rawstory--2020-01-10--Colin Powell’s former chief of staff unloads on Mike Pence’s ‘laughable’ claims about Iran

President Donald Trump brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran by ordering the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the second most powerful figure in Iran .
After Soleimani and four others were killed in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad International Airport Friday , Trump , offering no evidence , alleged that Soleimani was orchestrating imminent attacks on American personnel .
We should be skeptical when Trump , or any leader , invokes secret “ intelligence ” to justify their violent actions .
Perhaps no one knows this better than Col. Lawrence Wilkerson , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s chief of staff from 2002 to 2005 .
He witnessed , and participated in , the effort by President George W. Bush , Vice President Dick Cheney and others to promote lies to justify the disastrous , illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
“ That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq — one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition , and that destabilized the entire Middle East , ” Wilkerson wrote in a New York Times editorial in 2018 titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Choice of War Once .
It ’ s Happening Again.
” Wilkerson continued , “ the Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a false impression that war is the only way to address the threats posed by Iran .
This war with Iran … would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq war in terms of casualties and costs.
” Back in 2003 , Col. Wilkerson helped Powell prepare his infamous Feb. 5 , 2003 , speech before the United Nations Security Council .
“ My colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed up by sources , solid sources , ” Powell said .
“ These are not assertions .
What we ’ re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
” His presentation included numerous slides , audio clips and a sample vial , purportedly containing anthrax , which Powell gingerly held aloft for the cameras .
The speech lasted over two hours and , it turns out , was riddled with lies and fabrications .
Powell would later describe his performance as a permanent “ blot ” on his record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Six weeks later , “ shock and awe ” began : The Bush/Cheney administration indiscriminately bombed Iraq .
“ All across the region , the chaos that we ’ re looking at was produced by the United States invasion in 2003 , ” Wilkerson observed on the “ Democracy Now !
” news hour this week .
“ I watched as the intelligence was cooked , as principals in the George W. Bush government were sold by that intelligence or helped to warp that intelligence , as was the case with Dick Cheney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to war.
” Among the similarities that Wilkerson sees between the lies that led to war in 2003 and today are Trump surrogates appearing on TV or , now , Twitter , lying to the public .
Vice President Mike Pence tweeted after the assassination that Soleimani “ assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
” “ Pence ’ s words are laughable , ” Wilkerson said on “ Democracy Now !
” “ Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan in 2001 , early 2002 , to fight the Taliban .
We got indispensable help from Iran in that regard.
” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been one of the most vocal and omnipresent defenders of Trump ’ s assassination of Soleimani .
“ We are going to lie , cheat and steal , as Pompeo is doing right now , as Trump , [ Defense Secretary ] Esper , Lindsey Graham [ and ] Tom Cotton [ are ] doing right now , and a host of other members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are doing right now … to continue this war complex.
” Wilkerson said .
“ That ’ s the truth of it .
And that ’ s the agony of it.
” Col. Wilkerson is not the only Republican critical of Trump ’ s actions .
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee spoke to the press Wednesday , reacting to what he said was “ probably the worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue.
” He called the briefing “ absolutely insane , ” and described how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress : “ I don ’ t care whether they ’ re with the CIA , with the Department of Defense or otherwise to come in and tell us that we can ’ t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran .
It ’ s un-American , it ’ s unconstitutional and it ’ s wrong.
” Col. Lawrence Wilkerson , who has witnessed the war-makers behind closed doors , firsthand , is not optimistic about the prospects for peace : “ Ever since 9/11 , the beast of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of endless wars , the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp , for example , and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago , is alive and well , ” he concluded on “ Democracy Now !
” “ America exists today to make war .
”

President Donald Trump brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran by ordering the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the second most powerful figure in Iran. After Soleimani and four others were killed in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad International Airport Friday, Trump, offering no evidence, alleged that Soleimani was orchestrating imminent attacks on American personnel. We should be skeptical when Trump, or any leader, invokes secret “intelligence” to justify their violent actions. Perhaps no one knows this better than Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff from 2002 to 2005. He witnessed, and participated in, the effort by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others to promote lies to justify the disastrous, illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.
“That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq — one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East,” Wilkerson wrote in a New York Times editorial in 2018 titled, “I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again.” Wilkerson continued, “the Trump administration is using much the same playbook to create a false impression that war is the only way to address the threats posed by Iran. This war with Iran … would be 10 to 15 times worse than the Iraq war in terms of casualties and costs.”
Back in 2003, Col. Wilkerson helped Powell prepare his infamous Feb. 5, 2003, speech before the United Nations Security Council. “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources,” Powell said. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” His presentation included numerous slides, audio clips and a sample vial, purportedly containing anthrax, which Powell gingerly held aloft for the cameras. The speech lasted over two hours and, it turns out, was riddled with lies and fabrications. Powell would later describe his performance as a permanent “blot” on his record. But it did the job. Six weeks later, “shock and awe” began: The Bush/Cheney administration indiscriminately bombed Iraq.
“All across the region, the chaos that we’re looking at was produced by the United States invasion in 2003,” Wilkerson observed on the “Democracy Now!” news hour this week. “I watched as the intelligence was cooked, as principals in the George W. Bush government were sold by that intelligence or helped to warp that intelligence, as was the case with Dick Cheney, and I watched the inevitable march to war.”
Among the similarities that Wilkerson sees between the lies that led to war in 2003 and today are Trump surrogates appearing on TV or, now, Twitter, lying to the public. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted after the assassination that Soleimani “assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.”
“Pence’s words are laughable,” Wilkerson said on “Democracy Now!” “Soleimani and his entourage were actually helping us in Afghanistan in 2001, early 2002, to fight the Taliban. We got indispensable help from Iran in that regard.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been one of the most vocal and omnipresent defenders of Trump’s assassination of Soleimani. “We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump, [Defense Secretary] Esper, Lindsey Graham [and] Tom Cotton [are] doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now … to continue this war complex.” Wilkerson said. “That’s the truth of it. And that’s the agony of it.”
Col. Wilkerson is not the only Republican critical of Trump’s actions. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee spoke to the press Wednesday, reacting to what he said was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue.” He called the briefing “absolutely insane,” and described how the briefers discouraged a debate on Iran in Congress: “I don’t care whether they’re with the CIA, with the Department of Defense or otherwise to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional and it’s wrong.”
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who has witnessed the war-makers behind closed doors, firsthand, is not optimistic about the prospects for peace: “Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago, is alive and well,” he concluded on “Democracy Now!” “America exists today to make war.”


rawstory--2020-01-10--Judge slams Trump’s attempt to toss rape accuser’s lawsuit: ‘Not even a tweet’ to back up motion

A New York judge rejected President Donald Trump ’ s attempt to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by rape accuser E. Jean Carroll .
This article was originally published at Salon Carroll , a longtime magazine columnist , last year of raping her in the dressing room of a New York department store in the 1990s .
Trump denied the allegation , claiming that he did not know Carroll despite appearing in a photo with her .
The president also sought to defend himself by saying that she was “ not my type.
” Carroll responded by .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that New York ’ s courts did not have jurisdiction over the case , because he has not lived in the state since being sworn in as president .
New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan rejected the motion and slammed Trump for failing to provide any documentation to back up his claim .
“ Although defendant Trump , through his counsel , claims lack of personal jurisdiction , notably , there is not even a tweet , much less an affidavit by Trump in support of his motion , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The judge also denied another request from Trump to stay discovery in the case , according to .
Carroll ’ s lawyer Roberta Kaplan told the outlet she was “ pleased , yet unsurprised ” by the ruling .
“ We look forward to moving ahead and proving that Donald Trump lied when he told the world that he did not rape ” Ms. Carroll and “ had not even met her , ” Kaplan said .
The accuses Trump of attacking Carroll with a “ series of false and defamatory statements.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he accused Carroll of lying about the rape in order to increase book sales , carry out a political agenda , advance a conspiracy with the Democratic Party and make money , ” the suit reads .
“ He also deliberately implied that she had falsely accused other men of rape .
For good measure , he insulted her physical appearance .
Each of these statements was false .
Each of them was defamatory.
” The suit went on to call Trump ’ s comments “ fully consistent with his tried-and-true playbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he sexually assaulted women.
” Carroll is one of who have accused Trump of rape , sexual assault or misconduct .
Trump has issued a blanket denial of all of the allegations , though he has occasionally argued that some of his accusers were not attractive enough .
Along with Carroll ’ s lawsuit , Trump ’ s denials also prompted a similar from former “ Apprentice ” contestant Summer Zervos , who accused Trump of kissing and groping her against her will on multiple occasions in 2007 .
The New York State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit after a lower court ruled that the case can proceed .
Trump has argued that he from all lawsuits and investigations while in office , but a New York appellate court ruled that the president is “ not above the law ” when it allowed the case to move forward .
The court argued that the case was “ materially indistinguishable ” from a lawsuit filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones against then-President Bill Clinton , reported .
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed that case to go forward in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Clinton ’ s impeachment the following year .
“ We remain confident that we will prove her defamation claim in court , ” Beth Wilkinson , an attorney for Zervos , said .
“ And that Mr. Trump will face responsibility for his actions .
”

