Donald Trump

US Republican Party puts full backing behind ultra-conservative program at National Convention

Spread the love

Original article by Natalia Marques republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

J.D. Vance was chosen as Trump’s Vice President, one of the most right-wing options for the ticket (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

At its National Convention, the leading conservative party in the US promotes its presidential ticket and ultra-conservative platform

The Republican National Convention, started on July 15, will continue until July 18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The RNC officially confirmed former President Donald Trump as their nominee for the 2024 presidential elections, to take place in November.

Many in the US, of all political tendencies, were increasingly giving up on the prospect of a second Biden presidency even before Trump’s attempted assassination largely due to Biden’s disastrous debate performance and several political gaffes surrounding the NATO Summit. The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago from August 19 to 22, where the Democrats will officially select their nominee for the presidency. Until the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump, Biden’s incumbent status and victory in the primary elections made him essentially a shoe-in for the nomination. Since then, Biden’s nomination has been widely called into question.

Trump’s second presidency seems increasingly inevitable, with polls from recent days predicting a clear Trump victory. Much of the RNC has been dedicated to deifying Trump, who was notably ridiculed by the Republican Party establishment when he first ran for president in 2016. Trump’s own pick of Vice President, Ohio Senator and bestselling author J.D. Vance, once lamented privately to a friend that he was not sure if Trump was simply a “cynical asshole” or “America’s Hitler.” 

Vance and the “America First” comeback

Vance refused to vote for Trump in 2016. But like most of the Republican Party, even the most established and powerful figures within the party have fallen in line behind Trump. Even Marco Rubio, who ran a vicious primary campaign against Trump in 2016, hoped, in vain, to become Trump’s VP. 

However, Vance has since become one of the most conservative politicians in Congress, fully embracing what has become known as the “America First” political ideology. This conservative tendency is a break from the “neo-conservative” ideology that brought some of the most brutal foreign interventions in US history, such as the invasion of Iraq. In contrast, “America First” is characterized by isolationism, including a fierce opposition towards military aid to Ukraine. However, while “America First” politicians reference policies that could ostensibly benefit workers, such as lowering inflation and cutting on foreign military aid, these politicians have no issue promoting New Cold War policies against China, or chipping away at the little social spending that exists in the US.

“Our God still delivers, and he still sets free. Because the devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle, but the American lion got back up on his feet,” said Senator Tim Scott, also a former Trump VP hopeful, on the first day of the convention, referring to the assassination attempt against the former president.

With its total capitulation to the ideology of Trump’s campaign and his base, the Republican Party seems to be attempting to mask a widely unpopular policy platform behind a pro-worker facade.

Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien addressed the convention on Monday, becoming the first Teamsters leader to speak at the Republican National Convention. O’Brien did not outright endorse him, and has reportedly also asked to speak at the DNC. According to a Teamsters spokesperson, the DNC has yet to accept that request.

The Republican Party is notoriously hostile to organized labor, responsible for some of the harshest anti-union legislation in the world, leaving workers in conservative states uniquely susceptible to exploitation. Workers in so-called “right to work” states, where unions are prohibited from ensuring every worker who enjoys union benefits pay union dues, weaken the power of trade unions in those states. Republican-controlled states often have less regulations on corporate greed across the board, with some of the lowest minimum wages in the country. 

RNC platform proudly embraces xenophobia and militarism

Despite the RNC’s appeals to workers, the RNC is promoting one of the most politically backwards platforms as it puts its full support behind some of the most ultra-conservative politicians in the country. The Republicans put their attack on migrants front and center in their policy platform, pledging to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history,” as well as completing Trump’s border wall (which Biden continued to build). 

Indeed, the platform, while emphasizing isolationism, also does not shy away from furthering US militarism. “Keeping the American People safe requires a strong America. The Biden administration’s weak Foreign Policy has made us less safe and a laughingstock all over the World,” the platform states. “The Republican Plan is to return Peace through Strength, rebuilding our Military and Alliances, countering China, defeating terrorism, building an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield, promoting American Values, securing our Homeland and Borders, and reviving our Defense Industrial Base.”

