ReportWire

Tag: Barack Obama

  • Part-Time Maui Resident Oprah Pitches In on Hawaii Wildfire Relief Efforts

    Part-Time Maui Resident Oprah Pitches In on Hawaii Wildfire Relief Efforts

    [ad_1]

    Oprah Winfrey is no stranger to giving a leg up to those in need, on micro and macro levels. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, she built a community in Houston for displaced people who had lost their homes, contributed millions of dollars of her own, and coordinated millions more in donations from others.

    Now, she’s pitching in to help with relief efforts in the Maui wildfires—a disaster that’s incredibly close to home for the media mogul. Oprah lives part-time on the island and owns more than 2,000 acres of land there; Jeff Bezos, Steven Tyler, Clint Eastwood, and Peter Thiel, among others, also own homes there. The death toll from the disaster is at 55 and is expected to rise, local officials have said. More than 11,000 people have fled their homes.

    Oprah, rightfully, called the disaster “overwhelming,” arriving at Maui’s War Memorial Stadium on Thursday to help hand out supplies at the relief station. She came to the relief site twice that day, first to see what was going on and make her strategy, then to distribute supplies.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    “I came earlier just to see what people needed then went shopping because often, you know, you make donations of clothes or whatever and it’s not really what people need,” she told reporters. “So I actually went to Walmart and Costco and got pillows, shampoo, diapers, sheets, pillowcases.”

    She said though she found the scene “overwhelming,” people are pulling together to try and help. “I’m really pleased to have so many people supporting… bringing what they can and doing what they can,” she said.

    Boxer Floyd Mayweather is also helping out, TMZ reported: The outlet says that he paid to evacuate 68 families from the island, and that he’s helping provide clothing and other essentials to them. Bezos and his girlfriend, Lauren Sanchez, will be making donations, she posted on her Instagram stories.

    Former president Barack Obama, who was born in Honolulu, shared on social media that it was “tough to see some of the images coming out of Hawai’i,” and included a link for donations.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    [ad_2]

    Kase Wickman

    Source link

  • The Next Big Abortion Fight

    The Next Big Abortion Fight

    [ad_1]

    For the 150 or so people who filled a church hall in Toledo, Ohio, for a Thursday-night campaign rally last week, the chant of the evening featured a profanity usually discouraged in a house of God.

    “With all due respect, pastor, hell no!” shouted Betty Montgomery, a former Ohio attorney general. Montgomery is a Republican, which gave the largely Democratic audience even more reason to roar with approval. They had gathered at the Warren AME Church, in Toledo, to voice their opposition to a constitutional amendment that Ohio voters will approve or reject in a statewide referendum on August 8. Many of those in the boisterous crowd were experiencing a feeling unfamiliar to Democrats in the state over the past decade: optimism.

    If enacted, the Republican-backed proposal known as Issue 1 would raise the bar for any future changes to the state constitution. Currently, constitutional amendments in Ohio—including the one on next week’s ballot—need only a bare majority of voters to pass; the proposal seeks to make the threshold a 60-percent supermajority.

    In other years, a rules tweak like this one might pass without much notice. But next week’s referendum has galvanized Democratic opposition inside and outside Ohio, turning what the GOP had hoped would be a sleepy summertime election into an expensive partisan proxy battle. Conservatives have argued that making the constitution harder to amend would protect Ohio from liberal efforts to raise the minimum wage, tighten gun laws, and fight climate change. But the Republican-controlled legislature clearly timed this referendum to intercept a progressive march on one issue in particular: Ohioans will decide in November whether to make access to abortion a constitutional right, and the outcome of next week’s vote could mean the difference between victory and defeat for backers of abortion rights.

    A year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the back-to-back votes will also test whether abortion as an issue can still propel voters to the polls in support of Democratic candidates and causes. If the abortion-rights side wins next week and in November, Ohio would become the largest GOP-controlled state to enshrine abortion protections into law. The abortion-rights movement is trying to replicate the success it found last summer in another red state, Kansas, where voters decisively rejected an amendment that would have allowed the legislature to ban abortion, presaging a midterm election in which Democrats performed better than expected in states where abortion rights were under threat.

    To prevent Democratic attempts to circumvent conservative state legislatures, Republican lawmakers have sought to restrict ballot initiatives across the country. Similar efforts are under way or have already won approval in states including Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and Idaho. But to Democrats in Ohio and beyond, the August special election is perhaps the most brazen effort yet by Republicans to subvert the will of voters. Polls show that in Ohio, the abortion-rights amendment is likely to win more than 50 percent of the vote, as have similar ballot measures in other states. For Republicans to propose raising the threshold three months before the abortion vote in November looks like a transparent bid to move the proverbial goalposts right when their opponents are about to score.

    “I don’t think I’ve seen such a naked attempt to stay in power,” a former Democratic governor of Ohio, Dick Celeste, told the church crowd in Toledo. As in Kansas a year ago, the Republican majority in the state legislature scheduled the referendum for August—a time when the party assumed turnout would be low and favorable to their cause. (Adding to the Democratic outrage is the fact that just a few months earlier, Ohio Republicans had voted to restrict local governments from holding August elections, because they tend to draw so few people.) “They’re trying to slip it in,” Kelsey Suffel, a Democratic voter from Perrysburg, told me after she had cast an early vote.

    That Ohio Republicans would try a similar gambit so soon after the defeat their counterparts suffered in Kansas struck many Democrats as a sign of desperation. “The winds of change are blowing,” Celeste said in Toledo. “They’re afraid, and they should be afraid, because the people won’t tolerate it.”

    The upcoming vote will serve as an important measure of strength for Ohio Democrats ahead of elections in the state next year that could determine control of Congress. Democrats have had a long losing streak in Ohio. Donald Trump easily won the state in 2016 and 2020, and Republicans have won every statewide office except for that of Senator Sherrod Brown, who faces reelection next year. Still, there’s reason to believe Celeste is right to be optimistic. A Suffolk University poll released last week found that 57 percent of registered voters planned to vote against Issue 1. (A private survey commissioned by a nonpartisan group also found the August amendment losing, a Republican who had seen the results told me on the condition of anonymity.) Early-voting numbers have swamped predictions of low participation in an August election, suggesting that abortion remains a key motivator for getting people to turn out. Groups opposing the amendment have significantly outspent supporters of the change.

    Abortion isn’t explicitly on the ballot in Ohio next week, but the clear linkage between this referendum and the one on reproductive rights in November has divided the Republican coalition. Although the state’s current Republican governor, Mike DeWine, backs Issue 1, the two living GOP former governors, Bob Taft and John Kasich, oppose it as an overreach by the legislature.

    “That’s the giant cloud on this issue,” Steve Stivers, a former Republican member of Congress who now heads the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, told me. The Chamber of Commerce backs the amendment because, as Stivers said, it’ll help stop “bad ideas” such as raising the minimum wage, marijuana legalization, and proposals supported by organized labor. But, he said, many of his members were worried that the group would be dragged into a fight over abortion, on which it wants to stay neutral: “The timing is not ideal.”

    Democrats have highlighted comments from Republicans who have departed from the party’s official message and drawn a connection between the August referendum and the abortion vote this fall. “They’ve all said the quiet part out loud, which is this election is 100 percent about trying to prevent abortion rights from having a fair election in the fall,” the state Democratic chair, Liz Walters, told me.

    But to broaden its coalition, opponents of the amendment have advanced a simpler argument—preserve “majority rule”—that also seems to be resonating with voters. “I’m in favor of democracy,” explained Ed Moritz, an 85-year-old retired college professor standing outside his home in Cleveland, when I asked him why he was planning to vote no. Once a national bellwether, Ohio has become close to a one-party state in recent years. For Democrats, citizen-led constitutional amendments represent one of the few remaining checks on a legislature dominated by Republicans. Moritz noted that the GOP had already gerrymandered the Ohio legislature by drawing maps to ensure its future majorities. “This,” he said, “is an attempt to gerrymander the entire population.”

    To Frank LaRose, the suggestion that Issue 1 represents an assault on democracy is “hyperbole.” LaRose is Ohio’s Republican secretary of state and, of late, the public face of Issue 1. Traversing Ohio over the past few weeks, he’s used the suddenly high-profile campaign as a launching pad for his bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2024.

    LaRose, 44, served for eight years in the state Senate before becoming Ohio’s top elections officer in 2019. (He won a second term last year.) He’s a smooth debater and quick on his feet, but on the Issue 1 campaign, he’s not exactly exuding confidence.

    In an interview, he began by rattling off a litany of complaints about the opposition’s messaging, which he called “intentionally misleading.” LaRose accused Issue 1’s opponents of trying to bamboozle conservative voters with literature showing images of the Constitution being cut to pieces and equating the amendment with “Stop the Steal.” “That’s completely off base,” he said. “We’ve had to compete with that and with a mountain of money that they’ve had, and with a pretty organized and intentional effort by the media on this.”

    LaRose likes to remind people that even if voters approve Issue 1, citizens would still be able to pass, with a simple majority, ballot initiatives to create or repeal statutes in Ohio law. The August proposal applies only to the state constitution, which LaRose said is not designed for policy making. Left unsaid, however, is that unlike an amendment to the constitution, any statutory change approved by the voters could swiftly be reversed by the Republican majority in the legislature.

    “Imagine if the U.S. Constitution changed every year,” he said. “What instability would that create? Well, that’s what’s at risk if we don’t pass Issue 1.” LaRose’s argument ignored the fact that Ohio’s rules for constitutional amendments have been in place for more than a century and, during that time, just 19 of the 77 changes proposed by citizen petitions have passed. (Many others generated by the legislature have won approval by the voters.)

    LaRose has been spending a lot of his time explaining the amendment to confused voters, including Republicans. When I spoke with him last weekend, he had just finished addressing about two dozen people inside a cavernous 19th-century church in Steubenville. He described his stump speech as a “seventh-grade civics class” in which he explained the differences between the rarely amended federal Constitution and Ohio’s routinely amended founding document. The laws that Ohio could be saddled with if the voters reject Issue 1, LaRose warned, went far beyond abortion: “It’s every radical West Coast policy that they can think of that they want to bring to Ohio.”

    The challenges LaRose has faced in selling voters on the proposal soon became apparent. When I asked a pair of women who had questioned LaRose during his speech whether he had persuaded them, one simply replied, “No.” Another frustrated attendee who supported the proposal told LaRose that she had encountered voters who didn’t understand the merits of the idea.

    Republicans have had to spend more time than they’d like defending their claim that Issue 1 is not simply an effort to head off November’s abortion amendment. They have also found themselves playing catch-up on an election that they placed on the ballot. “They got out of the gate earlier than our side,” the state Republican Party chair, Alex Triantafilou, told me, referring to an early round of TV ads that opposition groups began running throughout the state.

    The GOP’s struggle to sell its proposal to voters adds to the perception that the party, in placing the measure on the ballot, was acting not from a position of strength but of weakness. The thinly disguised effort to preempt a simple-majority vote on abortion is surely a concession by Republicans that they are losing on the issue even in what has become a reliably red state.

    When I asked LaRose to respond to the concerns about abortion that Stivers reported from his members in the Chamber of Commerce, he lamented that it was another example of businesses succumbing to “cancel culture.”

    Confidence can be dangerous for a Democrat in Ohio. Barack Obama carried the state twice, but in both 2016 and 2020, late polls showing a tight race were proved wrong by two eight-point Trump victories. A similar trajectory played out last year, when the Republican J. D. Vance pulled away from the Democrat Tim Ryan in the closing weeks to secure a seven-point victory in Ohio’s Senate race.

    “Democrats in the state are beaten down,” says Matt Caffrey, the Columbus-based organizing director for Swing Left, a national group that steers party donors and volunteers to key races across the country. He’s seen the decline firsthand, telling me of the challenge Democrats have had in recruiting canvassers and engaging voters who have grown more discouraged with each defeat.

    That began to change this summer, Caffrey told me. Volunteers have flocked to canvassing events in large numbers, some for the first time—a highly unusual occurrence for a midsummer special election, he said. At a canvass launch I attended in Akron over the weekend, more than three dozen people showed up, including several first-timers. As I followed Democratic canvassers there and in Cleveland over two days last week, not a single voter who answered their door was unaware of the election or undecided about how they’d vote. “It’s kind of an easy campaign,” Michael Todd, a canvasser with the group Ohio Citizen Action in Cleveland, told me. “Not a whole lot of convincing needs to be done.”

    The response has prompted some Democrats to see the August election as an unexpected opportunity to reawaken a moribund state party. The referendum is a first for Swing Left, which has exclusively invested in candidate races since it formed after Trump’s victory in 2016. “It’s a great example of what we’re seeing across the country, which is the fight for reproductive freedom and the fight for democracy becoming closely attached,” the group’s executive director, Yasmin Radjy, told me in Akron. “We also think it’s really important to build momentum in Ohio, a state that we need to keep investing in.”

    A win next week would make the abortion referendum a heavy favorite to pass in November. And although Ohio is unlikely to regain its status as a presidential swing state in 2024, it could help determine control of Congress. Brown’s bid for a fourth term is expected to be one of the hardest-fought Senate races in the country, and at least three Ohio districts could be up for grabs in the closely divided House.

    For Democrats like Caffrey, the temptation to think bigger about a comeback in Ohio is tempered by the lingering uncertainty about next week’s outcome—whether the party will finally close out a victory in a state that has turned red, or confront another disappointment. “It would be hard for Democrats in Ohio to feel complacent. I wish we would be in a position to feel complacent,” Caffrey said with a smile. “This is more about building hope.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • White House blames Republicans for U.S. credit rating downgrade

    White House blames Republicans for U.S. credit rating downgrade

    [ad_1]

    White House blames Republicans for U.S. credit rating downgrade – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Fitch Ratings downgraded the U.S. government’s top credit rating on Tuesday. The White House in a statement said they disagreed with the decision and blamed Republicans, who they say were “cheerleading default.” CBS News senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Barack Obama Is Also Scared Shitless That Donald Trump Could Win Another Term: Report

    Barack Obama Is Also Scared Shitless That Donald Trump Could Win Another Term: Report

    [ad_1]

    In a normal society, a former president—let’s call him Donald Trump—who’s been indicted three times in under four months, on charges ranging from obstruction of justice to conspiracy to defraud the United States, would have absolutely no chance of ever being president again. It straight up would not be a scenario anyone would have to even contemplate; even if this individual were not in prison, the idea that they would be able to run for and win higher office once more would not compute.

    But unfortunately, we don’t live in a normal society; instead, we live in a place in which millions of people not only still support Donald Trump, but grow fonder of him with every new criminal charge. Which means that, despite the aforementioned indictments*, the twice-impeached, thrice-indicted ex-president is dominating every other candidate for the Republican nomination, and currently looks to be the most likely GOP nominee in the 2024 general election. That, of course, scares the shit out of a lot of people—including, apparently, one Barack Obama. Whose fear, it has to be said, is extremely unsettling!

    The Washington Post reports that during a private lunch with Joe Biden in late June, the 44th president “voiced concern about Donald Trump’s political strengths—including an intensely loyal following, a Trump-friendly conservative media ecosystem, and a polarized country—underlining his worry that Trump could be a more formidable candidate than many Democrats realize.” According to people familiar with the conversation, “Obama made it clear his concerns were not about Biden’s political abilities, but rather a recognition of Trump’s iron grip on the Republican Party.”

    Obama’s concerns are certainly warranted: In a New York Times/Siena poll released on Monday, Trump led his closest competition, Ron DeSantis, by a whopping 37 points. An even wilder data point that seems to validate Obama’s fears was that Trump beat DeSantis even among Republicans who believe he committed “serious federal crimes.” To be clear, that means these people believe Trump is a criminal, and want him to be president anyway.

    As FiveThirtyEight optimistically notes, should Trump be convicted before November 5, 2024, voters might be less inclined to cast a ballot for him, and presumably they’d be even less so if he’s sentenced to time in prison. (In the case of the most recent indictment, two of the charges carry up to 20 years behind bars, and compared to her colleagues, the judge assigned to the case has imposed the toughest sentences for January 6 defendants.) Though, who knows!

    As for a potential Trump-Biden rematch, another Times/Siena Poll poll published this week put the two in a tie, with each receiving 43% of the vote—which, for people who think democracy is worth preserving, is pretty pants-shittingly scary.

    In somewhat happier news, Obama reportedly promised at the same June lunch “to do all he could to help the president get reelected.” And in a statement, a spokesman for Biden’s campaign told the Post: “President Biden is grateful for his unwavering support, and looks forward to once again campaigning side-by-side with President Obama to win in 2024 and finish the job for the American people.”

    *And everything else!

    Mike Pence giveth and Mike Pence taketh away

    Yes, he tweeted yesterday that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President,” but then he basically suggested today that Trump was just listening to his lawyers’ advice when he tried to overturn the election—which, coincidentally, is a defense Trump is reportedly planning to use.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Chinese tensions loom large over Biden’s summit with Asian allies | CNN Politics

    Chinese tensions loom large over Biden’s summit with Asian allies | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Camp David invitation President Joe Biden extended to his Japanese and South Korean counterparts this week – the first summit held at the legendary presidential retreat since 2015 – was a significant show of camaraderie for two increasingly essential US allies.

    Undergirding the talks is the three nations’ mutual concern over China, whose leader Xi Jinping Biden has sought to cultivate, despite a hardening view of the leader as an autocrat and adversary.

    “This is a guy who I think I understand,” Biden told Democratic donors last week in Utah after describing Xi’s China as a “ticking time bomb.”

    “We’re not looking for a fight with China,” he went on. “But we’re looking for a rational relationship to have with China.”

    Work toward a “rational relationship” has been halting, despite Biden’s long ties with Xi. After months of acrimony, administration officials have recently begun visiting Beijing in a bid to reestablish regular communication. Yet tensions persist, and US-China ties remain deeply fraught.

    Perhaps no other relationship in the world is quite as consequential than the one between Biden and Xi, who last spoke in person on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Bali last November in the hopes of establishing what US officials called a “floor” in the US-China relationship.

    Biden told CNN’s Arlette Saenz on Friday he hopes to follow up on last year’s meeting with Xi “this fall.”

    “I expect and hope to follow up on our conversation from Bali this fall – that’s my expectation,” Biden said.

    The talks were watched closely in Tokyo and Seoul, where China’s military and economic aggressions are an ever-present reality and a motivator in mending a long-tarnished relationship. At Camp David on Friday, agreements on joint military and technology initiatives will be made against the looming backdrop of Beijing’s growing power.

    “China is just fact on the ground, a huge player in Asia. You can’t dismiss it away,” explained a senior administration official. “You’re trying to shape the environment in ways that both advance our interests, secure our partners, and send a clear signal about what kind of actions we think would be provocative.”

    As of Thursday evening, discussions were underway about how to describe China in the joint documents that are expected to come out of the summit, Japanese Foreign Ministry press secretary Hikariko Ono told a group of reporters.

    It wasn’t so long ago that Xi was invited to his own high-profile summits hosted by an American leader. President Barack Obama hosted him at Sunnylands, the sprawling Palm Springs resort intended by its builder as the “Camp David of the West,” for lengthy talks in 2013. President Donald Trump served him chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago.

    Those types of engagements are difficult to imagine now, particularly amid growing tensions around Taiwan, a battle over emerging technology, human rights concerns and a leader Biden has deemed a “dictator.”

    Even though Biden often recounts the hours of meetings he held with Xi as vice president, he has been challenged in new ways by his relationship with Xi as the two men have risen to the leader level.

    “When they engaged last time neither of them had power,” the official said. “Xi has an enormous amount of power now. Biden senses that, understands it.”

    Biden-Xi meetings are now treated as the “biggest possible gametime” for Biden, the official explained.

    “The most intense, the most focus that I’ve ever seen President Biden is in advance of these engagements with President Xi,” the official said. “The President’s level of focus is off the charts. He wants intelligence briefings, he wants to bring his advisers together, he wants to hear different perspectives and he brings outsiders in.”

    That preparation demonstrates just how consumed Biden and his entire administration are by what the official called “relentless” competition between the US and China.

    Still, Biden’s hugely consequential personal relationship with Xi remains a work in progress.

    Some officials say that Biden has struggled to develop the type of personal relationship with Xi that he deeply values in fellow world leaders who share democratic values. When Biden met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India at the White House in June, they bonded over shared frustrations with Xi, according to a second senior administration official.

    Biden often speaks to his personal relationship with Xi publicly on the campaign trail, and he has continued to highlight the many hours they have spent together.

    “I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinping than any world leader has,” Biden told donors at his fundraiser, recounting the hours they’d spent getting to know each other when each was their country’s number two.

    At the same event, Biden offered a warning that reverberated throughout the region. Describing China’s weakening economy as a “ticking time bomb,” Biden said it could prompt China’s leaders to lash out.

    “That’s not good because when bad folks have problems, they do bad things,” Biden said.

    It was the latest example of Biden offering candid observations donors off-camera. Earlier this summer, Biden himself demonstrated a willingness to characterize Xi in a negative light, calling him a dictator at a fundraiser.

    Biden and Xi have spoken by phone several times and met in-person once, and officials said they expect the two men to speak again soon, potentially on the sidelines of an Asian leaders summit Biden is hosting in November in San Francisco.

    And the extent to which their personal relationship will impact US-China relations overall has yet to be determined.

    “How much does their personal relationship, their experience over you know, decades come into play? And I think the answer to that, honestly, is unknown,” the official said.

    When the two leaders met in Bali, Biden drew on his personal experience in speaking with Xi about Taiwan – making commitments while he looked into Xi’s eyes, that appeared to have an impact.

    “The President basically said, look, we’re not going to destabilize the status quo. We believe in the maintenance of peace and stability. We’re not going to push for Taiwan independence. And I could tell that had an impact on [Xi],” the first senior administration official said.

    While leader-to-leader level engagement remains important in the eyes of US officials, its not the primary factor dictating the Biden administration’s China policy.

    A senior State Department official explained it this way: “Biden and Xi do understand each other. That is borne out of years of getting to know one another. But Biden knows they aren’t changing one another’s minds.”

    Former US officials closely watched Biden and Xi bond during the Obama administration, but they are not surprised by the tenor of the current relationship.

    “The relationship that Biden and Xi had during the Obama administration was an unusual one. The two vice presidents bonded. They had extensive and deep conversions together. It felt like a healthy relationship,” explained Danny Russel, the assistant secretary of state for Asia during the Obama administration. “It is understandable to me that Biden might feel frustrated that the quality of the relationship he has with Xi now has little resemblance to what it used to be. Xi essentially won’t return his phone calls, and has become increasingly hardline, autocratic and ideological.”

    Without the leaders’ relationship serving as the launchpad to steady the ship, Biden administration officials continue to put intense efforts into shoring up alliances. While investing in alliances has been central to the Biden administration’s foreign policy approach since day one, it has developed an outsized importance.

    The trilateral meeting at Camp David on Friday between Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on Friday will put those efforts on display.

    “This summit is formalizing and institutionalizing a major strategic shift of the region,” explained a third senior administration official. “China has previously seen an unbridgeable wedge between Japan and South Korea. But now we are stronger because we are bringing them together, doubling down on our alliances.”

    In the backdrop to challenging China by drawing in US allies, the Biden administration has maintained a willingness to engage at the working level with Chinese officials. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and Climate Envoy John Kerry have all visited Beijing in the last two months.

    Their visits come as US officials continue to believe that engagement is key in order to prevent competition from veering into conflict. But they are not banking on those engagements resulting in major deliverables.

    “It is about getting caught trying,” said a diplomat from the Indo-Pacific who has been briefed on the visits. “The Biden administration has always been clear that talking is best, they will keep showing up, and communication is necessary. But it is really to show the rest of the world that they are not giving up, even though they are not expecting anything major out of the engagements.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obamas’ Personal Chef Found Dead In Tragic Accident Near Their Martha’s Vineyard Home

    Obamas’ Personal Chef Found Dead In Tragic Accident Near Their Martha’s Vineyard Home

    [ad_1]

    The body of a former sous-chef at the White House, who went missing while paddleboarding in the waters of Edgartown Great Pond in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, has been recovered Monday, according to authorities.

    The Massachusetts State Police have not released the identity of the paddleboarder, but The Associated Press and Chicago Sun Times reported that the victim was Tafari Campbell.

    Both AP and the Sun Times report that Campbell was 45, though MSP says the body recovered was that of a 43-year-old male.

    Campbell went to work for the Obamas when they left the White House. In a statement, Barack and Michelle Obama called Campbell a “beloved” part of their family.

    “Tafari was a beloved part of our family. When we first met him, he was a talented sous chef at the White House — creative and passionate about food, and its ability to bring people together. In the years that followed, we got to know him as a warm, fun, extraordinarily kind person who made all of our lives a little brighter.”

    “That’s why, when we were getting ready to leave the White House, we asked Tafari to stay with us, and he generously agreed. He’s been part of our lives ever since, and our hearts are broken that he’s gone,” said the pair, who purchased their 29-acre Edgartown property in December 2019.

    MSP retrieved the male victim’s body around 10 a.m. just one day after he went missing. His body was found approximately 100 feet away from shore, by “deploying side-scan sonars” from a boat. Authorities said the “president and Mrs. Obama were not present at the residence at the time of the accident.”

    The search for Campbell initially began around 7:46 p.m. on Sunday when Martha’s Vineyard police and fire agencies responded to a call about a male paddleboarder who was unable to stay above water.

    Authorities say another paddleboarder was also with him on the pond at the time and witnessed him go under the water.

    Multiple agencies were involved in the search, including the Coast Guard, Dukes County Sheriff’s Department, local police, Edgartown fire personnel and other island fire departments.

    The State Police Detective Unit for the Cape and Islands District and Edgartown police are investigating the incident.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obama Speaks Out, Joins Libraries’ TikTok Videos In Fight Against Book Bans

    Obama Speaks Out, Joins Libraries’ TikTok Videos In Fight Against Book Bans

    [ad_1]

    Former President Barack Obama spoke out Monday against the rising number of book bans in American schools and libraries as “contrary to what has made this country great” and appeared in an Illinois public library’s TikTok video.

    In a statement he shared on social media, Obama lauded “the dedicated and hardworking librarians of America” for working “on the front lines” against the book-ban movement despite attacks from those “who either cannot or will not understand the vital — and uniquely American — role you play in the life of our nation.”

    Books allow readers, he said, to “experience the world,” “step into someone else’s shoes” and “engage with different ideas and points of view. Their access is also essential to First Amendment freedoms.”

    “It’s no coincidence that these ‘banned books’ are often written by or feature people of color, indigenous people, and members of the LGBTQ+ community — though there have also been unfortunate instances in which books by conservative authors or books containing ‘triggering’ words or scenes have been targets for removal,” Obama wrote. “Either way, the impulse seems to be to silence, rather than engage, rebut, learn from or seek to understand views that don’t fit our own.”

    The former president also appeared in a TikTok video shared by the Kankakee Public Library, located southwest of Chicago, on Monday.

    In it, people read books including Alice Walker’s “The Color Purple” and Angie Thomas’ “The Hate U Give” before Obama appears, reading from his own stack of books while he sips from a Kankakee Public Library coffee mug.

    Obama also appeared in a TikTok video for Texas’ Harris County Public Library system, The Washington Post reported. Texas has led the nation in book ban requests in schools, according to a tally last year by the free speech advocacy group PEN America.

    Libraries across the country have increasingly experienced threats of violence and acts of intimidation amid the rising political efforts to censor their reading materials.

    The American Library Association reported in March that the number of demands to censor books in libraries hit a record high of 1,269 demands last year. This was nearly double the 729 challenges reported in 2021, the organization said.

    The vast majority of the targeted books were by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color, the ALA said.

    “Reading about people whose lives were very different from mine showed me how to step into someone else’s shoes. And the simple act of writing helped me develop my own identity — all of which would prove vital as a citizen, as a community organizer, and as president,” Obama said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Lieberman Weighs the Trump Risk

    Joe Lieberman Weighs the Trump Risk

    [ad_1]

    Joe Lieberman wants to make one thing clear. “The last thing I’d ever want to be part of,” the former Connecticut senator and onetime vice-presidential nominee told me by phone last week, “is bringing Donald Trump back to the Oval Office.”

    Democrats have their doubts. Lieberman and his former party have been warring for years, ever since he won a fourth Senate term, in 2006, as an independent after Connecticut Democrats dumped him in a primary. Suddenly liberated, Lieberman endorsed the Republican John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008 and proceeded to tank the Democrats’ dreams of enacting a public health-insurance program through the Affordable Care Act.

    He’s now a co-chair of No Labels, the centrist group that, to the growing alarm of Democrats, is preparing to field a third-party presidential ticket in 2024. The organization’s leaders say they’re trying to save voters from a binary rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden that most Americans have told pollsters they don’t want. But Democrats and more than a few Republicans fear that such a plan might ensure exactly what Lieberman insists he would hate to see: Trump’s return to the White House. Both No Labels’ own polling and independent surveys have shown that a “moderate, independent” candidate could capture as much as 20 percent of the popular vote and would pull more of that support from Biden than from Trump. If the 2024 election is as close as 2020’s—and pretty much every political prognosticator believes it will be—that could be decisive.

    No Labels has already lost one of its co-founders, William Galston, over its push for a third-party ticket; Galston resigned in protest this spring over the possibility that the bid could tip the election to Trump. Democratic members of the No Labels–backed Problem Solvers Caucus in the House have disavowed the effort for the same reason. The moderate Democratic group Third Way is adamantly opposed to the idea, and a new bipartisan group is forming to stop it.

    For now, Lieberman is undeterred. “I think people in both parties, particularly the Democrats, are greatly overreacting,” Lieberman told me. “They really would do better to try to build up support for their own ticket and adopt a platform that’s more to the center.”

    Founded by the Democratic fundraiser Nancy Jacobson, No Labels launched in 2010 with an initial focus on promoting centrist policies and breaking partisan gridlock in Congress during the Obama presidency. It formed the Problem Solvers Caucus in 2017 and has touted some of the major bipartisan bills that have passed with Biden’s support, including the 2021 infrastructure law. It is now putting significant money behind an idea—a so-called unity ticket featuring one Democrat and one Republican—that has come up repeatedly over the past two decades but never actually materialized. Leaders of No Labels have said they won’t decide whether to nominate a ticket until the spring, when they would assess the major-party nominees and see what polling shows about the effect a third-party bid might have. So far they’ve refused to discuss who their actual candidates might be.

    Citing a large poll the group commissioned in December, No Labels has argued that a third-party ticket could win enough states—including some that are deeply red and deeply blue—to capture the Electoral College. Lieberman acknowledged that that remains a tall order. He said No Labels wanted a potential unity ticket to play “a constructive role” even if it didn’t win, drawing both parties back toward the ideological middle. They are hoping, for example, that one of the two parties will embrace the “Common Sense” policy agenda it released yesterday. It’s not clear, however, that this would make Biden or Trump any more palatable to voters.

    The group’s lodestar is the late Ross Perot, who captured 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and was the last third-party candidate to draw significant popular support. Lieberman credits Perot’s bid for prompting President Bill Clinton to embrace policies that led to a balanced federal budget; many Republicans believe the Texas businessman cost George H. W. Bush a second term. More recent third-party candidates such as Jill Stein in 2016 have garnered much less support but played more obvious spoiler roles, delivering Republican presidential victories. And Lieberman, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, is well aware of the impact that Ralph Nader had in that election, when he took crucial votes away from the Democratic ticket in Florida.

    “When I look at the data next year, I’m going to be very cautious about interpreting it,” Lieberman said. “If it appears that, notwithstanding our goals, we may create a real risk of inadvertently helping to reelect Donald Trump, I will be strongly opposed to running a third-party ticket. And I think I’m reflecting a majority of people in No Labels, including the leadership.”

    For all of Lieberman’s talk about caution, however, the group is aggressively laying the groundwork for what it calls a national “insurance policy” against a Biden-Trump rematch. No Labels is pursuing a $70 million effort to secure ballot access in every state and has already made progress in a few important battlegrounds. Today, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman will headline the formal launch of the group’s “Common Sense” agenda in New Hampshire. Manchin has not ruled out running for president on a No Labels ticket, although he insisted to CNN that his high-profile visit to the early-primary state was no indication that he’s warming to the idea.

    Lieberman is clear about his distaste for Trump, but he’s hazier on the question of why—or even whether—Biden has fallen short. He’s said repeatedly that if the choice came down to Biden or Trump, he’d vote for the Democrat, and he speaks affectionately of a man he first met nearly 40 years ago and with whom he served for 20 years in the Senate. Yet he’s still hunting for a better option. I asked him whether he supported a third-party ticket because Biden had done a bad job or because voters think he’s done a bad job. “I think it’s both,” Lieberman replied. “He’s an honorable person, but he’s been pulled off his normal track too often” by pressure from the left. That’s a frequent talking point from Republicans and a complaint Manchin has made from time to time.

    The perception that Biden has veered too far to the left, though, is not what has driven his low approval ratings. Indeed, in many ways Biden is the kind of president for whom moderates like Lieberman have long been clamoring. Yes, he signed two major bills that passed along purely party-line votes (the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act a year later), but he has repeatedly prioritized negotiating with Republicans, most recently over the debt ceiling. Lieberman credited Biden for his bipartisan infrastructure law and the budget deal he struck with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy this spring. “He’s done some significant things,” Lieberman said, also praising the president’s initial handling of the coronavirus pandemic. When I asked him what specifically Biden had veered too far left on, he initially declined to list any issues. Then he pointed to No Labels’ policy plan, noting that it included “commonsense” proposals on guns and immigration.

    Although he’s been out of office for more than a decade, Lieberman, at 81, is less than a year older than Biden. He said he believes the president remains up to the job, both physically and cognitively, and he was reluctant to call on him to stand down. But Lieberman gently suggested that might have been the better course. “I’m struck by how intent he is on running again,” he said with a chuckle. “It would have been easier for him not to run, and he could retire with a real sense of pride and just an enormously productive career in public service.”

    Lieberman’s response subtly pointed to No Labels’ hope that, come springtime, their decision will be an easy one. Perhaps Biden will change his mind and withdraw, or Trump’s legal woes will finally persuade Republican voters to look elsewhere. At the moment, neither of those scenarios seems likely.

    Lieberman and his allies might decide that nominating a third-party ticket won’t help reelect Trump, but that’s not something they can know for sure. I asked Lieberman: If he was so intent on keeping Trump out of office, wasn’t that too big a risk to take? He didn’t have a clear answer. “Yeah,” he replied. “I mean, we’ll see.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Rev. Jesse Jackson Steps Down As Leader Of Civil Rights Group

    Rev. Jesse Jackson Steps Down As Leader Of Civil Rights Group

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO (AP) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson announced Saturday that he will step down as president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Chicago-based civil rights group he founded more than 50 years ago.

    Jackson, 81, announced his resignation during a quiet farewell speech at the organization’s annual convention, where the group paid tribute to him with songs, kind words from other Black activists and politicians, and a video montage of Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.

    Jackson, who has dealt with several health problems in recent years and uses a wheelchair, capped the proceedings with muted remarks. Flanked by his daughter, Santita Jackson, and his son, U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson, the once-fiery orator spoke so softly it was difficult to hear him.

    “I am somebody,” he said. “Green or yellow, brown, Black or white, we’re all perfect in God’s eyes. Everybody is somebody. Stop the violence. Save the children. Keep hope alive.”

    Rev. Jesse Jackson announces that he is stepping down as president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Saturday, July 15, 2023, in Chicago.

    Paul Beaty via Associated Press

    The Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes, “a long-time student of Rev. Jackson and supporter” of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, will take over as the group’s leader, the coalition said in a statement. Haynes is the pastor at Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, according to the church’s website.

    Jesse Jackson was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease eight years ago. He suffered a host of health setbacks in 2021, beginning with gallbladder surgery, a COVID-19 infection that landed him in a physical therapy-focused facility and a fall at Howard University that caused a head injury.

    Jackson has been a powerful advocate for civil rights and a strong voice in American politics for decades.

    A protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he broke with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1971 to form Operation PUSH, initially named People United to Save Humanity, on Chicago’s South Side. The organization was later renamed the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. The group’s mission ranges from promoting minority hiring in the corporate world to voter registration drives in communities of color.

    Jackson has been a driving force in the modern civil rights movement, pushing for voting rights and education. Among other things, he joined George Floyd’s family at a memorial for the slain Black man and has participated in COVID-19 vaccination drives to counter Black hesitancy about the drugs.

    Before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, Jackson had been the most successful Black presidential candidate. He won 13 primaries and caucuses in his push for the 1988 Democratic nomination, which went to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

    Rev. Jesse Jackson addresses supporters in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Nov. 3, 1983, after he announced he would seek the Democratic presidential nomination. Jackson plans to step down from leading the Chicago civil rights organization Rainbow PUSH Coalition he founded in 1971, his son's congressional office said Friday, July 14, 2023.
    Rev. Jesse Jackson addresses supporters in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Nov. 3, 1983, after he announced he would seek the Democratic presidential nomination. Jackson plans to step down from leading the Chicago civil rights organization Rainbow PUSH Coalition he founded in 1971, his son’s congressional office said Friday, July 14, 2023.

    Ira Schwarz via Associated Press

    Jackson said in his remarks that he plans to continue working on social justice issues, including advocating for three survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre who this week saw a judge dismiss their lawsuit seeking reparations.

    “We’re resigning, we’re not retiring,” Jackson said.

    Ron Daniels, who works with the National African-American Reparations Commission, a panel working for financial payments to Black people as compensation for slavery, told convention-goers that Jackson is a “synthesis” of King and another 1960s civil rights leader, Malcolm X.

    “He is an authentic genius,” Daniel said. “(Jackson) had the unparalleled capacity to frame and articulate … political strategy in a way common, ordinary people could understand it.”

    Marcia Fudge, secretary of the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development, thanked Jackson for paving the way for Black politicians like herself.

    “Most people talk a good game but they have no courage,” she said. “But you never left us, no matter how hard (things became).”

    Santita Jackson implored convention-goers to follow her father’s lead and continue to fight for equality.

    “Rev. Jackson has run his leg,” she said. “What are you going to do?”

    Richmond reported from Madison, Wisconsin. Associated Press reporter Gary Fields in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Is Apparently Unconcerned About the Prospect of His Online Ravings Getting Someone Killed (Again)

    Trump Is Apparently Unconcerned About the Prospect of His Online Ravings Getting Someone Killed (Again)

    [ad_1]

    Eight years after he announced his first run for the White House, it’s more than a little clear that Donald Trump’s mere existence poses a threat to society. That threat has come in many different forms, from demonizing entire groups of people to suggesting Americans shoot up bleach, to inciting a violent riot that left five people dead, to inspiring attacks on prosecutors. Most recently? It involved posting Barack Obama’s purported address online, and a man showing up there with guns shortly thereafter.

    Per CNN:

    A man arrested last week with weapons in former President Barack Obama’s Washington, DC, neighborhood began live-streaming in the area shortly after resharing a social media post from Donald Trump in which the former president posted what he claimed was Obama’s address, according to federal prosecutors. The prosecutors included the details in a detention memo filed Wednesday, urging federal magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui to keep the defendant, Taylor Taranto, detained pending his trial for charges related to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack. Taranto has not yet been charged in connection with last week’s incident.

    According to prosecutors, after sharing the Trump post, Taranto wrote on Telegram: “We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.” (John Podesta is the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.) Prosecutors also say Taranto told YouTube followers, during a live stream, that he was trying to get a “good angle on a shot.” Taranto’s van reportedly had 400 rounds of ammunition when he was arrested last week. Judge Faruqui said during a hearing on Wednesday that he did not believe Taranto poses a flight risk—which federal law stipulates he must be in order to be detained pending his trial over January 6—though the judge did say that he is concerned Taranto may be a danger to the community. (Were the 400 rounds outside a former president’s home the tip-off?)

    A federal defender representing Taranto did not immediately respond to Vanity Fair’s request for comment, nor did a spokesman for Trump. (According to The Washington Post, “Trump’s Truth Social post featuring the address remained live on Thursday morning.”) Per the Associated Press, “the FBI had been monitoring Taranto’s online activities because of his involvement in the [January 6] riot, and began searching for him last Wednesday after he asserted on his YouTube livestream that he was in Gaithersburg, Maryland on a ‘one-way mission’ and intended to blow up the National Institute of Standards and Technology.” The next day, according to the DOJ memo, Taranto continued to livestream from Obama’s DC neighborhood and declared he was looking for “entrance points.”

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Meanwhile, on the same day prosecutors asked a judge to detain the guy, Donald Trump was demanding protests on his behalf, writing on Truth Social: “MASSIVE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IS CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN AMERICA. THE WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN…OUR COUNTRY IS BEING DESTROYED BOTH INSIDE & OUT. DO THE PEOPLE OF THIS ONCE GREAT NATION EVEN HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO PROTEST THE POTENTIAL DOOM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??? 2024!!!”

    Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman linked Trump’s “reckless” social media posts to Taranto being arrested near the Obamas’ home, telling Anderson Cooper, of the ex-president: “He has been much more reckless in terms of what he is willing to repost or re-truth or whatever he calls it on his site…it appears as if the timing is related to this gentleman’s showing up at former President Obama’s home. It is hard to ignore the fact that, you know, a lot of people who are adherents of QAnon or who, you know, listen to Trump’s verbal cues on other issues have looked at his social media feed over time and taken inspiration from it.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Trump Posted Obama’s Purported Address, Prosecutors Say. An Armed Man Was Arrested There.

    Trump Posted Obama’s Purported Address, Prosecutors Say. An Armed Man Was Arrested There.

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform what he claimed was the home address of former President Barack Obama on the same day that a man with guns in his van was arrested near the property, federal prosecutors said Wednesday in revealing new details about the case.

    Taylor Taranto, 37, who prosecutors say participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, kept two firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition inside a van he had driven cross-country and had been living in, according to a Justice Department motion that seeks to keep him behind bars.

    On the day of his June 29 arrest, prosecutors said, Taranto reposted a Truth Social post from Trump containing what Trump claimed was Obama’s home address. In a post on Telegram, Taranto wrote: “We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.” That’s a reference to John Podesta, the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign.

    Taranto also told followers on his YouTube live stream that he was looking to get a “good angle on a shot,” prosecutors said.

    A federal defender representing Taranto did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment. But in a motion seeking to have him released pending trial, the lawyer wrote that Taranto was not a flight risk, had a family in Washington state and had served in Iraq before being honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy.

    “Mr. Taranto has been available and in plain sight for the last two and a half years,” wrote the lawyer, Kathryn D’Adamo Guevara.

    According to the Justice Department’s detention memo, Taranto’s wife told investigators that he had come to Washington this time because of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s offer earlier this year to produce unseen video of the Jan. 6 attack. Taranto already faces four misdemeanor counts related to the Capitol assault, when prosecutors say he joined the crush of rioters who broke into the building and made his way to the entrance of the Speaker’s Lobby outside the House chamber.

    Since then, prosecutors say, Taranto has been active online, posting a Facebook video of himself in the Capitol that day and endorsing a conspiracy theory that the death of Ashli Babbitt — who was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as she began to climb through the broken part of a door leading into the Speaker’s Lobby — was a hoax.

    The FBI had been monitoring Taranto’s online activities because of his involvement in the riot, and began searching for him last Wednesday after he asserted on his YouTube livestream that he was in Gaithersburg, Maryland on a “one-way mission” and intended to blow up the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The following day, he continued his livestream from the Washington neighborhood where Obama lives — an area heavily monitored by the U.S. Secret Service — and said that he was looking for “entrance points” and wanted to get a “good angle on a shot,” according to the detention memo.

    Officials said he was spotted by law enforcement a few blocks from the former president’s home and fled, though he was chased by Secret Service officers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court docs reveal new details on suspect arrested near Obama’s home

    Court docs reveal new details on suspect arrested near Obama’s home

    [ad_1]

    Court docs reveal new details on suspect arrested near Obama’s home – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    New court documents released Wednesday provided new information on Taylor Taranto, a Jan. 6 defendant who was arrested last week near the Washington, D.C., home of former President Barack Obama. Scott MacFarlane has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In a polarized US, how to define a patriot increasingly depends on who’s being asked

    In a polarized US, how to define a patriot increasingly depends on who’s being asked

    [ad_1]

    Millions of Americans will attend parades, fireworks and other Independence Day events on Tuesday, celebrating the courage of the nation’s 18th century patriots who fought for independence from Great Britain and what they considered an unjust government. Those events also will honor the military and those who sacrificed in other conflicts that helped preserve the nation’s freedom over its 247-year history.

    That is only one version of a “patriot.” Today, the word and its variants have morphed beyond the original meaning. It has become infused in political rhetoric and school curriculums, with varying definitions, while being appropriated by white nationalist groups. Trying to define what a patriot is depends on who is being asked.

    THE ORIGINAL PATRIOTS

    While the word’s origins come from ancient Greece, its basic meaning in American history is someone who loves his or her country.

    The original patriots come from the American Revolution, most often associated with figures such as Sam Adams and Benjamin Franklin. But enslaved people who advocated for abolition and members of native communities trying to recover or retain their sovereignty also saw themselves as patriots, said Nathaniel Sheidley, president and CEO of Revolutionary Spaces in Boston. The group runs the Old State House and Old South Meeting House, which played central roles in the revolution.

    “They took part in the American Revolution. There were working people advocating for their voices to be heard in the political process,” Sheidley said.

    The hallmark of patriotism then, he said, was “a sense of self-sacrifice, of caring more about one’s neighbors and fellow community members than one’s self.”

    PATRIOTISM HAS HAD MORE THAN ONE MEANING

    In some ways, the view of patriotism has always been on parallel tracks with civic and ethnic nationalism, historians say.

    “Patriotism really depends on which American is describing himself as patriotic and what version or vision of the country they hold dear,” said Matthew Delmont, a historian at Dartmouth.

    Opposition to government and dissent have been common features of how patriotism has been defined, he said. He cited the example of Black military members who fought in World War II and advocated for civil rights when they returned. They also saw themselves as patriots.

    “Part of patriotism for them meant not just winning the war, but then coming home and trying to change America, trying to continue to fight for civil rights and to have actual freedom and democracy here in the United States,” Delmont said.

    For many white Americans who see themselves as patriotic, “They’re thinking of other white Americans as the true definition of Americans,” Delmont said.

    HOW THE DEFINITION HAS EVOLVED

    Far-right and extremist groups have branded themselves with American motifs and the term “patriot” since at least the early 20th century, when the second Ku Klux Klan became known for the slogan “100% Americanism,” said Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism.

    By the 1990s, so many antigovernment and militia groups were using the term to describe themselves that watchdog groups referred to it as the “ Patriot movement.”

    That extremist wave, which included Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, faded in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But many such groups resurfaced when Barack Obama became president, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which closely tracked the movement.

    Since then, many right-wing groups have called themselves “patriots” as they’ve fought election processes, LGBTQ+ rights, vaccines, immigration, diversity programs in schools and more. Former President Donald Trump frequently refers to his supporters as “patriots.”

    HOW WHITE NATIONALIST GROUPS USE IT

    The term works as a branding tool because many Americans have a positive association with “patriot,” which hearkens back to the Revolutionary War soldiers who beat the odds to found the country, said Kurt Braddock, an American University professor and researcher at the Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation Lab.

    One example is the white supremacist militia group Patriot Front, which researchers say uses patriotism as a sort of camouflage to hide racist and bigoted values. Some white nationalist groups may genuinely view themselves as pushing back against tyranny — even if in reality they are “very selective” about what parts of the Constitution they want to defend, Braddock said.

    Gaines Foster, a historian at Louisiana State University, said patriotism at one point was seen as a civic nationalism that held the belief “that you’re an American because you believe in democracy, you believe in equality, you believe in opportunity. In other words, you believe certain things about the way the government works, and that’s a very inclusive vision.”

    He said the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was the most dramatic example of how the view of patriotism has shifted in recent years, saying “people began to lean less toward a commitment to democracy and more to the notion in the Declaration of Independence that there is a ‘right of revolt,’ and that becomes patriotism.”

    HOW PATRIOTISM GETS LINKED TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES

    Bob Evnen has been active in Nebraska Republican politics for nearly 50 years and was instrumental a decade ago in enacting a requirement for the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited in schools. The measure doesn’t force students to participate, but does require schools to set aside time each class day for the pledge to be recited.

    He pushed for the pledge policy to be included in the state’s social studies curriculum standards, despite criticism from some lawmakers and civil rights organizations who labeled it “forced patriotism.”

    The intent, he said, is “to teach our children to become young patriots who have an intellectual understanding of the genius of this country and who feel an emotional connection to it.”

    “Somewhere along the line, we lost that — to our detriment, I believe,” Evnen said.

    Now Evnen is Nebraska’s secretary of state overseeing elections and he is sometimes the target of election conspiracy theorists — usually fellow Republicans. They have made unfounded accusations of election rigging across the country and often question his patriotism for disagreeing.

    Evnen finds those accusations maddening. To him, patriotism is unifying around “the idea of liberty and freedom and of self-governance.” He said today’s national debate on what constitutes patriotism flies in the face of reason.

    “They’re now just personal attacks in an effort to shut down debate,” he said. “Anyone who strays from orthodoxy is labeled unpatriotic.”

    PATRIOTISM IS A HOT BUTTON IN SCHOOLS

    In Idaho, Gov. Brad Little and Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield, both Republicans, announced in June that the state had purchased a new “patriotic” supplemental history curriculum that would be made available, free, to all public schools.

    “It’s more important than ever that Idaho children learn the facts about American history from a patriotic standpoint,” Little wrote on Facebook. He said the lessons would help to “truly transform our students here in Idaho.”

    Little’s office referred questions about the supplement to the state’s education department.

    “The Story of America” curriculum was developed by conservative author and former Reagan-era education secretary Bill Bennett. In a 2021 press release, Bennett said the curriculum was needed because “an anti-American ideology that radically misrepresents U.S. history has infiltrated our education system and misled our kids.”

    It’s difficult to compare the supplemental curriculum against the lessons that Idaho schools currently use because each district selects its own texts and lesson plans.

    The new curriculum emphasizes that talking about American history and teaching the subject should be done with the intent to “cultivate a respect and love of your country,” Critchfield said.

    “It’s not to change history, but to honor the history we had,” she said.

    Democratic state Rep. Chris Mathias, a member of the House education committee, hasn’t seen the supplemental curriculum yet, but said history lessons should teach the good and the bad, and discuss — without shaming — the uncomfortable aspects of history.

    Saying one curriculum is “patriotic” suggests that others currently in use are not, he said.

    “I would really like to know if that’s true,” said Mathias, who previously served in the U.S. Coast Guard. “As a military veteran, I think a lot of people disagree on what it means to be devoted to America. I think a lot of people think that blind devotion is the same thing as patriotism. I don’t.”

    ___

    Fields reported from Washington, Beck from Omaha, Nebraska, and Boone from Boise, Idaho. Associated Press writers Steve LeBlanc in Boston, and Linley Sanders and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

    ____

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man with weapons, explosives arrested near Obama’s D.C. home, sources say

    Man with weapons, explosives arrested near Obama’s D.C. home, sources say

    [ad_1]

    Man with weapons, explosives arrested near Obama’s D.C. home, sources say – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A Seattle man wanted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection was arrested just blocks from former President Barack Obama’s Washington, D.C., home Thursday when authorities found guns and explosive materials in his van, officials said. Jeff Pegues has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man with Jan. 6 warrant and weapons arrested after running toward Obamas’ D.C. home

    Man with Jan. 6 warrant and weapons arrested after running toward Obamas’ D.C. home

    [ad_1]

    A man with weapons and an active Jan. 6-related warrant was arrested by law enforcement in former President Barack Obama’s Washington, D.C., neighborhood, two sources briefed on the matter tell CBS News. 

    Multiple sources identified the suspect as 37-year-old Taylor Taranto, of Seattle, Washington. Secret Service spotted the man within blocks of the Obama’s home, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the matter. The man fled, and Secret Service chased him. He was running toward the Obama home but was apprehended before he reached it. 

    The man had previously made disturbing social media threats against a public figure, according to the law enforcement source and had an open warrant on charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol

    The man has been charged with being a fugitive from justice, according to the Metropolitan Police Department. 

    The suspect had been on the radar of U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI because of his social media posts. 

    The incident did not result in any injuries. It’s unclear if the Obamas were home at the time. 

    This is a developing story. 

    — Nick Kurtz contributed to this report 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jesse Watters Says Obama Doesn’t Look At Things ‘From An American Perspective’

    Jesse Watters Says Obama Doesn’t Look At Things ‘From An American Perspective’

    [ad_1]

    Fox News host Jesse Watters on Monday accused former President Barack Obama of “never really looking at things from an American perspective.” (Watch the video below.)

    Watters was named Tucker Carlson’s permanent replacement in the channel’s 8 p.m. time slot, but held his usual spot on “The Five” when he criticized Obama’s take on the Titan submersible tragedy.

    Obama told CNN that news coverage of the Titan implosion that killed all five aboard dwarfed that of a shipwreck of migrants off Greece that killed hundreds. “In some ways it’s indicative of the degree to which people’s life chances have grown so disparate,” Obama said after noting that “obscene inequality” was threatening democracy.

    Watters didn’t mention false far-right claims that Obama was not born in the United States, but he seemed to dance around them.

    “When you are a citizen of the world, you always think about the world instead of the United States,” Watters said. “Remember, this is a guy whose father has roots in Africa. This is a guy who spent a lot of his childhood in Southeast Asia … and then spent a lot of time in Hawaii.” He noted that Hawaii, Obama’s place of birth, was the last to earn statehood.

    “He’s never really looking at things from an American perspective,” Watters continued. “He’s always speaking to the world. Even when he’s speaking to us, he’s appealing to the world.”

    Watters said the intense interest in the submersible stemmed from the Titanic angle, the perceived suspense when those aboard were thought to be running out of oxygen, and the drama’s proximity to the United States.

    “We don’t live in Europe, Barack Obama,” Watters said. “This is the United States of America. And it just shows how naive, detached, and how snobby he is to not understand that this is the United States, and as sad as [the shipwreck of migrants off Greece] is — and it was a horrible story off the coast — this is not something that concerns most Americans in their spare time.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obama Production Company Greenlights Action Film About Badass Drone Seeking Revenge On Yemeni Wedding

    Obama Production Company Greenlights Action Film About Badass Drone Seeking Revenge On Yemeni Wedding

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES—Announcing their first major theatrically released project, the production company launched by Barack and Michelle Obama greenlit an action film Friday about a badass drone seeking revenge on a Yemeni wedding. “The film follows a retired ex-military drone who just wants to be left alone, until Uncle Sam comes knocking to call it in for one last mission to take out the Yemeni wedding that wronged the drone in the past,” said former President Barack Obama, describing how excited he felt from the moment he read the “kick-ass” script, noting that he had never seen anything so hardcore. “The drone takes no prisoners, eviscerating every civilian wedding in its path to get to the Yemeni bride, groom, and wedding party that had killed its drone wife back in the day. The movie is just a bunch of fun; audiences are going to go crazy for the rooftop chase scene in which the drone pursues a 7-year-old flower girl and vaporizes her at the last second. It’s incredible to be producing a film that is so bombastic and crazy, but still reveals a truth about life.” At press time, Obama revealed that Bradley Cooper would be voicing the drone.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Not Whitmer?

    Why Not Whitmer?

    [ad_1]

    Why doesn’t Gretchen Whitmer just run for president? Or at least humor the suggestion?

    Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, sat cross-legged on the couch of a darkened TV studio in East Lansing, where a local PBS program called Off the Record is taped—a weird name for an interview show watched by 100,000 people.

    “I know!” agreed Whitmer, who wore a camouflage sweatshirt with Michigangster scripted across the front. We met here on a recent evening for an interview in which I would ask her—on the record—several variants of the above “running for president” question.

    No, of course she is not running for president, Whitmer told me. She 100 percent supports Joe Biden, who is great and vigorous and all of that—and not too old, definitely not too old. She just wants to help him win. Kamala Harris too. Love her!

    Clearly, though, Whitmer was happy to go through the Kabuki of being interrogated over whether she might change her mind. She didn’t bother with the annoyance that many ambitious pols feel compelled to feign—it’s such a hassle—when asked whether they might give the ol’ presidency a look. She giggled at many of my questions. Whitmer seems to genuinely enjoy being a politician, even the ridiculous and absurd parts of it, such as this.

    “So, you’re not running for president,” I said.

    “Correct,” she affirmed.

    “Why not?”

    “Because I just got reelected governor,” she replied, half-smirking. “And I made a commitment to the people of Michigan that I’m gonna fulfill it.” This has been Whitmer’s stock answer since she trounced the Republican Tudor Dixon by 11 points to win reelection last November.

    [Read: The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden]

    Okay, sure. But a few days earlier, Whitmer had announced plans for a new political-action committee, the Fight Like Hell PAC, named for her oft-stated vow to preserve abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. The PAC will allow the governor to raise money for Democrats across the country ahead of 2024—just the kind of thing restless and term-limited statewide leaders do when they are trying to take themselves national.

    And surely Whitmer noticed that, in early June, Biden had taken an unfortunate plunge while onstage during the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation. He was fine, but the viral episode underscored how nerve-racking it can be to watch an octogenarian run for reelection. Presumably Whitmer had also seen that 67 percent of respondents to a recent CBS News poll said they don’t think Biden should seek another term, a figure that includes 75 percent of independents and 42 percent of Democrats.

    No shortage of Democratic colleagues, operatives, and donors has encouraged Whitmer to seek the presidency—and not necessarily to wait until her second term ends. She is one of the top Democrats on the “If Biden backs out” index, and has even been offered up—including by me—as someone who might consider primarying him. Polls show a bipartisan yearning to avoid a Biden-Trump rematch that is not exactly shaping up to be a rolling pageant of joy.

    I followed Whitmer on a series of high-energy events across Michigan last week. She visited a dance studio in Detroit and a sporting-goods store in Lansing, where she signed a bill—the Crown Act—that will make it illegal to discriminate against citizens based on their hair style. “For far too long, we’ve known that hair-based discrimination has been used to deny equal opportunity for Black men and women,” Whitmer said to applause from a heavily Black audience.

    She is deft at pivoting from specific issues to the broader theme of personal freedom, particularly relating to her signature cause, abortion access. “Michigan is a state where we stand up for fundamental rights,” she continued. “Whether it’s the right to make your own decisions about your health and your body, the freedom to feel safe in your community.” Her list also included the freedom to move around. “Fix the damn roads” was Whitmer’s slogan when she first ran for governor, in 2018. After considerable gridlock over how to fund the work, the state’s roads are now plugged with orange construction barrels. “Our new state flower,” she calls them.

    Whitmer’s governing course has been bumpy at times, especially in her first term, when she confronted Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature. To pay for the road repairs, she proposed a 45-cent-per-gallon gas-tax increase—a deeply unpopular idea that quickly crashed. Whitmer would eventually bypass the legislature and pay for the road repairs through several billion dollars in bonds approved by the State Transportation Commission.

    [Read: Why Biden shouldn’t run in 2024]

    A hyperlocal message like “Fix the damn roads” is good for a cheerleader governor but not always a vehicle that travels well. Whitmer is, for better or worse, extremely Michigan—possessed of one of the thickest native accents I’ve heard, a pronounced northern twang that evokes the Upper Peninsula more than Detroit. She’s lived in the state for all of her 51 years: childhood in Lansing and Grand Rapids, college and law school at Michigan State, stints in the state House and Senate, a vacation cottage up north. Her foul-mouthed irreverence, goofy humor, and ability to pound beers and disarm adversaries make her a formidable operator in Lansing.

    “You could drop Gretchen Whitmer anywhere, and she can connect immediately,” Mike Duggan, the longtime mayor of Detroit, told me. “You could be sitting here in Detroit, up in Marquette talking about mining. She listens intently. People feel, like, a bond with her.”

    Across the state, Whitmer is known affectionately as “Big Gretch.” It’s not clear where the moniker started, and Whitmer didn’t love it at first. “There aren’t many women who want ‘Big’ on the front of her nickname,” she told me. But she went with it, in keeping with the ethos of her favorite movie, The Big Lebowski. The governor has embraced the film’s walk-off line—“The Dude abides”—as a personal credo of acceptance and willingness to roll with imperfect circumstances.

    Whitmer achieved national prominence during the pandemic, and it was not all pleasant—including a kidnapping plot against her for which the FBI arrested a motley but heavily armed band of self-styled militia men. Her lockdown policies faced fierce and at times unruly opposition. She was also a target of President Donald Trump, who dismissed her as “that woman from Michigan.” Whitmer took pride in the brush-off, put the quote on a T-shirt, and wore it on TV. Biden’s campaign team vetted her as a possible running mate in 2020. Whitmer said at the time that she was happy in her “dream job,” which is what politicians tend to say while they’re contemplating another one.

    [Gretchen Whitmer: The plot to kidnap me]

    Whitmer has two daughters in college and lives in the governor’s mansion with her second husband, Marc Mallory, a dentist, and their two dogs, a labradoodle (Kevin) and Aussiedoodle (Doug). As a matter of personal bias, I told Whitmer I am supportive of people giving human names to their pets. Or maybe I was just trying to flatter her into answering the question about running for president—crack the door open just a little and spare us this recurrent parade of elderlies.

    Whitmer, obviously, took none of my bait. She kept laughing, though—abided, even. “You know, it’s funny; ‘The Dude abides’—it’s a really wise philosophy,” she observed during our brief detour into film study. “There are just things you can’t control.”

    I took this to mean that Whitmer is ruling nothing out and is willing to adapt to the unforeseen. I pointed out that Americans were starved for new national leaders. Whitmer did not dispute this. Nor have Democrats nominated a fresh face since Barack Obama—and he had to jump the line for that to happen, in 2008, when it was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s turn. Is Whitmer willing to “fight like hell” to upset the entrenched political order, or is that just a slogan?

    I also mentioned that if the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can poll as high as 20 percent in the Democratic primary field, then many Democratic voters are clearly open to—even desperate for—someone not named Biden on the ballot. Why not give them a serious alternative?

    [Read: Joe Biden isn’t popular. That might not matter in 2024.]

    “You know, there are a lot of really talented Democratic leaders all across the country,” Whitmer told me. She would be proud to be considered among them.

    What if Biden changes his mind?

    “He’s running!”

    “Okay, but you saw him fall the other day,” I said. “Did your thinking, in that split second before Biden got up, change at all?”

    “No!”

    Whitmer was still laughing at this point, but I might have been pushing things—approaching dark and disrespectful. I had a flight to catch in Detroit, and a long drive from Lansing, with construction to contend with. “We’ll keep talkin’. How’s that?” Whitmer said. “And one of these days, we’ll have a beer. Or three.”

    We left things there, and the Michigangster governor returned to her lane, for now.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • Republicans Don’t Really Want to Cut Spending

    Republicans Don’t Really Want to Cut Spending

    [ad_1]

    Shortly after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that he had struck a deal with President Joe Biden to raise the debt ceiling, Republican leaders began circulating a fact sheet to their members listing the victories McCarthy had secured. The first bullet point captured what was supposedly the whole point of the negotiations for the GOP: The newly christened Fiscal Responsibility Act would cut spending.

    An item further down the list, however, revealed far more about the agreement—and about how committed modern-day Republicans really are to their party’s small-government principles. That bullet point noted that the bill would “ensure full funding for critical veterans programs and national defense priorities, while preserving Social Security and Medicare.” At the end of a weeks-long negotiation, Republicans were bragging that they had exempted as much as half of the federal budget from the spending cuts they had fought so hard to enact. What they didn’t say was that for all of their rhetoric about reducing spending, they didn’t actually want to cut that much of it.

    The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which the House approved tonight on a vote of 314-117, will avert what would have been a first-ever national default, lift the debt ceiling through the next presidential election, and save Congress from a crisis of its own making. The bill, which is expected to clear the Senate in the next several days, is hardly what Democrats would have passed had they retained their House majority last fall. But in terms of “fiscal responsibility,” the proposal does vanishingly little. “It does nothing to change the unsustainability of the federal budget,” Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal-watchdog organization, told me. “It’s taken off the table everything that would have an effect.”

    It’s not that Republicans lost the budgetary battle because of Biden’s tough negotiating. They didn’t even try for major spending cuts in this round of talks. McCarthy followed former President Donald Trump in abandoning the party’s long-standing push to tackle the biggest drivers of the national debt: Social Security and Medicare. Biden and the Democrats were willing to cut the Pentagon’s budget, which accounts for nearly half of all federal spending outside of entitlement programs. But the speaker nixed that idea too. “Spending cuts are very popular in the abstract, much less so in the specific,” Bixby said.

    By the time McCarthy and Biden began negotiating in earnest, there wasn’t much left to cut. “You just can’t get major savings from the rest of what’s left,” Bixby told me. McCarthy was ultimately able to trim a few billion dollars from last year’s budget. That’s enough for him to claim that the Fiscal Responsibility Act cuts year-over-year spending for the first time in a decade, but in the context of the nearly $6 trillion that the federal government spent in 2022, it’s a pittance.

    McCarthy succeeded in getting much of what he said he wanted, but that’s only because he didn’t ask for much. Congress will take back $28 billion in unspent COVID-relief funds, and Republicans chopped off as much as one-quarter of the $80 billion Democrats earmarked for the IRS as part of their Inflation Reduction Act last year. But the reduction in IRS funding could actually increase the deficit in the long term, because the purpose of the money was to secure higher revenue for the government by cracking down on tax fraud. The toughest provision for progressives to swallow is additional work requirements for childless adults ages 50 to 54 who receive food stamps and cash welfare. Other changes, however, will expand the food-stamp program to veterans and homeless people, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office yesterday estimated that the government will end up spending more money on food stamps, not less, as a result.

    The CBO projected that the bill would save $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But its estimate assumes that Congress will stick to lower spending levels for far longer than the two years that the legislation requires. The speaker has touted other reforms in the bill, such as a requirement that the administration find cuts to offset expensive new rules or regulations, and a provision that calls for an across-the-board 1 percent cut in spending if Congress fails to pass the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government each year. But neither of these is guaranteed.

    The best that fiscal hawks could say for the agreement was that it temporarily halted spending growth. Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told me that the most significant part of the deal was the “change in behavior” it represented. In recent years, she said, “lawmakers have only added to the deficit. They haven’t had any bipartisan deals that have brought the deficit down in a decade.”

    McCarthy and his allies have argued that he extracted as many concessions as he could, considering that Democrats control the White House and the Senate whereas Republicans barely have a majority in the House. As speaker, McCarthy must protect the members most vulnerable to defeat next year, and he evidently determined that demanding cuts to some of the government’s most popular programs—Social Security, Medicare, the military, and veterans—could threaten the GOP majority.

    House conservatives were quick to denounce the agreement. To them, the cuts McCarthy secured were a woefully insufficient price for suspending the U.S. borrowing limit for the next year and a half. “Trillions of dollars of debt for crumbs,” Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, the chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, told reporters yesterday. “This deal fails, fails completely.” Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado noted that by only freezing rather than cutting spending, the legislation would “normalize” the growth of the federal government that happened during the coronavirus pandemic, even after most of the COVID-specific spending wound down.

    A few conservatives accused McCarthy of betraying the commitments he made to the party when he narrowly won the speakership in January. But even the Freedom Caucus spared the Pentagon and the biggest safety-net programs in its own proposals.

    Republicans have flinched on cutting spending before. Although the House GOP passed a debt-ceiling bill last month stuffed with conservative priorities, the party did not adopt a spending blueprint that would have detailed how it planned to balance the budget without raising taxes. And last week, Republicans abruptly postponed committee votes on four traditionally noncontroversial appropriations bills that contained spending cuts. GOP leaders cited the ongoing debt-limit talks as a reason, but congressional observers suspected that the party lacked the votes to advance the bills to the House floor.

    The GOP’s supposed zeal for smaller government has long been inconsistent. Most Republican lawmakers were happy to support spending sprees led by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Trump. Only when Democrats have occupied the White House has the GOP demonstrated any interest in spending restraint.

    But that may be changing. In the 2011 debt-ceiling talks, Republicans forced Barack Obama to bargain over entitlement programs and accept deep cuts that applied equally to the military and domestic programs. Now the GOP is poised to hand Joe Biden a debt-ceiling increase of roughly the same duration in exchange for hardly any spending cuts at all.

    The party’s hardliners fought the deal but could not stop it. They appear unlikely to try to oust McCarthy over the agreement, and Republicans might not get another opportunity to force their agenda through for the rest of Biden’s term. That they chose to fight over so little represents a huge concession of its own, an acknowledgment that despite all their denunciations of out-of-control spending, Republican leaders recognize that what the federal government funds is more popular than they like to claim.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: Who’s to blame for the national debt? It’s more complicated than one culprit

    FACT FOCUS: Who’s to blame for the national debt? It’s more complicated than one culprit

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. is inching closer to a deadline to raise the debt ceiling or risk defaulting on the nation’s $31 trillion in debt and political leaders have not yet reached a deal to avert such a crisis.

    Amid those negotiations, politicians and commentators online have pointed fingers at who they say is to blame for the nation’s exorbitant debt.

    One claim circulating widely on social media, prompted by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, posits that former President Donald Trump contributed more to the debt than any other in the White House occupant in history.

    But that isn’t quite right — and experts say the issue is much more nuanced than a political talking point might let on.

    Here are the facts.

    CLAIM: Trump “ran up more debt than any other President in American history.”

    AP’S ASSESSMENT: That’s incorrect. The debt incurred during the Trump era was very high. But in terms of raw dollars, the total debt rose more under former President Barack Obama, with Trump in second place — though Obama held office for two terms, while Trump served one.

    There are other ways to slice and dice the numbers, experts say. But more importantly, the debt has been ballooning for years and it’s more complicated than blaming any one leader or party. Trump, for example, was faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting bipartisan support for a massive federal response.

    Jeffries offered a more simplistic view when casting blame on the 45th president in a tweet, which was copied in a popular Instagram post shared by Occupy Democrats.

    “Trump ran up more debt than any other President in American history,” the post reads. “He wants Republicans to force a dangerous default if they don’t get their way. We cannot let right-wing extremists hold our economy hostage.”

    Jeffries’ office didn’t provide a response to an inquiry asking how the measure was calculated.

    But in terms of all presidents, the Trump years did not record the most debt added — although they did add a lot.

    Looking at historical federal debt data by fiscal year, the total gross U.S. debt was about $19.5 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2016, which ended several months before Trump took office, said G. William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. That rose to about $26.9 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2020, or a $7.4 trillion increase, just before Trump left office.

    The debt added under Obama’s two terms, however, amounted to about $9.5 trillion.

    There are some caveats: Those figures are not adjusted for inflation. A federal fiscal year begins in October, so there is some overlap when administrations change. And the total debt includes debt held by the public, which accounts for most of the debt, but also debt owed by one part of the government to another.

    There are also different ways to analyze the data.

    Evaluating only full one-term presidencies, for example, the rise under Trump may well be on paper the largest increase. But the increase under former President George H. W. Bush — about $1.4 trillion — represented a larger percentage increase than under Trump, Hoagland noted.

    And some economists prefer to view the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, because it indicates the ability of the country to handle its debt.

    “Compare it to a household,” explained Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “The higher the household’s wages, the more it can pay off its debt.”

    Looking at it that way, the gross debt as a percentage of GDP reached an all-time high of nearly 128% at the end of Trump’s tenure, according to the historical federal data. That said, it’s represented more than 100% of GDP since 2013; that burden in relation to the size of the economy was previously unseen since World War II.

    But the debt accumulated under specific presidents isn’t just a result of their own policies — it reflects decisions made by their predecessors as well as by members of Congress.

    “The point is that fiscal policy reflects joint action by Congress and the president,” said David Primo, a University of Rochester professor of political science and business administration. Statements like Jeffries’ imply presidents have sole control over fiscal policy, he noted.

    Similarly, Hoagland said: “All presidents inherit spending from previous administrations and in turn they create spending for the future president.”

    The cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare continue to drive up the debt, as do factors beyond a president’s control, like COVID-19 or the recession inherited by Obama.

    “As a budget expert, what pains me is that partisan bickering about who is to blame for the debt obscures an important truth: both parties have abdicated their budgetary responsibilities,” Primo said, noting that about two-thirds of the debt has been incurred since 2001.

    ___

    This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.

    [ad_2]

    Source link