A New York judge rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by rape accuser E. Jean Carroll.
This article was originally published at Salon
Carroll, a longtime magazine columnist, accused Trump last year of raping her in the dressing room of a New York department store in the 1990s. Trump denied the allegation, claiming that he did not know Carroll despite appearing in a photo with her. The president also sought to defend himself by saying that she was “not my type.” Carroll responded by filing a defamation lawsuit .
Trump’s attorneys filed a motion last week arguing that New York’s courts did not have jurisdiction over the case, because he has not lived in the state since being sworn in as president.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan rejected the motion and slammed Trump for failing to provide any documentation to back up his claim.
"Although defendant Trump, through his counsel, claims lack of personal jurisdiction, notably, there is not even a tweet, much less an affidavit by Trump in support of his motion," the judge said in her ruling.
The judge also denied another request from Trump to stay discovery in the case, according to The New York Times .
Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan told the outlet she was “pleased, yet unsurprised” by the ruling.
“We look forward to moving ahead and proving that Donald Trump lied when he told the world that he did not rape” Ms. Carroll and “had not even met her,” Kaplan said.
“WE MOVE AHEAD!!” Carroll added on Twitter .
The lawsuit accuses Trump of attacking Carroll with a “series of false and defamatory statements.”
“Through express statements and deliberate implications, he accused Carroll of lying about the rape in order to increase book sales, carry out a political agenda, advance a conspiracy with the Democratic Party and make money," the suit reads. "He also deliberately implied that she had falsely accused other men of rape. For good measure, he insulted her physical appearance. Each of these statements was false. Each of them was defamatory.”
The suit went on to call Trump’s comments “fully consistent with his tried-and-true playbook for responding to credible public reports that he sexually assaulted women.”
Carroll is one of dozens of women who have accused Trump of rape, sexual assault or misconduct. Trump has issued a blanket denial of all of the allegations, though he has occasionally argued that some of his accusers were not attractive enough.
Along with Carroll’s lawsuit, Trump’s denials also prompted a similar defamation lawsuit from former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos, who accused Trump of kissing and groping her against her will on multiple occasions in 2007.
The New York State Court of Appeals will consider whether Trump must face the lawsuit after a lower court ruled that the case can proceed. Trump has argued that he should be immune from all lawsuits and investigations while in office, but a New York appellate court ruled that the president is “not above the law” when it allowed the case to move forward.
The court argued that the case was “materially indistinguishable” from a lawsuit filed by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones against then-President Bill Clinton, NBC News reported. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed that case to go forward in 1997, which ultimately paved the way for Clinton’s impeachment the following year.
“We remain confident that we will prove her defamation claim in court,” Beth Wilkinson, an attorney for Zervos, said. “And that Mr. Trump will face responsibility for his actions.”


rawstory--2020-01-10--‘Confused’ Trump thinks he should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Ethiopia’s prime mini

‘Confused’ Trump thinks he should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Ethiopia’s prime minister

During his rally in Ohio this Thursday , President Trump suggested to his audience that the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed should have gone to him .
“ I made a deal , I saved a country , and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country .
I said , ‘ What , did I have something do with it ? '
” Trump said .
“ Yeah .
But that ’ s the way it is .
As long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matters.
” The “ deal ” Trump referred to is his offer to help negotiate an agreement between Ahmed and Egyptian Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly over a dam on the Nile river .
But as Business Insider points out , Ahmed was awarded the prize for negotiating a peace deal between Ethiopia and Eritrea in the wake of 20 years of war .
According to a tweet from the House Foreign Affairs Committee , Trump is “ confused.
” “ [ PM Ahmed ] was awarded the [ Nobel Prize ] for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Horn of Africa , not stalled negotiations about a new dam on the Nile , the tweet read .
“ If they gave the Nobel for deals that didn ’ t happen , the Pres .
would have a shelf full of them .
”

And former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, during an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” said other alleged co-conspirators are likely to pursue a similar legal avenue.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Meadows “filed to have his case moved from Georgia court to federal court, why?” Tapper asked Honig.
“This is more than just procedural wrangling,” Honig said. “This could be outcome determinative, because if Mark Meadows can show that the charges relate to his performance of his official duties, in this case as White House Chief of Staff, then a couple things happen.
“First, he gets moved across the street to the federal courthouse. Second of all, he's then on the doorstep of a dismissal, because under the law, federal law, if a person can show that they've been criminally charged for something that they did, ‘under color of law,’ meaning in their capacity as a federal official, then the case gets thrown out altogether.
“So there's no question Mark Meadows has a reasonable argument to make here and I look for Donald Trump to make a similar argument. I don't think he has as strong an argument and I look for Jeffrey Clark, who worked at DOJ to make a similar argument. All of these are going to be potentially dispositive motions.”
Added Honig: “Dispositive means they either stay or they go away They live or they die.
“Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump are also expected to make the same request, do they have a strong case do you think?” asked Tapper.
“Donald Trump does not have as good a case as Mark Meadows because Trump will say, ‘Well, this was my effort to sort of regulate and make sure the election was clean as president’, but I think ...the prosecutors are going to respond, ‘No, this was you as a private citizen as a candidate, way overstepping your authority as President,” Honig said.
“As for Rudy Giuliani, he's got nothing, he was not a federal employee at the time.”
Watch the video below or at the link here.
CNN 08 16 2023 16 04 46 www.youtube.com


rawstory--2020-01-10--WATCH: Unhinged man screams at the top of his lungs at Elizabeth Warren and accuses her of loving Ir

WATCH: Unhinged man screams at the top of his lungs at Elizabeth Warren and accuses her of loving Iran

An unhinged man on Friday screamed at the top of his lungs at Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) while accusing her of being a “ fraud ” who is fond of Iran .
In a video posted by Mike LaCrosse , a reporter with Boston-based news station WBZ , a man attending a Warren event can be seen standing up and screaming at the Massachusetts senator while campaign staffers try to rein him in .
“ You ’ re a fraud !
” he screams at Warren .
“ I ’ m a minister !
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying !
” Warren tried to diffuse tension in the room by calmly saying to the man , “ It ’ s good to see you.
” “ It ’ s good to see you !
” he shouted back angrily .
“ I hope you resign !
” He then started to walk away , and attendees at the Warren event started chanting the senator ’ s name in a show of support .
However , the man wasn ’ t done just yet , and yelled out , “ She likes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man was subsequently removed from the event .

When asked if that meant supporting a federal ban at 15 or 21 weeks, he responded simply, "yes."
The way that pregnancy is calculated is not by the date of conception but by the first day of the last menstrual cycle, as The American Pregnancy Association explained. So, some can be pregnant for only 4 weeks but categorized as pregnant at 7 weeks or even later. The imprecise date can make or break whether or not an individual has bodily autonomy.
“Once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child,” he said, adding, "I’m for medical freedom. Individuals are able to make their own choices."
No fetus is viable at 90 days, 15 weeks or 21 weeks. Kennedy didn't know that pregnancies aren't considered viable until the 6th month.
"Babies born after only 20 to 22 weeks are so small and fragile that they usually do not survive," said a fact sheet by the South East Coast Neonatal Network. "Their lungs, heart and brain are not ready for them to live outside the womb. Some babies born later than 22 weeks also have only a very small chance of surviving."
The chance of survival is between 10 and 20 percent. Doctors provide what's known as "comfort care" to any baby born this early, anticipating that it won't make it longer than 24 hours.
The NBC report identified Kennedy's stance as "out of step" with the rest of the Democratic Party.
RFK Jr. has six children.
He also told NBC News that he opposes investments in curbing climate change, saying: “They say that this is fighting climate change; it’s actually doing the opposite.”
On Donald Trump's conspiracy that the 2020 election was "stolen," RFK Jr. told reporters that “elections can get stolen in this country.” But tried to have it both ways by saying, "it seems like [Trump] was trying to overturn it.”
Last month, RFK accused reporters of trying to "discredit me as a crank" by twisting his comments about COVID-19 and Jewish people.
Republican presidential candidate, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), said that he would consider Kennedy to head the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that he believes should be eliminated.
Steve Bannon was among those who have supported RFK Jr.'s run against President Joe Biden in the primary. He went on to propose that former President Donald Trump should make Kennedy his running mate if Kari Lake isn't available.
Read the full report at NBC News.


rawstory--2020-01-10--Trump insists Suleimani ‘probably’ threatened ‘four embassies’ as Fox News presses him to explain ‘i

Trump insists Suleimani ‘probably’ threatened ‘four embassies’ as Fox News presses him to explain ‘imminent’ danger

President Donald Trump is now claiming that slain Iranian general Qassem Suleimani was about to launch attacks on four unspecified @ @ @ @ @ out by an American drone strike .
In an interview with Fox News ’ Laura @ @ @ @ @ Friday night , the president claims that Suleimani was an “ imminent ” danger to @ @ @ @ @ plans to attack multiple embassies .
Ingraham asked the president to specifically name what the @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We will tell you that probably it was going to be the embassy @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ I can reveal that I believe it probably would ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ the administration has offered no evidence that there was an imminent threat from Suleimani that @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly flailed around when asked to explain what he @ @ @ @ @ late Iranian leader posed an imminent threat .

