RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The World That Made the El Paso Mass Shooter Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51382"><span class="small">Michael Phillips and Betsy Friauf, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 13 August 2019 13:31

Excerpt: "The wealthy white suburbs that the El Paso shooter called home have long been a hotbed for xenophobia and racism. He was an extreme but predictable expression of homegrown, mainstream Texas nativism."

People gather near the 'El Paso Strong' mural painted by artists Gabe Vasquez and Justin Martinez following the mass shooting at Walmart, which killed 22 people, on August 9, 2019, in El Paso, Texas. (photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
People gather near the 'El Paso Strong' mural painted by artists Gabe Vasquez and Justin Martinez following the mass shooting at Walmart, which killed 22 people, on August 9, 2019, in El Paso, Texas. (photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)


The World That Made the El Paso Mass Shooter

By Michael Phillips and Betsy Friauf, Jacobin

13 August 19


The wealthy white suburbs that the El Paso shooter called home have long been a hotbed for xenophobia and racism. He was an extreme but predictable expression of homegrown, mainstream Texas nativism.

fter the August 3 mass shooting in El Paso that left twenty-two dead and twenty-four injured, Dan Patrick, the right-wing-radio-host-turned-Texas-lieutenant-governor, offered a glib explanation for what turned Patrick Crusius, the twenty-one-year-old who drove ten hours from his home in the Dallas–Fort Worth area to an El Paso Walmart in hopes of slaughtering the highest number of Mexican immigrants possible, into a mass murderer. It was the lack of school prayer and the popularity of violent video games, Patrick insisted. “We’ve always had guns, always had evil, but I see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill,” he said on Fox and Friends the next day, as the nation reeled from massacres not just in El Paso, but also in Dayton, Ohio.

For self-styled “pro–Second Amendment” politicians like Patrick, who in 2018 received an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association, the focus on Call of Duty and other shoot-’em-up entertainment certainly diverted attention from the state’s Wild West–like gun laws. In Texas, handguns can be carried openly or concealed in most public places. The AK-47-style weapon Crusius used in his spree is legal in the state. And Texas’s lax gun regulations will become even looser on September 1, when gun owners will be able to carry concealed weapons into churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship, and without a license for up to forty-eight hours anywhere under a mandatory evacuation order following a natural disaster. (In spite of all that legally permitted firepower, Texas recorded 434.4 violent crimes per 100,000 persons in 2017, seventeenth-highest in the country and outranked only by states with similar gun laws.)

Scapegoating video games shifts the focus not only from the state’s gun culture, but from another part of the mental and cultural landscape Crusius inhabited: the xenophobia and bigotry of Texas politics, particularly in its rich white suburbs. In the online “manifesto” posted shortly before his rampage, Crusius wrote: “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”

Growing up in Collin County, Crusius wouldn’t have had to search to find a master class in xenophobia and white supremacy. From the history books to political pronouncements, the resident of Allen, Texas, would have heard paranoid denunciations of sharia law, racist condemnations of Mexicans, and panicked warnings about the accelerating replacement of Anglos with foreigners.

Racism in the Lone Star State

For generations, Texans have been taught in their schools and their public history sites the dangers supposedly posed by Mexicans and Mexican Americans. The Texan origin myth centers in part on tales about the massacre of 445 Anglo insurrectionaries after the Battle of Goliad in southeast Texas and a small number of survivors of the Battle of the Alamo in the Texas Revolution of 1835–36. Those incidents were used to justify the butchering of some 650 Mexican soldiers, most of whom had already surrendered, after the Battle of San Jacinto, the decisive engagement in the revolution.

Racial panic seized Anglos in the state again during an upsurge of immigration during the 1910–1920 Mexican Revolution, and as white cotton growers in Texas increasingly exploited Mexican sharecroppers as a labor force. The Latino community, mostly born in Mexico, accounted for 12 percent of the state’s total population by 1930 and up to 92 percent in the Rio Grande Valley. Sediciosos in Texas sought to reclaim the state from the Anglo imperialism of the 1830s and 1840s, and began raids on South Texas ranches, railroad lines, and other infrastructure that, according to historian Benjamin Heber Johnson, killed dozens of Anglo farmers and drove them off of their properties. Between 1915 and 1920, fueled by anger at sediciosos, Anglos launched an anti-Mexican pogrom that killed “hundreds, possibly thousands.”

