RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Nakba: The Forgotten 19th Century Origins of the Palestinian Catastrophe Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54364"><span class="small">Joseph Massad, Middle East Eye</span></a>   
Saturday, 16 May 2020 08:27

Massad writes: "The Nakba, Palestinians' loss of their lands and homes, arguably began in the 1880s with the arrival of the first Zionist Jewish colonists, who evicted Palestinians from land the colonists had purchased from absentee landlords."

An undated picture, likely taken in the 1930s, shows the Old City of Jerusalem. (photo: AFP)
An undated picture, likely taken in the 1930s, shows the Old City of Jerusalem. (photo: AFP)


Nakba: The Forgotten 19th Century Origins of the Palestinian Catastrophe

By Joseph Massad, Middle East Eye

16 May 20


Zionist Jewish colonisation of Palestine was a culmination of European Christian efforts to colonise the country in the 1800s

he Nakba, Palestinians’ loss of their lands and homes, arguably began in the 1880s with the arrival of the first Zionist Jewish colonists, who evicted Palestinians from land the colonists had purchased from absentee landlords. 

The Nakba is an ongoing calamity that continues to define the Palestinian condition today. 1948 and 1967 are watershed dates of larger and more monumental losses of land and rights, and 1993, the Oslo year, is a watershed date of Palestinians’ loss of their right to retrieve their stolen homeland through the collaboration of what once was their liberation movement. 

But Zionist Jewish colonisation of Palestine was a culmination of European Christian efforts to colonise Palestine since Napoleon’s invasion and defeat in Acre in 1799 at the hands of the Ottomans and their British allies. 

Indeed, this European Christian colonisation of the country throughout much of the 19th century was the prelude to Zionist Jewish colonisation at the end of it. 

Fanatical missionaries

While the Protestant Reformation was the first Christian European movement to call for Jews to be converted and “return” to Palestine, it was the British who began the plans for colonisation and Christianisation pioneered by the fanatical missionaries of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (founded in 1809), known popularly as the London Jews Society.

Anglican zealots sought to convert European Jews and encourage their emigration to Palestine, where they established a missionary network. In the 1820s, this society, sponsored by British politicians and lords, was led by Jewish converts who saw fit to send more Jewish converts to Palestine to proselytise the Jews. 

Soon, the British established the first foreign consulate in Jerusalem in 1838, and the Church of England established an Anglican Bishopric in the holy city in 1842.

The first bishop, Michael Solomon Alexander, was a German Jewish convert who had been a rabbi before his conversion. The British bought land and their consul set up several institutions to employ Jews in agriculture, among other things. The British colonists themselves also began to buy land and to dabble in agriculture.

By the 1850s, Palestine’s population was under 400,000 people, including about 8,000 Jews. Half were Palestinian Jews who had escaped the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th century; the other half were Messianic kabbalistic Jews, who came in the early decades of the 19th century from Russia in anticipation of the arrival of the Messiah.

The London Jews Society converted a few dozen, but rabbis fought back and excommunicated Jews who dealt with the missionaries. They appealed to European Jewish benefactors, the Rothschilds and Moses Montefiore, for help. The latter set up hospitals and bought land for poor Jews, lest they convert to Protestantism. 

'Scramble for Palestine'

The first major European war to inaugurate what we should call the colonial “scramble for Palestine” - namely, the Crimean War of 1853-1856 - was caused by European claims to “protect” Palestine’s Christians. The war was instigated by French and British concerns that Russia was planning to take over Palestine, especially with the large annual Russian Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Easter.

Aside from the jealousy and concerns of Western European Christian powers about Russia’s real and imagined expansionism at the expense of a weakened Ottoman Empire, over which France and Britain had acquired huge influence, the sense that Palestine - including its holy Christian sites and Arab Christian population - should be a concern solely for Western Christian powers would come to threaten Russian interests.  

The Russians were nervous about the advances in Protestant and Catholic institutions in Palestine, let alone the neglect and corruption of the Greek clergy in charge of Orthodox Palestinians since the 16th century, placed in power by the Ottomans following the death of the last Palestinian Patriarch Atallah in 1543.