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
Still, Ron DeSantis refuses to expand Medicaid, even though 93 percent of the cost is covered with money from Washington, DC. It’s the principle of the thing, apparently: he’s one of 11 red state governors who believes that working poor people simply shouldn’t get health coverage. After all, they didn’t have the good sense to be born into a wealthy family!
Michael, 30, lives in Orlando and has asthma, but running his little business buying and selling used furniture hasn’t earned him enough to cover his medical bills and to pay rent. He recently got an eviction notice, telling the Florida Health Justice Project:
“I was given a list of homeless shelters to choose from but I hope it doesn’t come to that.”
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Violence, hate, bigotry, and cruelty are the four cardinal points of fascism. Compassion and concern for the greater good, for the poor and weak, for the victims of fate and accident have no place in the fascist world.
Historians and political observers have been predicting that America would get our very own Mussolini ever since the days of Barry Goldwater. And there’s been no shortage of candidates: bribe-taking Nixon; Central American fascist-loving Reagan; Gitmo torturing and war-lying Bush; and, of course, Trump.
But with Ron DeSantis, we may finally be facing an all-American politician who has Mussolini’s guile, ruthlessness, and willingness to see people die to advance his political career, all while being smart and educated enough to avoid the easily satirized buffoonishness of Trump.
Mussolini was a famously short man who strutted with his muscular chest pushed out and his chin jutted forward, just like DeSantis, who Trump says is musclebound, likes to do.
Both men were socially awkward, craved power, lacked empathy, displayed casual cruelty, sucked up to the wealthiest men in the nation, and demonized opposition politicians — literally calling or implying their fellow citizens are “the enemy” (a favorite trick of Hitler and Orbán, as well) — to encourage their followers to support them or entertain the rhetoric of violence and threats of violence to achieve political ends.
Miriam, a single parent of two young children, discovered a lump in her breast but postponed visiting the doctor for months because she had no health insurance with her job as a housekeeper.
Finally, she realized the potential gravity of her situation.
“I needed to live to be there for my children,” she said.
She got treatment through the charity ward of a hospital, but even that treatment came with a cost of $2,183. She slipped behind in the $200 monthly payments when her job vanished with the pandemic and now she’s struggling to pay the $1783 she still owes in co-payments from her treatments. She’s been sent to collection and is living in fear of what’s next when the court finally comes after her.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us of the possible rise of politicians like DeSantis who would suggest other Americans are enemies of the nation’s values, who would exaggerate policy differences in war-like terms, and who would ascribe the most evil of motives and intentions to simple political opponents.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
But it wasn’t just that calling other politicians enemies or attributing evil motivations to them produced dissension and could tear a society apart, although those concerns were at the top of Washington’s mind.
He also knew that such rhetoric was the platform from which a literal strongman could arise in America, destroying the democracy he’d fought the Revolutionary War to create:
“But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” he told the nation. “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
Such a warlike approach to politics, Washington said, could only lead in one direction:
“It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
Such rhetoric, Washington argued, produces:
“A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
It’s been 225 years since George Washington uttered those words. And now we’re here.
Hipolito, the father of four, is worried about his life’s partner, the mother of their children.
“My wife has been in pain for weeks now but we can’t afford to find out why,” Hipolito told the Florida Health Justice Project. “I swear, I’m very afraid. She is pale and suffering every day.”
He notes that his wife hasn’t visited the doctor because their family can’t afford the expense when they must also house, feed, and clothe their kids on his job as a cook.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Arresting black men for voting, terrifying them and ruining their lives while making sure they all get paraded in chains before the cameras.
Threatening public school teachers with prison for simply teaching history.
Lying about medical science regarding vaccines to suck up to the Trump base, resulting in fewer Floridians being protected from a disease that is killing literally hundreds of Americans every day.
Using rhetoric that feeds bigotry and hate against gay, lesbian, and trans people.
Intimidating the college board so they strip the Black Lives Matter movement out of their advanced placement African-American Studies curriculum.
Lying to asylum-seekers to get them on a plane to Martha’s Vineyard as a stunt to elevate his own political fortunes.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with all of this. Cruelty is his trademark.
Ignoring the health and safety of his state’s citizens, DeSantis led Florida into a veritable Covid Armageddon, letting (as of January 16th) 84,176 of his citizens die from the disease. As former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CBS’ Face The Nation:
“They let the virus spread largely unchecked in terms of personal mitigation. People weren't wearing masks. They weren't encouraged to wear masks. Vaccination was encouraged for the elderly population, but not widely… So they made policy choices, and the consequence was an infection that largely engulfed most parts of the state.”
After this orgy of death and disease, at the end of 2021 about 12 percent of Florida’s population — almost 2.6 million — still lacked any form of medical insurance because of DeSantis’ refusal to expand Medicaid for low-income people.
And now as many as 2 million more Floridians will join the ranks of the uninsured in the coming months.
Ron DeSantis is just fine with this. Cruelty is his trademark.


rawstory--2020-01-10--The Wall Street Journal accidentally reveals the unbearable truth about Soleimani’s assassination

The plain truth can often be so obvious as to be invisible .
That ’ s my more charitable interpretation of the press corps ’ coverage of Qassem Soleimani ’ s assassination .
My less charitable interpretation ?
Reporters and editors in Washington , D.C. , will find a way to avoid seeing the plain truth because the plain truth is too unbearable to see .
This article was originally published at The Editorial Board It would be unbearable to think the president ordered a man dead in order to give Republican Senators a means of defending him against an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would be unthinkable for him to bring America to the brink of war in order to create an image of a “ war president ” too indispensable to remove .
As a result , the press corps has been busy this week reporting in granular detail virtually every aspect of Donald Trump ’ s decision last week to target and kill Iran ’ s top general in Baghdad .
Everything , that is , short of reporting the plain , obvious and unbearable truth : the president ordered a man ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That reporters and editors in Washington , D.C , find ways to avoid seeing the plain truth was brought to mind by this morning ’ s Wall Street Journal .
In a piece about the president ’ s new national security team—how its “ cohesion ” resulted in Soleimani ’ s assassination—seven esteemed reporters committed one of journalism ’ s professional sins .
They buried the lede .
Nearly 30 paragraphs into a 2,200-word story , they said : Now , these are unnamed sources .
They were speaking on background .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of this .
But in context , it matters—so much so , it warrants its own reporting , which we have not yet seen .
That context would be the absence of legitimate non-political reasons for ordering Soleimani ’ s death .
In all the reporting I ’ ve read , administration officials can ’ t keep their stories straight .
On the one hand , that suggests no good reason .
On the other , that suggests the most obvious one .
The buried lede suggests something else worth exploring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in seeking to please Republican senators who will sit in judgement of him during the impeachment trial .
It may be that a Republican senator—Lindsey Graham comes to mind—encouraged the president to act on Soleimani .
In that case , we would have to face yet another unbearable truth : some Republicans in the United States Senate are conspiring with the president in defrauding the people to maintain power .
Though unbearable , it ’ s plain and it ’ s obvious .
The Republicans really are dumping constitutional principles once dearly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Graham and other Republicans declared their intent to violate preemptively the oath all impeachment jurors take to “ do impartial justice , according to the Constitution and law.
” Graham and Mitch McConnell , the current Senate majority leader , were highly principled during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton .
Now that the defendant is a Republican , however , those principles are beside the point .
Both worked hard to ensure Trump a rapid acquittal without his having to work too hard for it .
What ’ s good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not a matter of hypocrisy .
I can ’ t stress that enough , because that ’ s another unbearable truth .
There are two value systems , according to the Republican theory and practice .
There is one set of laws , rules and norms for Republicans .
There ’ s another set for Democrats .
One protects .
One punishes .
The GOP benefits enormously when the press corps sees just one .
It seemed hypocritical when Rand Paul , a Republican senator , said yesterday he was ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials told him and GOP Senator Mike Lee not to talk about military intervention in Iran .
Lee said “ it was un-American .
It ’ s unconstitutional .
And it ’ s wrong.
” Their Democratic colleagues might have thought they prepared to support the conviction of Trump for the same offense .
Lee made it clear he wasn ’ t .
He told Fox News Thursday the president is the best .
Again , this isn ’ t hypocrisy .
According to Republican theory and practice , Republicans get to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the right to respect and deference .
Democrats do not .
When the Republicans impeached a Democrat , they stood on high moral ground .
When the Democrats impeached a Republican , according to Republicans , the Democrats did no such thing .
The Republican got to call witnesses .
Democrats do not .
There are two value systems—separate and unequal .
That , to me , is not just a plain truth .
It ’ s not just an unbearable truth .
It ’ s a pernicious truth .
The Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain power—like permitting foreign interference and encouraging acts of war , not to mention suppressing the vote and enshrining minority rule in constitutional and statutory law—even if those acts slowly eat away the foundations of our democratic covenant .
Now imagine the press corps reporting the obvious truth .
I think things would be different .