Well into the 1950s, Texas students learned about their state’s past in part from a cartoon series called Texas History Movies that whitewashed history. Anglo imperialists, some of whom arrived in Texas weeks before the 1835–36 revolution, sought to overthrow Mexican sovereignty so they could extend slavery. Texas History Movies, however, portrayed them as Texas’s “defenders” and derided the Mexicans as “invaders” of their own country. Students were informed that Mexican soldiers in the Texas Revolution were cowardly, lazy, subservient to tyranny, and gleeful murderers of prisoners of war.

The Dallas area was a hotbed of such sentiments. Justin Kimball, Dallas’s school superintendent from 1914 to 1924, wrote a book in 1927 titled Our City – Dallas: A Community Civics that called for the clearance of African-American and Latino “slums” in the city. He argued that Mexicans and Mexican Americans posed a threat to white health and safety, describing Mexicans as swarming the city. The Latinos of Dallas were outsiders with no long-term interest in the welfare of the city, he claimed, and they represented a disease on the local body politic.

“Most of the Mexicans who live in Dallas are not American citizens, do not speak English, do not expect to remain in Dallas or the United States long, [and] are unaccustomed to our conditions of life and housing,” he wrote. “They will accept conditions of housing to which no other people in our city or state will submit .?.?.?Each such congested, overcrowded, unhealthful center is like a canker or eating sore on our fair city. The rest of our city can no more live and grow and prosper in such a condition, than our body can be well when it has an angry, bleeding, inflamed sore on some part of it.”

The Suburban Explosion

The city of Allen that Crusius called home, and the other once-rural suburbs ringing Dallas and Fort Worth, became major urban centers of their own in part because of xenophobia and racism. The boom in population and wealth began in the 1970s, as de jure Jim Crow crumbled in the region’s two major cities. Even as a Dallas school desegregation case lumbered on for four decades in the federal courts, and after an uprising in downtown Dallas in 1973 following the police murder of a twelve-year-old Latino boy falsely accused of breaking into a gas station, white residents sought refuge in neighboring cities like Allen, Plano, Garland, Richardson, Irving, and Arlington. About one hundred thousand Dallas residents fled the city for the suburbs between 1960 and 1973. A 1976 federal court order mandating school busing to achieve desegregation in Dallas schools prompted still more white departures from the urban core.

The white-flight émigrés brought with them their conservative politics and one of its central obsessions — low taxes. As Dallas and Fort Worth became poorer, blacker, and browner from the 1970s to the early 2000s, the suburbs became white, affluent tax havens. And they just kept growing. The entire Dallas–Fort Worth area has exploded in size, and, since 2016, two cities within minutes of Allen, Frisco and McKinney, ranked as two of the fastest growing towns and cities in the United States. Frisco was number one in growth nationally in 2016 and 2017. Numerous other Dallas-area suburbs, including Allen, Carrollton, Garland, Plano, and Richardson, have all seen population increases of twenty thousand since 2000.

Capital has followed the white diaspora. Since the 1970s, corporate giants like the Dallas Cowboys, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Ericsson, ExxonMobil, Frito-Lay, Nokia, Texas Instruments, and Toyota North America have made the Dallas suburbs home. Whites may have fled the inner city to prevent their children from attending schools with African-American and Latino students, but the business tax incentives these cities implemented, and the proximity of these suburbs to a city still possessing international cachet, drew workers from all over the world who increasingly were non-white. In one white-flight suburb north of Dallas, the city of Plano, nearly 20 percent of the population is Asian, including many well-educated engineers and other professionals from Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Crusius’s hometown of Allen saw a tripling of the Latino population, a 262 percent jump in the Asian population, and a 524 percent increase in the number of African Americans since 2000.

Suburban Xenophobia

Allen is rich. The median income is nearly $110,000 a year, 75 percent higher than that of the Dallas–Fort Worth area as a whole. Children grow up in an atmosphere where the accumulation of greater wealth becomes an expectation, and poverty is seen as a sign of defect. Added to that Social Darwinism, which starkly divides the population into winners and losers, is the toxic racist rhetoric of a number of political leaders. Many of the wealthiest in Collin County may have welcomed international investment, but they have decidedly mixed feelings about the increasingly multiracial and diverse workforce that came with it.

