JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Tech Wants Kamala – and More!
Kamala Harris’ Silicon Valley fundraising has quickly outpaced Trump’s, despite his early inroads. But these wealthy tech donors have made no secret about what they might want in return, raising alarm bells with watchdog groups.
The Wars in Gaza and Ukraine Are the Same War
The wars in Gaza and Ukraine, though geographically distant, are strikingly similar in their fight against authoritarian aggression and defense of democracy. In this compelling analysis, Michael Mandelbaum explains why support for both conflicts is crucial to safeguarding Western values and interests worldwide.
The Limits of Electric Cars and the Benefits of Transit Solutions in Addressing Climate Change
Electric cars may seem like the answer to cutting emissions, but they only scratch the surface of our climate challenges. True sustainability lies in reimagining our cities with transit-focused solutions that can drastically reduce greenhouse gases and reshape our future.
Football, Politics, and Polarization: Tim Walz’s Struggle for West Texas Voters
Governor Tim Walz, a former football coach and centrist Democrat, faces an uphill battle resonating with West Texas voters, who view him through a lens shaped by conservative media. Despite sharing a working-class background with Trump’s VP pick JD Vance, Walz’s moderate record struggles to break through the polarization gripping this crucial voting bloc.
Zelensky’s Plan for Ukraine’s Victory: Will It Work Out?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ambitious plan for victory hinges on securing U.S. support as the war with Russia escalates, with critical battles like the Kursk offensive shaping the future of the conflict. As Ukraine faces relentless missile strikes and prepares for high-stakes peace negotiations, the world watches to see if Zelensky’s strategy will succeed in ending the war.
THE DANGEROUS CLIMATE MISINFORMATION IN THE TRUMP-MUSK CONVERSATION
In their recent live-streamed conversation, Donald Trump and Elon Musk perpetuated dangerous climate misinformation, dismissing critical scientific facts and spreading harmful myths about global warming. Despite rigorous fact-checking efforts, their misleading narratives risk influencing public perception and hindering effective climate action.
Harder Work, Higher Scrutiny: Kamala Harris and the Reality of Female Politics
Amid the relentless scrutiny and gender bias that define modern politics, Kamala Harris emerges as a figure of extraordinary resilience and strategic prowess. Morgan Davidson’s incisive piece delves into how Harris, and other female leaders, are not only overcoming stereotypes but also setting new standards of legislative effectiveness, making this a critical read for understanding the evolving dynamics of political leadership.
Reflections on School Shootings from an Educator
In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, educator Rudy Lurz revisits his 2018 reflections on the ineffectiveness of current political proposals to prevent future massacres. With personal insights and a breakdown of both Republican and Democratic approaches, Lurz challenges readers to confront the harsh reality that no simple solution exists.
At the 11th Hour: Can We Geoengineer the Carbon Genie Back into the Bottle?
As the clock ticks on climate change, scientists and corporations are racing to deploy geoengineering solutions like carbon capture and solar radiation modification. While these technologies offer hope, they also raise complex ethical and environmental concerns that could reshape global climate policy for decades to come.
Whose Republic Can Protect Democracy?
Whose Republic Can Protect Democracy?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #136 | By: Rudolph Lurz| August 10, 2024
Featured Photo: www.lawliberty.org
__________________________________
“A Republic…if you can keep it.”
Joe Biden quoted Ben Franklin during his Oval Office address explaining his withdrawal from the 2024 campaign. He used Ben Franklin’s words to urge his supporters to carry the banner of the ideals of the Founding Fathers and avoid falling into the trap of autocratic rule. President Biden, and now Vice President Harris, have made “defending democracy” a central theme of the Democratic Party’s campaign.
This same quote from Franklin is used by the Heritage Foundation to stress that America is a Republic, not a democracy, and measures must be taken to ensure that government remains limited in order to protect essential liberties. Such measures include defending the Electoral College and the ability for U.S. Senators to serve as many terms as they would like. Preserving the Republic, according to the Heritage Foundation, means “tempering egalitarian zeal and moderating the hope for a perfectly just democracy.”