Vance’s selection as VP, as one of the most conservative options that Trump could have possibly gone with, also signals the further entrenchment of the Republican Party with its ultra right-wing. “Vance’s nomination to be Trump’s running mate signals that the Republicans are doubling down on their false appeal as fighters for working people. In reality Vance is a Silicon Valley capitalist committed to militarism and boosting the profits of big business. His appointment, rather than a figure who would be considered more moderate like Doug Burgum, suggests that hardline repressive policies like a mass deportation campaign are likely under a potential second Trump administration,” Walter Smolarek, editor of Liberation News, told Peoples Dispatch. “Vance is also an anti-China fanatic, and would likely push for more and more escalation in the new Cold War.”

The 2024 US Presidential elections are now set to be a battle between the ultra-right represented by Trump, and the right-wing of the Democratic Party represented by Joe Biden. To find a true alternative to the right, people in the US may have to look outside of the two major parties.

Original article by Natalia Marques republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingUS Republican Party puts full backing behind ultra-conservative program at National Convention

Trump’s Shooting Should Not Silence Warnings About His Threat to Democracy

Spread the love

Original article by JULIE HOLLAR republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Immediately after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, when little was known about the white male shooter (except that he was a registered Republican), right-wing politicians directly blamed Democratic rhetoric for the shooting.

“Today is not just some isolated incident,” Sen. J.D. Vance wrote on X (7/13/24), just days before Trump named him as his running mate:

The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.

(That Trump might be considered a fascist did not always seem so far-fetched to Vance; in 2016, he privately worried that Trump might become “America’s Hitler”—Reuters, 7/15/24.)

“For years, Democrats and their allies in the media have recklessly stoked fears, calling President Trump and other conservatives threats to democracy,” Sen. Tim Scott posted on X (7/13/24). “Their inflammatory rhetoric puts lives at risk.”

Rather than denounce both the assassination attempt and these hypocritical and opportunistic attacks on critical speech, the country’s top editorial boards cravenly bothsidesed their condemnations of “political violence.”

‘Unthinkably uncivil’

The Washington Post (7/14/24) described Trump’s exhortation to “remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness” as a call for “national unity.”

In an editorial headlined, “Turn Down the Heat, Let in the Light,” the Washington Post (7/14/24) praised Donald Trump for appearing to call for national unity. The Post wrote that the assassination attempt offered Trump the chance to “cool the nation’s political fevers and set a new direction.”

The editorial board quickly admonished both sides equally for “unthinkably uncivil” actions and “physical violence.” They pointed to protesters who “harass lawmakers, justices, journalists and business leaders with bullhorns at their homes,” universities that have “become battlegrounds,” and the “bipartisan hazard” of political violence, citing Nancy Pelosi’s husband and GOP Rep. Steve Scalise.

(The link the Post inserted leads to an earlier editorial in which they condemned peaceful protests outside Supreme Court justices’ houses as “totalitarian,” and recommended that the protesters be imprisoned—FAIR.org, 5/17/22).

New York Times editors, meanwhile, called the shooting “Antithetical to America” (7/13/24), a formulation clearly more aspirational than actual. “Violence is antithetical to democracy,” the editorial board wrote, acknowledging moments later that “violence is infecting and inflecting American political life.” They explained:

Acts of violence have long shadowed American democracy, but they have loomed larger and darker of late. Cultural and political polarization, the ubiquity of guns and the radicalizing power of the internet have all been contributing factors, as this board laid out in its editorial series “The Danger Within” in 2022. This high-stakes presidential election is further straining the nation’s commitment to the peaceful resolution of political differences.

It’s a remarkable obfuscation, in which responsibility is ascribed to no one and—as at the Post—everyone.

‘Leaders of both parties’

Is the shooting of a political candidate really “antithetical” (New York Times, 7/13/24) to a country with more guns than people, and 50,000+ gun deaths every year?

Curiously, the 2022 editorial series the Times cites (11/3–12/24/22) did make clear where most of the responsibility lay, explaining that “the threat to the current order comes disproportionately from the right.” It pointed out that of the hundreds of extremism-related murders of the past decade, more than three-quarters were committed by “right-wing extremists, white supremacists or anti-government extremists.” While there have been occasional attacks on conservatives (like the attack on a congressional baseball game that wounded Scalise), the Times noted,

the number and nature of the episodes aren’t comparable, and no leading figures in the Democratic Party condone, mock or encourage their supporters to violence in ways that are common from politicians on the right and their supporters in the conservative media.