Since 2015, Crusius’s elders have repeatedly sounded the alarm about an “invasion” that the El Paso killer also warned about in his online essay. Animated by conspiracy theories about Muslim infiltration in America, state representative Jeff Leach, a Republican whose district includes Allen, introduced an anti-sharia bill in 2015 forbidding Texas courts from favoring foreign law over American legal precedents when making judicial decisions. While Leach’s legislation failed, a similar bill he coauthored in 2017 passed and was signed by governor Greg Abbott.

In nearby Irving, mayor Beth Van Duyne pushed the city council to pass a resolution supporting Leach’s original bill in March 2015 while falsely claiming that a mosque in the city had established a sharia tribunal that was “bypassing American courts” and using Muslim law to oppress women. Later that year, Irving police arrested Ahmed Mohamed, a Muslim of Sudanese descent, after the fourteen-year-old brought a digital clock built as a personal science project to MacArthur High School. Teachers and school administrators panicked that the harmless device was a bomb. (They later dropped the charges.)

In November 2015, masked members of a local hate group, the Bureau of American-Islamic Relations (BAIR), brandished guns as they followed worshippers on their way to the Islamic Center of Irving. The group’s leader posted online the names and addresses “of every Muslim and Muslim sympathizer that stood up for .?.?.?Sharia tribunals in Irving.” On December 12, heavily armed BAIR protesters picketed outside of a mosque in Richardson, north of Dallas and just twelve miles from Allen. Without foundation, the BAIR picketers accused the Richardson mosque of having ties to Hamas, the fundamentalist Palestinian resistance group that the US government considers a terrorist organization. The anti-Muslim activists also warned against allowing Syrian refugees into the United States because they would supposedly establish a terrorist beachhead.

As Crusius reached the end of his high school years, some adults in his community were panicking about a planned Muslim cemetery. “If I had my way, I would outlaw it [Islam] in America,” one Farmersville resident, Jack Hawkins, declared at a meeting about the proposed project. “And I would tear down every mosque that was in this country.” Pastor David Meeks of Bethlehem Baptist Church called Islam a “quasi-pseudo religion,” and warned that the cemetery would provide an entrée for radical Islam in Farmersville. Some claimed Muslim corpses would contaminate the local water supply. Other angry townspeople threatened to pour pigs’ blood on gravesites and scatter pigs’ heads at the final resting place, should it ever open. (Facing a federal lawsuit, on September 20, 2018, the city council, after three contentious years, finally approved the plans and allowed the Islamic Association to move ahead with purchasing the land needed for the graveyard.)

One Texas politician, US Rep. Louie Gohmert, has explicitly tied the threat of Muslim extremism to Mexican immigration. In 2010, Gohmert, a Republican from the East Texas town of Tyler, claimed that Muslim sympathizers in Mexico were deliberately breeding future terrorists in the United States so their citizenship would ease their entry into the country. Citing an unnamed “retired FBI agent,” Gohmert said in a speech from the floor of Congress that “it appeared they would have young women who became pregnant [and] would get them into the United States to have a baby. They wouldn’t even have to pay anything for the baby. And then they would return back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.”

A Predictable Product

In 2014, phobia about immigrants imposing Muslim religious laws, carrying diseases, and bringing with them a reign of rape and murder boiled over in Crusius’s home county. Collin County commissioner Mark Reid warned that residents faced an “illegal immigrant tsunami” that would bring “communicable diseases” to the area. One resident anticipated the language of Crusius’s 2019 manifesto. “What we see is not immigration, but an invasion, a deliberate invasion,” resident Barbara Harliss said at a 2014 County Commissioner’s meeting.

Four years later, state attorney general Ken Paxton, who lives in McKinney, next door to Allen, tried to whip up hysteria about Latino criminals, falsely claiming on Fox News that illegal immigrants had committed six hundred thousand crimes in Texas since 2011, including 1,200 homicides, and that the undocumented had operated an extensive human trafficking epidemic. (According to Politifact, undocumented people had 114,000 total convictions in the timespan, most for nonviolent offenses, and had just 229 homicide convictions.) Just forty-two days before the El Paso massacre, Texas senator John Cornyn tweeted, “Texas gained almost nine Hispanic residents for every additional white resident last year.”

