#Illinois Seniors Government Contribution | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bloomingnightskty · 5 years

Link

They fought slavery, prejudice, and injustice — and changed the face of medicine in America. They invented modern blood-banking, served in the highest ranks of the U.S. government, and much more. In honor of Black History Month, read the inspiring stories of 10 pioneering black physicians.

Rebecca Lee Crumpler, MD (1831 — 1895)

In 1864, after years as a nurse, Rebecca Lee Crumpler became the first black woman in the United States to receive an MD degree. She earned that distinction at the New England Female Medical College in Boston, Massachusetts — where she also was the institution’s only black graduate. After the Civil War, Crumpler moved to Richmond, Virginia, where she worked with other black doctors who were caring for formerly enslaved people in the Freedmen’s Bureau. While she faced sexism and other forms of harassment, Crumpler ultimately found the experience transformative. "I returned to my former home, Boston, where I entered into the work with renewed vigor, practicing outside, and receiving children in the house for treatment; regardless, in a measure, of remuneration," she wrote.

Crumpler also wrote A Book of Medical Discourses: In Two Parts. Published in 1883, the book addresses children’s and women’s health and is written for “mothers, nurses, and all who may desire to mitigate the afflictions of the human race.”

Note: No photos of Rebecca Lee Crumpler are known to exist.

James McCune Smith, MD (1813 — 1865)

James McCune Smith, MD, was a man of firsts. In 1837, he became the first black American to receive a medical degree — although he had to enroll at the University of Glasgow Medical School because of racist admissions practices at U.S. medical schools. And that was far from his only groundbreaking accomplishment. He was also the first black person to own and operate a pharmacy in the United States and the first black physician to be published in U.S. medical journals.

Smith used his writing talents to challenge shoddy science, including racist notions of African-Americans. Most notably, he debunked such theories in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia. Smith was a staunch abolitionist and friend of Frederick Douglass. He contributed to Douglass’ newspaper and wrote the introduction to his book, My Bondage and My Freedom.

Leonidas Harris Berry, MD (1902 — 1995)

Even as a renowned gastroenterologist, Leonidas Harris Berry, MD, faced racism in the workplace. Berry was the first black doctor on staff at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, in 1946, but he had to fight for an attending position there for years. “I have spent many years of crushing disappointment at the threshold of opportunity,” he wrote to the hospital’s trustee board committee in his final plea, “keeping my lamps trimmed and bright for a bride that never came.” He was finally named to the attending staff in 1963 and remained a senior attending physician for the rest of his medical career.

In the 1950s, Berry chaired a Chicago commission that worked to make hospitals more inclusive for black physicians and to increase facilities in underserved parts of the city. But his dedication to equity reached far beyond the clinical setting: He was active in a civil rights group called the United Front that provided protection, monetary support, and other assistance to black residents of Cairo, Illinois, who had been victims of racist attacks. In 1970, he helped organize the Flying Black Medics, a group of practitioners who flew from Chicago to Cairo to bring medical care and health education to members of the remote community.

Charles Richard Drew, MD (1904 — 1950)

Known as the “father of blood banking,” Charles Richard Drew, MD, pioneered blood preservation techniques that led to thousands of lifesaving blood donations. Drew’s doctoral research explored best practices for banking and transfusions, and its insights helped him establish the first large-scale blood banks. Drew directed the Blood for Britain project, which shipped much-needed plasma to England during World War II. Drew then led the first American Red Cross Blood Bank and created mobile blood donation stations that are now known as bloodmobiles. But Drew’s work was not without struggle. He protested the American Red Cross’ policy of segregating blood by race and ultimately resigned from the organization.

Despite his renown for blood preservation, Drew’s true passion was surgery. He was appointed chairman of the department of surgery and chief of surgery at Freedmen’s Hospital (now known as Howard University Hospital) in Washington, D.C. During his time there, he went to great lengths to support young African-Americans pursuing careers in the discipline.

Louis Wade Sullivan, MD (b. 1933)

Louis Wade Sullivan, MD, grew up in the racially segregated rural South in the 1930s. There, he was inspired by his doctor, Joseph Griffin. “He was the only black physician in a radius of 100 miles,” Sullivan said. “I saw that Dr. Griffin was really doing something important and he was highly respected in the community.”

Over the decades, Sullivan became an equally profound source of inspiration. The only black student in his class at Boston University School of Medicine, he would later serve on the faculty from 1966 to 1975. In 1975, he became the founding dean of what became the Morehouse School of Medicine — the first predominantly black medical school opened in the United States in the 20th century. Later, Sullivan was tapped to serve as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he directed the creation of the Office of Minority Programs in the National Institutes of Health’s Office of the Director.

Sullivan has chaired numerous influential groups and institutions, from the President’s Advisory Council on Historically Black Colleges and Universities to the National Health Museum. He is CEO and chair of the Sullivan Alliance, an organization he created in 2005 to increase racial and ethnic minority representation in health care.

Marilyn Hughes Gaston, MD (b. 1939)

In a pivotal experience while working as an intern at Philadelphia General Hospital in 1964, Marilyn Hughes Gaston, MD, admitted a baby with a swollen, infected hand. The baby suffered from sickle cell disease, which hadn’t occurred to Gaston until her supervisor suggested the possibility. Gaston quickly committed herself to learning more about it, and eventually became a leading researcher on the disease, which affects millions of people around the world. She became deputy branch chief of the Sickle Cell Disease Branch at the National Institutes of Health, and her groundbreaking 1986 study led to a national sickle cell disease screening program for newborns. Her research showed both the benefits of screening for sickle cell disease at birth and the effectiveness of penicillin to prevent infection from sepsis, which can be fatal in children with the disease.

In 1990, Gaston became the first black female physician to be appointed director of the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Bureau of Primary Health Care. She was also the second black woman to serve as assistant surgeon general as well as achieve the rank of rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service. Gaston has been honored with every award that the Public Health Service bestows.

Patricia Era Bath, MD (b. 1942)

Interning in New York City in the 1960s sparked a revelation for Patricia Era Bath, MD. Bath, the first African-American to complete an ophthalmology residency, noticed that rates of blindness and visual impairment were much higher at the Harlem Hospital’s eye clinic, which served many black patients, than at the eye clinic at Columbia University, which mostly served whites. That observation spurred her to conduct a study that found twice the rate of blindness among African-Americans compared with whites. Throughout the rest of her career, Bath explored inequities in vision care. She created the discipline of community ophthalmology, which approaches vision care from the perspectives of community medicine and public health.

Bath blazed trails in other ways as well, co-founding the American Institute for the Prevention of Blindness in 1976, which supports programs that protect, preserve, and restore eyesight. Bath was also the first woman appointed chair of ophthalmology at a U.S. medical school, at the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine in 1983. And she was the first black female physician to receive a medical patent in 1988 for the Laserphaco Probe, a device used in cataract surgery.

Herbert W. Nickens, MD (1947 — 1999)

As the first director of the Office of Minority Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1986, Herbert W. Nickens, MD, set the foundation for promoting improved health among racial and ethnic minority populations across the country. When he left the HHS, Nickens moved to the AAMC, where he was the founding vice president of the AAMC Division of Community and Minority Programs, now known as Diversity Policy and Programs. He led Project 3000 by 2000, which the AAMC launched in 1991 to achieve the goal of enrolling 3,000 students from underrepresented minority groups in U.S. medical schools annually by the year 2000.

“No one in recent memory did more than Herbert Nickens to bridge the painful and persistent diversity gap in medicine," said then-AAMC President Jordan J. Cohen, MD, after Nickens’ death in 1999. The AAMC continues to remember Nickens’ legacy with three namesake awards, honoring outstanding medical students, junior faculty, and individuals who have made significant contributions toward social justice in academic medicine and health care equity.

Alexa Irene Canady, MD (b. 1950)

Alexa Irene Canady, MD, nearly dropped out of college due to a crisis of self-confidence but ultimately went on to achieve dramatic success in medicine. In 1981, she became the first black neurosurgeon in the United States, and just a few years later, she rose to the ranks of chief of neurosurgery at Children’s Hospital of Michigan.

Canady worked for decades as a successful pediatric neurosurgeon and was ready to retire in Florida in 2001. But she donned her surgical scrubs once again to practice part time at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola, where there was a dearth of pediatric neurosurgery services. Canady has been lauded for her patient-centered approach to care, which she said was a boon to her career. “I was worried that because I was a black woman, any practice opportunities would be limited.” But, she noted, “by being patient-centered, the practice growth was exponential.”

Regina Marcia Benjamin, MD, MBA (b. 1956)

Regina Marcia Benjamin, MD, MBA, may be best known for her tenure as the 18th U.S. Surgeon General, during which she served as first chair of the National Prevention Council. The group of 17 federal agencies was responsible for developing the National Prevention Strategy, which outlined plans to improve health and well-being in the United States.

But it’s not just her work at the highest levels of public health that earned her praise. Long before she was appointed “the nation’s doctor” in 2009, Benjamin worked extensively with rural communities in the South. She is the founder and CEO of BayouClinic in Bayou La Batre, Louisiana, which provides clinical care, social services, and health education to residents of the small Gulf Coast town. Benjamin helped rebuild the clinic several more times, including after damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a fire in 2006. Of the clinic, she said she hopes that she is “making a difference in my community by providing a clinic where patients can come and receive health care with dignity.”

New section

JULIA HASKINS, SPECIAL TO AAMCNEWS

#black history month #black history #black doctors #black history inspiration #black doctor #black history matters #black physicians #doctors #heroes #black in America #african americans #african american #bhm

19 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 12, 2020

Heather Cox Richardson

According to a proclamation from the president, today is officially “Columbus Day,” when we honor the “many immeasurable contributions of Italy to American history.” The president’s proclamation goes on to complain that “in recent years, radical activists have sought to undermine Christopher Columbus’s legacy” by replacing a recognition of his “vast contributions” with talk of failings, atrocities, and transgressions.

