RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN | Elliot Abrams: Eyewitness to a War Criminal Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39146"><span class="small">Dennis J Bernstein, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 March 2019 11:48

Bernstein writes: "Through the 1980s, I wrote extensively about the impact of US policies in Central America, particularly in El Salvador and Guatemala, which included the training and funding of brutal dictators, corrupt politicians, and paramilitary death squads - iron-fisted rulers who ravaged and tortured their people, and murdered tens of thousands of those who tried to resist - teachers, farmers, campesinos union people, priests and nuns and church workers, and generally speaking the very poorest of the poor."

Elliott Abrams. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
Elliott Abrams. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)


Elliot Abrams: Eyewitness to a War Criminal

By Dennis J Bernstein, Reader Supported News

03 March 19

 

hrough the 1980s, I wrote extensively about the impact of US policies in Central America, particularly in El Salvador and Guatemala, which included the training and funding of brutal dictators, corrupt politicians, and paramilitary death squads — iron-fisted rulers who ravaged and tortured their people, and murdered tens of thousands of those who tried to resist — teachers, farmers, campesinos union people, priests and nuns and church workers, and generally speaking the very poorest of the poor.

In El Salvador, US-supported neo-Nazis such as Major Roberto D’Aubuisson raged regularly about Jesuit Communist scum that needed to be eradicated by any means necessary. D’Aubuisson studied unconventional warfare in the U.S. and Taiwan. He once told European journalists, “You Germans were very intelligent. You realized that the Jews were responsible for the spread of communism, so you killed them.” Former U.S. Ambassador Robert White called D’Aubuisson a “pathological killer.”

Many of those named by D’Aubuisson and other military death-squad activists would end up at the bottom of a ravine, hanging from a tree, or just lying akimbo in the street, shredded and providing an abundance of food for the vultures. The bullets that tore their bodies to shreds were often paid for by US tax dollars.

In her newly released book, What You Have Heard Is True: A Memoir of Witness and Resistance, noted poet Carolyn Forche offers an eyewitness account of the kind of abject violence supported and encouraged by the US in general, and closely supervised at the time by pardoned Iran Contra criminal Elliot Abrams, who was at the time the assistant secretary for Inter-American Affairs.

At one point, Forche and a Salvadoran friend come upon a scene so horrific it almost defies description, although through the 1980s it wasn’t unusual. “Turkey vultures hopped from corpse to corpse grunting and hissing.... They pull flesh in long strips from the corpses ... a ribbon of intestine hangs from a beak ... they are so fat with flesh they are unable to fly…."

Francisco Herrera was also an eyewitness to the brutal US-supported dictatorship. He first went to El Salvador in 1980 as a young Jesuit, and then through the 1980s he led human rights fact-finding missions and humanitarian aid missions to the war-ravaged country.

For many years, Herrera, now a noted folk singer and revered human rights activist in the Bay Area, had repressed some of the worst scenes of terror in order to go on with his life. But he is outraged about the cleansing of Abrams’s role in supporting ten years of mass murder in Central America and his recent elevation to special adviser to the Trump administration for the so-called US democratic intervention in Venezuela.

I spoke to Herrera in Oakland, California, on February 27th about his experiences in El Salvador through the 1980s even as Abrams covered up one documented massacre after another and the mainstream media and US politicians continually played it down.

Dennis Bernstein: Welcome, Francisco Herrera. Thank you for your willingness to talk about your eyewitness experiences in El Salvador through the 1980s — what you witnessed and your ability to overcome your own fear in order to bring medical aid and comfort to the many Central American victims of US foreign policy. Tell us when you first learned about Abrams and what some of the results were of the kind of policies he was overseeing there.

Francisco Herrera: I first became aware of the work of Elliot Abrams in 1981, when we were commemorating the first anniversary of the murder of Archbishop Romero, who was killed by the military under the leadership of Abrams and folks like him. I was in San Diego working in a Jesuit parish. From 1981 through 1985, we regularly collected medicines and received refugee families in San Diego, in LA, and in San Francisco and Oakland. We dealt with the trauma of people who had seen their relatives cut into pieces or burnt alive, who had survived horrific torture. I first went to El Salvador itself, coming from Panama, in 1985. I spent a few days there and then began preparing to work at Jesuit Refugee Services, which was operating internal refugee camps in El Salvador, helping people who had been displaced by war. It was basically a copy of the Phoenix Operation in Vietnam, where they were bombing the countryside and forcing survivors into refugee camps, kidnapping children and selling them off, just like they had done in Argentina. Ironically, this is what is happening again with the kids that Trump has separated from their families, and who are now being given up for adoption and put in foster care. From 1985 to 1992, I was either working there or taking delegations in and out of El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.