In the run-up to the Crimean War, European Latin Catholics insisted on the restoration of their exclusive rights to Palestinian Christian holy places that were established under the Crusades, regained under the Mamluks in the 14th century, but lost to the Greek Orthodox church upon the Ottoman conquest. 

The Ottomans issued an edict that restored some of their privileges at the expense of the Orthodox in the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Nativity and Gethsemane. The Palestinian Orthodox - clergy and laity - were up in arms, as was Tsar Nicholas I. This became the casus belli for the Crimean War. With Russia’s defeat, the Latin Catholic and Protestant missionary invasion of Palestine accelerated manifold. 

British zealots

In the meantime, another fanatical missionary organisation, the Church Missionary Society, founded in 1799, arrived on the scene in 1851 to convert Palestinian Eastern Christians. The British zealots established schools, dispensaries and medical facilities to help gain converts, while being resisted by Eastern Christian churches across Palestine. 

In response to the missionaries, a French Jewish statesman established the Alliance Israelite Universelle schools in 1860 for Ottoman Jews. Agricultural endeavours aimed at the Jewish population were also established by a French Jewish philanthropist.

On the US front, American Protestant missionaries were dispatched in the 1820s to Palestine but decided to try their luck in Syria and left in the 1840s, assured that their British co-religionists would take care of the Palestinians. 

But others followed, including dozens of Adams colonists, former Mormons who set up a settler-colony in Jaffa between 1866 and 1868 to prepare the land for the “return” of the Jews who would be converted before the Second Coming. Their efforts failed, but this was for the benefit of a new community of German Protestant colonists, known as the Templers, who arrived in Palestine in the 1860s and established a number of colonies countrywide, including on the Adams colony lands in Jaffa.

The German navy came to the shores of Palestine to defend them during the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78. The Templers wanted to turn Palestine into a Christian state and hoped it would be awarded to Germany after the war, but they were to be disappointed. They prospered until the British and, after them, the Jewish Zionists harassed them out of the country. 

More Americans also came in 1881, like the Chicago fundamentalist family, the Spaffords, who established a colony in Jerusalem. They were joined by Swedish fundamentalists in the 1890s. They bought the palace of Rabah al-Husayni to set up their colony. Today it is the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.

Prelude to more calamities

European kings and queens visited the country and interceded on behalf of their missionaries, demanding more rights and privileges for them. But things changed measurably in the last two decades of the 19th century, as early Zionist Jewish immigration began from the Russian colonial settlement of Odessa, itself built on the ruins of the Ottoman town of Hacibey. 

The London Jews Society was ecstatic that there were more Jews arriving whom it could convert. It set up in London the Jewish Refugees’ Aid Society to facilitate their immigration. Moses Friedlaender, a Jewish convert, was put in charge in Palestine. Land was purchased for the Jewish colonists southwest of Jerusalem, but as the Rothschilds were already founding Jewish colonies, most of Friedlaender’s Jewish adherents joined the Zionist colonies in 1886. 

Despite this failure, the London Jews Society claimed to be forerunners of Jewish colonisation in the country, suggesting that Jewish philanthropists were provoked to “jealousy and emulation”. This is when the Jewish Lovers of Zion (Hovevei Zion) colonists from Odessa arrived and established the first Zionist colonies, beginning the Palestinian Nakba that has lasted up until today. 

The zealotry of the British, German and US Protestant colonists in Palestine in the 19th century was the prelude to so many more calamities to hit the Palestinian people. Jewish fanatical Zionists would finish the job. 

Today’s American Evangelical fanatics who support the ongoing Zionist colonisation of the land are as antisemitic as their 19th-century predecessors. Yet, at the end of the 19th century, Protestant fanatics realised that Palestine could not be converted into a Protestant country as they were able to convert only about 700 Jews and 1000 Palestinian Eastern Christians by then.

Their colonial sponsors realised that the best possible scenario for European colonial settlement in Palestine was a Jewish settler-colony allied with Protestant fundamentalism. This is what Zionism was in the 19th century, and remains today.  

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The United States Is a Country to Be Pitied Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=8625"><span class="small">Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Friday, 15 May 2020 12:50

Robinson writes: "Only a handful of nations on Earth have arguably done a worse job of handling the coronavirus pandemic than the United States. What has happened to us? How did we become so dysfunctional? When did we become so incompetent?"