Trump’s proclamation goes on: “Rather than learn from our history, this radical ideology and its adherents seek to revise it, deprive it of any splendor, and mark it as inherently sinister. They seek to squash any dissent from their orthodoxy.” He notes the steps he has taken to “promote patriotic education:” he signed an Executive Order to create a National Garden of American Heroes, set up “the 1776 Commission, which will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and honor our founding,” and signed an Executive Order “to root out the teaching of racially divisive concepts from the Federal workplace.”

For all of Trump’s attention to patriotic education, his proclamation is quite bad history. Aside from its whitewashing of the effects of Columbus’s voyage of “discovery,” the proclamation misrepresents the original point of Columbus Day, which had a lot more to do with putting down white supremacy than celebrating the “enduring significance” of Columbus in opening “a new chapter in world history.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially instituted Columbus Day in 1934, but the idea for the holiday rose in the 1920s, when the Knights of Columbus tried to undercut the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan by emphasizing the role minorities had played in America. In the early 1920s, the organization published three books in a “Knights of Columbus Racial Contributions” series, including The Gift of Black Folk, by W. E. B. Du Bois. They celebrated the contributions of immigrants, especially Catholic immigrants, to America with parades honoring Christopher Columbus. The Knights of Columbus were determined to reinforce the idea that America must not be a land of white Protestant supremacy.

Trump’s words about patriotic education also ring hollow when the news of the day makes it seem that the administration is more interested in staying in power than in protecting our democratic government.

Today was the first day of early voting in Georgia, and a record 126,876 voters cast ballots. In the state’s Democratic areas some people had to wait in line for as long as ten hours to vote.

Trump’s contribution to early voting today was to tweet “California is going to hell. Vote Trump!” and “New York has gone to hell. Vote Trump!” and “Illinois has no place to go. Sad, isn’t it? Vote Trump!” Once again, he insisted that he has a healthcare plan, although he has been promising such a plan since before his inauguration and none has ever materialized. “We will have Healthcare which is FAR BETTER than ObamaCare, at a FAR LOWER COST - BIG PREMIUM REDUCTION. PEOPLE WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE PROTECTED AT AN EVEN HIGHER LEVEL THAN NOW. HIGHLY UNPOPULAR AND UNFAIR INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ALREADY TERMINATED. YOU’RE WELCOME!”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the nation's top infectious disease specialists who is advising the White House, is openly angry that the Trump campaign took his words out of context to make it seem like he was applauding the administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. He said that, by using his words misleadingly and against his will, the Trump campaign is “in effect harassing me.” Fauci’s anger hasn’t stopped the campaign, which today broke precedent to use an image of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in a campaign ad. The image was used without Milley’s knowledge or consent, and violates the military’s strict policies against participation in political campaigns.

An article in the New York Times today outlines how the administration appears to be trying to buy votes by funneling money to key constituencies before the election. Trump has said he is sending $200 cards to seniors to help them pay for drug prescriptions. He approved $13 billion in aid to Puerto Rico, which could help win him votes in Florida (politicians often campaign in territories or even foreign countries from which immigrants come because it helps them win votes at home). He has required the Agriculture Department to enclose letters in both English and Spanish in its food distributions to families giving Trump credit for both “sending nutritious food” and “safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens.”

The administration will also distribute $46 billion (not a typo) to farmers in the South and Midwest who have been whacked by Trump’s trade war with China and coronavirus, to try to offset the record farm debt accumulating and the rise in farm bankruptcies, although it appears the money goes primarily to big operations.

Instead of using the presidency to protect the interests of the nation, Trump appears to be using it as a money-making operation for his family. The New York Times on Saturday continued its series on Trump’s taxes, showing how he turned his hotels and resorts into “a system of direct presidential influence-peddling unrivaled in modern American politics.” Under terrible financial stress, the president used his office to line his pockets. Foreign politicians, businessmen, and contractors who wanted federal contracts, would throw pricey events, donate to Trump’s campaign, or buy memberships at Trump’s properties—he raised the membership fee at Mar-a-Lago to $250,000-- where Trump would often be there to help them get what they wanted.

Looking at Trump’s record undercutting our democracy, even just for today alone, makes you wonder just what he means by “patriotic education,” and who, exactly, are the “radical activists” he attacks for not honoring “the miracle of our founding.”

Here's the story: historians are not denigrating the nation when they uncover sordid parts of our past. Historians study how and why societies change. As we dig into the past we see patterns that never entirely foreshadow the present, but that give us ideas about how people have dealt with circumstances in the past that look similar to circumstances today. With luck, seeing those patterns will help us make better decisions about our own lives, our communities, and our nation in the present. As they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

If we are going to get an accurate picture of how a society works, historians must examine it honestly. That means seeing the bad as well as the good, because, after all, any human society is going to have both. Sometimes good human actions change society; sometimes bad ones do. George Washington’s heroic refusal to be a king is no truer than his enslavement of other human beings, and both changed our nation in ways that we need to understand if we are to make good decisions about how to take care of our own society.

History, though, is different than commemoration. History is about what happened in the past while commemoration is about the present. We put up statues and celebrate holidays to honor figures from the past who embody some quality we admire. But as society changes, the qualities we care about shift. In the 1920s, Columbus mattered to Americans who opposed the Ku Klux Klan because he represented a multicultural society. Now, though, he represents the devastation of America’s indigenous people at the hands of European colonists who brought to North America and South America germs and a fever for gold and God. It is not “radical activism” to want to commemorate a different set of values than we held in the 1920s.

What is radical activism, though, is the attempt to skew history to serve a modern-day political narrative. Rejecting an honest account of the past makes it impossible to see accurate patterns. The lessons we learn about how society changes will be false, and the decisions we make based on those false patterns will not be grounded in reality.

And a nation grounded in fiction, rather than reality, cannot function.

——

LETTERS FROM AN AMERiCAN

Heather Cox Richardson

#political #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #election 2020 #columbus day

1 note · View note

go-redgirl · 5 years

Photo

The Hunter Biden Chronicles

By Michelle Malkin • October 22, 2014 12:36 AM

Everything you need to know about Beltway nepotism, corporate cronyism and corruption can be found in the biography of Robert Hunter Biden. Where are the Occupy Wall Street rabble-rousersand enemies of elitist privilege when you need them? Straining their neck muscles to look the other way.

The youngest son of Vice President Joe Biden made news last week after The Wall Street Journalrevealed he had been booted from the Navy Reserve for cocaine use. His drug abuse was certainly no surprise to the Navy, which issued him a waiver for a previous drug offense before commissioning him as a public affairs officer at the age of 43. The Navy also bent over backward a second time with an age waiver so he could secure the cushy part-time job.

Papa Biden loves to tout his middle-class, “Average Joe” credentials. But rest assured, if his son had been “Hunter Smith” or “Hunter Jones” or “Hunter Brown,” the Navy’s extraordinary dispensations would be all but unattainable. Oh, and if he had been “Hunter Palin,” The New York Times would be on its 50th front-page investigative report by now.

Despite the disgraceful ejection from our military, Hunter’s Connecticut law license won’t be subject to automatic review. Because, well, Biden.

Biden’s bennies are not just one-offs. Skating by, flouting rules and extracting favors are the story of Hunter’s life.

Hunter’s first job, acquired after Joe Biden won his 1996 Senate re-election bid in Delaware, was with MBNA. That’s the credit card conglomerate and top campaign finance donor that forked over nearly $63,000 in bundled primary and general contributions from its employees to then Sen. Biden. As I’ve reported previously, Daddy Biden secured his custom-built, multimillion-dollar house in Delaware’s ritziest Chateau Country neighborhood with the help of a leading MBNA corporate executive. Average Joe went on to carry legislative water for MBNA in the Senate for years.

Hunter zoomed up to senior vice president by early 1998 and then scored a plum position in the Clinton administration’s Commerce Department, specializing in “electronic commerce” before returning to MBNA three years later as a high-priced “consultant.” While he collected those “consulting” (translation: nepotistic access-trading) fees, Hunter became a “founding partner” in the lobbying firm of Oldaker, Biden and Belair in 2002.

William Oldaker was Papa Biden’s former fundraiser, campaign treasurer and general counsel — a Beltway barnacle whose Democratic machine days dated back to Teddy Kennedy’s 1980 presidential bid. Under Oldaker’s tutelage, Hunter lobbied for drug companies, universities and other deep-pocketed clients to the tune of nearly $4 million billed to the company by 2007.

Coincidentally, then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama personally requested and secured cozy taxpayer-subsidized earmarks for several of Hunter’s clients.

Hunter got himself appointed to multiple corporate board positions, including a directorship with Eudora Global. It’s an investment firm founded by one Jeffrey Cooper, head of one of the biggest asbestos-litigation firms in the country. SimmonsCooper, based in Madison County, Ill., donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Biden the Elder’s various political campaigns over the past decade — all while the firm poured $6.5 million into lobbying against a key tort-reform bill, which former Sen. Biden worked hard to defeat. Cooper also contributed to the Delaware attorney-general campaign of Hunter’s older brother, Beau, and paid Beau for legal work on lucrative asbestos-litigation cases.

Hunter also was previously a top official at Paradigm Global Advisors, a hedge fund holding company founded with Vice President Biden’s brother, James, and marketed by convicted finance fraudster Allen Stanford. As Paradigm chairman, Hunter oversaw half a billion dollars of client money invested in hedge funds while remaining a lobbyist at Oldaker, Biden and Belair. Cooper chipped in $2 million for the ill-fated venture, which went bust amid nasty fraud lawsuits.

Continually failing upward, Hunter snagged a seat on the board of directors of taxpayer-subsidized, stimulus-inflated Amtrak, where he pretended not to be a lobbyist, but rather an “effective advocate” for the government railroad system serving the 1 percenters’ D.C.-NYC corridor.