DB: Let’s talk a little about the kinds of things that were happening in El Salvador as a result of the policy imposed by, among others, Elliot Abrams. This was a slaughterous military trained by the US government. Many who fled did so because the United States supported this so-called anti-communist slaughter.

Herrera: One of the things Elliot Abrams brought to El Salvador was cocaine. I remember the number of testimonies of soldiers who were traumatized after being forced to inhale cocaine so that they would be ready to go and kill unarmed children and families. The cocaine enabled soldiers to commit the atrocities they did. I remember one night I was counting the bombs I could hear in the distance. Within an hour, I had already recorded hearing over 250 explosions. It was very commonplace to see bodies along the roads. I remember one guy in his early twenties the death squads had left for dead. They had injected him with poison and dumped him in one of the dumps where they would throw human beings. He was able to drag himself to a house that rescued him. Every night we would have to clean his wounds and we had to put a rag in his mouth because we couldn’t afford to have him yelling and risk that a neighbor would hear and report us to the government. You never knew who would accuse you of being a communist or whatever.

I remember another young man in the refugee camp who had shrapnel in his spinal cord and was in such pain that we had to keep him on suicide watch. One woman couldn’t take it anymore and finally refused to eat. Two days later she was dead. I remember another man whose throat was cut and was also left for dead. He was able to literally hold his head in position and run to a convent. He survived but was unable to speak and suffered from epileptic seizures.

For a period of four months in this refugee camp, every single day we had to go through a military checkpoint to get in or out of the camp. I remember on January 16, 1988, they came with a list of twelve people they were going to take away. It was breathtaking to see the courage of those who refused to let others be taken away. Eventually the soldiers left without taking anyone, but the next day they circled us and fired countless rounds and threw in grenades.

DB: Bullets and grenades facilitated again by US policy. Wasn’t Abrams one of the US officials who minimized and covered up the slaughter of the Jesuit priests in 1989?

Herrera: The Jesuit University in El Salvador had a very good team of directors, and the president of the university did very powerful work in the area of reconciliation, bringing forth issues that would force dialogue. He was not at all someone advocating for the FMLN, he was organizing dialogue. On November 16, 1989, the military entered the house where the president lived on the university campus. They tortured some people and then shot all of them in the head. This is when the military was being dismantled and the US was facing defeat, so they staged several of these desperate acts. It was shocking because it involved leaders of the intellectual community, but this happened to hundreds of thousands of people. I remember how a young man with mental disabilities, a neighbor of ours, was burned alive. It was an unbelievably sadistic act. I spent some time in Guatemala and while I was there I heard how the military went into one town and actually ripped open the heart of one of the leaders and bit into it, in order to subdue the community.

DB: And let’s be clear, this is not something exceptional. This is an example of the kind of unbelievable savagery that the United States supported through Elliot Abrams, which led to the fleeing of very significant populations of these countries.

Herrera: The US then created these gangs of young people who had survived the torture and deported them to El Salvador, which accounts for the extreme violence which survives to this day. They created a situation in which drug smuggling could thrive. A friend of mine who was working for the DEA was brutally murdered and cut up in Mexico, and the tapes of his torture were sent to his mother. He was murdered because the CIA didn’t want to be caught smuggling drugs.

DB: I confirmed that policy through a DEA agent named Selerino Castillo III, who documented weapon shipments and cocaine shipments operated from Ilopango Airport. There was a deal between the United States government and drug traffickers whereby they would be able to bring their drugs into the US and then fly weapons to the so-called Contras. So that at the same time they are supporting the slaughter in El Salvador, they are working to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.

By the way, the person who Trump just appointed the new attorney general, William Barr, was the one who pardoned Elliot Abrams, after all this mass murder, while he was attorney general under George H.W. Bush. So we can thank Barr that Elliot Abrams still influences US foreign policy.

Herrera: Yes, what they are trying to do now in Venezuela is what they practiced in El Salvador, in Guatemala, and in Honduras. This continues to be a horrific piece of history. Still today, if you go to Mission Street, you are going to find a lot of Salvadoran veterans whose lives were destroyed. They are alcoholics, doing drugs, sleeping in the streets. Understandably, they have a hard time dealing with what they did to their own populations.

