president of the u.s


Millennials face a unique challenge when resisting war — they’ve never known peace

  • Since President Donald Trump’s election, a sudden eruption of protests have risen to meet each of his measures, whether that’s pushing the courts to move against the Muslim ban or putting the heat on Democrats to reject cabinet appointees.
  • So when Trump launched 59 cruise missiles on a Syrian airfield, organizers and progressives posed a question solidly ignored for a decade: What would it take to revive the anti-war movement in the United States?
  • One of the troubles facing the next generation of activists is that war is all they’ve ever known. Unlike the struggles of the Vietnam era, or even the Iraq War, today’s activists grew up in a climate of conflict that began in 2001 and has no end in sight. The military has achieved a place of primacy in U.S. foreign policy. Now, Trump’s presidency offers an opportunity to revive a movement that fizzled under President Barack Obama, beginning with a new understanding of the role of anti-war work in the broader scope of anti-Trump resistance. Read more. (4/11/2017 2:06 PM)
For the Love of Pizza, Enough with the Term “Alt-Right”

As we knew he would, President Obama categorically denies DJT’s allegations of wiretapping. Because, you know, President Obama didn’t wiretap DJT or Trump Tower or Ivanka’s dead conscience or whatever the hell DJT’s addled brain will “think” of next.

FBI director James Comey, who has been extremely friendly with DJT and his administration, has stopped just short of calling DJT a liar on this one. 

By the time I finish this sentence, we’ll get another breaking news alert on this story, so I’m tabling it for the moment.

What I find particularly astounding today: that I’m still encountering the term “alt-right”. 

I understand libel, slander, and defamation laws. 

So, I get the reluctance of publications or pundits to deem anyone–such as Steve Bannon, for instance–”a Nazi” or “a neo-Nazi”. 

But when he keeps invoking the hideous and genocidal novel “The Camp of the Saints”–Huffington Post’s feature on this is outstanding–what term is more accurate? Everything he says about persons of color and Muslims is exactly what Hitler said about Jews, gays, Gypsies, and the disabled. And Bannon’s hate and position of power have given rise to people who target all those groups, too. 

Yes, I’ve heard “But Ivanka and Jared are Jewish!” So was Hitler’s mom. Why don’t we discuss Putin calling Jews “rats” when he was head of the KGB? And DJT and his administration have repeatedly colluded with Putin. (The latest: on Tuesday DJT promised the Keystone Pipeline would be built with American steel. Yesterday we learned roughly 30% of the steel will be Russian.) 

Here are the groups this administration has either targeted directly or allowed to be targeted by its supporters:



The LGBTQ community

The disabled

Trans kids

Disabled public school students

Black Americans 


Refugees from Muslim majority nations

Native Americans


Anyone Latinix, American or foreign born


Any representatives of the media or free press

Intellectuals (”Elites!”)

The intelligence community (bizarrely, comparing them to “Nazis” and DJT himself as the persecuted) 


Persons of East Indian descent, such as the man in Kansas shot and killed in last week’s hate crime

Climate scientists

All scientists

If I omitted anyone targeted, it’s an oversight. 

But read that list again. It comprises over half the United States and over half the planet.

Who does it shield?

White males of European descent who are purportedly Christian. (Actual Christians want nothing to do this administration.) 

My family lived under Nazi occupation in Greece.

Does “alt-right” feel sufficient? Isn’t it a ridiculous pseudonym? 

Today is Day #45, Sunday March 5. 

The past six and a half weeks have seen a cavalcade of hate. 

This isn’t the time to pull punches: Nazis are Nazis are Nazis.

The alt-right doesn’t exist.

anonymous asked:

What Trump is doing is really fucked up but it rings a little hollow when Democrats (not you, in general I mean) act outraged about it while they said nothing when Obama began illegally bombing Syria in September with Congress authorisation or when Hillary said she would bomb Syria’s airbases.

President Obama ordered airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria; President Trump ordered airstrikes on Syrian military targets. There’s a big difference between bombing terrorists operating out of Syria (terrorists who were themselves battling the Syrian government) and bombing Syria itself. It’s important to note the differences – and that’s not even a criticism of Trump’s orders because I’m withholding my judgment on these recent actions until we see what steps the United States takes next in the region.

It’s also very important to note recognize that President Obama sought Congressional support for attacking the Syrian regime back in 2013, but Congress refused that support because they felt it was more important to try to score political points and hopefully make Obama look weak as opposed to taking dynamic action against a brutal Syrian regime that was slaughtering its own people.

Like I said, the Trump Administration’s actions weren’t necessarily wrong – something has needed to be done in Syria against the Assad regime – but it’s ridiculous for GOP members of Congress to completely lay the blame for inaction on President Obama when Congress desperately punted away Obama’s 2013 attempt to take action against Syria with Congressional support. 

There is a lot of conversation about ending mass incarceration, but almost all of it is focused on changing how we respond to non-violent and low-level crimes. The problem is that more than half of people in state prison are incarcerated for violent crimes, so we will only end mass incarceration if we deal with the question of violence.  