So, where does a coke-abusing influence peddler go after raking in gobs of Daddy-enabled dough and abusing the U.S. Navy’s ill-considered generosity? Back to Cronyland! Hunter joined Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings — owned by a powerful Russian government sympathizer who fled to Russia in February — this spring. The hypocritical lobbyist-bashers at the White House deny he will be lobbying and deny any conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Just Like You Joe was whipping up class envy in South Carolina last week. “Corporate profits have soared,” he railed, thanks to “these guys running hedge funds in New York,”who are to blame for “income inequality.” You know, like his son and brother and their Beltway back-scratching patrons.

The Bidens: They’re not like us.

2 notes · View notes

political-fluffle · 5 years

Link

“THREAD: Have we reached the point where Giuliani’s role in Ukraine-gate no longer looks like an outtake from a bad Coen Brothers movie and is creating a far more serious legal situation that should be setting off alarm bells inside DOJ comparable to James Comey’s firing? 1/” (…) Amb. Yovanovitch’s Oct 11 Capitol Hill partially overshadowed revelations about ties between Trump World and a key Ukrainian oligarch, Dmytro Firtash. It’s important to read Yovanovitch’s testimony in the context of Firtash’s longrunning problems with the US Government. 3/ The other point of comparison that immediately comes to mind is an ongoing Federal criminal investigation of Elliot Broidy, a former top Trump fundraiser and the former vice chairman of Trump’s 2016 campaign. More on him in a second. 4/ WSJ reported on Oct 10 that Lev Parnas, one of the Giuliani associates arrested by the Feds, had been hired by Firtash’s defense team as a translator. https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188 … https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/us/politics/trump-digenova-toensing.html … @aviswanatha @rebeccaballhaus 5/ That’s a curiously menial role for Parnas who presented himself as a high roller and whose campaign contributions gave him access to Trump and other GOP leaders. (Lawyer John Dowd says they had a similar role for Giuliani on behalf of President Trump) 6/ Firtash’s defense is now led by FoxNews regulars Joe DiGenova & Victoria Toensing. (Trump tried to hire them for the Mueller inquiry.) Chris Wallace reported on Sept 29 that they were working “off the books” with Giuliani to find dirt on the Bidens. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/highlights-from-chris-wallaces-interview-with-iranian-president-hassan-rouhani … 7/ In reality ties betw Parnas/Fruman and Firtash run much deeper. They were “working for Firtash" before “Parnas joined [Firtash’s] legal team…Firtash has paid their expenses in the past. Their costs include private jet charters..& foreign travel to Vienna.” Back to Yovanovitch. She carefully laid out how the West’s long-running push for a crackdown on high-level Ukrainian corruption stepped on a lot of important people’s toes and some figures in Ukraine used their ties to Giuliani and Trump to disrupt anti-corruption efforts. 9/ Arguably the single biggest set of toes belongs to Firtash. He was arrested immediately after the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine and has been stuck in Vienna fighting extradition to the U.S. after being charged by the Feds with FCPA violations. 10/ Since the early 2000s Firtash was at the epicenter of multi-billion dollar corrupt schemes that dominate the Russian-Ukrainian natural gas trade. This murky trade, largely done via intermediaries, is the main vehicle for Putin and others to sink their claws into Ukraine. 11/ It’s also good to think of the gas trade as Exhibit #1 for comingling of the Russian govt & organized crime. Firtash serves as the топ gas trade intermediary for the Kremlin and a Russian mob figure Semyon Mogilevich who’s on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List & helps control it 12/ Firtash acknowledged as much in a leaked 2008 conversation with then US Amb Bill Taylor (yes, the same Bill Taylor who wrote the famous text message lambasting Trump’s demand for a quid pro quo from Zelenskyy). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russian-mafia-gas … 13/ (…) What then to make of the revelation that Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles last Thursday while en route to Vienna? Or that Giuliani planned to leave for Vienna, Firtash’s home base, the following day? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/rudy-giuliani-vienna/599833/ … @elainaplott 16/ My hunch is that Parnas and Fruman may have been frontmen for Firtash, dangling info that was too good about Ukraine’s role in 2016 to lure people close to Trump. Was Firtash trying to get himself out of a jam with DOJ? Did Giuliani, wittingly or unwittingly, play any role? 17/ Bloomber’s @nwadhams broke a story about Trump and Giuliani seeking special favors from DOJ/State Dept for one of the latter’s clients, a convicted Turkish gold trader who had violated Iran sanctions. Rex Tillerson thought these requests were illegal https://twitter.com/nwadhams/status/1182062365057196033?s=20 … Back to Elliot Broidy. The Feds are investigating a Malaysian financier who reportedly asked Broidy to provide similar help. Broidy requested a $75 million fee from Jho Low if he succeeded in getting DOJ to drop charges in the case. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-ally-was-in-talks-to-earn-millions-in-effort-to-end-1mdb-probe-in-u-s-1519919321 … 19/ That brings us back to where I started. Does this scandal echo the circumstances that led to the naming of Robert Mueller? Was Giuliani ever involved in seeking special favors for Firtash? Did he or anyone else ( DiGenova? Toensing?) raise this case with Trump or others? 20/ Key question: who’s the right person to investigate this? Surely the US Atty’s office in Illinois, which indicted Firtasy, has been watching him like hawks. SDNY is now reportedly investigating Giuliani. Did any of Firtash’s team touch people at even more senior levels? 21/ What is AG Barr’s involvement in the search for dirt on the Bidens and conspiracy theories about the 2016 election? Trump told Zelenskyy to contact Barr. Does Barr have a conflict of interest or at least the appearance of one? Does he need to recuse himself? 22/ Given the very real possibility that Trump’s personal lawyer (Giuliani) and others (DiGenova/Toensing) have clear connections to Firtash, is it conceivable they engaged w himon Firtash’s behalf to subvert the rule of law? If so, that sounds like a job for a special counsel END

1 note · View note

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

States Sue Over Rollback of Obama-Era Climate Rule https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/climate/states-lawsuit-clean-power-ace.html

States Sue Trump Administration Over Rollback of Obama-Era Climate Rule

By Lisa Friedman | Published August 13, 2019 | New York Times | Posted August 13, 2019 |

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 29 states and cities on Tuesday sued to block the Trump administration from easing restrictions on coal-burning power plants, setting up a case that could determine how much leverage the federal government has to fight climate change in the future.

The lawsuit is the latest salvo in a long-running battle over the future of coal and how to regulate the nation’s heavily polluting power plants, which are major producers of greenhouse gases that warm the planet. It also is the most significant test to date of the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate or weaken former President Obama’s regulations to reduce the United States’ contribution to global warming.

It is a case that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. If justices there were to ultimately decide in favor of the Trump administration, it could weaken the ability of future presidents to regulate carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, experts said, and make it harder for the United States to tackle climate change.

“It would have a devastating effect on the ability of future administrations to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Richard L. Revesz, a professor at New York University who specializes in environmental law, referring to a 1970 law that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

The court challenge, led by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, argued that the Trump administration’s E.P.A. had no basis for weakening an Obama-era regulation that set the first ever national limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants.

The Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, required states to implement plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2022, and encouraged that to happen by closing heavily polluting plants and instead generating electricity using natural gas or renewable energy. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is a major contributor to global warming because it traps the sun’s heat.

“The science is indisputable. Our climate is changing. Ice caps are melting,” Ms. James said in a statement. She called the Trump administration plan a “do-nothing rule.”

The battle lines around this lawsuit generally mirror previous litigation over the Clean Power Plan, with blue states and cities (along with environmental and public health groups) on one side, and business groups and the fossil fuel industry on the other.

Previously, Republican-led states and industry groups sued to stop Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan from going into effect. They won a reprieve in 2016 when the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Obama administration from imposing changes.

Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia who helped to lead the Republican lawsuit against the Obama rules, predicted failure for the lawsuit against the Trump plan. He argued in a statement that neither the Clean Air Act nor the Constitution “allow the E.P.A. to serve as a central energy planning authority.”

The new challenge, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration’s replacement, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, ignores the E.P.A.’s responsibility under the law to set limits on greenhouse gases. The lawsuit also says that the new rule would actually extend the life of dirty and aging coal-burning plants, promoting an increase in pollution instead of curbing it.

Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, said in a statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation. Of the A.C.E. regulations, he said: “EPA worked diligently to ensure we produced a solid rule, that we believe will be upheld in the courts, unlike the previous Administration’s Clean Power Plan.”

Andrew Wheeler, the administrator of the E.P.A., announced the new rule in June at an event attended by coal-industry leaders, utility lobbyists and prominent deniers of climate change science.

Unlike the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, the Trump rule does not cap greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it leaves it up to states to decide whether, or if, to scale back emissions and pick from a menu of technologies to improve power-plant efficiency at the facility level.

Under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. is required to use the “best system of emissions reduction.” The Obama-era options included switching to cleaner energy sources like gas, solar or wind; putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions; or using technology that could capture and store carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. The Trump-administration rule, by contrast, focuses solely on new efficiency measures for individual plants.

Mr. Wheeler argued that the Obama administration had overreached its authority with its rule and that the Trump administration’s plan was legally defensible. Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan was suspended by the Supreme Court in 2016 after challenges from 28 Republican-led states and several major industry organizations.

Those groups said Mr. Obama’s plan was unduly burdensome to utilities and too costly for consumers, a position that Mr. Wheeler also embraced. He maintained that A.C.E. would lead to a reduction of 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and provide net benefits of $70 million each year. He also, however, said the new rule could lead to new coal plants being built.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, another party to the lawsuit, called the Trump administration’s rule “toothless,” described it as the “fossil fuel protection plan” and said the rule artificially narrows E.P.A.’s authority. “The Clean Air Act requires the E.P.A. to utilize the best system of emissions reduction that it can find. This rule does the opposite,” he said.