But two years later, the Times, like the Post, carefully avoids bringing that much-needed clarity to the current situation and apportions responsibility for avoiding political violence equally to both sides:

It is now incumbent on political leaders of both parties, and on Americans individually and collectively, to resist a slide into further violence and the type of extremist language that fuels it. Saturday’s attack should not be taken as a provocation or a justification.

Of course, there’s a crucial difference between criticizing Trump and his allies for their anti-democratic positions and actions—which is what the Democrats and the left have done—and actually threatening and calling for violence, as the right has been doing.

The list of examples is nearly endless, but would prominently include Trump’s incitement of violence at the Capitol on January 6; his personal attacks on prosecutors, judges and politicians who have subsequently required increased security protections; and his refusal to rule out violence if he loses the 2024 election: “If we don’t win, you know, it depends.” His supporters have repeatedly called for armed uprisings after perceived attacks on Trump, including immediately after the assassination attempt.

That’s why it’s critical that leading newspapers push back against right-wing attempts to equate criticisms of Trump with calls for violence.

‘Grossly irresponsible talk’

The Wall Street Journal (7/14/24), unsurprisingly, took this bothsidesism the farthest.

Leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms. Democracy won’t end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions.

We agree with former Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement Saturday night: “The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy—he is not.”

Readers of those top US papers would have to look across the pond to the British Guardian (7/14/24) for the kind of clear-eyed take newspaper editors with concern for democracy ought to have: “There must also be care that extreme acts by a minority are not used to silence legitimate criticism.”

Research Assistance: Alefiya Presswala

Original article by JULIE HOLLAR republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Continue ReadingTrump’s Shooting Should Not Silence Warnings About His Threat to Democracy

Group Behind Project 2025 Already Claiming Election Interference by Biden

Spread the love

Original article by JULIA CONLEY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

People walk past a Heritage Foundation welcome sign for the Republican National Convention (RNC) at the Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport on July 12, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

The Heritage Foundation is “stoking irresponsible inflammatory fear of election fraud,” said one journalist.

One election law expert warned this week that the right-wing Heritage Foundation is already baselessly claiming that President Joe Biden is likely to respond to the voting results as his predecessor, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, did in 2020: by refusing to accept the will of American voters.

“This is gaslighting and it is dangerous in fanning flames that could lead to potential violence,” Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told HuffPost Friday.

The Heritage Foundation, the think tank that has spearheaded the drafting of Project 2025—a policy agenda threatening mass deportation and immigrant detention, the dismantling of federal agencies, and the consolidation of power with the president should Trump win a second term—said in a report released Thursday that Biden may try to continue his presidency “by force” even if he loses in November.

The claim has no basis in statements made by Biden, who has said he will accept the election results.

In May, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated that Biden “will accept the will of the American people.” Trump has not made the same commitment.

Nevertheless, the Heritage Foundation report went on to say that “the lawlessness of the Biden administration—at the border, in staffing considerations, and in routine defiance of court rulings—makes clear that the current president and his administration not only possesses the means, but perhaps also the intent, to circumvent constitutional limits and disregard the will of the voters should they demand a new president.”

Mike Howell, executive director of the group’s Oversight Project, said at a press conference that “as things stand right now, there is a 0% chance of a free and fair election in the United States of America… I’m formally accusing the Biden administration of creating the conditions that most reasonable policymakers and officials cannot in good conscience certify an election.”

“This is gaslighting and it is dangerous in fanning flames that could lead to potential violence.”

Such comments show, said New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica, that “these people are the insurrectionists. Or election terrorists.”

Howell’s comments echoed Trump’s baseless warnings ahead of the 2020 election that voting would be “rigged” by widespread use of mail-in ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic. Trump relentlessly attacked voting by mail despite admitting that he had used mail-in ballots to vote in numerous elections.

The Heritage Foundation has conducted “role-playing exercises” that it says show “left-wing efforts to interfere with the election” are possible in 2024, HuffPost reported.

The report said voters should “reflexively disbelieve and challenge the intelligence community’s allegations regarding Trump, foreign interference, and Republican efforts to legally win the White House.”

