' philosophy that a party can and should do anything within the bounds of the Constitution to advance its agenda--or to create a deterrent against that kind of thinking. But that shouldn't be the end of the conversation. Last year, I wrote about a number of different potential reforms that would not only rebalance the courts over the near-term, but also lower the temperature of nominations in the future and in some cases, limit the judicial branch's power to veto laws enacted by the elected branches.
All of them carry some risk. But the danger of living in a country with entrenched rule by a far-right minority party is much greater.


alternet--2020-10-13--‘God intended it as a disposable planet’: This pastor pushes a dangerous Biblical assault on science

Every so often you come across a piece of writing so extraordinary that you can not help but share it .
One such piece is a sermon on global warming by American pastor John MacArthur .
Full of beautifully constructed rhetorical flourishes , it is forcefully delivered by an experienced and impassioned preacher to a large and appreciative audience .
For me , as a man of science , it is the most complete compilation of unsound arguments , factual errors and misleading analogies as I have seen in discussions of this subject .
But it 's important because climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November in the US , where there is a growing movement of evangelical Christians who deny its existence , while Joe Biden promises a “ clean air revolution '' .
The minister of the COVID-denying , law-defying Grace Community Church in Sun Valley , California – which has encouraged worshippers to congregate as normal despite state COVID-19 restrictions – MacArthur is an impressive figure whose Study Bible has sold almost 2 million copies .
He regards the infallibility of the Bible , from Genesis to Revelation , as essential to his faith , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be understood in that context .
MacArthur 's rejection of the science is shared by other major US ministries and organisations such as Answers in Genesis , Creation Ministries International and the Discovery Institute .
In this sermon , MacArthur paraphrases “ a scientist at Cal Tech '' ( except not a scientist at all , but the novelist Michael Crichton , best known for Jurassic Park ) , as saying in a lecture : The reverend has the most serious reasons possible for rejecting the scientific consensus concerning the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the history and prehistory of the ancient near East and the peopling of continents : it is totally incompatible with the Genesis account of creation , Adam and Eve , the flood and the dispersion of peoples from the Tower of Babel .
As for global warming itself , the reverend channels standard climate change denial , but all his arguments are unsound and have been convincingly refuted to the satisfaction of an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists ( see in-depth discussion at Skeptical Science ) .
He understates the amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record as dating back only 30 years , and cites the Little Ice Age as evidence that the changes currently taking place are natural .
There 's more : Here we have a collection of half-truths and misunderstandings , typical of denialists claiming to represent “ legitimate science '' .
As the graph below shows , the 11-year sunspot cycle is a minor deviation , and the temperature increase since 1980 has occurred despite the fact that over that period the amount of solar energy falling on Earth has gone down slightly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrated mainly in the visible , not the infrared , region of the spectrum , and it is the roughly balancing heat outflow from the Earth that is in the infrared .
MacArthur offers a false dichotomy between saying that CO₂ warms the oceans , and warmer oceans release more CO₂ .
Unfortunately , both these statements are true .
There is a positive feedback loop : human-released CO₂ is the primary driver , but its effect is amplified by the fact that yet more CO₂ is then released from non-human sources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be even more confused : Plants do produce CO₂ but they absorb more than they emit .
However , when it comes to humans , their activity may cause only a small imbalance each year between CO₂ emission and natural uptake , but this imbalance is cumulative .
CO₂ levels are now 50 % above pre-industrial , and subtle atomic differences clearly show that fossil fuel is the source .
But according to MacArthur , “ There is no scientific reason to believe that ice caps are melting '' .
Despite the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this subject , the reverend does not think that the evidence for ice-cap melting is scientific , and that other factors are at play : All is now clear .
Talk of global warming is part of a politically motivated conspiracy .
But US $ 100 billion ?
That 's 600 years ' worth of all federal climate research spending .
Clearly , those pesky socialists and feminists are formidable fundraisers .
However , none of this matters because environmentalism is fundamentally misplaced .