Others joining the suit include Massachusetts, Colorado, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The cities involved are Boulder, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, South Miami and Philadelphia.

Notably, the states of Wisconsin, North Carolina and Colorado were all parties to the Republican-led lawsuit when those states were led by G.O.P. governors.

“The blue-state coalition is getting bigger and the red-state coalition is getting smaller,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director of climate change policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. That organization, along with other groups like the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, are expected to file their own legal challenge this week.

Two leading public health groups, the American Public Health Association and the American Lung Association, have already filed suit to block the Trump administration plan.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade group that represents coal producers, last week filed a motion in support of the Trump administration. Michelle Bloodworth, the organization’s president and chief executive, said in a statement that she believes the E.P.A. has a “strong legal case” but added “we also want to help E.P.A. defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation.”

1 note · View note

arewelemmings · 6 years

Text

Coalition of states sues Trump over national emergency to build border wall.

From the Washington Post:

Coalition of states sues Trump over national emergency to build border wall.

by Amy Goldstein - The Washington Post - Monday, February 18, 2019

A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors except for one — Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — a San Francisco-based court whose judges have ruled against an array of other Trump administration policies, including on immigration and the environment.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

Accusing the president of “an unconstitutional and unlawful scheme,” the suit says the states are trying “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”

The complaint, filed by the attorneys general of nearly a third of the states and representing millions of Americans, immediately becomes the heavyweight among a rapid outpouring of opposition to the president’s emergency declaration. In the White House Rose Garden on Friday, Trump announced that he was instituting a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border because Congress did not provide the money for a wall that has stood as one of the most enduring promises from his 2016 campaign.

Several nonprofit organizations already have gone to court or announced plans to sue. And protesters took to the streets in several cities on Monday. Across from the White House, demonstrators held neon-colored letters that spelled, “POWER GRAB.”

“You wouldn’t expect to celebrate Presidents’ Day this way, but we do what you got to do,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), leader of the states coalition, said Monday in an interview. “In this case, we are having to commemorate . . . by protesting, whether marching in the street or marching into court.”

Through the president’s declared emergency, White House officials plan to use $8 billion to build sections of a barrier that Trump says will obstruct or deter migrants from crossing into the country. That sum is about $6.6 billion more than Congress allotted for the purpose in its latest spending plan. To fill in the gap, the White House intends, among other things, to divert $3.6 billion from military construction accounts and $2.5 billion from Department of Defense efforts to fight illicit drugs.

In the 56-page complaint, Becerra and his counterparts argue that diverting money that Congress has designated for other purposes violates the separation of powers defined in the Constitution.

The complaint says that once Congress passes laws and a president signs them, the Constitution requires that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Another clause of the Constitution, the lawsuit says, prevents money from being paid from the U.S. Treasury unless Congress has appropriated it.

The lawsuit also alleges that the “federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall. Customs and Border Protection data show that unlawful entries are near 45-year lows.”

And it enumerates ways that residents of the participating states — and the states themselves — could be harmed by the diversion of funds.

In addition to California, the states participating in the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia. With the exception of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), the governors of the states are Democrats.

The suit names as defendants the president, the departments of Defense, Treasury, Interior and Homeland Security and senior officials of those departments.

In filing the case in the San Francisco-based Northern District, the attorneys general chose a jurisdiction that has repeatedly been at odds with the president. According to a count by The Washington Post, the court’s judges have ruled against the Trump administration in at least nine important cases.

Judges there, for example, have ruled against efforts by the Commerce Department to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, numerous rollbacks of environmental regulations, efforts to curtail asylum for migrants and the Department of Homeland Security’s revocation of special “temporary protected status” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants legally living in the U.S.

Cases appealed from that court go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which has become a whipping post for Trump, who has derided it as “a complete and total disaster” and “a thorn in our side.”

Since the president’s announcement, GOP members of Congress have had mixed opinions of the declaration, with some contending it is legitimate and others portraying it as a power grab that could create a dangerous precedent in the event of a future Democratic president.

Congressional Democrats plan to vote in coming weeks on a joint resolution that would repeal the national emergency, and they predict that some Republicans will support it.

Trump has said his declaration is allowed under a 1976 law called the National Emergencies Act and that it has been used dozens of times. Outside analyses, including by the Brennan Center for Justice, have shown that virtually all such emergencies involved sanctions against foreign governments and groups for reasons such as human rights violations, rather than to spend money Congress intended for other purposes.

President George W. Bush declared a national emergency soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but the spending it allowed had not previously been designated by Congress for other purposes.

On Friday, Public Citizen and the Center for Biological Diversity filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Trump’s emergency declaration is unconstitutional.

Another advocacy group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued the Justice Department on Friday, accusing it of failing to provide legal opinions, communications and other documents related to the president’s decision to declare a national emergency.

Fred Barbash, Devlin Barrett and Alex Horton contributed to this report.

1 note · View note

popolitiko · 6 years

Link

‘This Is Not Normal’: Obama Takes His Hardest Stance Against Trump

During a speech at the University of Illinois, the former president delivered a sharp rebuke of Donald Trump and urged Americans to vote this November. Olivia Paschal Sep 7, 2018

On Friday, former President Barack Obama accepted the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government at the University of Illinois. Obama’s remarks provided the first taste of the message he’ll deliver on behalf of Democratic candidates around the country when he hits the campaign trail this fall.

...sometimes we hear ‘a plague on both your houses.’ Over the past few decades—wasn’t true when Jim Edgar was the governor here in Illinois, or Jim Thompson was governor, got a lot of good Republican friends here in Illinois—but over the past few decades, the politics of resentment and division and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign-finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics; systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people and minorities and the poor to vote; handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits; slashed the safety net wherever it could; cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans; embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi or my birth certificate; rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change; embraced a rising absolutism, from a willingness to default on America’s debt by not paying our bills to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic president. None of this is conservative.

It’s not conservative. It sure isn’t normal. It’s radical. It’s a vision that says the protection of our power and those who back us is all that matters even when it hurts the country. It’s a vision that says the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions set the agenda, and over the past two years, this vision is now nearing its logical conclusion, so that with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, without any checks or balances whatsoever, they have provided another $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to people like me—who I promise don’t need it—and don’t even pretend to pay for them.

This is supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism. Suddenly, deficits don’t matter, even though just two years ago, when the deficit was lower, they said, ‘I couldn’t help working families or seniors because it was, the deficit was, in existential crisis.’ What changed? What changed?

They’re subsidizing corporate polluters with taxpayer dollars, allowing dishonest lenders to take advantage of veterans and students and consumers again. They’ve made it so that the only nation on Earth to pull out of the global climate agreement—it’s not North Korea, it’s not Syria, it’s not Russia or Saudi Arabia—it’s us. The only country! There are a lot of countries in the world. We’re the only ones. They are undermining our alliances, cozying up to Russia.

What happened to the Republican Party?

Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against communism, and now they are cozying up to the former head of the KGB, actively blocking legislation that would defend our elections from Russian attack. What happened? Their sabotage of the Affordable Care Act has already cost more than 3 million Americans their health insurance. And if they are still in power next fall, you better believe they are coming at it again—they’ve said so.

In a healthy democracy, there are some checks and balances on this kind of behavior, this kind of inconsistency, but right now, there’s nothing. Republicans who know better in Congress—and they’re there, they are quoted saying, ‘We know this is kind of crazy’—are still bending over backwards to shield this behavior from scrutiny or accountability or consequence, seem utterly unwilling to find the backbone to safeguard the institutions that make our democracy work.

But here’s the good news: In two months, we have the chance—not the certainty, but the chance—to restore some semblance of sanity to our politics. Because there is actually only one real check on bad policy and abuses of power, and that’s you. You and your vote.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/barack-obama-american-democracy-trump-speech/569605/

#politics #Obama Takes His Hardest Stance Against Trump

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Where Do Republicans Sit In Congress

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-do-republicans-sit-in-congress/

Where Do Republicans Sit In Congress

How Senators Pick Their Seats: Power Friends And Proximity To Chocolate

US gun control protest: congressional Democrats stage sit-in on house floor

A good view of the action matters, but so do good neighbors.

In politics, there’s little daylight to be found between John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a pair of defense hawks who see eye to eye on just about every issue. But this session, the pair got even closer, at least in terms of where they sit on the Senate floor: They’re finally desk neighbors.

McCain made the move, grabbing the spot next to Graham when it opened up before the 114th congressional session. Prior to that, he was just one row ahead of the senator from South Carolina, but that was one row too far.

So it goes on the Senate floor. Easy as it is to forget amid the high-profile wheeling and dealing, the Senate floor is still a work space, and like any work space, where one sits is not a matter to be taken lightly. And so, when desks get reshuffled at the start of each session, senators mull, confer, and strategize in a bid to snag the exact spot they want.

“I remember being utterly confused,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, who took office in 1997. “I had my staff, and I said, ‘Let’s pick a good spot,’ and we went round in circles.”

After the election, Republicans and Democrats allow their most senior members first choice of the open desks and then work their way down the seniority line.

“I’m closer to the aisle, which I’ve always tried to be so that you can get recognition,” the Utah Republican said. “In a very serious situation, sometimes getting recognition is the difference between winning and losing.”

Liz Cheney Faces Vote To Remove Her From Republican Leadership

US Republicans are to vote on whether to oust one of their leaders, Liz Cheney, over her repeated criticism of former President Donald Trump.

The Wyoming lawmaker, daughter of ex-US Vice-President Dick Cheney, is expected to lose her third-ranking post in the House of Representatives.

On Tuesday she criticised her party for not standing up to Mr Trump’s false claims to have won the 2020 election.

The top two House Republicans want her replaced with a Trump loyalist.

The move is seen as a sign Mr Trump’s grip on the party is stronger than ever six months after he lost the election.