President Trump himself called Joe Biden “the destroyer of democracy” at the beginning of the 2024 campaign, and blamed President Biden for a weaponization of the justice system against political opponents and turning America, in Trump’s words, into a Third World country.
The Heritage Foundation, President Biden, and former President Trump all claim to be the true defenders of the Republic, and two out of three quote Ben Franklin to prove their points.
Who is right? Whose Republic will America be in 2025?
Civics in the Spotlight
The defense of American democracy seems better suited for a high school civics debate than a presidential campaign. In most campaigns, it was a conceded point that both Democratic and Republican candidates agreed on basic civic principles.
This is no ordinary campaign. Low civics competency compounds these issues. In 2022, just 22% of American 8th graders were proficient in civics. In a recent survey of college students, over 50% of those contacted could not identify basic aspects of American government. 60% could not name the term limits of members of the U.S House of Representatives or U.S. Senate. Over 70% did not know that Kamala Harris was President of the Senate (28% named Joe Biden in this role). Over 50% could not name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts).
The GOP base seems remarkably consistent with their messaging on this issue, despite the gap in education levels between the Democratic base and the Republican base.
In 2016, following victory in the Nevada caucus, Donald Trump proclaimed, “I love the poorly educated,” which instantly became a meme on social media. His supporters felt the designation was unfair, because he also stated in his victory remarks that he won the highly educated as well as all other demographic categories of voters. Almost a decade later, the data suggests that those with lower education levels are much more likely to support former President Trump. In a recent Pew Research poll, taken just before President Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election, Mr. Biden led Mr. Trump among college graduates 50%-37%, while Mr. Trump had a sizable lead among those with no college degree (48%-34%).
Mr. Trump has good reason to love the poorly educated, because they are among his strongest supporters. Across social media, there is a consistent theme from Mr. Trump’s supporters stating, “We are a Republic, not a Democracy.”
From the average Trump foot soldier on social media to the erudite fellows at the Heritage Foundation, the GOP is on message with that declaration.
What’s the problem if both Heritage and President Biden quote Ben Franklin and laud the virtues of the American Republic? Does the American electorate have the civics competency to navigate the dueling messages?
Analysis
The vitriol and personal attacks which often follow Republic/Not Democracy social media posts offer clues to why Team Trump is amplifying civics. It’s not about civics. As I highlighted in a previous post analyzing GOP education policy, these measures are about consolidating power, not educating the public.
Despite the fact that nearly 70% of American college students could not name James Madison as the “Father of the Constitution”, Americans generally have positive feelings about their country’s founders. Mention things like the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, or The Federalist Papers and one would generally find a receptive response from the average citizen. Hamilton was a hit on Broadway and Hollywood. Americans know who these people are and love them.
Most Americans, even highly educated ones, do not have the civics competency levels to read deeper into what the Founding Fathers were actually saying. Confirmation bias is a problem. If Team Trump says that former President Trump is the true defender of the American Republic, those who lean right are likely to repeat Team Trump’s talking points on this issue. Those in the middle who recognize Hamilton from a musical but have never read The Federalist Papers will hear both parties quoting the same people and shrug the entire issue off as a draw.
The issue here is that even a draw benefits former President Trump. A more careful reading of The Federalist Papers, along with further analysis of recent work from conservative intellectuals, reveals that the intent behind this push for civics is about power, not liberty. They are using Hamilton, Madison, and The Federalist Papers as a Trojan Horse to prepare the American public for more executive power. The person intended to wield this power is Donald Trump during his second term in office.
When that power is wielded to curtail decades of democratic progress, the line of “We’re a Republic, not a Democracy” will be used to explain that everything is ok.
That is not what the Founders wanted when they forged the American Republic. They were wary of demagogues using the mob to grasp more and more power. They set up the checks and balances of the government to ensure that American liberty was safeguarded from these demagogues.