DB: It is hard to describe the suffering, how vicious it was. And there were always CIA observers there. There were always CIA officials observing the torture and the killings. I don’t know how you had the courage to live through that. Frankly, every time I think about this there’s a sort of traffic jam between my mind and my heart. I almost can’t take it, and I wasn’t even there, I was witnessing it in other ways.

Herrera: I have to say that what made a very big difference was that people in the United States refused to participate. And this is what we have to do now, we have to force the United States to stop their stupid sanctions against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. It is our job to get out on the streets, to call Congress and tell them that this cannot be done in our name.

Email This Page


Dennis J Bernstein is the executive producer of Flashpoints, syndicated on Pacifica Radio, and is the recipient of a 2015 Pillar Award for his work as a journalist whistleblower. He is most recently the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom.

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
 
I Testified Against Nixon. Here's My Advice for Michael Cohen. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50277"><span class="small">John Dean, The New York Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 March 2019 09:34

Dean writes: "There are several parallels between my testimony before Congress in 1973, about President Richard Nixon and his White House, and Michael Cohen's testimony this week about President Trump and his business practices."

John W. Dean being sworn in before reading his statement to the Watergate committee, June 25, 1973. (photo: George Tames/NYT)
John W. Dean being sworn in before reading his statement to the Watergate committee, June 25, 1973. (photo: George Tames/NYT)


I Testified Against Nixon. Here's My Advice for Michael Cohen.

By John Dean, The New York Times

03 March 19


My appearance before Congress helped take down a president. Will the same thing happen to Trump?

here are several parallels between my testimony before Congress in 1973, about President Richard Nixon and his White House, and Michael Cohen’s testimony this week about President Trump and his business practices. Setting aside the differences regarding how we got there, we both found ourselves speaking before Congress, in multiple open and closed venues, about criminal conduct of a sitting president of the United States. This is not a pleasant place to be, particularly given the presidents involved.

There are some differences: Unlike Mr. Cohen, who testified in public for a day, I testified for five days. His prepared statement was about 4,000 words; mine was some 60,000 words. Nielsen reports over 16 million people watched his testimony. I am told over 80 million people watched all or part of mine.

Polls varied widely after my testimony. One said 50 percent of Americans believed me, 30 percent did not, and 20 percent were not sure. Another poll had 38 percent believing the president, who denied my statement, and 37 percent believing me. The instant polls on Mr. Cohen’s testimony vary by party affiliation, as was the case with my polls. But 35 percent found him credible. I believe that number will grow.

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Cult of the Good Christian Woman Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50274"><span class="small">Sarah Olson, Medium</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 March 2019 13:51

Olson writes: "Who is the 'Good Christian Woman'? She is a wife who values having a family over a career or education."

The Good Christian Woman ideal is not only repressive, it is the epicenter of harmful expectations for women perpetuated within the conservative Christian community. (photo: Fei Fei)
The Good Christian Woman ideal is not only repressive, it is the epicenter of harmful expectations for women perpetuated within the conservative Christian community. (photo: Fei Fei)


The Cult of the Good Christian Woman

By Sarah Olson, Medium

02 March 19


The community that raised me is pushing an ideal for women that is repressive and damaging

ho is the “Good Christian Woman”? She is a wife who values having a family over a career or education. She oversees domestic responsibilities, she is obedient to her husband and God’s will, and she protects her children from secular influence. She defends the rights of the unborn and asserts that men are leaders. In church, she is known as a godly woman, the idealistic vision young girls are encouraged to become.

A cult is defined as a religious devotion toward a specific figure. Today, many women in the conservative Christian community have a cult-like devotion for the Good Christian Woman. In the name of this godly ideal they condemn abortion, gender equality, even education and careers. The Good Christian Woman ideal is not only repressive, it is the epicenter of harmful expectations for women perpetuated within the conservative Christian community.

A vivid example of this toxic behavior is evident in the backlash against the recent abortion law in the state of New York, which allows for abortions past 24 weeks when medically necessary. The conservative Christian community is making their anger about this law widely known, spreading misinformation and sparking emotional outrage over legislation that was meant to protect the health of women who require medical intervention later during pregnancy. Worse, a new trend on Twitter uses the hashtag #UndocumentedInfants to compare the uterus to the border, as if women’s bodies are nothing more than a political battleground. The language used has been beyond hurtful and repressive, and much of it said for the Christian cause.