As MacArthur puts it , citing Revelation and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement that would leave anybody who cares about this world speechless .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Paul Braterman, University of Glasgow
Every so often you come across a piece of writing so extraordinary that you cannot help but share it. One such piece is a sermon on global warming by American pastor John MacArthur. Full of beautifully constructed rhetorical flourishes, it is forcefully delivered by an experienced and impassioned preacher to a large and appreciative audience.
For me, as a man of science, it is the most complete compilation of unsound arguments, factual errors and misleading analogies as I have seen in discussions of this subject. But it's important because climate change is a big election issue this November in the US, where there is a growing movement of evangelical Christians who deny its existence, while Joe Biden promises a “clean air revolution".
The minister of the COVID-denying, law-defying Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California – which has encouraged worshippers to congregate as normal despite state COVID-19 restrictions – MacArthur is an impressive figure whose Study Bible has sold almost 2 million copies.
He regards the infallibility of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, as essential to his faith, and his sermon about global warming can only be understood in that context. MacArthur's rejection of the science is shared by other major US ministries and organisations such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Discovery Institute.
In this sermon, MacArthur paraphrases “a scientist at Cal Tech" (except not a scientist at all, but the novelist Michael Crichton, best known for Jurassic Park), as saying in a lecture:
Consensus science is the first refuge of scoundrels … invoked only in situations where there is a political, social, financial agenda but no scientific support.
The reverend has the most serious reasons possible for rejecting the scientific consensus concerning the age of the Earth, the origins of humankind, the history and prehistory of the ancient near East and the peopling of continents: it is totally incompatible with the Genesis account of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and the dispersion of peoples from the Tower of Babel.
Error, denial and misunderstanding
As for global warming itself, the reverend channels standard climate change denial, but all his arguments are unsound and have been convincingly refuted to the satisfaction of an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (see in-depth discussion at Skeptical Science). He understates the amount of global warming, incorrectly describes the full record as dating back only 30 years, and cites the Little Ice Age as evidence that the changes currently taking place are natural. There's more:
Here's the key, friends, this is the real deal. Legitimate science recognises a close correlation between sunspots and climate change … The sun is the source of temperature changes because of its infrared variations. … There is absolutely no evidence that CO₂ contributes to warming. On the contrary the opposite is true. Warming produces CO₂ … It's the other way round.
Here we have a collection of half-truths and misunderstandings, typical of denialists claiming to represent “legitimate science". As the graph below shows, the 11-year sunspot cycle is a minor deviation, and the temperature increase since 1980 has occurred despite the fact that over that period the amount of solar energy falling on Earth has gone down slightly. Incidentally, this solar energy input is concentrated mainly in the visible, not the infrared, region of the spectrum, and it is the roughly balancing heat outflow from the Earth that is in the infrared.
NASA, Author provided
MacArthur offers a false dichotomy between saying that CO₂ warms the oceans, and warmer oceans release more CO₂. Unfortunately, both these statements are true. There is a positive feedback loop: human-released CO₂ is the primary driver, but its effect is amplified by the fact that yet more CO₂ is then released from non-human sources. Regarding CO₂ itself, MacArthur seems to be even more confused:
By the way, plants produce CO₂. What man produces is marginal … Industry doesn't affect CO₂ in the environment or atmosphere.
Plants do produce CO₂ but they absorb more than they emit. However, when it comes to humans, their activity may cause only a small imbalance each year between CO₂ emission and natural uptake, but this imbalance is cumulative. CO₂ levels are now 50% above pre-industrial, and subtle atomic differences clearly show that fossil fuel is the source. But according to MacArthur, “There is no scientific reason to believe that ice caps are melting".
Despite the Arctic Monitoring and Assement Programme's video on this subject, the reverend does not think that the evidence for ice-cap melting is scientific, and that other factors are at play:
This is all political [and] financial agendas, class warfare, class envy … By the way, US$100 billion has been spent to make a case for global warming … driven by the socialist mentality … even some of the feminist mentality that resents male success.