Drivers wait in line to get food at the San Antonio Food Bank distribution center at the Alamo Dome in San Antonio on April 17. (photo: Larry W. Smith/Shutterstock)
Drivers wait in line to get food at the San Antonio Food Bank distribution center at the Alamo Dome in San Antonio on April 17. (photo: Larry W. Smith/Shutterstock)


The United States Is a Country to Be Pitied

By Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

15 May 20

 

nly a handful of nations on Earth have arguably done a worse job of handling the coronavirus pandemic than the United States. What has happened to us? How did we become so dysfunctional? When did we become so incompetent?

The shocking and deadly failures by President Trump and his administration have been well documented — we didn’t isolate, we didn’t test, we didn’t contact trace, we waited too long to lock down. But Trump’s gross unfitness is only part of the problem. The phrase “American exceptionalism” has always meant different things to different people — that this nation should be admired, or perhaps that it should be feared. Not until now, at least in my lifetime, has it suggested that the United States should be pitied.

No amount of patriotism or pride can change the appalling facts. The pandemic is acting as a stress test for societies around the world, and ours is in danger of failing.

I’m used to thinking of a nation such as South Korea as a kind of junior partner, a beneficiary of American expertise and aid. Yet the U.S. death toll from covid-19 exceeds 85,000 while South Korea’s fatalities total 260. That is not a typo. How could a nation with barely half our per capita income have done so much better? Washington has been Seoul’s patron and teacher for more than six decades, yet somehow we apparently have unlearned much of what we taught.

Much closer to home, Trump’s boasting about how his border wall is supposedly helping protect Americans against the virus is a joke. Mexico’s reported death rate from covid-19 is a small fraction of ours (though the numbers may be higher than the official count). In the border town of Nogales, Mexican authorities are using disinfectant spray to sanitize visitors arriving from Arizona.

How could it be that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which I always thought of as the premier public health agency in the world, so completely botched the development of a test for the novel coronavirus? We have by far the biggest economy in the world, and we believe we have the most advanced science. Yet for the first months of the pandemic, as the coronavirus silently spread, we were essentially blind. By the time we had eyes on the enemy, it was too late.

We have managed to slow the spread of the virus, but I worry we lack the social cohesion to stay the course. On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Tony Evers’s (D) extension of his stay-at-home order. By evening, bars in some Wisconsin cities were packed — no social distancing, no masks. In Milwaukee and several other jurisdictions, however, orders by local officials kept the bars closed. What are the Wisconsin cities that remain closed supposed to do? Set up roadblocks to keep outsiders away?

The Florida Keys have done just that: Since March 27, checkpoints have been in place to keep visitors from entering the island chain — which has seen just 95 cases of covid-19 and only three deaths. The America I know, or thought I knew, is one of restlessness, free movement, open roads. Until there is a vaccine, post-covid America may be very different.

Thanks to Trump, we have no coherent national plan to survive the pandemic. But also thanks to the federal government — and I include Congress as well as the president — we lack the kind of sturdy economic safety net that protects unemployed workers and shut-down business owners in some of the hardest-hit European countries — nations that once looked up to the United States as a model. In the Netherlands, for example, the government is granting employers up to 90?percent of their payroll costs so they can keep paying their workers rather than resort to furloughs or layoffs. That kind of continuity ought to speed recovery when reopening becomes safe.

Here, nearly 40 million workers have filed for unemployment.

The European Union is working with the World Health Organization and other wealthy nations such as Japan and Saudi Arabia in a crash program to develop a covid-19 vaccine, with initial funding of $8 billion. The United States has decided to go it alone with its own vaccine program, “Operation Warp Speed.” In the past, one might have bet on U.S. ingenuity and drive to win the race. But given our failure in testing, would you still make that bet now? And why is there a race at all, rather than a U.S.-led global effort?