Whatever their intentions, Crusius learned from his parents’ and grandparents’ generation that the time had come to make an Alamo-like stand against a supposed racial onslaught. If he thought that “America is rotting from the inside-out” because of immigration, he found plenty of credence for his xenophobic views in mainstream Texas society.

In the aftermath of the massacre, El Paso County district attorney Jaime Esparza said of his community, “This is not us.” Crusius’s rage, fear, racism, and even violence, however, have echoed across Texas history. The white panic he expressed has long found sanction in the Texas establishment. Texas culture taught Crusius xenophobia. Texas politicians incited him. Texas gun laws placed weapons of mass destruction in his hands.

The truth is, Patrick Crusius was a sadly predictable product of the Lone Star State — and particularly its wealthy Dallas suburbs — in 2019.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Bernie Sanders' Chances Depend on Taking Support From Biden, and Soon Print
Tuesday, 13 August 2019 10:58

Taibbi writes: "While Sanders can't eat a corn dog without taking a hit, frontrunner Joe Biden is testing the limits of editorial slack."

Bernie Sanders talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)
Bernie Sanders talks to supporters during a rally at the University of Washington, in Seattle. (photo: Joshua Trujillo/Seattlepi.com)


Bernie Sanders' Chances Depend on Taking Support From Biden, and Soon

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

13 August 19


“Scranton Joe” has proved a more difficult foil for Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton, particularly with working-class voters

op campaign staffers for Bernie Sanders held a press call Monday, and the message was positive. The senator, they said, is doing well and won the last debate. And polls show, they added, that the country cares about his favored issues, particularly health care.

But that’s not always, his staff noted pointedly to listening reporters, reflected in the coverage.     

“It seems like there’s a direct correlation,” said senior advisor Jeff Weaver, who was on the call alongside campaign co-chair and Ohio state senator Nina Turner and pollster Ben Tulchin. “The better [Sanders] does, the less coverage he receives. The worse he does, the more.”

Sanders still can’t walk in a straight line without attracting negative press. A New York Times story this week about Bernie’s trip to the Iowa state fair dinged him for having “power-walked by the Ferris Wheel” and “gobbled a corn dog” during a journey in which he “spoke to almost no one.” This, reporter Sydney Ember concluded, underscored the peril of a campaign based on ideas rather than “establishing human connections.”

The Times wrote the same story four years ago, when Bernie’s crime was walking down 6th Avenue, “swinging hands with his wife, Jane,” and “talking as little as possible to people.” Observing that Bernie signed the cast of a 9 year-old girl without schmoozing her undecided-voter father, reporter Patrick Healy concluded he was “surprisingly impersonal.” Headline: “Bernie Sanders does not kiss babies. That a problem?”

While Sanders can’t eat a corn dog without taking a hit, frontrunner Joe Biden is testing the limits of editorial slack. Biden struggles constantly with bizarre or flat-out inappropriate statements, an issue that goes beyond the speech impediment he had as a child. This year he’s putting together a George W. Bushian mashupof goofs,with “We choose truth over facts!” and the more troubling “poor kids are just as talented as white kids!” the latest. Tweeting about Biden’s lack of a “full deck” seems among Donald Trump’s favorite things to do of late, an ominous sign for a potential general election.

Biden’s gaffes have earned press, some negative (he’s “raising questions” about “electability,” says The Hill), but some defiant (the idea that gaffes are important in the Trump age is “particularly offensive,” says aWashington Post columnist). The question of whether Biden’s verbal fumbles deserve censure, laughter, or a break has become the prevailing controversy around the front-runner.

Meanwhile the larger issue of what Biden’s politics are, and whether they’re an improvement over the platform that lost to Trump four years ago, recedes. Even Sanders has seemed unsure if he should or shouldn’t throw his trademark vituperation at his old Senate colleague.

Hill/HarrisX poll from last week had Bernie as the second choice of 27% of Biden voters, with Kamala Harris second at 15%, Beto O’Rourke third, Pete Buttigieg fourth, and Elizabeth Warren fifth at 8%. An April Morning Consult survey likewise had Sanders as the second choice of 31% of Biden voters, again followed by Harris (13%), with Warren third at 10%.