Dr. Jennifer Gunter, a gynecologist and women’s health advocate, discussed several reasons for late abortions in a tweet thread that went semi-viral:



I am deeply familiar with these ignorant and misinformed beliefs because I was raised in a conservative Christian community. When my Midwestern family moved to San Diego, my mother home-schooled her five children to protect us from secular influence. Lessons on the Big Bang and evolution were among those censored from my science curriculum, and when #ExposeChristianSchools recently trended on Twitter, I stepped up to share my familiarity with Christian home schooling. For many of my followers, it was shocking that a science communicator and feminist such as myself came from this background.

But for me, escaping that community?—?and what I believe to be a “cult” centered on the Good Christian Woman?—?has consumed most of my life. It’s the reason I moved out at 18, and am now living hundreds of miles away from the town where I grew up. It’s the reason I am pursuing a career communicating science and advocating for women, all while putting myself through school because my parents don’t support that I’m studying for a degree in biology.

Back in my teen years, I was fortunate that my parents decided to enroll me in a public charter school while my siblings went through Christian schools. There, free from restrictions, I quickly realized I was missing a chunk of education that my peers had been taught. In both my classes and social life, I felt behind and backward. When my pro-life, anti-feminist, and religious beliefs were challenged, I had nothing with which to defend the lessons my parents had taught me. Then, I outraged my parents by dating an atheist, and by the time our brief relationship ended I was no longer a believer. I began to rebel against everything the Good Christian Woman represented?—?and as a result, I was drawn further toward science and feminism. Those are bad words in the conservative Christian community.

To complicate matters further, as my bisexuality became more evident toward the end of high school, I tried to keep it from my parents. Still, they confiscated my books that contained suggestive female relationships; they lectured me on homosexuality; they banned sleepovers and refused to let me be alone with girls, as if this might somehow fix me. (This is just another example of intolerance toward non-heterosexuality in the conservative community, though many progressive Christians are much more tolerant.) I wish I would have had the vocabulary back then to better defend myself, but I was locked in a cycle of shame I could not escape until I moved away.

Shame is the weapon of choice for the cult of the Good Christian Woman. In fact, the culture of shame is so deeply ingrained in the conservative Christian community that the young women who celebrate the Good Christian Woman are likely suffering the most. Recently a very good friend of mine, a young woman I love like a sister, revealed on Facebook that she has been struggling with singleness. Raised by a community which enforces that women’s value comes from wifeliness, motherhood, and marriage, she has needed help understanding that being single is not a punishment from God or a failure on her part. She’s only in her early twenties.

I reached out to her and learned that there is a community of eligible young women?—?smart, wonderful women like herself?—?who are despairing over being single. Programs and books have had to be created to help these young women find hope while they wait for a husband. It’s a problem the Christian community created, and now they’re forced to design a solution for it. This is deeply troubling to me not only as a feminist, but because these are women I grew up with. These are my sisters. There’s a generation striving to uphold the ideal of the Good Christian Woman, and then despairing when they inevitably fail to achieve it.

Perpetuating this repressive lifestyle are people like Lori Alexander, blogger at the Transformed Wife, whose tweet about why women must choose between career and family recently gained quite a bit of attention. Her tweet outraged the many women working hard to balance their careers while raising children. But I’m familiar with her argument, as well as her blog, which features popular posts such as: “She Doesn’t Want to Go to College,” “Women in the Workforce Have Hurt Men’s Ability to Provide for Their Families,” “College Keeps Women From Bearing Children,” and “Should Husbands Ever Discipline Their Wives?”

This may seem straight out of Little House on the Prairie, but for women in the conservative Christian community, upholding these Biblical standards brings praise and admiration from others. It’s a cult of domesticity, the model housewife that companies like Coca-Cola sold Americans in the ’50s. Alexander doesn’t shock me because she’s simply expressing the same mentality that the women who raised my generation pushed on us. Women who pursue the ideals of Good Christian Woman are validated by the community that enforces those values?—?and punishes those who reject them.

An example of this validation can be seen in Rachel Held Evans’ book A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master.” Evans was inspired to follow the commands for women outlined in the Bible, just as they were originally intended, when she felt as though her evangelical community needed to return to true Biblical womanhood. Though she intended to debunk the idea of Old Testament values for women to follow, her book comes across as defensive of the Good Christian Woman.