The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the depth of America’s fall from greatness. Ridding ourselves of Trump and his cronies in November will be just the beginning of our work to restore it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Does the Justice Department Work for the Trump Campaign Now? Barr Thinks So Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54358"><span class="small">Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Friday, 15 May 2020 12:50

Excerpt: "Other presidents have neither expected nor asked their attorneys general to use the vast investigatory and prosecutorial power of the justice department itself to intervene in criminal cases to help cronies, to buy the silence of those who might threaten him, or to discredit political adversaries."

'Using the justice department in this way undermines the integrity and professionalism of the lawyers and prosecutor who work there.' (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
'Using the justice department in this way undermines the integrity and professionalism of the lawyers and prosecutor who work there.' (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


Does the Justice Department Work for the Trump Campaign Now? Barr Thinks So

By Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut, Guardian UK

15 May 20


The US attorney general seems determined to turn the DoJ into a fully fledged arm of the Trump re-election team

t was enough that last week, the US Department of Justice did something completely unheard of: it moved to dismiss the guilty plea of a cabinet level officer, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, for lying to the FBI. The department’s argument was so preposterous that within days, nearly 2,000 former department officials signed a letter in protest of William Barr’s “assault on the rule of law”.

A week before the motion to dismiss in the Flynn case, Trump had tweeted that a prosecution like Flynn’s “should never be allowed to happen … again”. The day that the motion was filed, Trump told reporters that the Obama administration officials had targeted Flynn to try to “take down a president”. In co-ordination, Trump campaign manager BradParscale issued a statement saying: “[T]he Obama-Biden officials responsible for these misdeeds must be held accountable.”

Immediately after the filing in the Flynn case, Barr went on national television and attacked the FBI, pointedly disparaging its 2016 investigation into Russian interference and letting it be known that FBI officials or ex-officials were under examination for prosecution: “[J]ust because something may even stink to high heaven and … appear to everyone to be bad we still have to apply the right standard and be convinced that there’s a violation of a criminal statute.”

Then on Wednesday, Barr’s press spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, upped the ante in the high-stakes effort to lend political support to Gen Flynn and to Trump’s partisan political interests. Kupec complained about an allegedly nefarious effort involving Joe Biden to “unmask” Flynn’s identity during the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

She said this to the Fox news correspondent Martha MacCallum: “Martha, what happened to candidate Trump and then President Trump was one of the greatest political injustices in American history and should never happen again.”

It is remarkable how quickly Flynn’s fate is put aside and the focus shifted to the president.

When has a justice department press person ever issued so nakedly political a statement?

Biden was among several people who asked that the intelligence committee to identify the unnamed American who had been recorded in a conversation with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, about Obama’s newly imposed sanctions in December 2016. It apparently doesn’t matter to the Barr justice department that the rules were scrupulously adhered to in this “unmasking”. It also doesn’t matter that such requests are permitted if the identity unmasked is necessary to understand the information, and that such requests are hardly unusual. The National Security Agency handles such unmasking requests in thousands of cases: 10,000 in 2019 and nearly 17,000 in 2018.

Kupec’s statement tracks perfectly with Mr Trump’s partisan campaign messaging and with the president’s efforts to present himself and his most loyal followers as victims of a conspiracy. The DoJ has now been let loose in search of nefarious activity by Biden, and in the hope it can cast his way a McCarthyite shadow of suspicion.

Barr, the attorney general, is by no means the first occupant of that office to do political work for or serve as a political ally of the president who appointed him. Indeed, Edmund Randolph, the first attorney general of the United States, was a close ally of George Washington, having served as the general’s chief of staff and personal secretary. During Randolph’s term, Washington relied on him for support on matters that went well beyond the formal duties of his office.

Other attorneys general have followed in Randolph’s footsteps, serving as close political allies of the president. Examples from the early years of the country include Andrew Jackson’s attorney general, Roger Taney, who worked hand-in-hand with Jackson to end funding for the Bank of the United States.

In the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt’s attorneys general regularly helped him in political battles. Some of those battles involved the justice department and some did not. Other close political allies of the president who appointed them include Robert Kennedy, who was appointed at 35 by his brother John, and widely criticized as unqualified for the job. President Reagan’s second attorney general, Edwin Meese, was a longtime friend of, and political operative for, Reagan.

But throughout American history, when presidents have appointed political cronies to be attorney general, they were looking for people only to help them pursue a policy agenda.