The second choice of most Sanders voters, meanwhile, is Biden, not Warren.

Basically, Biden is taking working-class votes away from Sanders, and Sanders has seemed slow to grasp this.

The strength of Bernie Sanders as a politician has always been his believability as a bringer of change. His unsparing attitude on the stump has always been a part of this formula. Whether or not you feel Bernie has the right policy prescription, there’s no doubt what side of things he’s on. His distaste for insurance companies, tech plutocrats like Jeff Bezos, fast food chains, Disney, bankers, the “mainstream media,” corporate cash-gobbling pols in both parties, and other vermin is too visceral and obvious to miss.

In 2016, Bernie’s disagreements with Hillary Clinton were profound. He stressed he was a different kind of person than Clinton, not just someone who clashed on policy.

“The first difference is I don’t take money from big banks,” he said. Another oft-quoted line: “I am proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend,” a reference to Hillary Clinton saying she was “flattered” by Kissinger’s praise.

2020 is different. Sanders has long referred to Biden has his friend. In 2016, Biden was one of few conventional Democrats to make an effort to say nice things about Sanders, even in contrast with Clinton.

This exchange with CNN’s Gloria Borger in January of 2016 was an example:

BIDEN: Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real, and he has credibility on it. And that is the absolutely enormous concentration of wealth in a small group of people with the middle class being left out…

CNN: But Hillary is talking about that as well?

BIDEN: Well, it is relatively new for Hillary to talk about that…

Sanders, raised by Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn, grew up in much meaner circumstances than Biden, but their backgrounds aren’t dissimilar. Biden is the son of a down-on-his-luck car dealership manager from Scranton, and has a reputation as an old-school church-and-factory man, who enjoys hanging out in diners and bowling alleys.

While reporters who cover Biden have long understood the “Scranton Joe” image to be as much caricature as reality, voters don’t see it that way.

The Malcolm Gladwell/Blink response many Democrats, particularly older ones, have to Biden is that he’s an affable, try-hard representative of the little guy. Biden sells himself as a “union man” who eschews the Martha’s Vineyard-and-Davos image of neoliberal Democrats.

Intellectually, the Sanders campaign has pushed back. In April, after Biden displaced him from the poll lead, Bernie went on TV to talk about his policy differences with Biden.

He seemed put out that Biden kicked off his campaign with an endorsement from the International Association of Fire Fighters. Sanders, who’s described his campaign as a Trade Unionist revolution, pointed to Biden’s support of trademark union betrayals like NAFTA, Most Favored Nation trading status for China, and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

But Bernie hastened to remind everyone he and Biden were friends, and he would run an “issue-oriented campaign, not based on personal attacks.” He has since tried repeatedly to draw civil distinctions between himself and Biden, including a July clash over health care.

In a typical example of how Biden’s political style works, he trashed Bernie’s Medicare for All plan in a rambling, inscrutable speech that asked audience members who’d lost loved ones to terminal illnesses to raise their hands. Then he said:

Every second counts. It’s not about a year, it’s about the day, the week, the month, the next six months. It’s about hope. And if you have these hiatuses, it may, it may — this may go as smooth — as my grandpappy said — smooth as silk. But the truth of the matter is, it’s likely to be a bumpy ride…

Underneath all the homespun “grandpappy” verbiage, Biden seemed to be suggesting the Sanders plan would create coverage “hiatuses” for people who might literally die any second. Underneath the oddball messaging, it was a classic corporate scare-tactic talking point.

The Sanders camp pushed back, but Bernie still didn’t name Biden when he countered soon after in a speech at George Washington University blasting “half-truths, misinformation and in some cases outright lies that are being spread about Medicare for All.”

Sanders has a million volunteers, 2.5 million contributors, and a campaign-leading $27.3 million in cash on hand. His campaign is correct this week to point out that rumors of his demise are absurd. Still, he’s not wildly outperforming expectations the way he did in 2016.

Some of his issues are due to coverage, like the insistence that Sanders and Warren are fighting over the same finite patch of votes, when polls increasingly show Sanders and Warren are succeeding with different groups.