Hasen told HuffPost that the group appeared to be trying to create doubt among the electorate about institutions that “give voters truthful information they need to evaluate evidence before them.”

Journalist Jane Mayer said the group was “stoking irresponsible inflammatory fear of election fraud.”

Political scientist Don Moynihan of Georgetown University added that the Heritage Foundation’s baseless accusations against Biden likely preview how the Trump campaign could respond to the election results if he loses, four years after the former president urged his supporters to violently attempt to stop the certification of Biden’s victory.

“The end game is to allow men in suits finish what the January 6th rioters started,” he said.

Original article by JULIA CONLEY republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

dizzy: A little explanation. The Heritage Foundation has produced a blueprint for Donald Trump should he be re-elected as President. Should that happen, it is expected that the Heritage Foundation would provide a huge amount of staff to Trump’s administration and Project 2025 would be pursued relentlessly. Following attacks by the Biden camp on the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 Trump has recently disowned them falsely claiming to know nothing about them.

Continue ReadingGroup Behind Project 2025 Already Claiming Election Interference by Biden

With pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable

Spread the love
Julian Assange speaks at London's Ecuadorian Embassy
Julian Assange speaks at London’s Ecuadorian Embassy

Emma Shortis, RMIT University

Today, in a surprise development likely weeks in the planning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was able to leave the United Kingdom for the first time in more than a decade after reaching a plea deal with the US government.

In the past several months, momentum has been building towards this moment. There was increasing bipartisan support in both the Australian parliament and the US Congress for the Australian citizen’s release. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made repeated statements on his behalf, and in April, US President Joe Biden said he was “considering” a request from Australia to drop its prosecution of Assange.

This all contributed to the sense the matter might be resolved before Assange’s final UK hearing date, previously scheduled for July 9 and 10. The timing of the deal is also a welcome prelude to Albanese’s visit to Washington next week.

Such a resolution, however, was not inevitable. And it is not over yet.

A relentless, years-long pursuit

The United States’ pursuit of Assange has seemingly been relentless since WikiLeaks posted hundreds of thousands of classified military documents in 2010. It wasn’t until 2019 under the then President Donald Trump, however, that he was finally indicted on 17 counts of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.

The charges against Assange were not just considered unprecedented, they raised significant First Amendment concerns.

The apparent desire to punish Assange for the embarrassment caused by the leaks – and to deter others from taking similar action – was apparently so strong the CIA allegedly discussed plans to kidnap and even assassinate Assange during the Trump administration, according to US media reports.

In the UK courts, the US Department of Justice had argued Assange should be subject to US law and extradited to face trial for his actions. However, as a non-citizen, there were questions over whether he could rely on the legal protections afforded by those same laws – particularly the constitutional right to free speech.

The successful extradition of Assange could have set a precedent by which the US could pursue journalists anywhere in the world for publishing information it did not like, while potentially denying them their fundamental First Amendment rights.

In a crucial election year in the US that President Joe Biden is framing as an existential fight for the soul of US democracy, the continued pursuit of Assange was as inconsistent as it was ultimately untenable. Viewed from the outside, it appeared the case was causing the Biden administration international embarrassment.

Biden has been careful to maintain an appropriate distance between the presidency and the Department of Justice. He came into office promising to restore faith in the rule of law following the Trump years, and has meticulously avoided any appearance of interference in the department’s work as it has investigated and indicted his predecessor.

Assange’s case, however, is wholly different to the charges on which Trump has been indicted. It is certainly possible to interpret Biden’s comment that he was “considering” dropping the charges as a gentle public rebuke of the Department of Justice’s pursuit of the case, given its global implications for a free press.

Broader implications for the alliance

The continued pursuit of Assange was also becoming problematic in the context of Australia’s alliance with the US. That relationship is always described as one based on shared democratic values, in contrast to what Biden has repeatedly framed as the coercive and repressive instincts of “authoritarian” powers.

The decision by the US to pursue a citizen of one of its closest allies for the publication of information, while simultaneously condemning authoritarian states for doing much the same, was both hypocritical and damaging to American standing in the world.

In the context of growing concern in Australia about the terms of the AUKUS submarine deal and the Australian government’s willingness to go “all-in” with the US militarily, the continued pursuit of Assange gave the impression that Australia’s most important security ally did not take its concerns seriously. Australia appeared simply to be snapping at America’s heels.