Nixon’s efforts to enlist John Mitchell in the Watergate cover-up and get one of Mitchell’s successors, Elliot Richardson, to fire the Watergate special prosecutor stand out as important, but rare, exceptions.

Other presidents have neither expected nor asked their attorneys general to use the vast investigatory and prosecutorial power of the justice department itself to intervene in criminal cases to help cronies, to buy the silence of those who might threaten him, or to discredit political adversaries. That is a new and dangerous ballgame.

Using the justice department in this way undermines the integrity and professionalism of the lawyers and prosecutors who work there. It turns law into an arena for gaining partisan advantage and settling political grudges.

Having gotten away with doing the same in his dealings with Ukraine, the president has an attorney general who is only too happy to go beyond merely politicizing the DoJ. He seems determined to turn it into a full-fledged arm of the Trump campaign.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Was the Decision to Let Manafort Go Home Political? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 15 May 2020 11:28

Kiriakou writes: "Was the decision to let Manafort go home political? You bet it was."

President Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives at Manhattan Supreme Court, June 27, 2019, for his arraignment on mortgage fraud charges. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty)
President Trump's one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives at Manhattan Supreme Court, June 27, 2019, for his arraignment on mortgage fraud charges. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty)


Was the Decision to Let Manafort Go Home Political?

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

15 May 20

 

ormer Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort, also known as federal prisoner number 35207-016, will be released from prison imminently and sent to home confinement because he is at risk of contracting the coronavirus. That’s the humane thing to do, right? The guy is 71 years old and his crimes were nonviolent. Is society really better off with Paul Manafort in prison? Are we safer? But those aren’t the questions we should be asking.

The real question is why aren’t we seeing mass releases of elderly or at-risk prisoners? Congress, before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, made it easier for prisoners to be released under the “compassionate release” program. A prisoner can be released if there are “compelling reasons,” such as advanced age or terminal illness where the prisoner has less than 18 months to live. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) files a motion in federal court to reduce the prisoner’s sentence. And the sentencing court then finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction. The prisoner is then released.

Since the pandemic began, the Department of Justice has made it even easier to release prisoners. A prisoner must petition the warden of his prison and argue successfully that he has completed at least 75 percent of his sentence, that he is nonviolent, he has never been a member of a gang or an organized crime “family,” he did not have a gun enhancement in his case, and that he has a co-morbidity like heart disease or diabetes that puts him at a high risk of contracting the coronavirus. If the warden denies the request, or if 30 days pass without a response, the prisoner then may petition the sentencing court for relief.

With all that said, very, very few people have been released. And Paul Manafort shouldn’t have been one of them. He simply doesn’t meet the criteria. He only went to prison in July 2018 and he is not due to be released until March 2026. He does meet the age requirement, and his crimes were nonviolent, but there are literally thousands of prisoners who meet all the requirements who should have been released before him.

Was the decision to let Manafort go home political? You bet it was. President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, with whom Trump has feuded, also was due to be released because of the coronavirus. But out of nowhere, on May 1, Cohen’s release was “postponed indefinitely.” I can’t imagine that it was a coincidence.

The mainstream media ought to be looking at BOP policy or, more accurately, the breakdown in BOP policy. It is no secret that the United States has five percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s prison population. It is no surprise that Congress has created 500 new crimes – not new laws, but new crimes, things that were legal a decade ago that are now felonies – in the past ten years. As a country, we should be actively seeking ways to get people out of prison, rather than putting new people in, or lengthening sentences for the crimes already on the books.

The problem didn’t begin with the coronavirus, of course. It began with Richard Nixon’s “War on Crime” and Ronald Reagan’s criminal justice “reforms” of the 1980s, and the Democratic Congress’s decision to do away with federal parole. If you’re sentenced to 10 years, you do 10 years. Sure, there’s 13.5 percent time off for good behavior. But with the “get tough on crime” measures of just about every administration in the past 50 years, sentences are far longer than they once were, and as I said, Congress has created so many new crimes.

That’s why compassionate release should be such an important part of the criminal justice process. What happens when you’re 65 or 70 years old and you still have years behind bars ahead of you, despite the fact that your crime was nonviolent? Why isn’t home confinement an option? And if it is an option, as in the case of Paul Manafort, it should be an option for everybody.