Warren has made inroads among traditional Democrats and older female voters who eluded Sanders last time, suggesting that there’s more support for progressive policy ideas out there than commonly believed. While Warren has votes to win among the supporters of Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (whose supporters view Warren as a second choice), Bernie’s immediate challenge is Biden, in particular his grip on low-income voters.

Biden’s appeal is that he’s a vote for a return to a kind of status quo, which should be a pitch in Bernie’s wheelhouse. Sanders’ campaign is based on the notion that a return even to pre-Trump norms is unsustainable – for the underinsured, for the climate, for union and non-union workers, for customers of banks, for holders of student debt, and so on.

Hillary Clinton, with her defiant “that’s what they offered” response to questions about bank-funded speaking fees, made finding outrage on this front easy for Sanders. The conundrum of “Scranton Joe” is no less real, but it’s been politically more difficult, and Sanders is running out of time to solve it.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
This Is What's at Stake in the Next Election Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 13 August 2019 08:26

Reich writes: "Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham admitted that Trump and Republicans in Congress plan to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2021."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


This Is What's at Stake in the Next Election

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

13 August 19

 

olks, this is what's at stake in the next election. Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham admitted that Trump and Republicans in Congress plan to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2021. If the law is repealed an estimated 20 million Americans would lose coverage -- many of whom live in states that voted for Trump.

Here's the bottom-line: For nearly a decade, Republicans in Congress have pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but have yet to offer any alternative that would ensure health care for the American people. Their only goal has always been to boost the profits of insurance companies. What do you think?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The FBI Told Congress Domestic Terror Investigations Led to 90 Recent Arrests. It Wouldn't Show Us Records of Even One. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51376"><span class="small">Fritz Zimmermann, ProPublica</span></a>   
Monday, 12 August 2019 14:12

Zimmermann writes: "Four days after asking for information on the FBI's claims of 90 domestic terrorism arrests, we are still waiting. And, frankly, it got kind of weird."

FBI agents. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
FBI agents. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)


The FBI Told Congress Domestic Terror Investigations Led to 90 Recent Arrests. It Wouldn't Show Us Records of Even One.

By Fritz Zimmermann, ProPublica

12 August 19


Four days after asking for information on the FBI’s claims of 90 domestic terrorism arrests, we are still waiting. And, frankly, it got kind of weird.

n July 23, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that federal investigations of domestic terrorism had led to some 100 arrests in the last nine months. While the FBI quickly announced that the number was 90, not 100, the basic message appeared unchanged: The FBI was actively investigating and prosecuting domestic terrorists.

The 90 arrests have been cited countless times since last weekend’s killing of 22 people in El Paso, Texas, by a man suspected of harboring racist views of immigrants. To find out more, we contacted the FBI on Monday, asking who had been arrested, as well as where and when, and what the allegations were in each case.

Four days later, we have been given next to no information about them.

Our first inquiry on Monday was straightforward: We asked for basic information about each of the 90 arrests, which we assumed had all been publicly announced.

An FBI spokeswoman wrote back: “We would not be able to provide you with a comprehensive list of these press releases. As there is no federal domestic terrorism statute so DT subjects are charged under other federal, state, and local charges.”

We understood that those arrested for committing or intending to commit violent acts on American soil are typically prosecuted for an assortment of crimes — murder, say, or illegal possession of firearms — not domestic terrorism, for which there’s no federal charge. The 90 people who were supposedly arrested might have been ultimately prosecuted by local authorities.

But it seemed clear from Wray’s statements that the FBI had done the work of determining which of the cases involving, as the spokeswoman put it, “other federal, state and local charges” involved elements of domestic terror. There had been a formal count. Wray had testified as much.

We wrote to the FBI again: “Thank you for getting back to me this fast and for your answer. I am a bit confused though: The number of DT arrests I was referring to originally comes from the FBI Director and was later clarified by a FBI spokesperson. So where would that number come from? I would be happy if you could clarify this point?”

The spokeswoman responded: “What do you mean? We clarified the number, it’s a comprehensive list of press releases that I’m saying we’re unable to provide.”

The spokeswoman, saying she was speaking “on background,” and thus not to be identified, later suggested that we go on the Department of Justice’s public affairs website and “see what pops up.”