This Issue Time conversation will deal with the question of violence, and will discuss whether mass incarceration actually makes us safer and what else could make us safe instead.


Danielle Sered envisioned, launched, and directs Common Justice. She leads the project’s efforts, locally rooted in Brooklyn but national in scope, to develop and advance practical and groundbreaking solutions to violence that advance racial equity, meet the needs of those harmed, and do not rely on incarceration.

Fatimah Loren Muhammad is the Director of Equal Justice USA’s Trauma Advocacy Initiative, which, in its pilot stage hosts weekly, half-day collaborative workshops bringing over 250 members of the Newark Police Department together with African American community leaders and public health practitioners to discuss issues of race, trauma, violence, policing, and mass incarceration. She is a Senior Fellow at Humanity in Action and a recipient the Leeway Foundation 2010 Social Transformation Award.

Ryan King is a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, where he works on sentencing and corrections issues with a focus on mass incarceration. His objective is to produce high-quality empirical research on the impact of sentencing and corrections policies at the state and federal level; and to work with policymakers, practitioners, and community advocates to identify strategies that assist in the pursuit of a fair, effective, and rational criminal justice system.

Glenn E. Martin, is the President and Founder of JustLeadershipUSA (JLUSA), an organization dedicated to cutting the U.S. correctional population in half by 2030.
Opinion | Margarita Zavala: Will Americans let Trump destroy U.S.-Mexico relations?
Frankly, the United States is fortunate to have Mexico as a neighbor and partner.

Almost two months into the Trump Administration, the United States has a choice. Does it want to continue a strong partnership with Mexico? Or will it throw away years of a successful, peaceful, and mutually beneficial relationship due to the ignorance of its President? Normally this would not even be a question. But these are not normal times. When the American President can undo with a tweet what has taken us decades to build, Mexicans have to wonder whether the United States is a reliable partner and what the future of our relationship will look like.

President Trump insists on framing U.S.-Mexico relations in simplistic and disrespectful terms. In his view, it is a zero-sum game, with Mexicans “taking advantage” of their northern neighbors…Frankly, the United States is fortunate to have Mexico as a neighbor and partner. We are a peaceful, democratic, cooperative country with one of the largest economies in the world. We are eternally bound together by geography, by trade, by family, by culture, and by affinity.

We collaborate with the U.S. on everything from commerce to combating drug trafficking to the environment to counterterrorism. Just a few examples: Mexican engineers in Querétaro design jet engines for General Electric that are then built by workers in Ohio. Mexican officials helped thwart a plot by Iranian agents to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The largest attendance for an NFL game ever was in Mexico (Cowboys vs. Oilers), home to 23 million NFL fans, myself included. Nearly 2 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico (the largest community of U.S. expats in the world). We work together in every area imaginable, and we are both the richer for it.

The U.S. and Mexican economies are complementary. We do not compete with each other; we make each other more competitive in the global market. Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S. exports and the single largest destination for exports from California, Arizona, and Texas. We buy more American goods than Japan, Germany, and the U.K. do combined. Fourteen million Mexican tourists came to the United States in 2015 and spent around $10 billion…Our bilateral partnership is not predicated on one side losing and the other side winning: Our economies are so integrated that each is weaker without the other.

Most Americans know that Mexican immigrants are not violent criminals. They know that they are brave and hard-working and make enormous contributions to the U.S. economy…Mexicans know that our differences are not with the American people, but with an American President who began his campaign with racist attacks against Mexican immigrants, whose cruel policies have entire communities living in fear, and who seems intent on making an enemy out of a friend.

I have met U.S. Presidents from both political parties, and I know that the American dream has much in common with the Mexican one. Mexicans believe in the strength of the family, the dignity conferred by hard work, and the worth inherent in every human being. Mexico would much rather be a partner to the United States than an adversary. We would rather tend bridges than build walls. But our alliance must be based on mutual respect. We will not accept a relationship based on threats and insults, contempt for our country, and cruelty toward our citizens. The United States is more prosperous, more secure, and more competitive for having Mexico as its partner. It is up to the United States to decide whether it wants to continue a strong partnership, or whether it will let one bad hombre destroy it.

Washington Post editorial by Margarita Zavala, a former Mexican congresswoman, former First Lady of Mexico, and the leading contender for the 2018 Mexican Presidential election.

My Administration is committed to keeping our air and water clean, to preserving our forests, lakes, and open spaces, and to protecting endangered species.
—  The lying asshole who put climate change skeptics/deniers in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of the Interior; repealed the Stream Protection Rule; removed funding for the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Air Act, the Green Climate Fund, and the EPA itself; revived the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines; and whose administration is rolling back regulations on methane emissions and vehicle pollution standards and is “reconsidering” the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards and the Clean Water Act

forlackofabetteridea  asked:

Is there any way to know what would happen if the Senate were split 50/50 and the Vice President then died or resigned? There's no mechanism for a tie break besides confirming a new VP, right? And would that mean there would be no majority party controlling the committees? I suppose in this case there would be no incentive for the party that didn't control the White House to confirm any VP. Hopefully this never happens...