The plain truth can often be so obvious as to be invisible. That’s my more charitable interpretation of the press corps’ coverage of Qassem Soleimani’s assassination. My less charitable interpretation? Reporters and editors in Washington, D.C., will find a way to avoid seeing the plain truth because the plain truth is too unbearable to see.
This article was originally published at The Editorial Board
It would be unbearable to think the president ordered a man dead in order to give Republican Senators a means of defending him against an indictment for abuse of power and obstruction. It would be unthinkable for him to bring America to the brink of war in order to create an image of a “war president” too indispensable to remove.
As a result, the press corps has been busy this week reporting in granular detail virtually every aspect of Donald Trump’s decision last week to target and kill Iran’s top general in Baghdad. Everything, that is, short of reporting the plain, obvious and unbearable truth: the president ordered a man’s death because he was impeached.
That reporters and editors in Washington, D.C, find ways to avoid seeing the plain truth was brought to mind by this morning’s Wall Street Journal. In a piece about the president’s new national security team—how its “cohesion” resulted in Soleimani’s assassination—seven esteemed reporters committed one of journalism’s professional sins. They buried the lede. Nearly 30 paragraphs into a 2,200-word story, they said:
Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said (my italics).
Now, these are unnamed sources. They were speaking on background. In isolation, I wouldn’t make much of this. But in context, it matters—so much so, it warrants its own reporting, which we have not yet seen. That context would be the absence of legitimate non-political reasons for ordering Soleimani’s death. In all the reporting I’ve read, administration officials can’t keep their stories straight. On the one hand, that suggests no good reason. On the other, that suggests the most obvious one.
The buried lede suggests something else worth exploring. The president may not have been alone in seeking to please Republican senators who will sit in judgement of him during the impeachment trial. It may be that a Republican senator—Lindsey Graham comes to mind—encouraged the president to act on Soleimani. In that case, we would have to face yet another unbearable truth: some Republicans in the United States Senate are conspiring with the president in defrauding the people to maintain power.
Though unbearable, it’s plain and it’s obvious. The Republicans really are dumping constitutional principles once dearly and closely held for the sake of power. Graham and other Republicans declared their intent to violate preemptively the oath all impeachment jurors take to “do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and law.” Graham and Mitch McConnell, the current Senate majority leader, were highly principled during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Now that the defendant is a Republican, however, those principles are beside the point. Both worked hard to ensure Trump a rapid acquittal without his having to work too hard for it.
What’s good for Clinton is not good for Trump—that’s not a matter of hypocrisy. I can’t stress that enough, because that’s another unbearable truth. There are two value systems, according to the Republican theory and practice. There is one set of laws, rules and norms for Republicans. There’s another set for Democrats. One protects. One punishes. The GOP benefits enormously when the press corps sees just one.
It seemed hypocritical when Rand Paul, a Republican senator, said yesterday he was ready to debate separations of powers after administration officials told him and GOP Senator Mike Lee not to talk about military intervention in Iran. Lee said “it was un-American. It's unconstitutional. And it's wrong.” Their Democratic colleagues might have thought they prepared to support the conviction of Trump for the same offense. Lee made it clear he wasn’t. He told Fox News Thursday the president is the best.
Again, this isn’t hypocrisy. According to Republican theory and practice, Republicans get to be principled. Democrats do not. Republicans have the right to respect and deference. Democrats do not. When the Republicans impeached a Democrat, they stood on high moral ground. When the Democrats impeached a Republican, according to Republicans, the Democrats did no such thing. The Republican got to call witnesses. Democrats do not. There are two value systems—separate and unequal.
That, to me, is not just a plain truth. It’s not just an unbearable truth. It’s a pernicious truth. The Republican Party can and will commit unthinkable acts to maintain power—like permitting foreign interference and encouraging acts of war, not to mention suppressing the vote and enshrining minority rule in constitutional and statutory law—even if those acts slowly eat away the foundations of our democratic covenant.
Now imagine the press corps reporting the obvious truth.
I think things would be different.


rawstory--2020-01-10--How real is the threat of cyberwar between Iran and the US?

The world shook at the news in early January that a US drone strike had killed Iran ’ s top military general , Qassem Soleimani , outside Baghdad ’ s airport .
According to the Pentagon , the attack was conducted as a decisive defensive action at the direction of President Donald Trump to protect US personnel abroad .
The supreme leader of Iran , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for “ severe revenge ” for Soleimani ’ s death and on January 8 , Iran launched missiles against US military bases in Iraq in retaliation .
There are widespread concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the two countries .
Considering the importance of information networks and cyberspace for our everyday lives , there is also concern that this conflict might not only take place in the physical world but could take the form of cyber-attacks .
These could have serious consequences , particularly since Iran has demonstrated an increase in its cyber-capability in the past decade .
The most memorable cyber-attack between Iran and the US was the Stuxnet virus which infected Iranian uranium enrichment facilities and caused their centrifuges to malfunction in 2010 .
Although no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered to be the work of state-supported US and Israeli experts .
At the moment , US cyberwarfare capabilities are multifaceted , organised and of a very high level .
In October 2019 , US officials told Reuters the US had launched a secret cyber-operation against Iran ’ s propaganda infrastructure following an alleged Iranian drone and missile attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities .
On the other side , it was discovered in 2013 that Iranian hackers who allegedly perform work for the Iranian government had penetrated the computer controls of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These same hackers also launched cyber-attacks against dozens of large financial institutions and blocked customers from accessing their accounts online .
In the current climate , Iran could consider using its cyber-attack capability as part of its retaliation for the killing of Soleimani .
Acknowledging the possibility of a spate of cyber-attacks from Iran-affiliated parties , US Homeland Security warned US companies to consider and assess the possible impact such an attack could have on their business .
Contrary to these concerns , Iran ’ s capability to launch major cyber-attacks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US population has been downplayed by some cybersecurity experts .
Others have argued that cyber-attacks might not be aggressive enough retaliation for Iran , which is more vulnerable than it is capable online .
It ’ s one thing to talk about cyber-attacks by hackers with a political or nationalist motivation – of which there has been a reported increase in the wake of Soleimani ’ s death .
But it ’ s another issue altogether to talk about acts that are so forceful and monumental that they could amount to cyberwar .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount to taking control of critical infrastructure to disable military targets or seriously harm sections of the public .
Acts of war involve states and relate to actions led by governments or military forces .
But it ’ s often difficult to attribute a certain cyber-attack to a particular government .
Attacks can be perpetrated at a distance and by hacker groups not openly employed by the government involved .
Under international law , countries can legitimately defend themselves if they come under armed attack – which could include an equally serious cyber-attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to respond to cyber-attacks with military force .
But the justification for any counter-strike would be weakened if it ’ s unclear whether the state accused of being behind a cyber-attack had explicit knowledge that the attack was going on .
In the current climate , there is a serious concern that a cyber-attack – even if it ’ s not successful – could lead to physical retaliation .
The memory of an Israeli missile attack in May 2019 against Hamas hackers , accused by the Israeli Defence Force of attacking Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US believed that Iran was imminently about to target critical infrastructure in a cyber-attack , this could provide legitimate justification under international law for a pre-emptive physical strike against Iranian targets .
But judging when an attack is imminent in cyberspace is challenging : a serious cyber-attack could be planned well in advance or be executed very quickly .
Although the immediate threat of further military violence between the US and Iran seems to be diffusing , the fallout from the strike on Soleimani is taking place in a new era of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war and international law are constantly evolving .
Although the world is yet to see a government admit to launching a cyber-attack so grave that it ’ s been considered an act of war by the target country , the potential for such attacks does exist .
Even if such capabilities are not used , the threat of them could provide justification for physical counterattacks with destructive results in future conflicts .
By Vasileios Karagiannopoulos , Reader in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity , University of Portsmouth This article is republished from The Conversation under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original article .