So we did. When we typed in domestic terrorism arrests for the past nine months, five cases came up. But only one of the cases actually involved an American arrested for seeking to harm others in the U.S. — Cesar Sayoc, the man recently sentenced to 20 years for mailing 16 explosive devices to a variety of current and former government officials and the philanthropist George Soros.

Obviously, that was far short of the cases Wray had referenced. It also seemed odd that the FBI would suggest this approach to searching since it had to have done a more comprehensive compilation to equip its director with the numbers he gave the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We tried again: “Thanks for your reply! What I mean is: you clarified the number, so despite DT subjects being charged under ‘other federal, state, and local charges,’ as you wrote, the FBI obviously has information about all these cases. And this is what I’ve been originally asking for. So I would be glad if you could give me the following information about as many of the 90 arrests as possible: who was arrested, where, when and what the allegations were. If you are unable to provide this information or a comprehensive list of press releases I would like to know why.”

On the phone, she again cited the figure of 90 arrests, adding, “These are people that the FBI arrested as a result of a domestic terrorism investigation.”

But she also repeated that the bureau couldn’t give us any information, even press releases, about these arrests. “In their arrests they may not be characterized as domestic terrorists depending on how those arrests were made in the locality, in the state … so it’s just not something the FBI is able to publicly provide,” she said.

Yahoo News on Thursday published what it said was a document detailing the 2018 domestic terrorism arrests involving white supremacists, something the article said Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had been unsuccessfully seeking from the Department of Justice.

“This map reflects 32 domestic terrorist attacks, disrupted plots, threats of violence, and weapons stockpiling by individuals with a radical political or social agenda who lack direction or influence from foreign terrorist organizations in 2018,” the document cited in the Yahoo article stated. The document, the article said, had been produced by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security Preparedness.

Late on Thursday, we tried to make things simpler with the FBI in hopes of getting some kind of firm answer: If the FBI could not quickly list the arrests stemming from domestic terrorism investigations, could it say how many such investigations had been carried out in 2019?

The spokeswoman did not respond to the request.

The entire exchange left us increasingly perplexed. The FBI had clearly been proud of its record in making arrests of possible domestic terrorists. Wray had testified that the bureau took the threat “extremely seriously.” The country was eager to be reassured in the aftermath of the killings in El Paso. Why wouldn’t the FBI be able to quickly cite its array of successes?

We asked the FBI if it could send us any of the press releases of the cases Wray had referenced specifically at the hearing. Once again, the spokeswoman demurred.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Facebook's Libra Cryptocurrency Is Part of a Disturbing Financial Trend Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51374"><span class="small">Graham Steele, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Monday, 12 August 2019 14:07

Steele writes: "In June, Facebook announced plans to effectively create its own alternative currency called Libra - and, eventually, a financial system to go with it."

Representation of virtual currency. (photo: Dado Ruvic/Reuters)
Representation of virtual currency. (photo: Dado Ruvic/Reuters)


Facebook's Libra Cryptocurrency Is Part of a Disturbing Financial Trend

By Graham Steele, The Washington Post

12 August 19

 

n June, Facebook announced plans to effectively create its own alternative currency called Libra — and, eventually, a financial system to go with it. The proposal was so galling in its hubris that it sparked bipartisan outrage across our polarized political spectrum. Libra was, of course, cloaked in corporatespeak that implies lower costs and more freedom for consumers and businesses through “innovation” or “inclusion” or “synergies.” But given Facebook’s abysmal track record, lawmakers are justified in their skepticism.

What should really concern them, though, is that Libra is only the latest example of a larger, more troubling trend: the gradual blurring of the line between finance and commerce that’s taken place over the past few decades. This trend has carried significant implications for customer privacy, competition, financial risk and concentrated economic and political power. Stopping Libra would be a positive sign that policymakers are starting to take these issues seriously, but more still needs to be done to unwind the excessive intertwining of finance and industry.

In his 1936 message to Congress, FDR warned of the risks from “domination of government by financial and industrial groups, numerically small but politically dominant.” With such concerns in mind, our nation has held that it’s critical to separate banking from commercial business — even enshrining this principle in policy. In practice, however, legal loopholes created by lawyers and lobbyists undermine this rule by letting financial and commercial companies combine under the same corporate structure.