In an impassioned speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Ms Cheney trained her fire again on Mr Trump over his unfounded claims the 2020 vote was stolen from him.

“Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar,” she said on Tuesday.

“I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.”

Her fate is expected to be decided by a simple majority of House Republicans behind closed doors on Wednesday morning.

The 5 Voted To Overturn Bidens Election Victory

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, center, leaves the floor June 30 after the House voted to create a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Print icon

Resize icon

WASHINGTON House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy has picked five Republicans to sit on the new select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, signaling that Republicans will participate in the investigation that they have staunchly opposed.

McCarthy said Monday that he has selected Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, who recently visited former President Donald Trump on trips to the U.S.-Mexico border and Trumps New Jersey golf club, to be the top Republican on the panel. The Republican leader also tapped Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong and Texas Rep. Troy Nehls to serve on the committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must approve the names before they are final, per committee rules. An aide to Pelosi said she has received notification from McCarthy, but it is unclear when or if she will approve the GOP members. The aide was granted anonymity to discuss the Republican picks ahead of an official announcement.

Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Lefts authoritarian agenda, Banks said.

Don’t Miss: Trump Triangle Pin

Gallup: Democrats Now Outnumber Republicans By 9 Percentage Points Thanks To Independents

I think what we have to do as a party is battle the damage to the Democratic brand, Democratic National Committee Chairman Jamie Harrison said on The Daily Beasts . Gallup reported Wednesday that, at least relatively speaking, the Democratic brand is doing pretty good.

In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of U.S. adults identified as Democrats or independents with Democratic leanings, versus 40 percent for Republicans and GOP leaders, Gallup said. The 9-percentage-point Democratic advantage is the largest Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012. In recent years, Democratic advantages have typically been between 4 and 6 percentage points.

New Gallup polling finds that in the first quarter of 2021, an average of 49% of Americans identify with/lean toward the Democratic Party, versus 40 percent for Republicans.

Thats the largest gap since 2012:

Greg Sargent

Party identification, polled on every Gallup survey, is something that we think is important to track to give a sense to the relevant strength of the two parties at any one point in time and how party preferences are responding to events,Gallup senior editor Jeff Jones told USA Today.

More stories from theweek.com

Who Is Richer Democrats Or Republicans The Answer Probably Wont Surprise You

Which of the two political parties has more money, Democrats or Republicans? Most would rush to say Republicans due to the partys ideas towards tax and money. In fact, polls have shown about 60 percent of the American people believe Republicans favor the rich. But how true is that? ;can help you write about the issue but read our post first.

Also Check: Trump Says Republicans Are Stupid 1998

Gop Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats 1961

Democrats top row: President Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy. Republicans bottom row: President W. Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon.

This is the first in a five-part series on government corruption and how that corruption is investigated.

Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.

We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

Given the at least 17 active investigations plaguing President Trump, he is on a path to exceed previous administrations, though the effects of White House obstruction, potential pardons, and the as-yet unknown impact of the GOPs selection of judges may limit investigations, subpoenas, prosecutions, etc. Of course, as we are comparing equal numbers of Presidents and years in office from the Democratic and Republican parties, the current President is not included.

Were aware some of our numbers differ from other totals, but we explain our criteria below.

Figure 1. Presidential administrations corruption comparison

Mccarthy Proposes 5 Republicans To Sit On Jan 6 Panel

Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the Lefts authoritarian agenda, Banks said.

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

Recommended Reading: Why Are Republicans Wearing Blue Ties

Whats In The Voting Legislation That Democrats Oppose

Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 3seek to tighten Texas voting laws and include bans on drive-thru and 24-hour voting.

Additionally, the bills would require voters to provide their drivers license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number on applications for mail-in and returned ballots.

SB 1 deviates from its House counterpart by requiring monthly reviews of the states voter rolls to identify noncitizens.

Both bills also grant partisan poll watchers free movement within polling places, with the exception of being present at the voting station while the voter is filling out their ballot. The legislation would also make it a criminal offense if the voter distances themself from the watcher or obstructs their view in a manner that would make observation not reasonably effective.

House Of Representatives Floor Plan

Democrats Stage Sit-In Protest In Congress

Unlike the Members of the Senate, Members of the House have no assigned seats but are by tradition divided by party; Members of the Democratic Party sit to the Speakers right and Members of the Republican Party sit to the Speakers left.

In addition to the representatives , a variety of staff have permanent or temporary privileges to be on the floor of the House. Standing next to or near the presiding officer are the parliamentarian, sergeant at arms, and clerk of the House. At the desk immediately in front of the Speaker are seated the journal clerk, tally clerk, and reading clerk. At the desk below the clerks are the bill clerk, enrolling clerk, and daily digest clerk. Reporters of debate sit at a table below the rostrum. Staff members of committees and individual representatives are allowed on the floor by unanimous consent.

From § 6.113, Who Is Allowed on the House Floor? in the Congressional Deskbook

Also see:

)

No Assigned Seats The Honorable Beverly Barton Butcher Byron describes the seating arrangement on the House Floor.

The Senate Seating Chart on the Senate web site is here.

Seats are assigned in the Senate. Senators of the Democratic Party sit to the presiding officers right, and Senators of the Republican Party sit to the presiding officers left.

From § 6.192, Who Is Allowed on the Senate Floor? in the Congressional Deskbook

Also see:

Also Check: Secret Service Lapel Pin Meaning

Latest Gun Control Bid Falters In Congress Democrat Sit

By Richard Cowan, Susan Cornwell

5 Min Read

WASHINGTON – Another attempt at gun control faltered in the U.S. Congress on Thursday despite outrage at the Orlando massacre, as a proposed ban on firearms sales to people being monitored for links to terrorism barely avoided being killed in the Senate.

In a procedural vote, the Senate narrowly rejected an attempt to scrap the plan by Republican Senator Susan Collins to prevent guns getting into the hands of people on two U.S. government terrorism watch lists.

But the proposal looked short of the support it would need to advance through the chamber, and Republican leaders said the Senate would switch from debating gun control to other matters until at least after the July 4 holiday.

It was the latest setback for proponents of gun restrictions who have been thwarted for years on Capitol Hill by gun rights defenders and the National Rifle Association.

Frequent efforts at gun control have failed despite anger at mass shootings like the killings at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 and in San Bernardino, California, last year.

Eventually this problem will get addressed again one of two ways: We find a breakthrough, which I will seek, or there will be another terrorist attack which will bring us right back to this issue. I hope we can do it without another terrorist attack, said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who supported Collins.

Related Coverage

Democrats Continue House Sit

Chaos as Speaker Paul Ryan is drowned out by chants and singing from group trying to bring an end to continued failure of Congress to tighten firearm laws

First published on Wed 22 Jun 2016 21.05 BST

Democrats drowned out the Speaker with chants, sang We Shall Overcome on the floor of the House of Representatives and held up pictures of gun violence victims as they continued a sit-in demanding action to curb mass shootings in the United States.

The rebellion began before midday on Wednesday and continued into Thursday morning as one extraordinary day on Capitol Hill merged into another. A group of Democrats led by the civil rights veteran John Lewis occupied the well in front of the dais, demanding a vote on gun control measures in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

Raucous scenes continued through the evening and past midnight as the group defied Speaker Paul Ryan with shouts, chants and songs. There were ugly exchanges with Republicans at times, including raised voices and jabbed fingers that momentarily appeared likely to escalate into violence.

The sit-in continued through a series of legislative proceedings unrelated to gun control that dragged into the early hours of Thursday, with representatives coming and going in the chamber to take part in various votes while the Democrats maintained their encampment.

Ryan, struggling to make himself heard, at one point called a vote on labor legislation, then left the podium as Democrats booed and chanted: Shame! Shame!

Don’t Miss: Who Gives More Democrats Or Republicans

What Recourse Is There When A Quorum Is Intentionally Broken

House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, made it clear that the chamber will use every available resource to preserve the quorum. One way House Republicans went about this is by passing a procedural move known as the call of the House, which allows for law enforcement to track down lawmakers who have already fled the chamber.

Rep. Will Metcalf, R-Conroe, moved to issue the call of the House July 13, which passed 76-4. He was met with opposition from a small handful of Democrats who chose to remain on the House Floor. They were: Reps. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City, Tracy King of Batesville, Eddie Morales Jr. of Eagle Pass and John Turner of Dallas.

It is still unclear how that will work considering the fact that Texas law enforcement does not have any sort of jurisdiction in D.C. The provision is not really relevant until Democrats return to the corporate boundaries of the state, according to Randall Erben, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.

Republicans Are Well Positioned To Take The House In 2022

Although we dont yet know the winners of some House races, we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House. Midterm elections historically go well for the party thats not in the White House, and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House, since every seat is up for election .

Since the end of World War II, the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections, as the chart below shows. No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020s election at this point, they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s a loss of that magnitude would easily be enough for Republicans to retake the House.

The recent history of midterms in a Democratic presidents first term seems especially promising for the GOP, too. Following Bill Clintons election in 1992, Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994, and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Democrats lost more than 60 seats.

If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year, they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms. Instead, Republicans will probably need to win fewer than 10 seats to gain a slender majority in 2022.

Don’t Miss: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are In The House

What Next For Trump And The Party

Mr Trump has been hinting he may run for the White House again in 2024.

Polls indicate he would easily recapture the Republican nomination for a rematch against US President Joe Biden, should the Democrat run for a second term.

Exasperated by Mr Trump’s stranglehold on the party, more than 100 Republicans, including some former elected officials, plan to release a letter this week threatening to form a third party, reports the New York Times.

What Is Different About The Congress Seating Arrangements In The State Of Union

DAVID KENNETH

The presidential State of the Union Address is traditionally a joint session of Congress. As a joint session, both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, meet concurrently. Since the House wing of the Capitol is larger than the Senate wing, the combined body meets there.