The world shook at the news in early January that a US drone strike had killed Iran’s top military general, Qassem Soleimani, outside Baghdad’s airport. According to the Pentagon, the attack was conducted as a decisive defensive action at the direction of President Donald Trump to protect US personnel abroad.
The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for “severe revenge” for Soleimani’s death and on January 8, Iran launched missiles against US military bases in Iraq in retaliation.
There are widespread concerns that these events might fuel further conflict between the two countries. Considering the importance of information networks and cyberspace for our everyday lives, there is also concern that this conflict might not only take place in the physical world but could take the form of cyber-attacks. These could have serious consequences, particularly since Iran has demonstrated an increase in its cyber-capability in the past decade.
Cyber capabilities
The most memorable cyber-attack between Iran and the US was the Stuxnet virus which infected Iranian uranium enrichment facilities and caused their centrifuges to malfunction in 2010. Although no country claimed responsibility, it is widely considered to be the work of state-supported US and Israeli experts.
At the moment, US cyberwarfare capabilities are multifaceted, organised and of a very high level. In October 2019, US officials told Reuters the US had launched a secret cyber-operation against Iran’s propaganda infrastructure following an alleged Iranian drone and missile attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities.
On the other side, it was discovered in 2013 that Iranian hackers who allegedly perform work for the Iranian government had penetrated the computer controls of a small dam north of New York city. These same hackers also launched cyber-attacks against dozens of large financial institutions and blocked customers from accessing their accounts online.
In the current climate, Iran could consider using its cyber-attack capability as part of its retaliation for the killing of Soleimani. Acknowledging the possibility of a spate of cyber-attacks from Iran-affiliated parties, US Homeland Security warned US companies to consider and assess the possible impact such an attack could have on their business.
Contrary to these concerns, Iran’s capability to launch major cyber-attacks that could affect a large part of the US population has been downplayed by some cybersecurity experts. Others have argued that cyber-attacks might not be aggressive enough retaliation for Iran, which is more vulnerable than it is capable online.
It’s one thing to talk about cyber-attacks by hackers with a political or nationalist motivation – of which there has been a reported increase in the wake of Soleimani’s death. But it’s another issue altogether to talk about acts that are so forceful and monumental that they could amount to cyberwar.
Cyberwarfare is far more serious and could amount to taking control of critical infrastructure to disable military targets or seriously harm sections of the public. Acts of war involve states and relate to actions led by governments or military forces. But it’s often difficult to attribute a certain cyber-attack to a particular government. Attacks can be perpetrated at a distance and by hacker groups not openly employed by the government involved.
Under international law, countries can legitimately defend themselves if they come under armed attack – which could include an equally serious cyber-attack. The US has explicitly reserved the right to respond to cyber-attacks with military force. But the justification for any counter-strike would be weakened if it’s unclear whether the state accused of being behind a cyber-attack had explicit knowledge that the attack was going on.
From cyber to physical attacks
In the current climate, there is a serious concern that a cyber-attack – even if it’s not successful – could lead to physical retaliation. The memory of an Israeli missile attack in May 2019 against Hamas hackers, accused by the Israeli Defence Force of attacking Israeli targets, is still fresh.
If the US believed that Iran was imminently about to target critical infrastructure in a cyber-attack, this could provide legitimate justification under international law for a pre-emptive physical strike against Iranian targets. But judging when an attack is imminent in cyberspace is challenging: a serious cyber-attack could be planned well in advance or be executed very quickly.
Although the immediate threat of further military violence between the US and Iran seems to be diffusing, the fallout from the strike on Soleimani is taking place in a new era of modern warfare, where basic notions of war and international law are constantly evolving.
Although the world is yet to see a government admit to launching a cyber-attack so grave that it’s been considered an act of war by the target country, the potential for such attacks does exist. Even if such capabilities are not used, the threat of them could provide justification for physical counterattacks with destructive results in future conflicts.
By Vasileios Karagiannopoulos, Reader in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity, University of Portsmouth
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


rawstory--2020-01-10--Boy kills teacher, self in Mexico school shooting

An 11-year-old boy shot and killed his teacher Friday at a school in northern Mexico and wounded six other people , then killed himself , authorities said .
The wounded — five pupils and a physical education teacher — were taken to a local hospital , where they were in stable condition , said Governor Miguel Angel Riquelme of the state of Coahuila , which borders the United States .
Panicked parents rushed to the private elementary school , the Colegio Cervantes , as officials evacuated the trim brick building and police and soldiers put it on lockdown .
Riquelme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to the bathroom shortly after the school day began .
When he did not return after about 15 minutes , his teacher , a 50-year-old woman , went to see if anything was wrong .
He emerged from the bathroom with two guns and opened fire , killing his teacher and wounding the group of six , who were passing through the hallway , before shooting himself , Riquelme said .
“ We deeply regret this incident… which is shocking for us all , ” the governor told a news conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this sort of thing is not the norm in our schools.
” Mexico is more used to seeing school shootings in the neighboring United States than up close .
However , the incident was not without precedent .
In 2014 , a 15-year-old shot and killed a schoolmate in central Mexico State , and in 2017 a 15-year-old shot and wounded four classmates at a high school in the northern city of Monterrey .
Riquelme said the boy had not shown behavioral problems , but had told classmates that “ today was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the first-person shooter video game “ Natural Selection.
” In the bathroom , he changed into a T-shirt with “ Natural Selection ” written on it before carrying out the shooting , said state prosecutor Gerardo Marquez .
“ Natural Selection ” was also written on a T-shirt worn by one of the shooters at Columbine High School in 1999 , when two students killed 13 schoolmates and then themselves .
The video game , whose first edition was released in 2002 , has no direct link with the Columbine shooting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said : “ We have to follow every possible line of investigation , and that is one of them.
” The student , who was in his final year of elementary school , lived with his grandparents and made good grades , officials said .

An 11-year-old boy shot and killed his teacher Friday at a school in northern Mexico and wounded six other people, then killed himself, authorities said.
The wounded -- five pupils and a physical education teacher -- were taken to a local hospital, where they were in stable condition, said Governor Miguel Angel Riquelme of the state of Coahuila, which borders the United States.
Panicked parents rushed to the private elementary school, the Colegio Cervantes, as officials evacuated the trim brick building and police and soldiers put it on lockdown.
Riquelme said the student had asked for permission to go to the bathroom shortly after the school day began. When he did not return after about 15 minutes, his teacher, a 50-year-old woman, went to see if anything was wrong.
He emerged from the bathroom with two guns and opened fire, killing his teacher and wounding the group of six, who were passing through the hallway, before shooting himself, Riquelme said.
"We deeply regret this incident... which is shocking for us all," the governor told a news conference.
"I want to reiterate that this sort of thing is not the norm in our schools."
Mexico is more used to seeing school shootings in the neighboring United States than up close.
However, the incident was not without precedent. In 2014, a 15-year-old shot and killed a schoolmate in central Mexico State, and in 2017 a 15-year-old shot and wounded four classmates at a high school in the northern city of Monterrey.
- Video game? Columbine? -
Riquelme said the boy had not shown behavioral problems, but had told classmates that "today was the today," and talked to them about the first-person shooter video game "Natural Selection."
In the bathroom, he changed into a T-shirt with "Natural Selection" written on it before carrying out the shooting, said state prosecutor Gerardo Marquez.
"Natural Selection" was also written on a T-shirt worn by one of the shooters at Columbine High School in 1999, when two students killed 13 schoolmates and then themselves.
The video game, whose first edition was released in 2002, has no direct link with the Columbine shooting.
As for a possible link with Columbine, he said: "We have to follow every possible line of investigation, and that is one of them."
The student, who was in his final year of elementary school, lived with his grandparents and made good grades, officials said.
© 2020 AFP


rawstory--2020-01-10--Spiritualist Marianne Williamson ends improbable White House run

Marianne Williamson , the spiritualist author who urged fellow Americans to speak in deeper truths about the need for compassion and “ moral repair ” in politics , announced Friday she is ending her longshot 2020 presidential run .
The 67-year-old self-empowerment advocate and sometime Oprah Winfrey advisor gained little traction in the crowded field and failed to qualify for most of the Democratic debates , leaving her unable “ to garner enough votes in the election to elevate our conversation any more than it is now , ” she said in a statement .
“ As of today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , ” Williamson said .
Williamson , like President Donald Trump , never before ran for public office but used her personal celebrity as a stepping stone to politics .
She earned a combination of respect and ridicule for suggesting a “ dark psychic force ” was threatening America under Trump ’ s presidency .
At a July debate , Williamson caught Americans off guard when she offered a clear-eyed denunciation not just of Trumpism , but an inability of Democrats to tap into the frustrations everyday Americans have about economic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the race , Williamson said she hoped other campaigns might embrace her ideas , from “ creation of a more mindful politics , to changing from an economic to a humanitarian bottom line , to initiating a season of moral repair .
”