Donald Trump resembles the demagogues depicted by Hamilton and Madison more than Hamilton or Madison themselves.
Our Republic is dependent on civil and strenuous debate in the public sphere. Whoever wins the election in November should engage with critics instead of demanding that they kiss the ring of their feudal lord and swear fealty.
It is great that civic education is back in the spotlight. It is important that it is not used as a tool to bring the populace back into the shadows, erasing decades of social progress. To keep Franklin’s mission intact, we must actually read the works of the Founders. The Republic that President Biden mentioned in his Oval Office address requires defense. It’s our job to keep it.
Engagement Resources
- The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”: Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project
- Full Text of The Federalist Papers: Full Text of The Federalist Papers – Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History – Research Guides at Library of Congress (loc.gov)
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes, Part 2: “I got along with Putin.”
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes
Part 2: “I got along with Putin.”
Foreign Policy Brief #152 | By: Yelena Korshunov | August 09, 2024
Featured Photo: www.npr.org
__________________________________
Best Buddies
On February 22, 2022, when Russian troops had already spread along Ukrainian border ready to start in preparation of thanattack, Donald Trump described Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising him for a move that has provoked sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies. “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with the conservative The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
When later Trump said he would end the war in Ukraine in one day, it sparked immediate concern of the Ukrainian government that Trump’s simplistic plan would involve the U.S. attempting to cede Ukrainian land to Russia. In September 2023 at an interview on Meet the Press, NBC’s journalist Kristen Welker asked Trump about his plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Emphasizing his positive relationship with Putin, Trump claimed that “there was nobody tougher than me on Russia…I got along with Putin. Let me tell you, I got along with him really well. And that’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” Trump said. “He’s got 1,700 nuclear missiles. And so do we. But, look, that’s a good thing. Getting along is OK. But I got along through strength.”
In January 2024, giving an interview on FOX news, Trump said that it’s worth getting along with leaders of countries that have nuclear weapons. He recalled his good relationship with Putin and noted that if Hillary Clinton had become president in 2016, a nuclear war would have already begun. “You know, it’s good to get along with people like Putin… I had negotiations with Chairman Xi, I have excellent relations with them. If Hillary Clinton had won, you would have had a nuclear war with North Korea, Kim Jong Un. I got along with him too,” Trump said.
This year, on February 10th, CNN reported that Trump said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense. “NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump stated at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.” Trump said that “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the U.S. would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia while they “don’t pay.” “No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”
Russia’s Reaction to the Attempted Assassination of Trump
The recent assassination attempt on Trump was followed by an immediate reaction by Russia’s officials. According to the RBC (Russia’s TV news channel) the Kremlin linked the assassination attempt to the political atmosphere in the United States. The press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov commented on TV that “the style of work of the US presidential administration is to resolve issues by force without seeking compromises, including in world affairs. We are talking about economic pressure through sanctions, political pressure, or the use of coercive methods, military force, but now the violence has actually been transferred inside the United States.”
According to Peskov, “the threat to Trump’s life was obvious to everyone after many attempts to eliminate him as a candidate from the political arena through legal means. “
Trump’s Peace Plan Supports Putin and Disregards NATO
A day after officially accepting the Republican nomination for president, Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced they conversed by phone, as the U.S. presidential race hangs over the future of the war in Ukraine. According to both sides, this conversation was more traditionally diplomatic, with Zelenskyy congratulating Trump on officially becoming the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. Zelensky stated that he also emphasized the importance of the US support for Ukraine amid a third year of Russia’s invasion and added that he and Trump agreed “to discuss at a personal meeting what steps can make peace fair and truly lasting.”