The bottom line is this: The entire system is broken. The misguided “get tough on crime” attitude in Washington has made us a prison state unlike any other in the world. As Americans, we like to think that we’re (usually) led by the best and brightest. Certainly the best and brightest can come up with a justice system where there’s some actual “justice.”



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: 'Obamagate' Means Trump Is Desperate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Friday, 15 May 2020 11:14

Rich writes: "'Obamagate,' in Trump's brilliant coinage, is a conspiracy so vast, a crime so dastardly, that it should guarantee his reelection as soon as he figures out how to tell voters exactly what it is."

President Trump. (photo: Jim Watson/Getty)
President Trump. (photo: Jim Watson/Getty)


'Obamagate' Means Trump Is Desperate

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

15 May 20


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, Trump’s “Obamagate” conspiracy theory, COVID-19’s spread across the country, and Joe Biden’s basement-bound campaign.

n the face of some gloomy election forecasts, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have begun to take aim at an unlikely, if familiar, target: President Obama. Is this the typical Trumpian floundering or a broader test for a kind of attack that we might see more of? 

“Obamagate,” in Trump’s brilliant coinage, is a conspiracy so vast, a crime so dastardly, that it should guarantee his reelection as soon as he figures out how to tell voters exactly what it is. As best as I can glean from his spokespeople on the Rupert Murdoch payroll — at Fox News, the New York Post, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal — it was a coup that involved both installing Trump in the White House so that he could preside over the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history and propelling a beloved national hero, the Kremlin sycophant and former Obama official Michael Flynn, to prison. For a moment, it seemed that at least that second goal might be thwarted by Bill Barr’s effort to hand Flynn a Get Out of Jail Free card. But thanks to the deep-state intervention of a U.S. district judge in Washington this week, Flynn may end up behind bars after all. Obamagate Accomplished!

Whether running against Obamagate in 2020 constitutes a winning strategy for Trump is dubious, however. For one thing, to follow its convoluted plot requires a reimmersion in the Russian-collusion narrative — an epic that has previously failed to rivet the public in either the Mueller report or during the impeachment proceedings. It is unlikely to grab a huge audience on a third go-round. Besides, those who view the former president as the evil Kenyan-born love child of Saddam Hussein and George Soros were voting for Trump anyway and don’t need Obamagate as a further incentive. More likely is the prospect that Trump’s ever-escalating vilification of Obama will drive up turnout among those in the Democratic base who voted in insufficient numbers for Hillary Clinton in 2016, notably African-Americans and the young.

It’s also hard to see how McConnell’s piling on is going to help the GOP hold the Senate. Last week, the Senate majority leader faulted Obama for being a “little bit classless” for daring to make the shocking observation that the Trump administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a “chaotic disaster.” If that’s the case, far more classless is McConnell who, while married to an Asian-American member of Trump’s Cabinet, remained silent when the president slurred the ethnicity of a Chinese-American CBS reporter on-camera at a White House press briefing.

Clearly, Trump is worried about his campaign. CNN and the Times reported that he threatened to sue his own campaign manager, Brad Parscale, while reviewing falling poll numbers. Trump’s effort to blame everything on the Chinese is manifestly doomed, since there are enough video clips and tweets of him slobbering over Xi Jinping and praising China’s response to the coronavirus to fuel a half-dozen Democratic attack ads. Rumors persist that Mike Pence could yet be dumped from the ticket for Nikki Haley in an effort to persuade suburban voters that Trump doesn’t hate all women of color. And even as Trump floated Obamagate over the weekend, he is lining up additional nemeses to run against. In the calculation of the Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa, he accused “no fewer than 20 individuals and organizations” of criminal conduct in the Mother’s Day massacre he conducted on Twitter, among them the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, whom he accused of murder. If, as the government’s former top vaccine official Rick Bright fears, the administration’s chaotic response to COVID-19 is exposing America to “unprecedented illness and fatalities” in the fall, the mind boggles at what conspiracy theories Trump and his far-right media accomplices will yet unleash. We may look back on Obamagate as the good old days.