It also added to the sense that the “capital-A Alliance” between the two countries was increasingly dominated by security concerns, often at the expense of democratic accountability.

Because of the international campaign to free Assange and the support it received in both Australian and American democratic institutions, there appears to be have been a reconsideration of this focus on security interests over democratic values.

It should be noted, though, that the US didn’t drop its prosecution in the end; Assange has agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of violating the Espionage Act, which in itself may set a concerning precedent for press freedom.

And the fact this saga happened at all – and that it has taken more than a decade to get close to resolution – should prompt deep reflection on the values that underpin both Australia’s relationship with its most important security ally and the United States’ role in the world.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingWith pressure mounting on the Biden administration, its pursuit of Assange was becoming both damaging and untenable

‘Historic Win for Accountability’: New York Jury Finds Trump Guilty of 34 Felony Counts

Spread the love

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

People react after former U.S. President Donald Trump was convicted in his criminal trial outside of Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on May 30, 2024 (Photo: Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images)

“Now it’s up to the American people to protect our democracy by holding Trump accountable at the ballot box and ensuring that a convicted fraudster never steps foot in the Oval Office again,” said one democracy defender.

This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates.

A New York jury on Thursday found former U.S. President Donald Trump guilty of all 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election.

The verdict—which came on the second day of jury deliberations—marked the first time in U.S. history that a former president has been convicted of felony crimes. The presumptive 2024 Republican nominee faces 54 other federal and state felony charges across three more cases.

“I never thought I’d see the day,” journalist Mehdi Hasan said on social media following the verdict’s announcement. “Teflon Trump finally found guilty of crimes.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder said after the verdict:

The conviction of a former leader is a sad day for the country, but today’s conviction is also a historic win for accountability, and affirms that Donald Trump indeed broke the law by falsifying records in order to hide information from the American people ahead of the 2016 election. After reviewing an enormous amount of overwhelming evidence, the jury unanimously concluded that Trump engaged in criminal activity that demands accountability, all the more so because it may be only the first piece of what appears to have been a presidential crime spree.

Speaking after his conviction, Trump said: “This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who is corrupt.”

“I’m a very innocent man,” added Trump, who is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, just days before the Republican convention. He could face up to four years behind bars.

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign issued a statement following Trump’s conviction:

In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law.

Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain. But today’s verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box. Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president.

Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert said that “this is an historic moment for democracy.”

“A jury heard evidence that Donald Trump illegally interfered in the 2016 election and rendered a fair and appropriate verdict,” she continued. “New York’s prosecutors served justice by bringing this case. We applaud the jury for doing its job and standing up for the fundamental principle that no one is above the law, not even a former president.”

“Justice was served today, Gilbert added. “On to the next trial!”

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, asserted that “this case was always about hiding key information from voters, and now a jury of the former president’s peers have confirmed that he lied to the public by falsifying business records in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.”

“This is a felony punishable with jail time or probation, and just like anyone else convicted of the same crime, we expect him to be sentenced accordingly,” Lerner added. “We thank the jury—whom Mr. Trump and his lawyers helped to select—for doing their civic duty, and trust that the public will accept their decision as well as their right to privacy. Respect for the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy, but so is public trust in the process.”

Sean Eldridge, founder and president of Stand Up America, said in a statement that “today’s verdict reaffirms that no one is above the law in the United States of America, including a former president.”

“Falsification of business records is a serious crime, and Trump is finally being held accountable like any other American would,” he continued. “This verdict is not just about ‘hush money payments.’ It’s about an illegal attempt to hide the truth from voters just days before the 2016 election, and it’s part of Trump’s clear pattern of doing anything—including breaking the law—in order to cling to power.”

“Despite this monumental verdict, one trial isn’t going to keep Trump out of the White House,” Eldridge added. “The jurors have done their duty, and now it’s up to the American people to protect our democracy by holding Trump accountable at the ballot box and ensuring that a convicted fraudster never steps foot in the Oval Office again.”

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

‘The Law Has Finally Caught Up With Donald Trump’: Ex-President Arraigned On 34 Felony Counts ›

Continue Reading‘Historic Win for Accountability’: New York Jury Finds Trump Guilty of 34 Felony Counts