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"I mean, can you imagine if any other presidential candidate in recent decades, [George W.] Bush, [Mitt] Romney, [Barack] Obama had multiple supporters using in getting killed by law enforcement committing violent crimes?" he asked at the top of his Sunday show. "Those candidates' campaigns would be over before they began. But with Trump, we shrug. We accept it as just the way things are now. We should not. We cannot. We have to call it out. We have to condemn the violence and the incitement of violence. We have to take steps to prevent it from escalating out of all control. The threat of civil war of domestic conflict is no longer hyperbole. And so we just cannot afford to normalize political violence, and the threat of political violence in this country just because Donald Trump benefits from it and the Republican Party seems totally fine with it."
Barbara F. Walter, author of "How Civil Wars Start" penned an op-ed in The Guardian warning that the United States is a lot closer to such a conflict than the world seems willing to acknowledge.
Speaking to Hasan, she explained that most internal wars aren't like the U.S. civil war in the mid-1800s with two powerful armies attacking each other.
"In fact, the majority of civil wars, especially in the 21st century, or more, are what we call insurgencies," she said. "They are unconventional wars fought by multiple different militias. They use terrorism tactics. They don't try to engage the military. Instead, they take violence off into civilians, opposition leaders and judges who might be sympathetic with the opposition. That is the norm for civil wars, and we have been seeing an uptick in this type of violence for a number of years."
She went on to say that when people hear about attacks being "portrayed in the media as idiosyncratic or isolated or the result of someone who is unhinged or a bit crazy," they likely aren't as isolated as thought.
"Most of them since 2008 have been part of the far-right, and they are often times targeting minorities: African Americans, Latinos and Jews," she said.
Walter also said that most people understand who starts such wars and they're not the everyday working person. They typically are those who can afford financially and professionally to rebel.
See the conversation in the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-10--Blood in the water: Trump’s impeachment trial is finally coming — and vulnerable Republicans are und

Blood in the water: Trump’s impeachment trial is finally coming — and vulnerable Republicans are under pressure

It ’ s not hard to understand why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence were able to persuade President Trump to dramatically escalate tensions with Iran by assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
All you had to do was read Trump ’ s Twitter feed over his long holiday break at Mar-a-Lago to see that he was nearly hysterical over the impeachment , stressed beyond his limits and clearly vulnerable to any suggestion that would give him a sense of control over his destiny .
There ’ s nothing like military action to make a leader feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was originally published at Salon Unfortunately for the president , the turbocharged news cycle of this era offered him only a short respite from his troubles .
Pulled back from the brink of war , mostly due to the restrained response of the Iranians , impeachment headlines returned the minute former national security adviser John Bolton made the surprising announcement that he would be willing to testify if the Senate subpoenaed him .
( Before the Trump era , responding to subpoenas was not considered optional , but now we know that presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pound sand and basically that ’ s that . )
The stand-off between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the conduct of the trial has been an epic contest of wills between two of the most formidable congressional leaders in American history .
Of the two , Pelosi was dealt the weaker hand since she only has half of Congress while the Republicans have both the Senate and the presidency .
But she ’ s kept her caucus together , which is no mean feat in itself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit out of her delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate .
Since the impeachment vote , we ’ ve had Rudy Giuliani running back and forth to Ukraine , demonstrating for all the world that this scheme to smear Joe Biden and the Democrats with corruption charges and an alternate 2016 election interference scandal is ongoing .
He attended parties at Mar-a-Lago over the holidays and bizarrely told the press that he would like to “ try the case ” in the Senate when the press asked if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there have also been revelations about Giuliani and Trump ’ s indicted “ associates ” Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , with reporting about hidden Russian money and hints that it might have been paying Giuliani ’ s fees .
( He says he works for Trump pro bono . )
Parnas is desperate to talk to the House Intelligence Committee and wants to make a deal .
It turns out Parnas and Fruman were involved in potentially lucrative side deals to sell large quantities of liquefied natural gas from Texas to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch .
In a mind-boggling interview with New York Magazine , Giuliani said in one breath that he has no business in Ukraine and then admits “ I ’ ve done two business deals in Ukraine .
I ’ ve sought four or five others.
” So perhaps this was one of them .
Right before Christmas , new emails were revealed under Freedom of Information Act requests that showed Trump political appointee Mike Duffey , the White House official in the Office of Management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money , telling people that the hold on military aid to Ukraine was at the personal direction of the president .
And just before the New Year , the New York Times published a deep dive into what was happening in the White House last summer when Trump and Giuliani were pushing their plot .
We learned for the first time that the Pentagon pushed hard for the money and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Bolton met privately with Trump in August to try to persuade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America ’ s national interest .
Trump was unmoved .
Just this week , as I mentioned above , Bolton sent a letter saying that he would testify if the Senate subpoenaed him .
( He also mentioned that he ’ d talked it over with McConnell , which suggests to me that he is not on the up and up . )
Nonetheless , if his intention is to cover for Trump he would have to call a whole bunch of people liars , since they all testified that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that Giuliani and Trump were cooking up .
All of this has happened since the impeachment vote and every one of the vulnerable Republican senators up for re-election this year has to wonder what other crimes they ’ ll be defending next fall if they vote to acquit now without even a semblance of a real trial .
At least if they have witnesses , they can say they did their duty as they saw it .
Trump himself insists that he wants witnesses — but then , he also insisted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wanted to release his tax returns .
One remaining question is whether or not the president will insist on sending in his henchmen from the House , like Jim Jordan of Ohio , John Ratcliffe of Texas and Doug Collins of Georgia , as part of his defense team in a Senate trial .
According to the Washington Post , the senators are not enthusiastic about the House riffraff making a scene .
McConnell has supposedly told the White House that their histrionics might offend the moderates .
But Trump still wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who knows ?
On Thursday a number of news organizations reported that Pelosi is preparing to send over the articles as early as Friday , which suggests the trial will probably commence next week .
McConnell has at least capitulated to the request that there will be a vote to call witnesses after the House presents its case , and there appears to be some openness to that among the so-called moderates .
That was not a given in the beginning .
Putting some distance between the hearings and the trial will make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as opportunity to reframe the question around what the White House is hiding by refusing to allow Bolton , Duffey , acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others to testify .
As for the public , the latest Morning Consult/Economist poll shows that 57 percent of registered voters think there should be witnesses .
Even Republicans are split .
Still , according to this article in Politico , Trump ’ s base simply doesn ’ t care what he ’ s done .
They see him as an authentic man of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his enemies .
One man is even quoted saying , “ It feels like he is our O.J.
” That sounds about right .