On the same day that Trump declared the U.S. had “prevailed” on coronavirus testing, NBC News uncovered an unreleased report from the White House pandemic task force warning of spiking infection numbers across the South and Midwest. How far are we from a politics that is able to address a crisis of this scale?

Very far, to put it mildly. Trump is hoping that political propaganda using (scripted) sound bites like “prevailed” will allow him to claim victory over the crisis rather than taking action. But his favorite new slogan — “transition to greatness” — is of no more use in battling the intertwined crises of the coronavirus and the economic collapse than Herbert Hoover’s “prosperity is just around the corner” was in warding off the Great Depression after the 1929 stock-market crash. Trump simply doesn’t understand that, for once, there are incontrovertible facts that will stand in the way of his effort to rewrite reality. More people will die, or they won’t. More people will lose their jobs, their health care, and their savings, or they won’t. Period. While it’s certain that his true believers will ignore any unpleasant empirical realities as they crowd into restaurants and return to MAGA rallies, Americans not in the GOP death cult will have their eyes open.

Yesterday, Trump went so far as to dismiss Anthony Fauci’s warning of the potential peril to children if they return to school while the coronavirus continues to rage and before we understand the potentially lethal COVID-related pediatric inflammatory syndrome that has now turned up in more than a dozen states since first claiming lives in New York. Fox News prime-time hosts, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the alt-right auxiliary are following suit by portraying Fauci as public enemy No. 1. The only federal official who stands between us and repeated waves of COVID will continue to be downsized by Trump, if not fired, so that Trump apologist Deborah Birx can take center stage.

Republicans in the Senate, who might challenge their president’s wanton disregard of public health, remain part of the problem, not the solution. The only proactive responses by GOP senators to the pandemic came from North Carolina’s Richard Burr and Georgia’s Kelly Loeffler, who appeared to trade on inside information when cashing out of vulnerable stocks before the pandemic erupted in full force.

In this week’s Senate hearing, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, whom history may mark as patient zero should there be a full COVID-19 outbreak in the Capitol, endorsed the reckless notion of sending children back to school prematurely. The so-called moderates — a.k.a. Vichy Republicans — are no better. The hearing’s chair, Lamar Alexander, tried to cover for Trump by praising his dismal record on testing as “impressive” and sermonizing that the hearing’s main point was to plan for future pandemics — even as the death count in the current pandemic was rapidly rising in new hot spots, including in his home state of Tennessee, from which Alexander conducted the hearing while in self-quarantine. Then there was Susan Collins of Maine who, as James Poniewozik of the Times pointed out, started the hearing without a mask and later put one on “as if trying to keep one lung in each camp.” You’d think the craven Collins might have enough self-respect to conduct what is likely to be the final months of her political career with a modicum of dignity, but you would be wrong.

Joe Biden has apparently decided that his campaign HQ will be his Delaware basement. Does staying inside help or hurt his chances with voters?

Certainly there is a lot of commentary in the so-called liberal-media sounding notes of incipient doom. Typical is a news story at the Times attributed to four reporters, in which it was noted that Biden’s “campaign has so far not solved the unprecedented challenges of running for the White House from the seclusion of his home” and that he is “exhibiting some of the same difficulties that proved troublesome in the primary.” Not to mention that “he lacks Mr. Trump’s bully pulpit” and that he won’t “enjoy the same traditional multiday coronation” that other nominees have received at a party convention. All true and yet (a) Biden ended up winning the primary handily; (b) Trump is barely leaving his home either thus far; (c) Trump’s use of his “bully pulpit” has been so politically counterproductive that his own allies implored him to stop the daily reality-show press briefings; and (d) the polling “bounce” provided by televised national conventions has been fading for years.

For all of Biden’s many faults as a candidate — this year and in all his previous and uniformly ill-fated presidential campaigns — let’s give him credit for doing one thing right nearly six months before Election Day: He has everything to gain by staying in the basement while Trump grabs as much rope as he wants to hang himself. This can’t, and presumably won’t, be a permanent campaign strategy. But, for now, let’s remember that, even in a non-pandemic political year, most American voters don’t want to hear a lot from politicians before Labor Day.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 Next > End >>

Page 485 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN