ReportWire

Tag: Democracy

  • Breathlessness. Unformed facial features. Manipulative. Here’s how to spot a political deepfake

    Breathlessness. Unformed facial features. Manipulative. Here’s how to spot a political deepfake

    [ad_1]

    You’ve probably seen the word “deepfakes” in the news lately, but are you confident you would be able to spot the difference between real and artificial intelligence-generated content? During the summer, a video of Vice President Kamala Harris saying that she was “the ultimate diversity hire” and “knew nothing about running the country” circulated on social media. Elon Musk, the owner of X, retweeted it. This was, in fact, a deepfake video.By posting it, Musk seemingly ignored X’s own misinformation policies and shared it with his 193 million followers. Although the Federal Communication Commission announced in February that AI-generated audio clips in robocalls are illegal, deepfakes on social media and in campaign advertisements are yet to be subject to a federal ban. A growing number of state legislatures have begun submitting bills to regulate deepfakes as concerns about the spread of misinformation and explicit content heighten on both sides of the aisle. In September, with less than 50 days before the election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three bills that target deepfakes directly — one of which takes effect immediately. AB 2839 bans individuals and groups “from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content.” This ban would take effect 120 days before an election and 60 days after it, an aim at reducing content that may spread misinformation as votes are being counted and certified. “Signing AB 2839 into law is a significant step in continuing to protect the integrity of our democratic process. With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally altered content that can interfere with the election,” said Gail Pellerin, the chair of the Assembly Elections Committee.According to Public Citizen, 25 states have now either signed a bill into law that addresses political deepfakes or have a bill that is awaiting the governor’s signature. Do you know how to spot a deepfake?According to cyber news reporter and cybersecurity expert Kerry Tomlinson, “a deepfake is a computer-created image or voice or video of a person, either a person who doesn’t exist but seems real, or a person who does exist, making them do or say something they never actually did or said.”Tomlinson says there are several giveaways to identify a deepfake. Objects and parts of the face, such as earrings, teeth or glasses, may not be fully formed. Pay attention to the breathing. The speaker takes no breaths while speaking. Ask yourself: Is the message potentially harmful or manipulating?Can the information be verified?Ultimately, Tomlinson encourages people to “learn about how attackers are using deepfakes. Learn about how politicians and political parties are using deepfakes. Read about it. It’s as simple as that.”

    You’ve probably seen the word “deepfakes” in the news lately, but are you confident you would be able to spot the difference between real and artificial intelligence-generated content?

    During the summer, a video of Vice President Kamala Harris saying that she was “the ultimate diversity hire” and “knew nothing about running the country” circulated on social media. Elon Musk, the owner of X, retweeted it. This was, in fact, a deepfake video.

    By posting it, Musk seemingly ignored X’s own misinformation policies and shared it with his 193 million followers.

    Although the Federal Communication Commission announced in February that AI-generated audio clips in robocalls are illegal, deepfakes on social media and in campaign advertisements are yet to be subject to a federal ban.

    A growing number of state legislatures have begun submitting bills to regulate deepfakes as concerns about the spread of misinformation and explicit content heighten on both sides of the aisle.

    In September, with less than 50 days before the election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three bills that target deepfakes directly — one of which takes effect immediately.

    AB 2839 bans individuals and groups “from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election material containing deceptive AI-generated or manipulated content.”

    This ban would take effect 120 days before an election and 60 days after it, an aim at reducing content that may spread misinformation as votes are being counted and certified.

    “Signing AB 2839 into law is a significant step in continuing to protect the integrity of our democratic process. With fewer than 50 days until the general election, there is an urgent need to protect against misleading, digitally altered content that can interfere with the election,” said Gail Pellerin, the chair of the Assembly Elections Committee.

    According to Public Citizen, 25 states have now either signed a bill into law that addresses political deepfakes or have a bill that is awaiting the governor’s signature.

    Do you know how to spot a deepfake?

    According to cyber news reporter and cybersecurity expert Kerry Tomlinson, “a deepfake is a computer-created image or voice or video of a person, either a person who doesn’t exist but seems real, or a person who does exist, making them do or say something they never actually did or said.”

    Tomlinson says there are several giveaways to identify a deepfake.

    • Objects and parts of the face, such as earrings, teeth or glasses, may not be fully formed.
    • Pay attention to the breathing. The speaker takes no breaths while speaking.
    • Ask yourself: Is the message potentially harmful or manipulating?
    • Can the information be verified?

    Ultimately, Tomlinson encourages people to “learn about how attackers are using deepfakes. Learn about how politicians and political parties are using deepfakes. Read about it. It’s as simple as that.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mayoral election won’t be held for 2 months

    Mayoral election won’t be held for 2 months

    [ad_1]

    METHUEN — Residents will have to wait until at least December to vote for a new mayor.

    After the unexpected death of Neil Perry, 66, over the weekend, a City Council in mourning began planning for his successor Monday night.

    It is unclear who will run for mayor but due to state law, the city will not be able to hold an election until 64 days after it is scheduled. Councilor D.J. Beauregard is the acting mayor.

    Perry, serving his third term, died Saturday while surrounded by his family.

    City officials choked back tears as they spoke Monday night during an emotional, 30-minute meeting attended by city department heads and other employees.

    While councilors authorized the clerk’s office to begin planning, they will not vote to schedule the election until Oct. 7. The clerk’s office will have the complex task of planning a mayoral election while also preparing for the presidential election in November.

    Beauregard will possess most of the authority traditionally held by the mayor but would not be able to permanently hire or fire staff, according to City Solicitor Ken Rossetti. The 64-day waiting period provides sufficient time for residents to be informed of the election and for candidates to prepare, he added.

    Perry’s “strength of character” was an inspiration, Rossetti said.

    Perry had been battling kidney disease and while not always able to physically attend meetings, he worked right up until his death. Beyond simply being colleagues, councilors and other officials described Perry as a friend, struggling at times Monday night to find the right words to say as they spoke about him.

    Only a week ago, Perry attended the council’s meeting in person Sept. 16, showing no indication of failing health.

    Perry began leading the city as mayor in January 2020. Last year, he won reelection with about 70% of the vote against challenger Matthew Wicks, a former Air Force officer and a machinist.

    Each year, the council elects a member to serve as acting mayor in the event of a vacancy. Beauregard was elected to fill the role Jan. 4.

    Beauregard is a councilor at large and has served the city since January 2020. He worked at Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School as the director of strategic initiatives. But at the council’s meeting Monday, Beauregard announced he had resigned from his full-time job.

    The newly elected mayor would serve the remainder of Perry’s term, which ends Dec. 31, 2025.

    During Perry’s administration, an embattled Methuen Police Department underwent significant reforms, previously vacant leadership positions in the city were filled, and significant development was achieved, including at The Loop, among other positive changes.

    In only his first few months of office, Perry was tested with leading the city at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The city is providing free, confidential counseling services in the wake of the mayor’s death.

    Prior to running for mayor, Perry spent 38 years working at Raytheon. He previously worked as a bilingual educator for Methuen Public Schools

    Perry’s funeral will be held Sept. 30. City Hall will be closed that day.

    “He started it and we are going to finish it for him,”said Chief Administrative & Financial Officer Maggie Duprey.

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Threats and assassination attempts come with the office Donald Trump once held and is seeking again

    Threats and assassination attempts come with the office Donald Trump once held and is seeking again

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump, following an apparent assassination attempt on him on Sunday, claimed that overheated rhetoric from Democrats was responsible for him being under threat.

    It turns out, records show, that threats come with the office that he once held and is trying to win again, and occur far more frequently than is widely known.

    An examination of Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, known as TRAC, shows that since 1986 when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, the federal government has prosecuted 1,444 cases of threats against presidents or others in line of presidential succession.

    The highest number of prosecutions in a single year came in 1987 during the Reagan years when there were 73. TRAC data shows there were 72 cases brought in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration. The Bush administration also had the highest number of cases over its eight-year span with 383, a time of heightened tension during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prosecutors brought 343 cases when Bill Clinton was president and 213 during former President Barack Obama’s two terms. There were 68 cases brought in Trump’s first term. Reagan had 200 in the last three years of his presidency and 213 cases were brought during George H.W. Bush’s one term.

    The number of convictions was highest in the George W. Bush and Clinton years.

    TRAC is a widely used database research tool established in the 1980s by the Newhouse School and the Martin J. Whitman School of Management and created with government data obtained through federal open records laws and court litigation.

    Trump falls into numerous categories as a former president and presidential candidate. There are statutes pertaining to threats or attacks on both.

    So far, Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, has been charged with possessing a firearm despite a prior felony conviction and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Additional charges are possible.

    Authorities were continuing to examine Routh’s potential motive and movements in the days and weeks leading up to Sunday, when a Secret Service agent assigned to Trump’s security detail spotted a firearm poking out of shrubbery on the West Palm Beach golf course where Trump was playing. The agent fired, and Routh escaped into a sport utility vehicle, leaving behind a digital camera, a backpack, a loaded SKS-style rifle with a scope and a plastic bag containing food.

    The attempt on Trump is unique because he is a former president seeking to regain the office who has now faced two attempts. But he is not the only former president who survived an assassination attempt trying to retake the office. Teddy Roosevelt was running as a former president in 1912 when he was shot in the chest while campaigning in Milwaukee.

    “This is not unprecedented. People tend to forget how violence has been around the United States for a long time,” said David Head, a historian at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

    There have been a number of notable instances that are not included in the TRAC data. Reagan was severely wounded in 1982 and then-President Gerald Ford had two attempts on his life in a 17-day period in 1975. George W. Bush was in Tbilsi, Georgia with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili in 2005 when someone rolled a hand grenade into the room that did not explode.

    Clinton was in the White House on Oct. 29, 1994, when Francisco Martin Duran, then 26, opened fire outside and fired about 20 rounds at the building. No one was injured but Duran was convicted of attempting to assassinate the president and sentenced to 40 years. According to the Bureau of Prisons website, he is in a federal prison in Virginia and is not eligible for release until 2029.

    Earlier this year, a New Hampshire man charged with threatening Republican candidates was found dead while a jury deliberated his case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China-linked ‘Spamouflage’ network mimics Americans to sway US political debate

    China-linked ‘Spamouflage’ network mimics Americans to sway US political debate

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — When he first emerged on social media, the user known as Harlan claimed to be a New Yorker and an Army veteran who supported Donald Trump for president. Harlan said he was 29, and his profile picture showed a smiling, handsome young man.

    A few months later, Harlan underwent a transformation. Now, he claimed to be 31 and from Florida.

    New research into Chinese disinformation networks targeting American voters shows Harlan’s claims were as fictitious as his profile picture, which analysts think was created using artificial intelligence.

    As voters prepare to cast their ballots this fall, China has been making its own plans, cultivating networks of fake social media users designed to mimic Americans. Whoever or wherever he really is, Harlan is a small part of a larger effort by U.S. adversaries to use social media to influence and upend America’s political debate.

    The account was traced back to Spamouflage, a Chinese disinformation group, by analysts at Graphika, a New York-based firm that tracks online networks. Known to online researchers for several years, Spamouflage earned its moniker through its habit of spreading large amounts of seemingly unrelated content alongside disinformation.

    “One of the world’s largest covert online influence operations — an operation run by Chinese state actors — has become more aggressive in its efforts to infiltrate and to sway U.S. political conversations ahead of the election,” Jack Stubbs, Graphika’s chief intelligence officer, told The Associated Press.

    Intelligence and national security officials have said that Russia, China and Iran have all mounted online influence operations targeting U.S. voters ahead of the November election. Russia remains the top threat, intelligence officials say, even as Iran has become more aggressive in recent months, covertly supporting U.S. protests against the war in Gaza and attempting to hack into the email systems of the two presidential candidates.

    China, however, has taken a more cautious, nuanced approach. Beijing sees little advantage in supporting one presidential candidate over the other, intelligence analysts say. Instead, China’s disinformation efforts focus on campaign issues particularly important to Beijing — such as American policy toward Taiwan — while seeking to undermine confidence in elections, voting and the U.S. in general.

    Officials have said it’s a longer-term effort that will continue well past Election Day as China and other authoritarian nations try to use the internet to erode support for democracy.

    Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu rejected Graphika’s findings as full of “prejudice and malicious speculation” and said “China has no intention and will not interfere” in the election.

    Compared with armed conflict or economic sanctions, online influence operations can be a low-cost, low-risk means of flexing geopolitical power. Given the increasing reliance on digital communications, the use of online disinformation and fake information networks is only likely to increase, said Max Lesser, senior analyst for emerging threats at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank in Washington.

    “We’re going to see a widening of the playing field when it comes to influence operations, where it’s not just Russia, China and Iran but you also see smaller actors getting involved,” Lesser said.

    That list could include not only nations but also criminal organizations, domestic extremist groups and terrorist organizations, Lesser said.

    When analysts first noticed Spamouflage five years ago, the network tended to post generically pro-China, anti-American content. In recent years, the tone sharpened as Spamouflage expanded and began focusing on divisive political topics like gun control, crime, race relations and support for Israel during its war in Gaza. The network also began creating large numbers of fake accounts designed to mimic American users.

    Spamouflage accounts don’t post much original content, instead using platforms like X or TikTok to recycle and repost content from far-right and far-left users. Some of the accounts seemed designed to appeal to Republicans, while others cater to Democrats.

    While Harlan’s accounts succeeded in getting traction — one video mocking President Joe Biden was seen 1.5 million times — many of the accounts created by the Spamouflage campaign did not. It’s a reminder that online influence operations are often a numbers game: the more accounts, the more content, the better the chance that one specific post goes viral.

    Many of the accounts newly linked to Spamouflage took pains to pose as Americans, sometimes in obvious ways. “I am an American,” one of the accounts proclaimed. Some of the accounts gave themselves away by using stilted English or strange word choices. Some were clumsier than others: “Broken English, brilliant brain, I love Trump,” read the biographical section of one account.

    Harlan’s profile picture, which Graphika researchers believe was created using AI, was identical to one used in an earlier account linked to Spamouflage. Messages sent to the person operating Harlan’s accounts were not returned.

    Several of the accounts linked to Spamouflage remain active on TikTok and X.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Hong Kong court convicts 2 journalists in a landmark sedition case

    A Hong Kong court convicts 2 journalists in a landmark sedition case

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG (AP) — A Hong Kong court on Thursday convicted two former editors of a shuttered news outlet in a sedition case widely seen as a barometer for the future of media freedoms in a city once hailed as a bastion of free press in Asia.

    The trial of Stand News former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam was Hong Kong’s first involving the media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

    Stand News, which closed in December 2021, had been one of the city’s last media outlets that openly criticized the government as it waged a crackdown on dissent following massive pro-democracy protests in 2019.

    It was shut down just months after the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, whose jailed founder Jimmy Lai is fighting collusion charges under a sweeping national security law enacted in 2020.

    Chung and Lam had pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications — charges that were brought under a colonial-era sedition law used increasingly to crush dissidents. They face up to two years in prison and a fine of 5,000 Hong Kong dollars (about $640) for a first offense.

    Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Ltd., the outlet’s holding company, was convicted on the same charge. It had no representatives during the trial, which began in October 2022.

    Judge Kwok Wai-kin said in his written judgment that Stand News became a tool for smearing the Beijing and Hong Kong governments during the 2019 protests.

    Chung Pui-kuen, the former chief editor of Hong Kong’s now-shuttered outlet Stand News, walks outside on bail after he was found guilty in a landmark sedition trial under a colonial-era law, in Wanchai District Court in Hong Kong on Thursday, Aug. 29, 2024. (AP Photo/Billy H.C. Kwok)

    He said a conviction is deemed proportional “when speech, in the relevant context, is deemed to have caused potential damage to national security and intends to seriously undermine the authority of the Chinese central government or the Hong Kong government, and that it must be stopped.”

    The case was centered on 17 articles Stand News had published. Prosecutors said some promoted “illegal ideologies,” or smeared the security law and law enforcement officers. Judge Kwok ruled that 11 carried seditious intent, including commentaries written by activist Nathan Law and esteemed journalists Allan Au and Chan Pui-man. Chan is also Chung’s wife.

    The judge found that the other six did not carry seditious intent, including in interviews with pro-democracy ex-lawmakers Law and Ted Hui, who are among overseas-based activists targeted by Hong Kong police bounties.

    Chung appeared calm after the verdict while Lam did not appear in court due to health reasons. They were given bail pending sentencing on Sept. 26.

    Defense lawyer Audrey Eu read out a mitigation statement from Lam, who said Stand News reporters sought to run a news outlet with fully independent editorial standards. “The only way for journalists to defend press freedom is reporting,” Eu quoted Lam as saying.

    Image

    A worker carrying some containers walks past police officers during a raid on the office of Stand News during a raid in Hong Kong, Dec. 29, 2021. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu, File)

    Eu did not read out Chung’s mitigation letter in court. But local media outlets quoted his letter, in which he wrote that many Hong Kongers who are not journalists have held to their beliefs, and some have lost their own freedom because they care about everyone’s freedom in the community.

    “Accurately recording and reporting their stories and thoughts is an inescapable responsibility of journalists,” he wrote in that letter.

    After the verdict, former Stand News journalist Ronson Chan said nobody had told reporters that they might be arrested if they did any interviews or write anything.

    The delivery of the verdict was delayed several times for various reasons, including awaiting the appeal outcome of another landmark sedition case. Dozens of residents and reporters lined up to secure a seat for the hearing.

    Image

    Protesters from Hong Kong in Taiwan and local supporters hold slogans reading “Protest Against Totalitarian Liquidation of Stand News” and ” Support Press Freedom in Hong Kong” to protest outside of the Bank of China in Taipei, Taiwan, Dec. 30, 2021. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying, File)

    Resident Kevin Ng, who was among the first in the line, said he used to be a reader of Stand News and has been following the trial. Ng, 28, said he read less news after its shutdown, feeling the city has lost some critical voices.

    “They reported the truth, they defended press freedom,” Ng, who works in risk management industry, said of the editors.

    Stand News shut down following a police raid at its office and the arrests of its leaders. Armed with a warrant to seize relevant journalistic materials, more than 200 officers participated in the operation.

    Days after Stand News shut down, independent news outlet Citizen News also announced it would cease operations, citing the deteriorating media environment and the potential risks to its staff.

    Hong Kong was ranked 135 out of 180 territories in Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index, down from 80 in 2021. Self-censorship has also become more prominent during the political crackdown on dissent. In March, the city government enacted another new security law that raised concerns it could further curtail press freedom.

    Francis Lee, journalism and communication professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the ruling on which articles were seditious appears to be drawing lines. Whenever an article is about a one-sided political stance, highly critical or viewed as lacking factual basis, then that could be considered as smearing, Lee said.

    Some of the court’s logic differs from how journalists typically think, he said. Journalists “may have to be more cautious from now on.”

    Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the ruling is in line with “the anti-free-speech trend” of rulings since the 2020 security law took effect, criminalizing journalists carrying out their professional duties.

    Foreign governments criticized the convictions. U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller wrote on X that it was a “direct attack on media freedom.”

    However, Eric Chan, Hong Kong’s Chief Secretary for Administration, insisted that when journalists conduct their reporting based on facts, there would not be any restrictions on such freedom.

    Steve Li, chief superintendent of the police national security department, told reporters the ruling showed their enforcement three years ago — criticized by some as a suppression of free press — was necessary.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Protesters against judiciary overhaul plan urge Mexican president to ‘respect democracy’

    Protesters against judiciary overhaul plan urge Mexican president to ‘respect democracy’

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Protestors took to the streets across Mexico on Sunday in the latest opposition to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposed judicial overhaul and other moves by the governing party that critics say will weaken democratic checks and balances.

    Demonstrators rallied in Mexico City as well as in Michoacan, Puebla, Leon, Jalisco, Oaxaca, Veracruz and a number of other states.

    In the capital, throngs of people, many of them federal court workers and judges on strike, ended their march outside the Supreme Court building in the heart of the city, waving flags reading “Judicial independence” and “Respect democracy.”

    “Right now, we’re protesting the reforms, but it’s not just the reforms,” said lawyer Mauricio Espinosa. “Its all of these attacks against the judicial branch and other autonomous bodies. What it does is end up strengthening the executive, the next president.”

    Following big electoral victories in June by the president’s Morena party and its allies, the government has pushed for sweeping changes to Mexico’s judicial system, long at odds with López Obrador, a populist who has openly attacked judges and ignored court orders.

    His proposal includes having judges elected to office, something analysts, judges and international observers fear would stack courts with politically biased judges with little experience.

    That was the concern for Espinosa, who said judges “will have to raise money to campaign, find someone to have their backs. So their sentences will no longer be 100% independent.”

    The proposed changes would require approval by Mexico’s Congress, where the governing coalition has the majority.

    And electoral authorities on Friday allocated Morena and allied parties 73% of the seats in the lower house of Congress, though they won a significantly smaller 60% of the vote. That would give the governing bloc the two-thirds majority in Chamber of Deputies needed to push through constitutional changes with little or no compromise.

    The coalition will be a few seats short of a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but it could feasibly win the needed votes from a smaller party.

    While the new legislators don’t take office until Sept. 1, a congressional committee on Friday already began pushing forward another contentious initiative — the elimination of seven autonomous bodies, including the National Institute of Transparency.

    Morena argues Mexico’s independent oversight and regulatory bodies are a waste of money. It says oversight responsibilities should be given to government departments instead, essentially allowing them to police themselves.

    The collective moves by the president and his party have fueled concerns about undermining democratic institutions. But for many in the crowds, the overhaul of the judiciary represents the greatest threat.

    Federal court employees and judges are on strike, the value of the peso has slumped and international financial firms have voiced concerns. At midweek, U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar warned that electing judges is a “risk” for Mexico’s democracy and “threatens the historic commercial relationship” between the two countries.

    López Obrador, who leaves office Sept. 30, and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, a Morema member, rejected Salazar’s comments. López Obrador called the comments “disrespectful of our national sovereignty,” and Sheinbaum said Saturday that while there will always be dialogue between the U.S. and Mexico, “there are things that only correspond to Mexicans.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris and the New Politics of Joy

    Kamala Harris and the New Politics of Joy

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Mark Peterson/Redux for New York Magazine

    One of the most striking themes of the Democratic National Convention was the way the message flipped back and forth between grim warnings that democracy is under attack and playful invitations to engage in a politics of joy. Democrats at times seemed to be attempting a tricky tightrope act, akin to inviting people to dance their way out of a burning house. 

    For most of the convention, the message seemed to be: Join the fight to save democracy–and let’s have some fun while we do it.  It’s an audacious strategy that President Biden could have never pulled off.

    The address by ex-President Bill Clinton was a perfect example. “We’ve seen more than one election slip away from us when we thought it couldn’t happen, when people got distracted by phony issues or overconfident. This is a brutal, tough business,” he told the crowd, before concluding a few minutes later: “We need Kamala Harris, the president of joy, to lead us.”

    Over and over, joy and happiness were the theme of cheerful celebrities and upbeat optimists who took the stage at the United Center in Chicago, including comedians Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, Kennan Thompson and Mindy Kahling, poet Amanda Gorman and songsters John Legend, Stevie Wonder and Sheila E.  But alongside the fun and funny artistic voices were plenty of speakers like Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who solemnly  invoked the January 6 insurrection and the need to take seriously threats by Donald Trump to terminate the Constitution, be a dictator on Day One and pardon convicted January 6 rioters if elected.

    “In this life, my father never cast a vote because of Jim Crow, so I dedicated my career to protecting the votes against violence and discrimination. You can imagine what I felt on Jan. 6 when I saw with my own eyes those insurrectionists trying to take that away,” Thompson told the crowd. “They did it to rob millions of Americans of their votes.”

    “Trump tried to destroy our democracy by lying about the election and inciting a violent mob to attack the Capitol,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said from the podium, before shifting into a preacher’s cadence and drawing cheers: “In the Old Testament Book of Psalms, the scripture tells us that weeping may endure during the long night, but joy will come in the morning.”

    The Rev. Al Sharpton quoted the same Biblical passage in his remarks.  “We’ve endured lies and areas of darkness,” he said. “But if we stay together, Black, white, Latina, Asian, Indian American, if we stay together, joy, joy, joy, joy coming in the morning.”

    And surprise guest Oprah Winfrey saluted podium speakers who’d told wrenching personal stories about rape, incest and medical trauma caused by restricted access to abortion before doing the pivot.  “We won’t go back. We won’t be sent back, pushed back, bullied back, kicked back. We’re not going back, “ she said, before singing out the J-word: “So let us choose. Let us choose truth, let us choose honor, and let us choose joooooooy!”

    So which is it? Are Democrats waging a desperate fight against a would-be dictator, or trying to have a good time? “It’s not a campaign theme,” Quentin Fulks, deputy campaign manager for the Harris-Walz ticket, told columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times about the j-word. “It’s just something that they’re doing, that they’re bringing to the table. I think if you try to manufacture something like joy, it can go wrong because it’s fake. I think the reason why it’s resonating with people is because it’s authentic.”

    Harris notably did not utter the world “joy” even once in her prime-time address that concluded the convention. Instead, she listed Trump’s attacks on democracy.   “Consider not only the chaos and calamity when he was in office, but also the gravity of what has happened since he lost the last election,” Harris said in the stern, persuasive tones of the courtroom prosecutor she once was. “Donald Trump tried to throw away your votes. When he failed, he sent an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol, where they assaulted law enforcement officers. When politicians in his own party begged him to call off the mob and send help, he did the opposite — he fanned the flames.”

    Harris, it seems, is not going to downplay or ignore the reality that America in the age of Trump has been flirting with open attacks on democracy. But she should consider embracing the politics of joy—not only because her followers like it, but because expressions of love and happiness have a proven track record of dissolving the dark power of dictatorship.

    I recently talked about the phenomenon with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University whose book Strongmen examines how authoritarian strongmen gain power — and how they lose it. While Trump is an uncomfortably good fit with the likes of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, India’s Narendra Modi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, says Ben-Ghiat, many of today’s strongmen are encountering a wave of popular resistance around the world.

    “There’s a big movement of anti-authoritarianism building around the world, and we are in the middle of a renaissance of nonviolent protest around the world. And there are places that have had the biggest protests they’ve ever had, or in the last 40 years, like in Poland, in Chile, in Israel,” she told me. “You could name 10 other countries that have the biggest protests they’ve ever had, because there is something changing in the world. And so one of my maxims is to always have hope.”

    In Turkey, says Ben-Ghiat, the politics of love was the most potent weapon available to push back against the creeping authoritarianism of that country’s strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. “One of my Democratic heroes is Ekrem İmamoğlu,” she said, referring to the Mayor of Istanbul. “He ran for office in 2019 on a platform of love. And instead of having rallies, he walked around and hugged people. The total opposite of Erdogan. And he won.”

    It’s possible that the new politics of joy will continue the activism of the recent past – the women’s march in 2017, the Black Lives Matter demonstrations following the killing of George Floyd in 2020, and this year’s elections  – as part of a larger movement to invigorate democracy.
    “Never give up on the American people. There’s a lot of decency. There’s a lot of people we don’t hear,” Ben-Ghiat says. “A lot of it’s behind the scenes. There are a lot of people working to safeguard our democracy right now.”

    [ad_2]

    Errol Louis

    Source link

  • Early voting begins for Mass. primary

    Early voting begins for Mass. primary

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Massachusetts voters can go to the polls beginning this weekend to nominate candidates for Congress and a handful of contested legislative and county races as early voting gets underway ahead of the state primary.

    From Saturday to Aug. 30, cities and towns will allow registered voters to cast early ballots ahead of the Sept. 3 primary. No excuse or justification is required to cast a ballot ahead of time. Voters can also vote by mail, but must request their ballots by a Monday deadline, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Saturday is the deadline to register to vote.

    Turnout is generally low in state primaries, but the lack of contested races means it could drop to new lows with voters more focused on the November crucial presidential election.

    Nevertheless, good government groups are urging voters to take advantage of the state’s expanded voting options to cast their ballots ahead of the primary.

    “With early voting and vote by mail, we have more options for how we choose to cast a ballot and pick our state leaders,” Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said in a statement. “We encourage everyone to get out and vote before the long weekend.”

    Topping the ballot are three Republican contenders — attorney and cryptocurrency advocate John Deaton, Quincy City Council President Ian Cain and researcher and engineer Bob Antonellis — who are facing off in the GOP primary for a shot at challenging incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has no primary challenger.

    None of the state’s nine Democratic congress members are facing primary challengers, including Reps. Seth Moulton of Salem, and Lori Trahan of Westford. Republicans didn’t field any candidates in 3rd or 6th Congressional district races, ensuring that Trahan and Moulton will win another two years in Congress.

    There are also a handful of contested state legislative primaries, including a rematch between incumbent Democratic Rep. Francisco Paulino of Methuen and Marcos A. Devers of Lawrence in the 16th Essex District race. There are no Republicans running for the House seat.

    Most of the largely Democratic state legislators representing the north of Boston region are facing no primary challengers, and few Republicans are running for the seats.

    On a county level, former Governor’s Councilor Eileen Duff of Gloucester is facing off against Navy veteran Joseph Michael Gentleman III in the Democratic primary for a six-year term as the Southern Essex County Register of Deeds. The winner will fill a vacancy left by former Register John O’Brien, a Democrat who retired on Dec. 31 after 47 years in the post.

    Incumbent Essex County Clerk of Courts Thomas Driscoll will try to fend off a challenge from former Beverly Councilor James FX Doherty on the Democratic ballot. The clerk oversees the superior courts in Salem, Lawrence and Newburyport.

    More than 4.9 million people are eligible to vote in the Sept. 3 primary, elections officials say. The majority, about 63%, are not affiliated with a political party.

    Under the Massachusetts system of open primaries, so-called “un-enrolled” or independent voters can choose a Republican or Democratic ballot.

    Registered Democrats can vote only in the Democratic primary, while Republicans can vote only on the GOP ballot. Libertarians, the state’s other major party, can only vote on their ballot.

    Secretary Of State Bill Galvin is recommending that voters check their city or town’s early voting schedule, and make a plan to vote. He noted that many local election offices have limited hours on Fridays.

    “With the primaries being held on the day after Labor Day, some voters may prefer to vote by mail or to vote early, especially if they have children going back to school that day,” Galvin said in a statement. “The early voting period gives you the chance to vote on whichever day you prefer, at your convenience.”

    Voters also can look up locations and times on the Secretary of State’s website: www.MassEarlyVote.com.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Voter’s Choice: State Representatives

    Voter’s Choice: State Representatives

    [ad_1]

    Voters head to the polls in just two short weeks to vote in the primaries Sept. 10 for their party representatives to run in the November general election for available state representative seats.

    As of this month, there are 194 Democrats, 197 Republicans and one independent seated in Concord. Eight seats are vacant.

    In Rockingham County, voters from district 1 (Pelham), districts 8 and 32 (Danville), District 13 (Derry), districts 15 and 34 (Hampstead), districts 16 and 35 (Londonderry), District 17 (Windham), District 18 (Atkinson), district 20s and 36 (Plaistow) and district 25 (Salem) will elect 32 of the county’s 67 available seats.

    Voters will see contested races on Sept. 10 in the following districts and parties.

    In Derry’s District 13, 11 Republicans are vying for 10 seats.

    In Londonderry’s District 16, 10 Republicans are vying for seven seats.

    In Salem’s District 25, 10 Republicans are vying for seven seats.

    In Danville’s District 32, two Republicans are vying for one seat.

    There are no contested races in any of the districts within the Democratic party.

    Statewide, 400 representatives will be chosen in November to represent the state’s 204 voting districts.

    Voters will also vote Sept. 10 for their party candidate for Congress and the House of Representatives.

    [ad_2]

    By Jamie L. Costa jcosta@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Sandra Day O’Connor Institute, National Association of Secretaries of State Discuss Preparation for November Election

    Sandra Day O’Connor Institute, National Association of Secretaries of State Discuss Preparation for November Election

    [ad_1]


    PHOENIX, August 15, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    The Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy has collaborated with the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) to present an informative virtual discussion on the general election on Nov. 5, 2024. Watch the “How are Secretaries of State Preparing for the November Election?” webcast available now on the Institute’s website, YouTube channel and your favorite podcast platform.

    As the Institute’s founder Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “Our democracy works best when it is open, accessible, and transparent to all citizens.”

    NASS President Minnesota Secretary Steve Simon, President-elect Mississippi Secretary Michael Watson, and Executive Director Leslie Reynolds joined to discuss important bipartisan aspects of election administration, including election security, voter registration, recruitment of poll workers, and evolving technology.

    Since 2020’s national spotlight on elections, NASS members have worked diligently to safeguard timely, accurate, and trusted voting information shared with the public. #TrustedInfo2024 is the NASS effort to help voters find election information. 

    “Don’t just trust what is in your social media feed or what a particular candidate says,” Secretary Simon said. “Seek out trusted sources of information.”

    Many states have also addressed this issue uniquely through collaboration with their legislatures on new laws at the state level. To help access this unique information, NASS created CanIVote.org, which leads voters directly to their state’s election officials for state laws, deadlines, and general election information.

    Technology continues to evolve and as artificial intelligence (AI) technology becomes more accessible, election officials are addressing concerns to help ensure correct information is available. Several states are taking steps to create laws protecting voters from erroneous election information.

    Another critical aspect of preparation for the general election is recruiting poll workers who play an essential role in America’s elections. “Nationwide, we are seeing a greater emphasis on recruiting the next generation of poll workers and ensuring that they are trained and ready to serve,” Executive Director Reynolds said. “Having and continuing to expand the crop of poll workers is very important.”

    Understandably, the aspect of election administration that garners the most attention is the results. The panelists noted official, certified results take time, and what Americans see on election night is not necessarily final.

    “Election night is unofficial; when you see these calls made on election night, that is the media,” Secretary Watson said. “That is not your election official. I think it is really important that the public understand that.”

    Each state has its own ballot rules, voting windows, and tabulation methods. Every election official’s primary focus is accuracy to ensure every eligible vote counts. Contact your state and local election officials for up-to-date information if you have questions about your state’s laws, procedures or rules. 

    To further help you prepare for the November Election, the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute has created the Citizen’s Guide to the General Election. This guide provides state-level information on election deadlines, voter registration, which races are on the ballot, and more. You can find this guide and more election information at oconnorinstitute.org/elections.

    About Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy

    Founded in 2009 by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the O’Connor Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3), continues her distinguished legacy and lifetime work to advance American democracy through multigenerational civil discourse, civic engagement, and civics education. Visit OConnorInstitute.org to learn more.

    About National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS)

    Founded in 1904, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) is the oldest, nonpartisan professional organization of public officials in the U.S. Membership is open to the 50 states and all U.S. territories. NASS serves as a medium for the exchange of information between states and fosters cooperation in the development of public policy. For more information, visit NASS.org.

    Source: Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong’s top court upholds convictions of 7 prominent pro-democracy activists over 2019 protest

    Hong Kong’s top court upholds convictions of 7 prominent pro-democracy activists over 2019 protest

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — Hong Kong’s top court on Monday upheld the convictions of seven of Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy activists over their roles in one of the biggest anti-government protests in 2019.

    Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper; Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the city’s Democratic Party; and five former pro-democracy lawmakers were found guilty in 2021 of organizing and participating in an unauthorized assembly.

    Their convictions dealt a blow to the city’s flagging pro-democracy movement during a political crackdown on dissidents following the protests.

    Last year, the activists partially won their appeal at a lower court, with their convictions quashed over the charge of organizing an unauthorized assembly. But their convictions over taking part in the assembly were upheld and they continued their legal battle at the city’s top court.

    On Monday, judges at the Court of Final Appeal unanimously ruled against their appeal over the remaining convictions.

    The defendants previously argued that the trial judge had failed to conduct an “operational proportionality” assessment when convicting them and quoted two non-binding decisions set out by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The defense also suggested the judge should have taken into account that the procession did not become violent.

    But Chief Justice Andrew Cheung and Justice Roberto Ribeiro said in their written judgment that the two British cases should not be adopted in the city’s courts because the frameworks for human rights challenges in the two jurisdictions are different.

    They ruled that the defendants’ proposition was “unsustainable” and “is contrary to all established principles governing constitutional challenges in Hong Kong.”

    “A separate proportionality inquiry in relation to arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence is inappropriate and un-called for,” they wrote.

    After the court handed down its decision, barrister Margaret Ng, one of the defendants, declined to comment before reading the judgment.

    “We just want to take this occasion to thank our legal teams, and all the people who have been supporting us all the time,” she said.

    The convictions were linked to their involvement in a rally in August 2019 that drew an estimated 1.7 million people onto Hong Kong’s streets to call for greater police accountability and democracy. The march was relatively peaceful compared to other protests that often morphed into violent clashes between police and protesters that year.

    Hong Kong, a former British colony, returned to China in 1997. Its mini-constitution, the Basic Law, guarantees its people freedom of assembly.

    When sentencing the seven activists in 2021, the trial judge at the District Court ruled that the right to such freedom is not absolute and is subject to restrictions ruled constitutional. She ordered Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung Kwok-hung and Cyd Ho to be jailed between eight and 18 months. Martin Lee, Ng and Albert Ho were given suspended jail sentences.

    When the appellate court partially overturned their convictions in 2023, it quashed part of the sentences for the four who were given jail terms on the record. The decision was made after they already served out their sentences.

    Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung and Albert Ho still remained in custody as they were also prosecuted or convicted under a Beijing-imposed national security law, which critics said has all but wiped out public dissent. Lai was also serving a prison term for a separate fraud case.

    The Beijing and Hong Kong governments said the security law was necessary to bring back stability to the city following the protests.

    The movement five years ago was the city’s most concerted challenge to the Hong Kong government since the 1997 handover. It waned with massive arrests and exiles of democracy activists, the COVID-19 pandemic and the introduction of the security law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man known as pro-democracy activist convicted in US of giving China intel on dissidents

    Man known as pro-democracy activist convicted in US of giving China intel on dissidents

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Chinese American scholar was convicted Tuesday of U.S. charges of using his reputation as a pro-democracy activist to gather information on dissidents and feed it to his homeland’s government.

    A federal jury in New York delivered the verdict in the case of Shujun Wang, who helped found a pro-democracy group in the city.

    Prosecutors said that at the behest of China’s main intelligence agency, the Ministry of State Security, Wang lived a double life for over a decade. He held himself out as a critic of the Chinese government so that he could build rapport with people who actually opposed it, then betrayed their trust by telling Beijing what they said and planned, prosecutors said.

    “The indictment could have been the plot of a spy novel, but the evidence is shockingly real that the defendant was a secret agent for the Chinese government,” Brooklyn-based U.S. attorney Breon Peace said in a statement after the verdict.

    Wang had pleaded not guilty. His lawyers cast him as someone who was forthcoming with U.S. authorities about activities he saw as innocuous, and they disputed that his communications were truly under Chinese officials’ direction or control.

    “The jury felt they were and that was enough to convict him, even though there was no evidence that what he did caused any harm, was of any benefit to the Chinese government or that Professor Wang is anything other than a patriotic American who has devoted his life to fighting the authoritarian regime in China,” Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma said after the verdict.

    Wang, 75, was convicted of charges including conspiring to act as a foreign agent without notifying the attorney general. The charges carry the potential for up to 25 years in prison, though sentencing guidelines for any given case can vary depending on a defendant’s history and other factors.

    Wang’s sentencing is set for Jan. 9. Meanwhile, four Chinese officials who were charged alongside him remain at large.

    They are among dozens of people whom U.S. prosecutors have pursued to fight what Washington views as “transnational repression,” or deploying government operatives to harass, threaten and silence critics living abroad. The Chinese embassy in Washington disputes that the country engages in the practice, saying that it doesn’t interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, abides by international law and respects foreign nations’ judicial sovereignty.

    Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy, said in a statement Tuesday that he was unaware of the specifics of the Wang case but that China opposes the United States’ “slander,” “political manipulation” and “malicious fabrication of the so-called ‘transnational suppression’ narrative and its blatant prosecution of officials from relevant Chinese departments.”

    Wang came to New York in 1994 to teach after doing so at a Chinese university. He later became a U.S. citizen.

    He helped found the Queens-based Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang Memorial Foundation, named for two Chinese Communist Party leaders who were sympathetic to calls for reform in the 1980s. A message was sent to the foundation seeking comment on Wang’s case.

    Prosecutors say that underneath a veneer of advocating for change in China, Wang acted as a covert pipeline for information that Beijing wanted on Hong Kong democracy protestors, advocates for Taiwanese independence, Uyghur and Tibetan activists and others in the U.S. and elsewhere.

    Wang composed emails — styled as “diaries” — that recounted conversations, meetings and plans of various critics of the Chinese government.

    One message was about events commemorating the 1989 protests and bloody crackdown in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, prosecutors said. Other emails talked about people planning demonstrations during various visits that Chinese President Xi Jinping made to the U.S.

    Instead of sending the emails and creating a digital trail, Wang saved them as drafts that Chinese intelligence officers could read by logging in with a shared password, prosecutors said.

    In other, encrypted messages, Wang relayed details of upcoming pro-democracy events and plans to meet with a prominent Hong Kong dissident while the latter was in the U.S., according to an indictment.

    During a series of FBI interviews between 2017 and 2021, Wang initially said he had no contacts with the Ministry of State Security, but he later acknowledged on videotape that the intelligence agency asked him to gather information on democracy advocates and that he sometimes did, FBI agents testified.

    But, they said, he claimed he didn’t provide anything really valuable, just information already in the public domain.

    Wang’s lawyers portrayed him as a gregarious academic with nothing to hide.

    “In general, fair to say he was very open and talkative with you, right?” defense attorney Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma asked an undercover agent who approached Wang in 2021 under the guise of being affiliated with the Chinese security ministry.

    “He was,” said the agent, who testified under a pseudonym. He recorded his conversation with Wang at the latter’s house in Connecticut.

    “Did he seem a little lonely?” Margulis-Ohnuma asked a bit later. The agent said he didn’t recall.

    Wang told agents his “diaries” were advertisements for the foundation’s meetings or write-ups that he was publishing in newspapers, according to testimony. He also suggested to the undercover agent that publishing them would be a way to deflect any suspicion from U.S. authorities.

    Another agent, Garrett Igo, told jurors that when Wang found out in 2019 that investigators would search his phone for any contacts in the Chinese government, he paused for a minute.

    “And then he said, ‘Do anything. I don’t care,’” Igo recalled.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Severino Announces Candidacy for Congress

    Joe Severino Announces Candidacy for Congress

    [ad_1]

    Files as write in candidate for the Illinois 10th Congressional seat to fight for democracy


    CHICAGO, July 30, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Joe Severino, a small business owner for 25 years and philanthropist, is running for Illinois’ 10th Congressional District to protect parental rights, stop inflation, lower taxes for working families, women’s rights, make our streets safer, and close our borders. 

    “After a three-month effort gathering signatures, we’ve learned that we’re prohibited from being on the ballot due to an obscure Illinois election law. This law is one of many designed to discourage new voices and maintain the two-party system. This system, entrenched in power, often prioritizes the interests of the establishment over the will of the community,” said Severino.  

    “The two-party system has long been antithetical to genuine representation and the diverse needs of our communities. It forces voters into a false dichotomy, limiting our choices and stifling the possibility for real, meaningful change. This system is designed to preserve the status quo, often sidelining voices that challenge established norms and propose innovative solutions. 

    “Additionally, the establishment has been posturing corrupt candidates as Republicans to take advantage of a political environment that could favor them. This Uniparty strategy dilutes true conservative representation and misleads voters who are seeking authentic Republican values and policies. As a result, our community is left without a genuine Republican representative who will advocate for their needs and uphold their principles. 

    “I’m committed to ensuring that no Republican in the 10th district is disenfranchised from having an option for authentic change. Therefore, I am filing as a write-in candidate. Our community deserves better than the limited choices offered by the two-party system and the deceptive practices of the Unipart strategy. We deserve representatives who will genuinely advocate for our needs and aspirations, not just toe the party line or disguise liberal policies under a Republican label. 

    “I urge you to go to the ballot box and write in my name, Joseph Severino, to ensure that our voices are heard and that we can bring about the change we need. Together, we can challenge the establishment, reject deceptive practices, and create a future that truly reflects the will of the people.” 

    For more information about Joe’s campaign, visit https://www.severinoforcongress.com. 

    Source: Severino for Congress

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Could Biden’s proposal for Supreme Court reform boost 2024 turnout?

    Could Biden’s proposal for Supreme Court reform boost 2024 turnout?

    [ad_1]

    Could Biden’s proposal for Supreme Court reform boost 2024 turnout? – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    As Vice President Kamala Harris’ allies rallied in Pennsylvania on Monday, President Biden made the case for Supreme Court reform in Austin, Texas. Pennsylvania Democratic State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta joins “America Decides” with his reaction. Then, Molly Ball, senior political correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, and Josh Gerstein, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, join with further analysis.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden uses address to explain decision to quit race

    Biden uses address to explain decision to quit race

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Insisting that “the defense of democracy is more important than any title,” President Joe Biden on Wednesday will explain in an Oval Office address his decision to drop his bid for reelection and to throw his support behind Vice President Kamala Harris.

    The address offered the public their first chance to hear directly from Biden his rationale for dropping out of the 2024 after weeks of insisting he believed himself to be the best candidate to take on former President Donald Trump, whom he has called an existential threat to the nation’s democracy. It also gave Biden a chance to try to shape how history views his one and only term in office.

    “The defense of democracy is more important than any title,” Biden said. “Nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy. And that includes personal ambition.”

    Said Biden, “I revere this office, but I love my country more.”

    Biden’s candidacy faced a crisis of confidence from Democrats after his abysmal debate against Trump nearly a month ago, where he spoke haltingly, appeared ashen and failed to rebut his predecessor’s attacks. It sparked a mutiny within his party over not just whether he was capable of beating Trump in November, but also whether at 81, he was still fit for the high-pressure job.

    Biden tried to outlast the skepticism and quell the concerns with interviews and tepid rallies, but the pressure to step aside only mounted from the party’s political elites and from ordinary voters.

    On Sunday afternoon, while isolating at his Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, home with COVID-19, Biden finally bowed in a letter posted to his account on X announcing his decision to leave the race, followed up later by an endorsement of Harris.

    “I have decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation,” Biden said, saying he wanted to make room for “fresh voices, yes, younger voices.”

    He added, “That is the best way to unite our nation.”

    Biden’s address was being carried by the major broadcast and cable news networks. He pledged to remain focused on being president until his term expires at noon on Jan. 20, 2025, saying he would work to end the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, fight to boost government support to cure cancer, and call for Supreme Court reform.

    The president was hoping to use the address to outline the stakes in the election, which both Biden and Harris have framed as a choice between freedom and chaos, but he tried to steer clear of overt campaigning from his official office and never mentioned Trump by name.

    “The great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule,” Biden said. “The people do. History is in your hands. The power is in your hands. The idea of America — lies in your hands.”

    Biden was also looking to make the case for his legacy of sweeping domestic legislation and the renewal of alliances abroad. The way history will remember his time in office and his historic decision to step aside is intertwined with Harris’ electoral result in November, particularly as the vice president runs tightly on the achievements of the Biden administration.

    His advisers say he intends to hold campaign events and fundraisers benefiting Harris, albeit at a far slower pace than if he had remained on the ballot himself.

    Harris advisers will ultimately have to decide how to deploy the president, whose popularity sagged as voters in both parties questioned his fitness for office.

    Biden, aides say, knows that if Harris loses, he’ll be criticized for staying in the race too long and not giving her or another Democrat time to effectively mount a campaign against Trump. If she wins, she’ll ensure his policy victories are secured and expanded, and he’ll be remembered for a Washingtonian decision to step aside for the next generation of leadership.

    Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday that any question of Biden resigning his office — which would allow Harris to run as an incumbent — was “ridiculous.”

    Jean-Pierre said Biden has “no regrets” about his decision to stay in the race as long as he did, or his decision to quit it over the weekend. She said Biden’s decision had nothing to do with his health.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By ZEKE MILLER, SEUNG MIN KIM and WILL WEISSERT – Associated Press

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom crushed a ballot initiative that could have limited tax increases

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom crushed a ballot initiative that could have limited tax increases

    [ad_1]

    Both major American political camps are convinced that democracy is under attack by the other side, and they probably are both largely correct. There simply are different styles and approaches for thwarting the supposed will of the people—or at least for undermining the complex system that allows people to choose the way their nation is governed.

    Our democracy may be the equivalent of “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner,” as one aphorism puts it, but it’s also “the worst form of government except for all those other forms,” according to another. Our system certainly is flawed—laughably so at times—but I doubt most Americans would be pleased with the results if it were replaced by something more efficient.

    In terms of attacking that system, we’ve seen one approach on vivid display. First, refuse to concede an election. Second, concoct an elaborate legal and political scheme to overturn the election results. Third, energize a ragtag mob to invade a public edifice and then, finally, spend years poisoning the public’s faith in elections by peddling conspiracies and attacking opponents in intemperate ways.

    We’ll call that the “iron fist” approach. It’s destructive, but is easy to recognize and understand: If we win, the People have spoken. If we lose, everything is rigged. If this sore-loserism ultimately tears down the constitutional order that protects our liberties and destroys the civic restraints that bolster that order, then so be it. It’s a short-sighted power move driven by one person’s whims.

    But there’s a longer-game, institutional approach that’s equally destructive of democracy, but is dressed up in a way that’s easier to overlook. We’ll call that the “iron fist in a velvet glove.” In this case, officials give grandiose lectures about democratic ideals, but quietly dominate the myriad levels of government power to advance their interests and quash dissent. It’s insidious. Once in a while, however, the natives get restless and officials are forced to remove that velvet glove.

    We’ve seen the latter play out recently in California. Our state is dominated by Democrats, who control every statewide constitutional office and have supermajorities in the Legislature. In a democracy, that’s just the way it goes sometimes. However, Californians aren’t nearly so progressive when they vote on statewide ballot initiatives, which infuriates the majority party.

    Many residents are tired not only of the endless tax increases—but of how little the public gets in services in exchange for nationally high tax rates. The media regularly reports on California residents and businesses who continue to flee the state in large numbers, and on various scandals involving the government’s absurd misspending of public funds.

    Enough is enough. The California Business Roundtable responded by collecting sufficient signatures for a November initiative that would have limited state and local governments’ ability to raise taxes. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would have required voter approval for any tax increase passed by the Legislature and two-thirds approval for local tax hikes. It would have made it harder for agencies to impose “fees” by forcing them to classify them properly as taxes.

    This, of course, would have hit the majority party (and its masters, the public-employee unions) where it really hurts: in the pocketbook. With most conservative-oriented initiatives, the majority has a variety of velvet-gloved anti-democratic tools in their toolbox. The Legislature might, say, fill the ballot with legislatively approved similar-sounding measures designed to confuse voters. The attorney general will write a horrifically biased title and summary.

    This was too important for them to deploy subtlety. Last year after Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers saw the tax-limiting initiative gathering steam, they filed a dubious legal challenge claiming that the changes went too far and amounted to a constitutional revision. The state Supreme Court recently agreed—and pulled the measure from the ballot, thus denying the state’s Democratic-leaning voters a chance to weigh in.

    Typically ballot measures are challenged after they pass, rather than preemptively removed from the ballot. But Newsom and Co. weren’t about to take chances on having another tax revolt, of the sort that enacted property-tax-limiting Proposition 13 in 1978.

    But consider this bare-knuckled action in the face of Newsom’s pre-recorded State of the State speech, where he depicted California as a bastion of democracy: “We are presented with a choice between a society that embraces our values and a world darkened by division and discrimination.” Right-wing anti-democratic forces are despicable, but at least they don’t dress up their behavior with smarmy lectures.

    The Legislature and Newsom also qualified two ballot measures to undermine the Taxpayer Protection Act had it passed and also make it easier to raise taxes in general. They’re perfectly fine with Californians voting—but only on measures that expand the Legislature’s ability to raise taxes. It certainly is amazing how quickly California’s Democrats dispensed with the niceties as soon as the stakes got high.

    This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Greenhut

    Source link

  • Opinion: Protesters came to our homes, with antisemitic chants to “globalize the intifada”

    Opinion: Protesters came to our homes, with antisemitic chants to “globalize the intifada”

    [ad_1]

    Having sniper-trained police in our neighborhoods to protect us and our homes was not anything we thought we would see when we were elected to the University of Colorado Board of Regents – an unpaid elected position.

    Yet, this was exactly what happened to both of us this month when a group of anti-Israel protesters came to both of our homes. We are extremely grateful to law enforcement for protecting us and our families, and we continue to be grateful to the many community members from all faiths and backgrounds who supported us during the protests at our home.

    Involving our families and our neighbors in protests at our homes is unacceptable, and is a tactic that we hope every leader, Democratic, Republican, or unaffiliated, can join in denouncing, as our colleagues on the CU Board of Regents did in a 9-0 vote.

    The agitators leading these protests say that the regents have not listened to or responded to them. They have been protesting on our campus since October, sharing their demands with multiple parties. They have come to CU Board of Regents meetings to speak in public sessions. They have emailed us.

    We have listened to them just as we do with any other group or individual. There is a difference between not listening and not agreeing. On May 16, 2024, the regents put out a statement that read, in part, “No regent is offering any policy changes in response to the demands.”

    As elected officials, we know all too well that you don’t demand things in a democracy. You make your arguments and hope people agree with you. We certainly hope we can all agree the amount of suffering happening in our world right now is unbearable. It is complex. It is unjust. Violence and pain inflicted upon babies, children, the elderly, and other innocent civilians is the worst of humanity.

    Criticism of Israel and/or of Hamas is acceptable and protected speech, and as regents, we encourage deep and complex debates about difficult topics because that is the role of an American university.

    A pro-Palestine demonstration continues on the Auraria Campus in Denver on April 29, 2024. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    The decades-old Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement these protesters are part of, however, aims to dismantle the Jewish state and end the right to Jewish self-determination. The movement does not encourage people-to-people exchanges, dialogue opportunities, or interactions between those with opposing viewpoints.

    What we do not condone is purposely creating a dangerous environment for any student, staff, faculty – including Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Arabs and atheists–  or any other member of our community.

    At both Denver Pride last week and in front of our homes, people changed racist phrases like “From the River to the Sea,” which has been used to call for Jews to be exterminated from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This is unacceptable.

    They were chanting “Globalize the Intifada” and “Resistance by any means necessary” – both racist calls for the murder and displacement of Jews throughout the world – in front of our homes. This is especially deplorable in front of the Spiegels’ home, an American Jewish family who are descendants of Holocaust survivors.

    Much of the commentary and sloganeering used by the protesters oversimplifies an ancient history of a land that is in no way comparable to the United States, South Africa, or any other nation. The binary story that is being told results in the spread of disinformation, incites hate, and perpetuates dangerous antisemitic tropes.

    Finally, the fact that the protestors use overt displays of support for internationally recognized terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in conjunction with anti-Israel protests is also unacceptable.

    [ad_2]

    Ilana Spiegel, Callie Rennison

    Source link

  • R. T. Weatherman Foundation to Host on the Hill – War Diaries: Unheard Voices of Ukrainian Children

    R. T. Weatherman Foundation to Host on the Hill – War Diaries: Unheard Voices of Ukrainian Children

    [ad_1]


    WASHINGTON, June 17, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    The R. T. Weatherman Foundation is proud to announce the opening of the exhibit War Diaries: Unheard Voices of Ukrainian Children at the Rayburn House Office Building, located at 45 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C., on July 8, 2024. 

    The exhibit will be open to the general public from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    War Diaries: Unheard Voices of Ukrainian Children is an art installation that features firsthand accounts from Ukrainian children who suffered under Russian occupation following the full-scale invasion in February 2022. In the sharing of personal artifacts and recollections, the exhibition highlights the ongoing terror and human rights violations that Russia visits upon the most vulnerable members of Ukrainian society. This project is dedicated to fostering empathy, understanding, and meaningful dialogue about the emotional and psychological impacts on the younger generations caught in the conflict.

    Featuring 14 meticulously chosen stories that reflect a balance of gender, age, region, and narrative type, War Diaries shines a light on the multitude of untold experiences through the eyes of children. Visitors will be deeply moved by the visual representations of war, brought to life with compelling audio and video interviews, along with original diaries and sketches, offering a meaningful connection to the personal belongings of the children whose stories are shared.

    The exhibition has been shown in numerous important venues in Europe and has enjoyed widespread critical acclaim in international media (read more HERE).

    It is our hope that through this exhibit, more people will grasp the critical importance of supporting Ukraine in its struggle for peace and a stable, democratic future. 

    Press Invitation:

    Members of the press are invited to attend a brief press conference at 4:30 p.m., featuring remarks from policymakers. A reception will follow the press conference. This is an opportunity for the media to engage directly with those whose lives have been profoundly affected by the conflict and to hear firsthand accounts of their experiences.

    For more information, please contact:

    Lauren Guillaume, Email: Lauren.Guillaume@razomforukraine.org 

    Tori Hill, Email: tori@weathermanfoundation.org 

    About R. T. Weatherman Foundation:
    The R. T. Weatherman Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit that forges pathways between lives in peril and critical aid. Through various initiatives, the Foundation supports the future of democracy, values every life as our own, and meets critical unmet needs. Website: www.weathermanfoundation.org

    Source: R.T. Weatherman Foundation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 14 Hong Kong pro-democracy activists convicted of subversion

    14 Hong Kong pro-democracy activists convicted of subversion

    [ad_1]

    A Hong Kong court Thursday convicted 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case under a 2020 law imposed by Beijing that has all but wiped out public dissent.

    Those who were found guilty included former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting, Helena Wong and Raymond Chan. But the three judges approved by the government to oversee the case acquitted former district councilors Lee Yue-shun and Lawrence Lau. Those convicted could face up to life in prison.

    They were among 47 democracy advocates who were prosecuted in 2021 for their involvement in an unofficial primary election. Prosecutors had accused them of attempting to paralyze Hong Kong’s government and topple the city’s leader by securing the legislative majority necessary to indiscriminately veto budgets.

    Hong Kong Finds 14 Guilty in Biggest National Security Case
    Lawrence Lau, a barrister and former pro-democracy district councilor, leaves the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts during a break in a verdict hearing for him and 46 other activists in Hong Kong, China, on May 30, 2024. A Hong Kong court found 14 opposition figures guilty in the city’s largest-yet national security trial that targeted scores of pro-democracy activists. 

    Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    Observers said their subversion case illustrates how the security law is being used to crush the political opposition following huge anti-government protests in 2019. But the Beijing and Hong Kong governments insist the law has helped bring back stability to the city and that judicial independence is being protected.

    When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Beijing promised to retain the city’s Western-style civil liberties for 50 years. However, since the introduction of the 2020 law, Hong Kong authorities have severely limited free speech and assembly under the rubric of maintaining national security. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. Dozens of civil society groups disbanded.

    Hong Kong Finds 14 Guilty in Biggest National Security Case
    Members of the public wait to enter the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts for a verdict hearing for 47 pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, China, on May 30, 2024. A Hong Kong court found 14 opposition figures guilty in the city’s largest-yet national security trial that targeted scores of pro-democracy activists. 

    Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    In December, Jimmy Lai, a media tycoon, an outspoken Beijing-critic and free speech advocate, went on trial in Hong Kong on charges of colluding with foreign forces under that 2020 law. Supporters said his real offense, however, was criticizing China’s ruling Communist Party and its crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong. His trial is still ongoing.

    In August 2020, Hong Kong police raided the offices of Apple Daily, a popular Chinese-language tabloid owned by Lai, and took him into custody. He has been jailed ever since.

    The prosecution of the primary case involves pro-democracy activists across the spectrum. They include legal scholar Benny Tai, former student leader Joshua Wong and a dozen former lawmakers including Leung Kwok-hung and Claudia Mo.

    Thirty-one of them, including Tai, Wong and Mo, pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit subversion. They have a better chance at shorter jail terms and will be sentenced at a later date.

    Sixteen others, including Leung, pleaded not guilty and underwent a non-jury trial. After the verdicts, mitigation hearings will be scheduled to determine the sentences of those convicted.

    Dozens of residents had lined up outside the police-guarded court building before 6 a.m. Thursday to secure a seat in the public gallery for the verdicts. Some supporters who were among the first in the line came as early as Wednesday evening.

    Social worker Stanley Chang, a friend of one of the 16 defendants, said he arrived the site at 4 a.m. because he feared he could not get a seat. Chang said there were very few things supporters could do for them and that attending the hearing is a kind of company.

    “I want to give some support for my friend and the faces I saw in news reports,” he said, who is in his 30s.

    SL Chiu, who only gave his initials due to fear of government retribution, said the hearing marked a historic moment. To show his support, he said he had collected messages for the 47 activists from others in a sketchbook and planned to mail them if possible.

    “Hong Kongers are still here. We haven’t given up. We are still with you all,” he said.

    On Wednesday night, Lee Yue-shun, one of the accused, said on Facebook that Thursday was like a special graduation ceremony for him, though graduation is usually about sharing happiness with families and friends,

    “This perhaps best reflects the common helplessness of our generation,” he said.

    The July 2020 primary was meant to shortlist pro-democracy candidates who would then run in the official election. It drew an unexpectedly high turnout of 610,000 voters, representing over 13% of the city’s registered electorate.

    The pro-democracy camp at that time hoped they could secure a legislative majority, which would allow them to press for the 2019 protest demands, including greater police accountability and democratic elections for the city leader.

    But the government postponed the legislative election that would have followed the primary, citing public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic. The electoral laws were later overhauled, drastically reducing the public’s ability to vote and increasing the number of pro-Beijing lawmakers making decisions for the city in the legislature.

    Beijing also had criticized the vote as a challenge to the security law, which criminalizes secession, subversion and collusion with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs, as well as terrorism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong court convicts 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case

    Hong Kong court convicts 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — A Hong Kong court Thursday convicted 14 pro-democracy activists in the city’s biggest national security case under a law imposed by Beijing that has all but wiped out public dissent.

    Those found guilty included former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting, Helena Wong and Raymond Chan. But the three judges approved by the government to oversee the case acquitted former district councilors Lee Yue-shun and Lawrence Lau. Those convicted could face up to life in prison.

    They were among 47 democracy advocates who were prosecuted in 2021 for their involvement in an unofficial primary election. Prosecutors had accused them of attempting to paralyze Hong Kong’s government and topple the city’s leader by securing the legislative majority necessary to indiscriminately veto budgets.

    In a summary of the verdict distributed to media, the court said the election participants had declared that they would “either actively use or use the power conferred on the (Legislative Council) by the (Basic Law) to veto the budgets.”

    Under the Basic Law, the chief executive would be compelled to dissolve the legislature and eventually step down if major bills such as the budget were vetoed.

    The court said that if the defendants had reached their aims, it would amount to “a serious interfering in, disrupting or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law” by the Hong Kong government.

    The court was adjourned until later Thursday, and Judge Andrew Chan did not give further details on the court’s reasoning.

    Observers said the subversion case illustrates how the security law is being used to crush the political opposition following huge anti-government protests in 2019. But the Beijing and Hong Kong governments insist the law has helped bring back stability to the city and that judicial independence is being protected.

    When Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, Beijing promised to retain the city’s Western-style civil liberties for 50 years. However, since the introduction of the 2020 law, Hong Kong authorities have severely limited free speech and assembly under the rubric of maintaining national security. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. Dozens of civil society groups disbanded.

    The activists prosecuted in the main case included legal scholar Benny Tai, former student leader Joshua Wong and a dozen former lawmakers including Leung Kwok-hung and Claudia Mo.

    Thirty-one of them, including Tai, Wong and Mo, pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit subversion. They have a better chance at shorter jail terms and will be sentenced at a later date.

    Sixteen others, including Leung, pleaded not guilty and underwent a non-jury trial. After Thursday’s verdicts, mitigation hearings will be scheduled to determine the sentences of those convicted.

    Dozens of residents had lined up outside the police-guarded court building before 6 a.m. Thursday to secure a seat in the public gallery for the verdicts. Some supporters who were among the first in the line came as early as Wednesday evening.

    Social worker Stanley Chang, a friend of one of the 16 defendants, said he arrived the site at 4 a.m. because he feared he could not get a seat. Chang said there were very few things supporters could do for them and that attending the hearing is a kind of company.

    “I want to give some support for my friend and the faces I saw in news reports,” he said, who is in his 30s.

    SL Chiu, who only gave his initials due to fear of government retribution, said the hearing marked a historic moment. To show his support, he said he had collected messages for the 47 activists from others in a sketchbook and planned to mail them if possible.

    “Hong Kongers are still here. We haven’t given up. We are still with you all,” he said.

    On Wednesday night, Lee Yue-shun, one of the accused, said on Facebook that Thursday was like a special graduation ceremony for him, though graduation is usually about sharing happiness with families and friends,

    “This perhaps best reflects the common helplessness of our generation,” he said.

    The July 2020 primary was meant to shortlist pro-democracy candidates who would then run in the official election. It drew an unexpectedly high turnout of 610,000 voters, representing over 13% of the city’s registered electorate.

    The pro-democracy camp at that time hoped they could secure a legislative majority, which would allow them to press for the 2019 protest demands, including greater police accountability and democratic elections for the city leader.

    But the government postponed the legislative election that would have followed the primary, citing public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic. The electoral laws were later overhauled, drastically reducing the public’s ability to vote and increasing the number of pro-Beijing lawmakers making decisions for the city in the legislature.

    Beijing also had criticized the vote as a challenge to the security law, which criminalizes secession, subversion and collusion with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs as well as terrorism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link