It's not hard to understand why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence were able to persuade President Trump to dramatically escalate tensions with Iran by assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani. All you had to do was read Trump's Twitter feed over his long holiday break at Mar-a-Lago to see that he was nearly hysterical over the impeachment, stressed beyond his limits and clearly vulnerable to any suggestion that would give him a sense of control over his destiny. There’s nothing like military action to make a leader feel strong and in charge.
This article was originally published at Salon
Unfortunately for the president, the turbocharged news cycle of this era offered him only a short respite from his troubles. Pulled back from the brink of war, mostly due to the restrained response of the Iranians, impeachment headlines returned the minute former national security adviser John Bolton made the surprising announcement that he would be willing to testify if the Senate subpoenaed him. (Before the Trump era, responding to subpoenas was not considered optional, but now we know that presidential VIPs can tell the Congress to go pound sand and basically that’s that.)
The stand-off between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the conduct of the trial has been an epic contest of wills between two of the most formidable congressional leaders in American history. Of the two, Pelosi was dealt the weaker hand since she only has half of Congress while the Republicans have both the Senate and the presidency. But she’s kept her caucus together, which is no mean feat in itself, and has managed to squeeze quite a bit out of her delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Since the impeachment vote, we've had Rudy Giuliani running back and forth to Ukraine, demonstrating for all the world that this scheme to smear Joe Biden and the Democrats with corruption charges and an alternate 2016 election interference scandal is ongoing. He attended parties at Mar-a-Lago over the holidays and bizarrely told the press that he would like to “try the case” in the Senate when the press asked if he would testify.
Since that momentous vote, there have also been revelations about Giuliani and Trump’s indicted “associates” Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, with reporting about hidden Russian money and hints that it might have been paying Giuliani’s fees. (He says he works for Trump pro bono.) Parnas is desperate to talk to the House Intelligence Committee and wants to make a deal. It turns out Parnas and Fruman were involved in potentially lucrative side deals to sell large quantities of liquefied natural gas from Texas to Ukraine in exchange for the firing of the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
In a mind-boggling interview with New York Magazine, Giuliani said in one breath that he has no business in Ukraine and then admits “I’ve done two business deals in Ukraine. I’ve sought four or five others.” So perhaps this was one of them.
Right before Christmas, new emails were revealed under Freedom of Information Act requests that showed Trump political appointee Mike Duffey, the White House official in the Office of Management and Budget responsible for overseeing national security money, telling people that the hold on military aid to Ukraine was at the personal direction of the president.
And just before the New Year, the New York Times published a deep dive into what was happening in the White House last summer when Trump and Giuliani were pushing their plot. We learned for the first time that the Pentagon pushed hard for the money and that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Bolton met privately with Trump in August to try to persuade him that withholding the aid was not in America’s national interest. Trump was unmoved.
Just this week, as I mentioned above, Bolton sent a letter saying that he would testify if the Senate subpoenaed him. (He also mentioned that he’d talked it over with McConnell, which suggests to me that he is not on the up and up.) Nonetheless, if his intention is to cover for Trump he would have to call a whole bunch of people liars, since they all testified that he was extremely agitated about the “drug deal” that Giuliani and Trump were cooking up.
All of this has happened since the impeachment vote and every one of the vulnerable Republican senators up for re-election this year has to wonder what other crimes they’ll be defending next fall if they vote to acquit now without even a semblance of a real trial. At least if they have witnesses, they can say they did their duty as they saw it.
Trump himself insists that he wants witnesses — but then, he also insisted that he wanted to talk to Robert Mueller and wanted to release his tax returns. One remaining question is whether or not the president will insist on sending in his henchmen from the House, like Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Ratcliffe of Texas and Doug Collins of Georgia, as part of his defense team in a Senate trial. According to the Washington Post, the senators are not enthusiastic about the House riffraff making a scene. McConnell has supposedly told the White House that their histrionics might offend the moderates. But Trump still wants some kind of a show, so who knows?
On Thursday a number of news organizations reported that Pelosi is preparing to send over the articles as early as Friday, which suggests the trial will probably commence next week. McConnell has at least capitulated to the request that there will be a vote to call witnesses after the House presents its case, and there appears to be some openness to that among the so-called moderates. That was not a given in the beginning. Putting some distance between the hearings and the trial will make the evidence seem fresher and gives Democrats as opportunity to reframe the question around what the White House is hiding by refusing to allow Bolton, Duffey, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others to testify.
As for the public, the latest Morning Consult/Economist poll shows that 57 percent of registered voters think there should be witnesses. Even Republicans are split.
Still, according to this article in Politico, Trump’s base simply doesn’t care what he’s done. They see him as an authentic man of the people who is being unfairly harassed by his enemies. One man is even quoted saying, “It feels like he is our O.J.” That sounds about right.


rawstory--2020-01-10--‘A historical turning point’: Paul Krugman warns that disaster in Australia is a sign we’re ‘barreli

‘A historical turning point’: Paul Krugman warns that disaster in Australia is a sign we’re ‘barreling down the road to hell’

Although wildfires were causing death and destruction long before climate change , such disasters are getting worse : more common , more widespread , more intense .
Climate change didn ’ t invent wildfires any more than it invented hurricanes , floods or tornadoes , but it is making them worse .
Liberal economist and New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman , in a scathing column this week , warns that extreme events like the wildfires that have been devastating Australia are a preview of things to come — and he stresses that right-wing politicians who deny the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat as the events themselves .
“ In a rational world , ” Krugman writes , “ the burning of Australia would be a historical turning point .
After all , it ’ s exactly the kind of catastrophe climate scientists long warned us to expect if we didn ’ t take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
” But Krugman goes on to lament that “ the world isn ’ t rational .
In fact , Australia ’ s anti-environmentalist government seems utterly unmoved as the nightmares of environmentalists become reality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ empire in particular , has gone all-out on disinformation , trying to place the blame on arsonists and ‘ greenies ’ who won ’ t let fire services get rid of enough trees.
” The “ Murdoch empire ” Krugman is referring to is , of course , the one led by 88-year-old media mogul Rupert Murdoch , a Melbourne , Australia native and founder of Fox News ’ parent company , News Corp. One of the silliest talking points at News Corp. is that environmentalists are largely to blame for the Australian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trees that are now burning .
As destructive as the Australian wildfires have been , Krugman warns , diehard climate change deniers are unlikely to be swayed by science .
“ If a nation in flames isn ’ t enough to produce a consensus for action — if it isn ’ t even enough to produce some moderation in the anti-environmentalist position — what will ?
” Krugman asserts .
“ The Australia experience suggests that climate denial will persist come hell or high water — that is , through devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right-wing climate change deniers , according to Krugman , are as problematic in Canberra ( the Australian capital ) as they are in Washington , D.C. “ Very few of the people still denying the reality of climate change or at least opposing doing anything about it will be moved by further accumulation of evidence , or even by a proliferation of new disasters , ” Krugman warns .
“ Any action that does take place will have to do so in the face of intractable right-wing opposition.
” One possible solution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters ’ self-interest by promoting the economic and job-creating benefits of a Green New Deal .
“ Can such a strategy succeed ?
” Krugman asks .
“ I don ’ t know .
But it looks like our only chance given the political reality in Australia , America , and elsewhere — namely , that powerful forces on the right are determined to keep us barreling down the road to hell .
”