Explore this article

State of Union Seating

Also Check: Republicans Wear Red Or Blue

Republicans Win Fewer Votes But More Seats Than Democrats

Republicans controlled the post2010 redistricting process in the four states, and drew new lines that helped the GOP win the bulk of the House delegation in each. Republicans captured 13 of 18 seats in Pennsylvania, 12 of 16 in Ohio, nine of 14 in Michigan, and five of eight in Wisconsin. Added together, that was 39 seats for the Republicans and 17 seats for the Democrats in the four proObama states.

The key to GOP congressional success was to cluster the Democratic vote into a handful of districts, while spreading out the Republican vote elsewhere. In Pennsylvania, for example, Republicans won nine of their 13 House seats with less than 60% of the vote, while Democrats carried three of their five with more than 75%.

One of the latter was the Philadelphiabased 2nd District, where 356,386 votes for Congress were tallied. Not only was it the highest number of ballots cast in any district in the state, but Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah won 318,176 of the votes. It was the largest number received by any House candidate in the country in 2012, Democrat or Republican. If some of these Democratic votes had been unclustered and distributed to other districts nearby, the party might have won a couple more seats in the Philadelphia area alone.

The Closest House Races of 2012

NARROW DEMOCRATIC WINNERS

0 notes

creepingsharia · 4 years

Text

Investigation Exposes Terror Ties Behind Islamic Charity's Humanitarian Facade

Image from Zakat Foundation YouTube video.

by Abha Shankar and Martha Lee

A prominent American Islamist charity is publicizing its role in the nationwide coronavirus emergency response effort.

"Zakat Foundation of America stepped up its nationwide coronavirus emergency response ... delivering thousands of direly needed medical-grade gloves to two far South Side Safety-Net hospitals in Chicago," said the Illinois-based Islamist charity in a March 27 press release.

"We're all in as a frontline charitable provider helping people survive COVID-19, on every level — financially, medically, nutritionally, mentally and spiritually," executive director Halil Demir said in the release. (Demir also spells his first name "Khalil.")

Since its 2001 founding, the Zakat Foundation claims to "have empowered millions of people to recover from disasters and escape poverty by taking control of their own lives." A timeline on the charity's website showcases its humanitarian accomplishments over the years, from providing aid to Iraq war victims to establishing a university for refugees in Turkey.

But behind the Zakat Foundation's outward humanitarian façade lie longstanding terror ties that include support for Hamas- and al-Qaida-tied charities, a joint investigation by the Investigative Project of Terrorism and the Middle East Forum finds.

The misuse of Islamist charitable organizations to support terror is not new. American Islamist charities have been known to use humanitarian assistance as a cover to solicit funds for terrorist groups.

"While some terrorist supporters create sham charities as a cover to raise and move funds, other terrorist groups and their supporters use charities to provide funds or otherwise dispense critical social or humanitarian services to vulnerable populations in an effort to radicalize communities and build local support," says the Treasury Department's 2015 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, several American Islamist charities were either designated terrorist financiers by Treasury or raided by federal authorities on suspicion of funding terror. A prime example is the prosecution of the Texas charity Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and its senior leaders in what is described as the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history. In 2008, a jury convicted HLF and five former leaders for illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.

One of Demir's previous employers also attracted scrutiny from the federal government.

Before founding Zakat Foundation in 2001, Demir worked for the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF). A business card identified him as "Public Relations Officer," and an IRS tax filing from 2000 states that, "The books are in care of Halil I. Demir."

The Treasury Department designated BIF and related entities as terror financiers in 2002. The Illinois-based BIF and its director, Enaam Arnaout, were charged the same year with misusing charitable contributions to support al-Qaida and other terrorist groups overseas. Later, Arnaout confessed to using his charity to support Mujahideen fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Arnaout served "as an administrator" for Osama bin Laden, a United Nations Security Council report said, "at times disbursing funds on his behalf." He admitted that BIF solicited money for humanitarian needs, "including refugees and orphans," concealing the fact that it "was being used to support fighters" in Chechnya with uniforms, boots, tents and other supplies.

In addition to serving BIF, Demir also has worked with the terror-tied Turkish Humanitarian Relief Organization (IHH). A 2010 news release on the Turkish charity's relief efforts in earthquake-hit Haiti describes Demir as an "IHH aid coordinator." The same year, IHH also referred to the Zakat Foundation as a "partner institution."

IHH has helped fund the Hamas military wing, which used the money to buy weapons and build training facilities, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Relations said. IHH has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, Germany and the Netherlands. IHH was a key player in the 2010 Free Gaza Movement flotilla that sought to break a blockade on Gaza. Ten people were killed when one of the boats refused to turn back and passengers attacked Israeli commandos as they tried to board.

Reports from that time allege that IHH distributed aid to the Salafist group Ahrar al Sham, which fought alongside ISIS and the al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. Turkish authorities additionally found evidence that IHH not only recruits militants for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, but also provides terrorist groups access to arms and medical treatment.

According to a 2009 IHH report, "The US-based Zakat Foundation and Helping Hand, with which the IHH co-organizes social projects in different regions, sent $80,000 and $30,000 respectively to Gaza through the IHH."

Helping Hand is the overseas charitable arm of the Islamic Circle of North America, which has been described as "openly affiliated" with the Sunni revivalist movement Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). The charity has partnered with people closely tied to the U.S.-designated Kashmiri terrorist organization, Hizbul Mujahideen and its leader Syed Salahuddin. Zakat Foundation also partners with the Al-Khidmat Foundation, JI Pakistan's charitable arm.

Despite these documented connections, often promoted by the charities involved, Demir denies his and his organization's terror ties. He blames terror financing crackdowns targeting American Muslim charities after the 9/11 attacks on "Islamophobia."

"The Islamophobia was so strong, emotions ran so high against the Muslim community that whenever we tried to do good work, some people and organizations tried to portray us as bad guys," Demir says in an advertisement for his book, 9 Myths About Muslim Charities: Stories from the Zakat Foundation of America.

Demir made similar accusations in a January interview with the Daily Southtown. "This is propaganda, Islamophobia of white supremacists and hate groups that spread poison against the Muslim community and charities that do great work," he said.

Demir's book bashes national and international agencies for demanding transparency and oversight of Muslim charities. For instance, he calls the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) global terror finance watchdog "the most powerful and pernicious entity in the world," and asserts that "FATF's recommendations, and counterterrorism financing in general, constitute a complex ineffective sham."

The book also criticizes a 1996 CIA "Report on NGOs with Terror Links": "This two-decade-old CIA-write-up's simple-minded, unvetted, erroneous presumption of a 'regular correlation between Muslim humanitarian organizations and terrorist activity' – which shows nothing more than chauvinism—still underpins global policy of transgressing the civil rights of American Muslim charities."

Terrorists are known to use "charities to provide funds or otherwise dispense critical social or humanitarian services to vulnerable populations in an effort to radicalize communities and build local support," the 2015 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment said.

Hamas' dramatic 2006 election victory was fueled in part by its social welfare networks that received funding from American Islamist charities. In fact, the Holy Land Foundation was part of a network called the "Palestine Committee" that the Muslim Brotherhood created to advance Hamas's agenda politically and financially in the United States.

The Zakat Foundation has also generously supported the Islamic Charitable Society (ICS) in Hebron. In 2003, Zakat Foundation "worked in coordination with the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron to supply $10,000" worth of school supplies to Palestinian children. This is not the first time that the ICS has received funding from U.S.-based charities. HLF gave ICS more than $1.6 million between 1991 and 2001. In 2002, German intelligence services described ICS as "the most important HAMAS association in the West Bank" and concluded that its leadership included "numerous" Hamas members.

The Zakat Foundation's work with ICS and association with Hamas continues. It announced in 2017 that it had "taken on costs for 200 students" of the ICS's Al Rahma School. Dina Karmi, an Arabic teacher at Al Rahma, is the widow of Nashaat al-Karmi, Hamas's southern West Bank armed wing leader. Israeli anti-terror police shot and killed him in 2010 in a raid connected with the murder of four Israelis.

In 2018, Israel's Shin Bet arrested Dina Karmi for "serving as the 'operational arm'" of a ring that "operated in coordination with both Hamas headquarters abroad and in the Gaza Strip."

A year earlier, ICS officials expressed their "deepest of thanks to Zakat Foundation" for its support, and "especially" its executive director Khalil Demir.

Zakat Foundation lists a U.S.-based Islamist charity called Baitulmaal as a partner. The Israeli government in 2006 accused Baitulmaal co-founder Sheikh Hasan Hajmohammad of funding a Hamas charity.

However, instead of calling for more intensive oversight of an Islamist charity with established terror ties, U.S. government officials continue to engage with the Zakat Foundation. In 2017, the charity co-sponsored an Iftar dinner with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's office. Last year, Halil Demir was invited to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot's 100th Day Recognition.

Today, as the nation ramps up its fight against the coronavirus pandemic, the Chicago mayor's office "now keeps contact with Zakat Foundation and has welcomed its creative capacity and stalwart efforts, as do an ensemble of social service agencies, not only in Chicago, but in key metro areas across the nation."

For decades, Islamist charities have hidden their terror funding and support under a charitable guise, sometimes winning acclaim and support from federal government officials and others for their efforts. The terror-tied Zakat Foundation's response to the coronavirus pandemic, is the kind of thing that might provide a public benefit, but it also serves as a building block toward legitimacy, opening doors at City Hall and elsewhere.

It also helps the organization further obscure its work with charities tied to Hamas and al-Qaida.

#Legal #Finance #Fraud #Islam #Muslim #Sharia #Jihad #News #Politics #Media #Travel #Immigration

13 notes · View notes

orbemnews · 3 years

Link

AGCS introduces new North America regional head of property Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) has promoted Jenise Klein (pictured) to the role of North America regional head of property, Klein succeeds Jill Knecht, who leaves AGCS after 17 years to pursue other opportunities. Klein joined Allianz in 2015 as a member of the AGCS Alternative Risk Transfer (ART) team, serving as head of underwriting governance and coordination. She later transitioned to the insurance linked securities space with ART Capital Solutions in 2018, where she focused on the corporate property space. Klein later switched to the NA property team earlier this year as senior underwriting product head. Prior to joining AGCS, Klein spent nearly nine years of her career at Zurich Insurance Company, where she held several roles of increasing responsibility, including as an underwriter with both the primary casualty business and the strategic risk solutions group. She earned her bachelor of arts degree in risk management and Asian studies at Illinois Wesleyan University. “Jenise is a seasoned leader who is well respected by colleagues, clients and peers and brings a breadth of results-driven insurance and reinsurance experience to her new role,” said AGCS North America president and CEO Bill Scaldaferri. Scaldaferri also took the opportunity in his statement to thank Knecht for her years of service. “I’d like to thank Jill for her contributions to AGCS over the past 17 years and look forward to working with Jenise to continue our expanded growth strategy in the North American market with our clients and brokers as our central focus,” the chief executive said. Source link Orbem News #AGCS #America #introduces #North #property #Regional

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Did Republicans Gain Control Of Southern Governments

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-republicans-gain-control-of-southern-governments/

How Did Republicans Gain Control Of Southern Governments

The Return Of Conservative Control

Shortly after the election, the North Carolina House of Representatives brought charges against Holden, which alleged that he acted illegally in declaring martial law and arresting individuals; in refusing to obey the writs of habeas corpus; and in raising state troops and paying them. After a seven week trial, the Senate convicted Holden and voted to remove him from office. He became the first state governor in the country to be impeached and removed from office. Lt. Gov. Tod R. Caldwell replaced him as governor.

For the most part, after the 1870 election and the return of the Conservatives to power, Klan activity ceased in many areas. The group remained active in the western counties, resulting in federal intervention and trials for Klan leaders. By 1872, the Klan became more focused on race rather than politics and ceased to play a major role in North Carolina’s political circles until the next century.

Back in legislative power, the Conservatives set about changing much of what the Republicans had accomplished. They amended the constitution in 1873 and again in 1875, concentrating power in Raleigh and ensuring that only white Conservatives would hold local offices through legislative control of county governments. Other amendments, like those that outlawed interracial marriage and prohibited integrated public schools, served to relegate African Americans to a lower level of society and politics: the status quo antebellum.

Politics Of The Southern United States

United States Census Bureau

The politics of the Southern United States generally refers to the political landscape of the Southern United States. The institution of had a profound impact on the politics of the Southern United States, causing the American Civil War and continued subjugation of African-Americans from the Reconstruction era to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scholars have linked slavery to contemporary political attitudes, including racial resentment. From the Reconstruction era to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pockets of the Southern United States were characterized as being “authoritarian enclaves”.

The region was once referred to as the Solid South, due to its large consistent support for Democrats in all elective offices from 1877 to 1964. As a result, its Congressmen gained seniority across many terms, thus enabling them to control many Congressional committees. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, Southern states became more reliably Republican in presidential politics, while Northeastern states became more reliably Democratic. Studies show that some Southern whites during the 1960s shifted to the Republican Party, in part due to racial conservatism. Majority support for the Democratic Party amongst Southern whites first fell away at the presidential level, and several decades later at the state and local levels. Both parties are competitive in a handful of Southern states, known as swing states.

New Census Numbers Shift Political Power South To Republican Strongholds

Political power in the United States will continue to shift south this decade, as historically Democratic states that border the Great Lakes give up congressional seats and electoral votes to regions where Republicans currently enjoy a political advantage, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas, Florida and North Carolina, three states that voted twice for President Donald Trump, are set to gain a combined four seats in Congress in 2023 because of population growth, granting them collectively as many new votes in the electoral college for the next presidential election as Democratic-leaning Hawaii has in total.

At the same time, four northern states with Democratic governors that President Biden won in 2020 Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York will each lose a single congressional seat. Ohio, a nearby Republican-leaning state, will also lose a seat in Congress.

The data released Monday was better for Democrats than expected, as earlier Census Bureau estimates had suggested the congressional gains in Florida and Texas would be even bigger. The margins in certain states that determined the final congressional counts were razor thin, with New York losing a seat because of a shortfall of only 89 people.

Your questions about the census, answered

In other parts of the country, the shifts in population will have a less obvious effect on partisan power.

Ted Mellnik contributed to this report.

The Radical Republicans Take Control

Northern voters spoke clearly in the Congressional election of 1866. Radical Republicans won over two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate. They now had the power to override Johnson’s vetoes and pass the Civil Rights Act and the bill to extend the Freedmen’s Bureau, and they did so immediately. Congress had now taken charge of the South’s reconstruction.

Republican America: How Georgia Went ‘red’

July 15, 2004

Relaxing in front of his small ranch house, watching the birds flit around his feeder, Ronnie Pilcher looks out over the changing face of the place he calls home.

In the four decades he and his wife have lived here on 10 verdant acres, Mr. Pilcher has seen an explosion in population and wealth that’s transformed this old orchard crossroads into a booming Atlanta exurb. Where once he knew almost everyone driving by on the old Birmingham Highway – and many of them stopped to chat – now an unfamiliar flow of Beemers and Hummers weave among the dented Fords and Chevys on the traffic-choked road. Nondenominational megachurches are replacing small country chapels, gated communities are spreading rapidly, and big chain restaurants compete with old-time establishments like Shelia’s BBQ, where the sign says proudly: “Parking for Rednecks Only.”

Pilcher, a Baptist deacon and retired data cruncher for SunTrust Bank, says he’s an independent. But as a self-described conservative, he identifies with the GOP far more than with the Democrats. Like many in Crabapple, he admits his vote for President Bush this fall is pretty much assured.

It’s not just because he sees Bush as standing up for “traditional” morals – though he is firmly against gay marriage, and on abortion says: “Only the good Lord has the right to choose life and death.”

Georgia’s swift transformationFrom farms to a surge of new wealthOzzie, Harriet, and a white picket fenceFrom the wallet to the pews

The South Becomes Majority Republican

For nearly a century after , the majority of the white South identified with the Democratic Party. Republicans during this time would only control parts of the mountains districts in southern Appalachia and competed for statewide office in the former border states. Before 1948, Southern Democrats believed that their stance on states’ rights and appreciation of traditional southern values, was the defender of the southern way of life. Southern Democrats warned against designs on the part of northern liberals, Republicans , and civil rights activists, whom they denounced as “outside agitators”.

After the Civil Rights act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed in Congress, only a small element resisted, led by Democratic governors Lester Maddox of Georgia, and especially George Wallace of Alabama. These governors appealed to a less-educated, working-class electorate, that favored the Democratic Party, but also supported segregation. After the Brown v. Board of EducationSupreme Court case that outlawed segregation in schools in 1954, integration caused enormous controversy in the white South. For this reason, compliance was very slow and was the subject of violent resistance in some areas.

White Terrorists Resist The Changes

Even before the end of the Civil War, white Southerners had begun to resist the changes occurring in the societyand culture they cherished. The familiar world they had known, in which black people existed as inferior beings fit only to serve whites, was falling down around them, and they fought back. They did so through violent attacks that included arson, beatings, rape, and murder. These attacks were focused not only on the former slaves but on anyone who tried to help them or seemed sympathetic to the idea of freedom, civil rights, and equality, including teachers, soldiers, and white Unionists.

During the period of President Johnson’s Reconstruction program, race riots had occurred in two major Southern citiesMemphis, Tennessee, where forty-six blacks were killed, and New Orleans, Louisiana, where thirty-four blacks and three whites died. These riots had underscored the link between white resentment and violence. With the triumph of the Radical Republicans’ plan for Reconstruction, the violence increased. Secret terrorist societies, most of whose members covered their identities with masks and long robes, began a widespread campaign to try to control through fear what they had not been able to control any other way. They wanted to prevent blacks from exercising their new rights, and they also wanted to ensure that plantation owners had the same kind of disciplined labor force they had enjoyed during the days of slavery.

Reconstruction Comes To An End

After 1867, an increasing number of southern whites turned to violence in response to the revolutionary changes of Radical Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders, white and Black, and other African Americans who challenged white authority. Though federal legislation passed during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 took aim at the Klan and others who attempted to interfere with Black suffrage and other political rights, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South after the early 1870s as support for Reconstruction waned.

Racism was still a potent force in both South and North, and Republicans became more conservative and less egalitarian as the decade continued. In 1874after an economic depression plunged much of the South into povertythe Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War.

READ MORE: How the 1876 Election Effectively Ended Reconstruction

The Compromise of 1876 marked the end of Reconstruction as a distinct period, but the struggle to deal with the revolution ushered in by slaverys eradication would continue in the South and elsewhere long after that date. A century later, the legacy of Reconstruction would be revived during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as African Americans fought for the political, economic and social equality that had long been denied them.

For Discussion And Writing

What legal devices did Southern states use to exclude most of their black citizens from voting? What other methods were used to stop blacks from voting?

What was unfair about the way literacy tests were used for voter registration in the South from 1890 to 1965?

What were the consequences to African Americans of being excluded from voting in the segregated South?

Reaction To The Freedmens Bureau

In North Carolina, as well as elsewhere in the South, questions existed as to how to assimilate 350,000 freed slaves into the economy, society and political system of the state. These questions arose before the war was over, at such places as Roanoke Island and James City, but were now being addressed across the state in emancipation communities such as Freedom Hill. While whites accepted the abolishment of slavery, most did not agree that the freedmen and women were equal to them. They found the Freedmens Bureau to be meddlesome and believed everyone would find his or her natural place in society if left alone.

In the minds of most white people, the natural place for former slaves was still at the bottom of the social order. Early in 1866, the North Carolina legislature enacted the Black Code, a series of laws that regulated control of the African American population. Although North Carolinas code was less rigid than those of other southern states with larger black populations, it nevertheless denied the rights of citizenship to free blacks and the recently emancipated. The code also placed restrictions on free movement within and outside the state, made it difficult for blacks to purchase and carry firearms, and prohibited interracial marriages. This denial of rights created strong opposition by northerners and blacks within and outside the state.

How Did Southern Whites Regain Political Power During Reconstruction

MICHELLE LEE

At the conclusion of the Civil War, the 13th Amendment was passed and slaves in all areas of the U.S. were emancipated. Reconstruction was implemented in 1866 to integrate the southern states back into the Union and provide resources for newly freed slaves. Reconstruction continued until 1877 when President Rutherford Hayes was elected. His presidency allowed the South to regain political power and indirectly facilitated practices that prevented African-Americans and other minorities from enjoying the rights granted by the 13th Amendment.

Explore this article

Threats and Intimidation

Who Should Not Vote

All states have some voting restrictions. Are they necessary? Below are five traditional restrictions on the right to vote. Form small groups to decide whether your state should retain each of these restrictions. Before making a decision on each restriction, the group should discuss and write answers to these two questions:

What are some reasons favoring the restriction?

What are some reasons against the restriction?

After the groups have finished their work, each restriction should be discussed and voted on by the entire class.

Impact Of The War On North Carolina

North Carolina suffered terrible human losses from the Civil War. More than 30,000 troops died, almost half from battle deaths and the rest from disease. Untold numbers were wounded or disabled by injury. There were human costs at home as well. With the majority of white men off fighting the war, the women struggled to maintain farms and families. The results often included impaired health and even death of the elderly and weak.

Economic costs were also staggering. These included millions of dollars of property destroyed or looted across the South; millions spent by the Confederate government to wage the war; and the abolition of slavery, which cost slaveholders nearly $200 million in capital investment. Worthless currency, repudiated war debts, and few avenues for credit caused many individuals, institutions, and businesses to declare bankruptcy. During the war many colleges closed, factories shut down, and banks collapsed. Almost none were in any condition to re-open after the war.

Developments In The North And The West

Events and trends occurring across the rest of the United States during the Reconstruction era both paralleled and, in some ways, influenced what was happening in the troubled Southern part of the country. In the North, the span of years from 1865 to 1877 was marked by economic growth and political and social reforms, but there were also periods of economic depression, episodes of political corruption, and clashes between the expanding class of wealthy people and professionals and the small farmers and workers who stillmade up the bulk of the population. Northern state governments, like those in the South, were raising taxes and expanding their budgets in order to pay for new social services and public schools. But the North had not experienced the devastation of the Civil War in the same dramatic way as the South, and its stronger economy meant that it could better afford to finance the changes.

Between 1865 and 1873, industrial production increased by 75 percent. The population was expandingincluding the addition of three million immigrantsbut migration to the open spaces of the West had been eased by the construction of 35,000 miles of railroad routes. In the West were plenty of opportunities for farming as well as lumber harvesting, mining, and ranching.

The Obama Years And The Rise Of The Tea Party: 20082016

John BoehnerHouse SpeakerBarack Obama

Following the 2008 elections, the Republican Party, reeling from the loss of the presidency, Congress and key state governorships, was fractured and leaderless.Michael Steele became the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, but was a poor fundraiser and was replaced after numerous gaffes and missteps. Republicans suffered an additional loss in the Senate in April 2009, when Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party, depriving the GOP of a critical 41st vote to block legislation in the Senate. The seating of Al Franken several months later effectively handed the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, but it was short-lived as the GOP took back its 41st vote when Scott Brown won a special election in Massachusetts in early 2010.

Republicans won back control of the House of Representatives in the November general election, with a net gain of 63 seats, the largest gain for either party since . The GOP also picked up six seats in the Senate, falling short of retaking control in that chamber, and posted additional gains in state governor and legislative races. Boehner became Speaker of the House while McConnell remained as the Senate Minority Leader. In an interview with National Journal magazine about congressional Republican priorities, McConnell explained that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for Obama to be a one-term president”.

Mitt Romney

Republican Goals And Achievements

Among the Republicans who were now in charge of the South’s new state governments, many differences of background and opinion existed. There was tension between the native Southerners and the Northerners, between blacks and whites, and between free blacks and former slaves. There were different views on how much power should be given to blacks, on whether or not the government should confiscate and redistribute land, and on whether or not former Confederates should be allowed to vote.

On certain points, however, most Republicans were in agreement. They wanted to guarantee civil and political rights for African Americans, modify the Southern economy to benefitpeople at all income levels, and provide expanded public services. The idea that the state had a responsibility to offer such benefits to its citizens was somewhat revolutionary; indeed, before the war the Southern states had offered very few services. Describing prewar conditions in South Carolina, twentieth-century African American leader W. E. B. Du Bois , quoted in Reconstruction and Reaction: The Emancipation of Slaves, 18611913, wrote: “It is said that the ante-bellum state was ruled by 180 great landlords. They made the functions of the state just as few as possible, and did by private law on plantations most of the things which in other states were carried on by the local and state governments.”

Who Were The Redeemers And Why Did They Change Society And Politics In The New South

Who were the Redeemers and how did they change society and politics in the New South. The Redeemers were a coalition of merchants, planters, and business entrepreneurs who dominated Southern politics after reconstruction. The goal of the Redeemers was to undo as much of reconstruction as they could.

READ: What is ethics in communication competence model?

World War Ii And Its Aftermath: 19391952

From 1939 through 1941, there was a sharp debate within the GOP about support for Great Britain as it led the fight against a much stronger Nazi Germany. Internationalists, such as Henry Stimson and Frank Knox, wanted to support Britain and isolationists, such as Robert A. Taft and Arthur Vandenberg, strongly opposed these moves as unwise for risking a war with Germany. The America First movement was a bipartisan coalition of isolationists. In , a dark horse Wendell Willkie at the last minute won over the party, the delegates and was nominated. He crusaded against the inefficiencies of the New Deal and Roosevelt’s break with the strong tradition against a third term, but was ambiguous on foreign policy.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 ended the isolationist-internationalist debate, as all factions strongly supported the war effort against Japan and Germany. The Republicans further cut the Democratic majority in the 1942 midterm elections in a very low turnout episode. With wartime production creating prosperity, the conservative coalition terminated nearly all New Deal relief programs as unnecessary.

In , a clearly frail Roosevelt defeated Dewey for his fourth consecutive term, but Dewey made a good showing that would lead to his selection as the candidate in .

Southern strategy

V Racial Violence In Reconstruction

Violence shattered the dream of biracial democracy. Still steeped in the violence of slavery, white southerners could scarcely imagine Black free labor. Congressional investigator Carl Schurz reported that in the summer of 1865, southerners shared a near unanimous sentiment that You cannot make the negro work, without physical compulsion. Violence had been used in the antebellum period to enforce slave labor and to define racial difference. In the post-emancipation period it was used to stifle Black advancement and return to the old order.

Much of life in the antebellum South had been premised on slavery. The social order rested on a subjugated underclass, and the labor system required unfree laborers. A notion of white supremacy and Black inferiority undergirded it all. White people were understood as fit for freedom and citizenship, Black people for chattel slave labor. The Confederate surrender at Appomattox Court House and the subsequent adoption by the U.S. Congress of the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed the institution of American slavery and threw southern society into disarray. The foundation of southern society had been shaken, but southern whites used Black Codes and racial terrorism to reassert control over formerly enslaved people.

The Radical Republicans After The Death Of Thaddeus Stevens

Thaddeus Stevens died on August 11, 1868. After lying in the state in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, he was buried in a cemetery in Pennsylvania he had chosen as it allowed burials of both White and Black people.

The faction of Congress he had led continued, though without his fiery temperament much of the fury of the Radical Republicans subsided. Plus, they tended to support the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, who took office in March 1869.

The Voting Rights Act Of 1965

As a result of intimidation, violence, and racial discrimination in state voting laws, a mere 3 percent of voting-age black men and women in the South were registered to vote in 1940. In Mississippi, under 1 percent were registered. Most blacks who did vote lived in the larger cities of the South.

Attempts to change this situation were met with animosity and outright violence. But in the 1950s, the civil rights movement developed. Facing enormous hostility, black people in the South organized to demand their rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. They launched voter registration drives in many Southern communities.

In the early 1960s, black and white protesters, called Freedom Riders, came from the North to join in demonstrations throughout the South. In some places, crowds attacked them while white police officers looked on.

Medgar Evers, the black veteran stopped by a white mob from voting, became a civil rights leader in his native Mississippi. Because of his civil rights activities, he was shot and killed in front of his home by a white segregationist in 1963.

But through the efforts of local civil rights leaders like Medgar Evers and other Americans, about 43 percent of adult black men and women were registered to vote in the South by 1964. That same year, the 24th Amendment was ratified. It outlawed poll taxes in federal elections.

Iii The Meaning Of Black Freedom

Land was one of the major desires of the freed people. Frustrated by responsibility for the growing numbers of freed people following his troops, General William T. Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, in which land in Georgia and South Carolina was to be set aside as a homestead for the freedpeople. Sherman lacked the authority to confiscate and distribute land, so this plan never fully took effect. One of the main purposes of the Freedmens Bureau, however, was to redistribute lands to formerly enslaved people that had been abandoned and confiscated by the federal government. Even these land grants were short-lived. In 1866, land that ex-Confederates had left behind was reinstated to them.

In working to ensure that crops would be harvested, agents sometimes coerced formerly enslaved people into signing contracts with their former enslavers. However, the bureau also instituted courts where African Americans could seek redress if their employers were abusing them or not paying them. The last ember of hope for land redistribution was extinguished when Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumners proposed land reform bills were tabled in Congress. Radicalism had its limits, and the Republican Partys commitment to economic stability eclipsed their interest in racial justice.

0 notes