That’s one of those Constitutional nightmare scenarios that seem completely unlikely until it’s noted that VPs have had to break 242 ties in the Senate throughout our history and the Vice Presidency has been vacant for 37 years and 290 days of its 228 years of existence. It’s definitely not impossible.

I’m honestly not 100% sure how majority control would work in a 50/50 Senate with a Vice Presidential vacancy. I imagine that the party controlling the White House would remain in control of the Senate because they would automatically become the majority party as soon as a Vice President was confirmed. Now, sure, if there’s a 50/50 split, it would seem to be in the best political interests (on a purely political level) for the party not controlling the White House to obstruct the confirmation of any Vice Presidential nominee. However, I still believe that there’s some honorable people in public service who would recognize the dangerous precedent that would be set by such strategy. Since confirmation of a nominee to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy only requires a majority in both chambers of Congress it would only take one Senator to cross party lines and confirm a VP out of patriotic duty.

If that didn’t happen, then I assume that 50/50 votes would result in rejected Senate legislation until a Vice Presidential nominee was eventually confirmed. But it’s a really good question and one of those Constitutional “What ifs?” that I end up lying in bed wide-awake and thinking about. (By the way, there are way too many of those…) There are genuinely so many variables and potential answers (right and wrong answers) to questions like this that I simply don’t know how it might work. And, honestly, I don’t think that there is a 100% correct answer because that situation is one of those possible Constitutional crises that have never been tested and probably won’t be tested until we’re in the midst of a frightening crisis.

However, since I’m going to be bothered by this particular Constitutional “What if?” until I learn more about it, I’ve reached out to the U.S. Senate Historical Office and have asked them for some clarity on the issue. I’ll be sure to share what I learn when I hear back from the Senate historians.

Day 60: Trump Has Had More Scandals in Two Months Than President Obama Had in Eight Years (Which, for the Record, Was Zero)

Today during the House hearing with FBI Director James Comey it came out that the Bureau has been criminally investigating DJT and Co. since July for collusion with Russia. Comey flat-out stated President Obama did NOT wiretap Trump Tower and pointed out that no POTUS could make that order. 

So, in real time, we watched the head of the FBI call the man in the Oval Office a liar. 

SCOTUS confirmation hearings began for Neil Gorsuch, despite the fact there’s growing evidence DJT is not the legitimate POTUS. Which strikes me as inane: the Republicans wouldn’t hold hearings for Merrick Garland because they also flat-out lied when they said a POTUS couldn’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his final year in office, but the same Republicans are totally cool with holding confirmation hearings for a judge nominated by a man who might or might not really be the President. 

A few hours ago, the White House announced Ivanka Trump will now have an official staff position and a West Wing office, but that she wouldn’t draw a salary. But she’ll have security clearance, so who gives a shit?

After the election we were told by myriad experts on authoritarian regimes to keep track of day-to-day changes so that DJT’s government wouldn’t become “normal”. 

Which, as it turns out, is not the problem. 

This is pretty fucking far from normal.

Each day is jarring, exhausting, and infuriating. 

Fuck you, Vladimir Putin. 

Fuck you, Donald Trump. 

Fuck you, each person who enables both of them. (Hi, Ivanka!) 

Resist, resist, resist some more, take a nap, eat a sandwich, keep resisting, then hope Steve Bannon’s tongue falls off. 

Climate Change Doesn’t Care if You’re a Rich Republican: It’ll Kill Your Grandkids, Too

DJT just surrounded himself with coal miners and signed a series of Executive Orders to roll back President Obama’s climate change initiatives and, also, EPA regulations. 

As all sentient beings know, DJT maintains climate change is “a hoax” created by the Chinese government to give them an upper hand in trade with the U.S. (ignoring that Bejing is literally choking on smog thicker than concrete). 

For (not so) good measure, he also wants the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accord, the worldwide climate treaty President Obama signed that promises the U.S. will lower its carbon emissions and take other such steps that try to preserve the planet and all life forms on it. 

I’m old enough to remember when the GOP valued education. Now it panders to the uneducated and, as such, both uses them as pawns and actively harms them. 

Do the Republicans who insist climate change is a hoax really believe it? Or do they say it to garner votes from the ignorant in order to further deregulate big business and keep it happy, rich, and, most importantly, donating? 

I think it’s a combination of willful stupidity and unfettered greed. 

But the scientific reality is that Republican climate change denial imperils not only our loved ones, but their own, too. 

Could you ever be selfish enough to risk the safety of your own kids and grandkids? 

It’s becoming increasing clear DJT isn’t the legitimate POTUS.

But the GOP will always be morally culpable for nominating a climate change denier in the first place. 

No party should get to risk the lives of anyone’s kids, including their own.
Trump directs EPA to begin dismantling clean water rule
Stepping up his attacks on environmental protections, Trump takes aim at a signature Obama legacy.
By Evan Halper

“The directive to undo the clean water initiative is expected to be closely followed by another aimed at unraveling the Obama administration’s ambitious plan to fight climate change by curbing power plant emissions. … Trump vowed Tuesday that he would continue to undermine the Obama-era environmental protections wherever he sees the opportunity, arguing they have cost jobs.”