While it’s easy to laugh at the idea of living an entire year by the antique rules described in the Bible, I was appalled by the way Evans seemed to play with the idea of female oppression. She appears to think calling her husband “Master” is a fun and interesting experience for her book, and that sleeping in a tent during her period was somehow a liberating, religious experience. She doesn’t seem to understand that some women do submit to husbands as their masters, often suffering abuse and rape in the process. She doesn’t seem to know that in some places, women die after being banished to menstruation huts. Of course, Evans does not have to worry about any of that. She did this “challenge” because it was just another fun, trendy experience for a conservative Christian woman.

Throughout my life and my time in the church, I have witnessed firsthand how these beliefs, masked by the ideals of the Good Christian Woman, are much more sinister than they appear. It’s both men and women who perpetuate these repressive beliefs, and both men and women who are directly suffering?—?but I argue women more so. Christianity is supposed to be a source of hope and strength, the center of a supportive community. Christians are supposed to be sharing a message of love and forgiveness. Instead, the conservative Christian community has become infected by toxicity, distrust, and shame. They distrust science and medicine, spread falsehoods about gender equality, and are becoming more radically repressive by attacking those who challenge their beliefs and asserting that their religion is law.

It’s time to call out the Good Christian Woman for what it is: an idealistic lie designed to perpetuate repressive beliefs.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Are Foreign Countries Benefiting From Jared Kushner's Security Clearance? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Saturday, 02 March 2019 11:50

Rich writes: "Surely you are not suggesting that Jared resign before he unveils his Middle East peace plan! In any case, there may be no way to force any of these grifters out of the White House short of handcuffs."

It appears Kushner has lies and nepotism to thank for his security clearance. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
It appears Kushner has lies and nepotism to thank for his security clearance. (photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)


Are Foreign Countries Benefiting From Jared Kushner's Security Clearance?

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

02 March 19


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, new revelations about Jared Kushner’s security clearance, the fallout from the Michael Cohen hearing, and Mark Meadows’s birtherism.

ccording to a report in the New York TimesJared Kushner received his top-secret security clearance because of an “order” by Donald Trump, spurring the White House counsel and chief of staff to compose memos at the time outlining their concerns. In previous interviews with the press where they had been asked about this directly, Trump and Ivanka both seem to have lied. Should Kushner be forced to resign?

Surely you are not suggesting that Jared resign before he unveils his Middle East peace plan! In any case, there may be no way to force any of these grifters out of the White House short of handcuffs. It has long been my contention that Jared’s subconscious ambition is to follow his father, Charles, into prison. Every revelation brings him closer to his goal, starting as far back as his attempt to set up a secret communications back channel between the Trump transition and the Russians to circumvent America’s intelligence agencies. His and the Kushner family’s international dealings to secure financing for their struggling real-estate ventures since Inauguration Day have repeatedly raised the question of which country he is actually serving from his perch in the White House. Russia? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? China? Certainly there is nothing in Kushner’s record to suggest that he is loyal to the United States of America.

This latest bombshell raises a whole bunch of ancillary questions. Indeed, why did Ivanka and Jared’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, appear to lie about his devious path to his security clearance? And what about John Kelly, that good soldier who was widely praised in Washington as the “adult” in the Trump circle? We’ve already learned that he is a racist and a nativist from various incidents during his craven tenure in the administration, but now we have to wonder if he, Michael Flynn–style, betrayed his country by facilitating Jared’s access to intelligence at Trump’s insistence. He could have protested more forcibly at the time, and even now, in disgrace and retirement, he still remains silent. If Jared is a mole for a foreign power who damaged American interests, Kelly will bear partial responsibility for activating him. A plea that he was just following the boss’s orders will not get him off the hook.

But let’s not let this episode distract from the bigger picture of what Jared has been doing while armed with classified secrets and his White House role as de facto chief of staff. The three most bizarre and mysterious man-crushes in American history may be his for Mohammed bin Salman, and his father-in-law’s for Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin. We don’t know if MBS has written Jared love letters as Kim has Trump (or vice versa), but this week he had another furtive assignation with the Saudi prince, as if the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi never happened. Exactly what business — whether Kushner’s or America’s — is on the table when they canoodle? In a similar vein, the president, despite being embarrassed by the collapse of the Hanoi nuclear talks that were supposed to secure his Nobel Peace Prize, still went weirdly out his way to clear Kim of any responsibility for the brutal murder of the American student Otto Warmbier, who had been imprisoned and tortured in North Korea. Along with the other ways that the Trump operation resembles a gangster enterprise, we must always include the reality that its criminal allies are piling up corpses as surely as associates of the Gotti family once did.