Trained in political science and the law, he has no formal education in disaster preparedness or response. And prior to his current role, he never held a full-time job dedicated to emergency management.
Instead, his main qualification was being chief of staff to then-mayor Alan Arakawa. But in that role, he told Civil Beat Tuesday, he assisted during emergency operations. And he said he participated in online FEMA trainings and workshops throughout the years.
In 2017, Andaya beat out 40 other applicants for the job, Maui Now reported at the time.
As the mayor’s administration was coming to a close, a panel of government officials – which said it was independent of the mayor – chose Andaya for the civil service role.
Civil Beat reviewed Andaya’s experience after historic Lahaina was swallowed by an inferno last week, killing scores of residents and visitors who never saw it coming.
The Maui Emergency Management Agency had the authority to issue siren warnings that might have alerted people. After Andaya’s agency decided not to sound them, many survivors reported they only became aware of the fire when they saw and smelled smoke.
Andaya said sounding the sirens wasn’t an option officials considered because they’re “mainly used for tsunamis.” That’s why they’re mostly located on the coast, he said.
But the state’s own website says the sirens are useful for many kinds of emergencies.
“The all-hazard siren system can be used for a variety of both natural and human-caused events; including tsunamis, hurricanes, dam breaches, flooding, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, terrorist threats, hazardous material incidents, and more,” the site states.
Andaya wasn’t on the island when the fires started, and he hasn’t made any appearances at press conferences since the disaster occurred.
Asked about Andaya’s resume, David Hafner, a retired telecommunications planner for the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, questioned whether his relative inexperience affected his agency’s performance in a crisis.
“It’s a good ol’ boy network,” Hafner said. “This time it cost lives.”
Hafner said it’s “absolutely essential” for emergency management leaders to have experience in the field so they make the right decisions both before and after disasters strike.
Not having it, he said, “can lead to grave mistakes in judgment.”
Andaya’s hiring came at a time when Hawaii’s counties had just taken on increased responsibility for disaster response, according to Hafner. State emergency management officials used to be the designated authority to respond to emergencies, he said, but an update to the law in 2014 put the counties in the driver’s seat.
Asked about Andaya’s LinkedIn resume, Colin Moore, a political scientist at the University of Hawaii, said he was shocked by the emergency administrator’s lack of relevant experience. He said the public is owed an explanation.
“It’s a legitimate question to ask why the person leading the county emergency services agency has no clear background in fire, police, public health, the usual emergency services backgrounds,” he said.
“Having that on-the-ground experience, you develop the instincts and the connections to be able to perform a job like this. And if you just have general government experience, there is just no opportunity to have that kind of on-the-ground knowledge that often is really useful in a crisis.”
Andaya said as a former member of the mayor’s cabinet, he was qualified for the job.
“Whenever there was an activation in the emergency operations center, we were involved,” he said. “To say that I have no experience or no background in emergency management is not correct.”
‘Political Influence’ A Concern
Andaya, 52, is from Maui and graduated from HP Baldwin High School.
He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from the University of Hawaii Manoa. He also has a law degree from the UH Richardson School of Law, although he never became a licensed attorney, according to the Hawaii State Bar Association’s online database.
He began his career clerking for Maui Judge Artemio Baxa. He then worked for the law office of Lynn Araki-Regan, an attorney who is the wife of Arakawa’s managing director, Keith Regan.
When Andaya vacated his position as chief of staff, it was filled by Araki-Regan, who was by then the county budget director. Regan said he had no involvement in Andaya’s hiring.
From the early 2000s onward, Andaya has held leadership positions in Maui’s Department of Housing and Human Concerns and worked as the assistant to the chancellor of UH’s Maui College, according to his LinkedIn resume. He is married to Rowena Dagdag-Andaya, a former elementary school teacher who served as Maui’s public works director and now works in Maui’s Office on Aging.
Andaya was Arakawa’s chief of staff from 2011 through 2017. That year, the mayor appointed him acting administrator of MEMA, and he became permanent by the end of that year.
In contrast, Honolulu’s emergency management director, Hiro Toiya, has technical training in emergency response, worked for years as a preparedness planner for the Hawaii health department and rose up the ranks of Honolulu’s Department of Emergency Management. He worked there for more than seven years before becoming the director.
Asked how he stood out among a pool of 40 job candidates, Andaya said Maui doesn’t have a lot of emergency management professionals to begin with. He noted that he had to take an exam and based on his score was determined to be a finalist.
“You would have to question the civil service process if you can believe that politics was involved,” he said. “This is something that my predecessors have to go through as well.”
Before Andaya was hired, there were concerns in Maui’s political scene that the county was considering someone who wasn’t qualified.
“In the past, this position has sometimes been filled by individuals without the proper emergency response background.”
Former Maui County Council Chairman Mike White
In July 2017, the chair of the Maui County Council at the time, Mike White, took the unusual step of writing a Maui News column warning that the job of emergency management was too important to be “subject to political influence.”
“In the past, this position has sometimes been filled by individuals without the proper emergency response background,” White wrote.
“The administration must search for well-qualified candidates who can make a seamless transition in leading our Emergency Management Agency. The stakes are too high and our community has grown to a point where emergency coordination has become quite sophisticated in its implementation.”
In his column, White praised the outgoing emergency management chief, Anna Foust, who had previously worked for years leading the Maui branch of the Red Cross. White emphasized her expertise.
“During her tenure, she used her emergency response experience and training to help guide the county to keep citizens safe during hurricane warnings and watches, flooding events and tsunami warnings,” White wrote.
Civil Beat wasn’t able to reach White for comment.
Panel Of Specialists Chose Andaya
On Tuesday, Arakawa’s former managing director, Keith Regan, said that politics was not a factor in Andaya’s hiring. Asked why Andaya was the best candidate, Regan said he didn’t know because he wasn’t on the hiring committee. But he was adamant there was “zero” political influence in the process.
“This was a straightforward civil service process,” said Regan, who is now the state comptroller.
When Regan ran for Maui County Council in 2015, Andaya was his campaign manager. This year, Andaya wrote a letter of support of Regan’s nomination to state comptroller.
Regan noted that the hiring panel included numerous experts in the field. Maui Now identified them at the time as then-Maui Police Chief Tivoli Faaumu; then-Maui Fire Chief Jeff Murray; Elton Ushio, administrator of the Kauai Emergency Management Agency; and Vern Miyagi, then-administrator of the Hawaii State Emergency Management Agency.
At the time, Ushio was quoted by Maui Now as saying Andaya’s “proven leadership abilities, executive level experience, and impressive knowledge of emergency management” made him a great fit for the job. Murray cited Andaya’s familiarity with government processes, his “institutional knowledge of the various emergency incidents” in recent years, and his then-recent work as acting leader of the department.
“These are not people that, you know, are just political people,” Regan said. “They’re people who understand emergency management and are going to make the right choice for the community.”
In a statement, former HI-EMA director Miyagi said the public’s focus should be on working together on response and recovery.
“Herman Andaya and his staff at MEMA are really good people,” he said. “They carried Maui successfully through numerous hurricanes, floods, and other disasters.”
He said the public should wait for the attorney general’s investigation before drawing conclusions.
Civil Beat left messages with the other hiring committee members on Tuesday, but they were not returned. Former mayor Arakawa also did not respond to a request for comment.
“Herman is a very skilled, experienced, knowledgeable, professional individual,” Regan said. “I trust that is making the right decisions … There is no question in my mind that he cares about that community, and he’s going to do everything he can to keep that community safe.”


rawstory--2020-01-10--‘See? Not Radical’: New poll shows nearly two-thirds of Americans support a wealth tax to fund unive

‘See? Not Radical’: New poll shows nearly two-thirds of Americans support a wealth tax to fund universal programs

“ It ’ s simple .
The majority of Americans believe that we should tax the rich.
” Supporters of a wealth tax to combat persistent economic inequality in the U.S. pointed to recent polling by Reuters/Ipsos showing that nearly two-thirds of respondents support taxing the rich at higher rates to support programs that would benefit all Americans .
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they either strongly or “ somewhat ” agreed with the statement , “ The very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs.
” The sentiment found support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demographics as well as from across the political spectrum .
Seventy-seven percent of Democrats agreed that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate , while 53 % of Republicans agreed .
Meanwhile , 54 % of the poll ’ s 4,441 respondents disagreed with a contrasting statement , that “ the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have , even if that means increasing inequality.
” “ See ?
Not radical , ” tweeted Michael Sayman , a young millionaire and Google executive who has expressed support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2020 Democratic primary and has called on the government to “ tax the hell out of me ” to help support working Americans .
While some centrist Democrats running in the primary have dismissed wealth tax proposals as unrealistic , the plans put forward by the Vermont senator and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
are not far off from the tax structures which existed in the U.S. for much of the 20th century .
In 2018 , the overall tax rate for the 400 wealthiest Americans was just 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1950 and 47 % in 1980 .
Under Sanders ’ wealth tax plan , the government would levy a 1 % tax on fortunes between $ 32 and $ 50 million , with the rate progressively increasing on richer Americans .
The proposal would raise an estimated $ 4.35 trillion in its first decade , with revenue being used to pay for Medicare for All and other universal programs .
Warren began her presidential campaign a year ago by unveiling her own plan for a wealth tax , calling for a 2 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
Warren ’ s proposal would raise $ 2.75 trillion in its first decade and would affect just 0.1 % of U.S. households , while funding her free college tuition for all , universal childcare , and student debt cancellation plans .
Taxing the rich has bipartisan support .
Reuters recorded at least one comment from a Trump supporter who said , “ It just seems the rich don ’ t pay their share.
” The grassroots group Tax March tweeted that the answer to the debate over a wealth tax is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans believe that we should tax the rich , ” the group said .

"It's simple. The majority of Americans believe that we should tax the rich."
Supporters of a wealth tax to combat persistent economic inequality in the U.S. pointed to recent polling by Reuters/Ipsos showing that nearly two-thirds of respondents support taxing the rich at higher rates to support programs that would benefit all Americans.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they either strongly or "somewhat" agreed with the statement, "The very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs."
The sentiment found support across race, gender, and income demographics as well as from across the political spectrum. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats agreed that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate, while 53% of Republicans agreed.
Meanwhile, 54% of the poll's 4,441 respondents disagreed with a contrasting statement, that "the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality."
"See? Not radical," tweeted Michael Sayman, a young millionaire and Google executive who has expressed support for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the 2020 Democratic primary and has called on the government to "tax the hell out of me" to help support working Americans.
While some centrist Democrats running in the primary have dismissed wealth tax proposals as unrealistic, the plans put forward by the Vermont senator and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are not far off from the tax structures which existed in the U.S. for much of the 20th century.
In 2018, the overall tax rate for the 400 wealthiest Americans was just 23%, compared with 70% in 1950 and 47% in 1980.
Under Sanders' wealth tax plan, the government would levy a 1% tax on fortunes between $32 and $50 million, with the rate progressively increasing on richer Americans. The proposal would raise an estimated $4.35 trillion in its first decade, with revenue being used to pay for Medicare for All and other universal programs.
Warren began her presidential campaign a year ago by unveiling her own plan for a wealth tax, calling for a 2% tax on all wealth over $50 million. Warren's proposal would raise $2.75 trillion in its first decade and would affect just 0.1% of U.S. households, while funding her free college tuition for all, universal childcare, and student debt cancellation plans.
Taxing the rich has bipartisan support. Reuters recorded at least one comment from a Trump supporter who said, "It just seems the rich don't pay their share."
The grassroots group Tax March tweeted that the answer to the debate over a wealth tax is "simple."
"The majority of Americans believe that we should tax the rich," the group said.