All is now clear. Talk of global warming is part of a politically motivated conspiracy. But US$100 billion? That's 600 years' worth of all federal climate research spending. Clearly, those pesky socialists and feminists are formidable fundraisers. However, none of this matters because environmentalism is fundamentally misplaced. As MacArthur puts it, citing Revelation and the integrity of scripture:
God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that.
And that is a statement that would leave anybody who cares about this world speechless.
Paul Braterman, Hon. Research Fellow; Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, University of Glasgow
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-13--Here's why Republicans are so obsessed with Amy Coney Barrett's kids

Hey , folks , did you know that Amy Coney Barrett , Donald Trump 's nominee to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's seat on the Supreme Court , has a lot of kids ?
If not , good on you for not watching a single second of the first day of the farce playing out in the Senate chambers this week , as Republicans — who previously claimed that Barack Obama had no right to fill a Supreme Court seat a full seven months before a presidential election — rush to cram Barrett onto the court only days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , or who simply flipped through C-SPAN on their way to watch something else , heard Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee talk glowingly about Barrett 's family — she has seven children , two of them adopted — as if it was were a miracle sent directly from heaven .
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah , proving he 's not `` pro-life '' by going mask-free despite his COVID-19 diagnosis , raved about how Barrett was `` the oldest of seven children '' before having seven kids of her own , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have undoubtedly helped you throughout life . ''
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa falsely declared that Democrats are `` attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith . ''
( This is repeatedly claimed by Republicans , but I remain unaware of any Democrat who has attacked Barrett on either count . )
`` I bet there 's many young women , like my own two daughters , who marvel at the balance that you 've achieved between your personal and professional life , '' said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unexpectedly tight re-election battle against Democrat MJ Hegar — failed to note that Barrett has a net worth of $ 2.6 million , a $ 200,000 salary as a professor at Notre Dame and a husband who is a partner at a prestigious law firm .
So the answer would seem to be that Barrett 's family can afford to hire lots of child care while she pursues her professional goals .
And so on and so forth .
Republicans were way more interested in Barrett 's accomplishments as a producer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ résumé .
Part of that is because Republicans would rather talk about anything other than Barrett 's legal record , since they do n't want the public to know about her opposition to the Affordable Care Act , her desire to end legal abortion and strip women of contraception access or her association with anti-LGBTQ groups .
But this is also just about trolling feminists .
The implicit argument in hyping Barrett 's big family along with her successful career is one that anti-choice activists have been making for a long time : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion access in order to succeed socially and professionally , and feminists who say otherwise have a sinister agenda .
Indeed , the longstanding claim of the religious right is that feminists are n't really pro-woman at all , but are in fact working on behalf of sleazy men who want to exploit women for their bodies .
In this narrative , women do not actually enjoy sex , but instead use it solely as a tool to secure a breadwinning mate and a big brood of kids .
Feminists who support abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are luring women away from their true natures for the benefit of horndog men . ''
Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy , '' a famous quotation from anti-choice activist Patricia Heaton , has been adopted as the motto for this mentality .
`` [ S ] exual equality is found not in imitating men 's capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion , but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility , reciprocity and care , '' anti-choice activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett 's nomination .
Feminism , according to conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat , has stolen away `` sex and romance and marriage and child-rearing '' from women , and `` conservative feminism '' of the Barrett variety is about restoring those things .
( He elides the fact that the plan is to restore such things by force by making alternatives illegal or unavailable . )
In this deranged worldview , any woman who says she does n't want to get pregnant is assumed to be suffering from false consciousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reasons other than trapping a man in a domestic partnership and making a bunch of babies is treated as preposterous .
Women who insist that they actually want other things are treated with pity and condescension , as if they do n't know their own minds .
People who make these arguments tend to call themselves `` feminists for life '' or `` conservative feminists . ''
But there 's nothing feminist about any of this , since it all rests on the view that women are too stupid and too easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own bodies .
All this patronizing rhetoric , to be clear , is just a churchy cover for deeply-rooted sadism and misogyny .
Anti-choicers know full well the misery that springs from their preferred policies .
They know women may die or suffer serious injuries from illegal abortions .
They know that families who have more children than they can care for suffer from poverty .
They know that giving children up for adoption is usually heartbreaking .
They know that shotgun marriages are often unhappy and one big reason divorce rates were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that most women simply do n't have Barrett 's resources to hire other people to care for their children so they can pursue their career ambitions .
They know these things , just as they know that women have sex for their own pleasure and not just to please men ( or ensnare them ) .
Just as they know that most Americans want small families , and many do n't want children at all .
But that 's the point : All that misery is viewed as just punishment for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But conservatives also know that the public is repulsed by open displays of sadism and hatred , so instead we get this pursed-lip , praying-for-you condescension , clad in pseudo-feminist drag .
Trolling feminists is joyful in itself for many leading Republicans , but there 's another reason for the Barrett baby parade : Distracting their own voters from how radical her right-wing worldview really is .
Barrett 's policy positions and her likely future judgments are deeply unpopular with Americans , including many Republicans .
For instance , 72 % of voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want the federal government to protect insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions .
Barrett is expected to end that if she is seated on the court in time to hear an upcoming case meant to kill off the Affordable Care Act .
On abortion , 66 % of Americans , and 47 % of Republicans , believe that Roe v. Wade should be left alone .
Barrett is expected to be part of a conservative majority that will eventually vote to overturn it .
A whopping 92 % of Americans believe birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to take a dim view of a letter Barrett signed claiming it was `` morally obtuse '' to require insurance companies to cover contraception .
By parading around Barrett 's large family and pretending that feminists are `` attacking '' her for having a lot of children — when what feminists really oppose is forcing childbirth on the unwilling — Republicans can turn this confirmation into yet another culture-war conflict instead of a dispute about the issues .
Now their voters are all riled up about an imaginary liberal assaults on faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett is there to assault both their religious and sexual freedoms .
There were many conservative judges Republicans could have picked to dismantle the ACA and reproductive rights .
They went with an anti-choice fanatic with seven kids to taunt feminists with the implication that only weak and stupid women need birth control and abortion .
The hope is that their own voters will be so ecstatic over `` triggering '' feminists that they wo n't notice that their own rights and health care are being stripped away too .
Feminist tears wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but by the time Republican voters realize that , it will be too late .

Hey, folks, did you know that Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump's nominee to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court, has a lot of kids?
If not, good on you for not watching a single second of the first day of the farce playing out in the Senate chambers this week, as Republicans — who previously claimed that Barack Obama had no right to fill a Supreme Court seat a full seven months before a presidential election — rush to cram Barrett onto the court only days before the next one. Anyone who tuned in, or who simply flipped through C-SPAN on their way to watch something else, heard Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee talk glowingly about Barrett's family — she has seven children, two of them adopted — as if it was were a miracle sent directly from heaven.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, proving he's not "pro-life" by going mask-free despite his COVID-19 diagnosis, raved about how Barrett was "the oldest of seven children" before having seven kids of her own, offering the opinion that maternal "responsibilities have undoubtedly helped you throughout life."
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa falsely declared that Democrats are "attacking you as a mom and a woman of faith." (This is repeatedly claimed by Republicans, but I remain unaware of any Democrat who has attacked Barrett on either count.)
"I bet there's many young women, like my own two daughters, who marvel at the balance that you've achieved between your personal and professional life," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. That distinguished gentleman — now facing an unexpectedly tight re-election battle against Democrat MJ Hegar — failed to note that Barrett has a net worth of $2.6 million, a $200,000 salary as a professor at Notre Dame and a husband who is a partner at a prestigious law firm. So the answer would seem to be that Barrett's family can afford to hire lots of child care while she pursues her professional goals.
And so on and so forth. Republicans were way more interested in Barrett's accomplishments as a producer and adopter of children than in her legal résumé. Part of that is because Republicans would rather talk about anything other than Barrett's legal record, since they don't want the public to know about her opposition to the Affordable Care Act, her desire to end legal abortion and strip women of contraception access or her association with anti-LGBTQ groups.
But this is also just about trolling feminists. The implicit argument in hyping Barrett's big family along with her successful career is one that anti-choice activists have been making for a long time: Women don't really need contraception or abortion access in order to succeed socially and professionally, and feminists who say otherwise have a sinister agenda.
Indeed, the longstanding claim of the religious right is that feminists aren't really pro-woman at all, but are in fact working on behalf of sleazy men who want to exploit women for their bodies. In this narrative, women do not actually enjoy sex, but instead use it solely as a tool to secure a breadwinning mate and a big brood of kids. Feminists who support abortion rights and widespread access to birth control are luring women away from their true natures for the benefit of horndog men."
Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy," a famous quotation from anti-choice activist Patricia Heaton, has been adopted as the motto for this mentality.
"[S]exual equality is found not in imitating men's capacity to walk away from an unexpected pregnancy through abortion, but rather in asking men to meet women at a high standard of mutual responsibility, reciprocity and care," anti-choice activist Erika Bachiochi wrote at Politico, defending Barrett's nomination.
Feminism, according to conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, has stolen away "sex and romance and marriage and child-rearing" from women, and "conservative feminism" of the Barrett variety is about restoring those things. (He elides the fact that the plan is to restore such things by force by making alternatives illegal or unavailable.)
In this deranged worldview, any woman who says she doesn't want to get pregnant is assumed to be suffering from false consciousness. The possibility that women desire sex for reasons other than trapping a man in a domestic partnership and making a bunch of babies is treated as preposterous. Women who insist that they actually want other things are treated with pity and condescension, as if they don't know their own minds.
People who make these arguments tend to call themselves "feminists for life" or "conservative feminists." But there's nothing feminist about any of this, since it all rests on the view that women are too stupid and too easily misled to be permitted control over their own bodies.
All this patronizing rhetoric, to be clear, is just a churchy cover for deeply-rooted sadism and misogyny.
Anti-choicers know full well the misery that springs from their preferred policies. They know women may die or suffer serious injuries from illegal abortions. They know that families who have more children than they can care for suffer from poverty. They know that giving children up for adoption is usually heartbreaking. They know that shotgun marriages are often unhappy and one big reason divorce rates were much higher in the past. They know that most women simply don't have Barrett's resources to hire other people to care for their children so they can pursue their career ambitions.
They know these things, just as they know that women have sex for their own pleasure and not just to please men (or ensnare them). Just as they know that most Americans want small families, and many don't want children at all.
But that's the point: All that misery is viewed as just punishment for women who want sexual freedom and equality. But conservatives also know that the public is repulsed by open displays of sadism and hatred, so instead we get this pursed-lip, praying-for-you condescension, clad in pseudo-feminist drag.
Trolling feminists is joyful in itself for many leading Republicans, but there's another reason for the Barrett baby parade: Distracting their own voters from how radical her right-wing worldview really is.
Barrett's policy positions and her likely future judgments are deeply unpopular with Americans, including many Republicans. For instance, 72% of voters — and 62% of Republicans — want the federal government to protect insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Barrett is expected to end that if she is seated on the court in time to hear an upcoming case meant to kill off the Affordable Care Act. On abortion, 66% of Americans, and 47% of Republicans, believe that Roe v. Wade should be left alone. Barrett is expected to be part of a conservative majority that will eventually vote to overturn it. A whopping 92% of Americans believe birth control is morally acceptable, and are likely to take a dim view of a letter Barrett signed claiming it was "morally obtuse" to require insurance companies to cover contraception.
By parading around Barrett's large family and pretending that feminists are "attacking" her for having a lot of children — when what feminists really oppose is forcing childbirth on the unwilling — Republicans can turn this confirmation into yet another culture-war conflict instead of a dispute about the issues. Now their voters are all riled up about an imaginary liberal assaults on faith and family, instead of perceiving that Barrett is there to assault both their religious and sexual freedoms.
There were many conservative judges Republicans could have picked to dismantle the ACA and reproductive rights. They went with an anti-choice fanatic with seven kids to taunt feminists with the implication that only weak and stupid women need birth control and abortion. The hope is that their own voters will be so ecstatic over "triggering" feminists that they won't notice that their own rights and health care are being stripped away too. Feminist tears won't pay for anyone's health insurance, but by the time Republican voters realize that, it will be too late.


alternet--2020-10-13--Ex-State Dept. official who leaked Pentagon Papers: Trump is an 'enemy of the Constitution'

A former U.S. Defense and State Department official is speaking out and urging progressives to vote for Democratic presidential Joe Biden due to President Donald Trump 's threat to the Constitution .
Daniel Ellsberg published an op-ed in the Detroit Metro Times asking the American public to back Biden in the upcoming presidential election .
Ellsberg , who identifies as a progressive voter who initially supported Sen. Bernie Sanders ' ( I-VT ) presidential campaign , admitted that Biden was not his first candidate of choice .
While Ellsberg expressed concern about Trump 's repeated dismissals of climate change warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to combat the growing threat to the United States ' democracy .
`` More urgently , we 're facing an authoritarian threat to our democratic system of a kind we 've never seen before , '' Ellsberg said .
`` Right now he is even casting unwarranted doubt on the validity of mail-in ballots , and in other ways as well putting in question for the first time in our history whether he would peacefully leave office after a full-accounting of votes cast by Election Day gave the majority in the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later added , `` I now see Donald J. Trump as a domestic enemy of the Constitution , in the sense of that oath .
As president he has assaulted not only the First Amendment but also virtually every other aspect and institution of our country that preserves us as a republic .
Ellsberg acknowledged the fact that many voters have reservations about a Biden presidency but he also emphasized the importance of defeating Trump , describing it as America `` [ dodging ] a bullet . ''
`` The election now underway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Ellsberg said .
`` Whatever reservations you might have about Joe Biden , the fact remains that his victory over Trump would mean that our country will have dodged a bullet — preventing the destruction of our Constitution as a functional document and averting irreversible damage to human civilization in the next four years . ''
Ellsberg faced a highly publicized political controversy over his release of the `` Pentagon Papers '' in 1971 , a top-secret Pentagon study detailing the federal government 's decision-making during the Vietnam War .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1917 but all charges against him were later dropped as a result of governmental misconduct and illegal practices for evidence-gathering .

A former U.S. Defense and State Department official is speaking out and urging progressives to vote for Democratic presidential Joe Biden due to President Donald Trump's threat to the Constitution.
Daniel Ellsberg published an op-ed in the Detroit Metro Times asking the American public to back Biden in the upcoming presidential election. Ellsberg, who identifies as a progressive voter who initially supported Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) presidential campaign, admitted that Biden was not his first candidate of choice.
While Ellsberg expressed concern about Trump's repeated dismissals of climate change warnings, he also stressed how important it is to combat the growing threat to the United States' democracy.
"More urgently, we're facing an authoritarian threat to our democratic system of a kind we've never seen before," Ellsberg said. "Right now he is even casting unwarranted doubt on the validity of mail-in ballots, and in other ways as well putting in question for the first time in our history whether he would peacefully leave office after a full-accounting of votes cast by Election Day gave the majority in the Electoral College to his opponent."
He later added, "I now see Donald J. Trump as a domestic enemy of the Constitution, in the sense of that oath. As president he has assaulted not only the First Amendment but also virtually every other aspect and institution of our country that preserves us as a republic.
Ellsberg acknowledged the fact that many voters have reservations about a Biden presidency but he also emphasized the importance of defeating Trump, describing it as America "[dodging] a bullet."
"The election now underway must remove Donald Trump from the presidency," Ellsberg said. "Whatever reservations you might have about Joe Biden, the fact remains that his victory over Trump would mean that our country will have dodged a bullet — preventing the destruction of our Constitution as a functional document and averting irreversible damage to human civilization in the next four years."
Ellsberg faced a highly publicized political controversy over his release of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, a top-secret Pentagon study detailing the federal government's decision-making during the Vietnam War. He was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 but all charges against him were later dropped as a result of governmental misconduct and illegal practices for evidence-gathering.