First, industrial companies opened their own banks because, as the bank robber Willie Sutton once put it, “that’s where the money is.” These “industrial loan” companies are allowed to take customer deposits without the same oversight that applies to most banks. That’s an attractive proposition because deposits are a cheap source of funding, government-provided deposit insurance covers their losses up to a certain amount and retailers are able to drum up business by financing customer purchases.

Industrial loan companies were a small part of the financial marketplace until big retailers like Walmart and Home Depot saw an opportunity and applied to open their own banks, in the face of opposition from community banks, consumer groups and labor unions. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, giant commercial lenders GMAC and GE Capital also exploited this law to access cheap deposits to fund some of their risky activities, leading to billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts.

Unfortunately, instead of eliminating this loophole, the 2010 Wall Street reform law called only for a pause and study on new industrial bank charters. Now Big Tech is looking to come through the door that Congress left open, and regulators in the Trump administration have put out a welcome mat for them. So far, these applications have largely been limited to tech companies like $28 billion payment company Square that already offers financial services. But there should little doubt that companies like Facebook and Amazon won’t be far behind them.

Meanwhile, the 1999 law that repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act also allowed banks to own and operate commercial businesses. Wall Street banks promised that creating diversified financial holding companies would allow them to offer conveniences such as travel agencies to serve their credit card customers.

It’s one thing for a bank to invest in, or lend money to, a publicly traded company with millions of shareholders. But things get more treacherous when a bank is the owner and operator of a company that gives them special insights, market advantages and the ability to influence nonfinancial businesses. That is why banks are supposed to keep the businesses that they own at arms’ length through financial and management firewalls.

Investigations in 2013 and 2014 by two Senate committees revealed that banks were regularly exceeding legal limits on ownership and control. Businesses that rely on aluminum reported that a metals warehouse owned by Goldman Sachs was driving up the cost of aluminum, raising the price of products such as beer and soda. J.P. Morgan used its energy trading business to manipulate energy markets, making consumers pay higher electricity rates. After these scandals, regulators promised reforms, but, five years later, they have still done nothing.

This is where the real threat of Libra presents itself. Because these laws are still on the books, Facebook could eventually open its own bank and offer a full suite of credit and payment services. Under that arrangement, it could offer favorable credit terms and faster transactions to customers that use its banking services at its affiliated retailer. Conversely, Citigroup could own and operate its own online retailer, offering lower prices to its bank customers. Either of these scenarios would spell trouble for small banks and retailers forced to compete on an unlevel playing field against big businesses with outsize market power.

Then there’s the question of privacy. Commingling a digital marketplace with all of a customer’s financial information, including purchases and deposits, is also bad for customers and taxpayers. First, it centralizes sensitive customer information — directly contradicting the supposed purpose of decentralized cryptocurrencies — allowing banks and tech companies the potential to mine their data and determine the maximum price that each customer is willing or able to pay for goods and services. Second, it creates heightened vulnerability to data breaches and abuse. Third, it has the potential to undermine important consumer protections including credit reporting, debt collection and wage garnishment, giving a company powerful leverage over its customers.

Finally, allowing nonfinancial businesses access to the federal safety net that backstops our banking system could lead to taxpayer-funded bailouts for troubled retailers, tech companies and others. There are supposed to be firewalls preventing this from happening, but those contain holes of their own.

Before you dismiss the risks from this sort of excessive concentration as speculative, consider what’s already happening today. The largest Japanese online marketplace has applied for a U.S. industrial loan company charter, prompting the banking industry’s largest trade association to raise concerns about “the free flow of credit, consumer privacy and possible conflicts of interest.” Walmart recently filed a patent application to create its own cryptocurrency, and Amazon is targeting its customers with a subprime credit card that can be used only on its platforms. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) As the saying goes, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”

Louis Brandeis said of the early 20th century trusts that “both the financial concentration and the combinations which they have served were, in the main, against the public interest.” Big banks and big tech may use fancy algorithms and apps instead of railroads, but his words are as true today as they were when he wrote them.

Regardless of whether Facebook decides to back away from its proposal voluntarily or is forced to do so, public officials need to send a clear message that any other companies contemplating a similar scheme should think again. It wasn’t the first company to have this idea, and it surely won’t be the last.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Next > End >>

Page 796 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