Michael Cohen’s hearing before the House Oversight Committee this week provided new details on Donald Trump’s involvement in what might be a criminal conspiracy, while also changing the way we understand some things that have already been reported. Will his testimony be a turning point for the Trump investigations?

Perhaps because the hearings blanketed television — broadcast networks as well as cable — the Cohen show moved the needle a bit in terms of reengaging the public in a saga that has numbed out many over two exhausting years. There is zero chance, though, that it or anything else will ease Trump’s grip on his base. Now, as always, it must be Republicans in Congress who determine when the turning point comes. They will do so not out of conscience — it’s not clear that more than a half dozen of them have one — but out of fear of losing their own races in purple districts or states. You’ll notice that the likes of Susan Collins of Maine and Cory Gardner of Colorado are stepping up their “concern” about Trump in direct proportion to the proximity of November 3, 2020, when both are up for reelection.

As many have noted, what may have been most striking about the hearings (aside from that incriminating 2017 Trump-signed check reimbursing Cohen for porn-star hush money) was that not a single GOP inquisitor would be caught on camera praising or defending Trump, as opposed to trashing Cohen. They may have moved into a mode where they want to protect themselves on camera more than their dear leader. Also notable was Cohen’s name-checking of other witnesses (in part thanks to the stiletto questioning of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to Trump Organization wrongdoing who may soon be brought before Congress in so public a setting: Allen Weisselberg, Alan Garten, Ron Lieberman, and the evocatively named Matthew Calamari. This drama was needing some fresh characters, so bring them on. Also nailed by Cohen of course was Donald Jr., whom Cohen said signed one of the hush-money reimbursements — an act of stupidity that again reminds those of us who likened him to Fredo that we were way too kind. While Cohen’s testimony wasn’t high on laughs, let’s be grateful for this line, which he delivered with exquisite deadpan: “Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Donald Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world.”

Within a day of Representative Mark Meadows sidetracking the end of the Cohen hearing to argue that he was not a racist, at least three videos have surfaced of him pushing birtherism on the campaign trail, promising to send President Obama “back home, to Kenya or wherever it is.” Will there be a political price for those comments now?

There will be no political price for Meadows among his voters any more than for any other racists harbored by the Republican Party, whose voters are almost entirely loyal to a president who did far more to promote birtherism than a Meadows or Steve King could ever do. Let’s never forget the fact that the GOP has tolerated and exploited racism since its 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act. In recent years, especially in the aftermath of America electing its first black president, the party has been pursuing wholesale minority-voter suppression efforts, including phony campaigns against nonexistent election fraud. (The only proven case of major fraud, we now know, was undertaken on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate, Mark Harris, in Meadows’s own state of North Carolina.) This toxicity poisoned the GOP well before Trump became a Republican, and unless and until the party starts exorcising it instead of denying it, it will remain in place after he’s gone.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Socialism and the Self-Made Woman Print
Saturday, 02 March 2019 09:31

Krugman writes: "If you're like me, you could use at least a brief break from talking about Donald Trump. So why don't we talk about Ivanka Trump instead?"

Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)
Economist Paul Krugman. (photo: Forbes)


Socialism and the Self-Made Woman

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

02 March 19


What Ivanka Trump doesn’t know about social mobility.

f you’re like me, you could use at least a brief break from talking about Donald Trump. So why don’t we talk about Ivanka Trump instead? You see, recently she said something that would have been remarkable coming from any Republican, but was truly awesome coming from the Daughter in Chief.

The subject under discussion was the proposal, part of the Green New Deal, that the government offer a jobs guarantee. Ms. Trump trashed the notion, claiming that Americans “want to work for what they get,” that they want to live in a country “where there is the potential for upward mobility.”

O.K., this was world-class lack of self-awareness: It doesn’t get much better than being lectured on self-reliance by an heiress whose business strategy involves trading on her father’s name. But let’s go beyond the personal here. We know a lot about upward mobility in different countries, and the facts are not what Republicans want to hear.

Email This Page

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 Next > End >>

Page 959 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