Trump has pledged to swiftly end the war in Ukraine if reelected in November, going so far as to state he would negotiate peace before he assumes office in January, and has disparagingly called Zelenskyy “the greatest salesman of all time” for his efforts to secure billions of dollars in military, economic and humanitarian aid from Washington. Later, Trump said in a social media post that he will “end the war” and that “both sides will be able to come together and negotiate a deal that ends the violence.” However, Trump did not elaborate on the terms he would accept.
Vladimir Putin doesn’t make a secret out of his attempt to rebuild the former Soviet Union by forcefully returning its 15 ex-republics under his governess. Russia’s politicians persistently speak about Finland and Poland that once were a part of the “great Russian Imperia”. Considering Donald Trump’s steady avoidance of discussing the terms of peace and his personal relation with Russia’s president, could his peace plan involve handing away Ukrainian territories? If so, would this not increase Russia’s revanchist appetite for other sovereign countries’ lands?
This is Part 2 of a running series on Putin and Trump’s connections. For Part 1, please click here.
Engagement Resources
- Trump ‘compromising’ claims: How and why did we get here? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427
- Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
- Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough, https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Current Events in a Post-Roe V. Wade Era
Current Events in a Post-Roe V. Wade Era
Health and Gender Policy Brief #175 | By: Geoffrey Small | August 08, 2024
Featured Photo: www.pbs.org
__________________________________
More than two years have passed since The Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade. The Court upheld a 2018 law in the State of Mississippi that prohibited abortion operations after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization, authored the main model the 2018 Mississippi legislation administered. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, challenged the prohibitive law by suing State Health Officer Thomas E. Dobbs. As a result of multiple State District and Fifth Circuit court appeals, which all ruled against Mississippi’s legislation, the case was presented before the Supreme Court. In 2022, the Court’s decision to uphold Mississippi’s law led to a major reversal in Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision protecting the general constitutional right to have an abortion. It also reversed Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a ruling that ensured states’ abortion laws were not overly restrictive. As a result of this reversal, a wave of policy proposals, legal challenges and state legislation has been enacted. This has created a constant upheaval in U.S. reproductive rights. This series will explore these current events that will impact abortions throughout the United States.
Policy Analysis
On July 29th, President Joe Biden wrote an Op-ed for the Washington Post unveiling his plans to reform the Supreme Court. He cites two major decisions that led to these proposals; the recent Trump v. The United States decision declaring a president has immunity for official acts and the recent decision that reversed Roe v. Wade. In the Op-ed, Biden proposed the “No One is Above the Law Amendment” to the Constitution, which declares no immunity for crimes a president committed during his time in office. Biden’s second proposal enacts 18-year term limits on Supreme Court Justices. His third proposal is creating a binding code of conduct for justices, which require them to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, and recuse themselves from cases where they, or their spouse, have a financial conflict of interest.
The following day after Biden’s Oped was released, Mylissa Farmer a woman from Kansas City, sued the University of Kansas Health System for refusing to give her an abortion that was deemed medically necessary. She is accusing the University of violating federal laws on emergency room treatment in 2022. The filed federal lawsuit may be the first post-Roe v. Wade case against a hospital. Farmer suffered a premature rupture of membranes at 18 weeks of pregnancy. The pregnancy was determined to be no longer viable and an abortion was needed for Farmer to avoid major health complications. However, at the time of her emergency, the state of Kansas was in the process of deciding on a referendum to eliminate the right to abortion in their constitution. The hospital refused to treat Farmer because it was deemed too “risky” in a “heated” political environment. The referendum ultimately did not pass and the right to abortion was upheld. Farmer stated that the hospital had violated the Emergency Medical Treatment Labor Act, which requires hospitals to stabilize patients with medical emergencies, as well as Kansas anti-discrimination laws.
Until reproductive rights are enshrined in the U.S. constitution, policy proposals, lawsuits, and state laws will continue to change the landscape in accessibility to abortions in the United States. This series will continue to provide the current events that highlight reproductive instability in a post Roe v. Wade environment.
Engagement Resources
Document Resources
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/
- https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpglmaxlvq/Farmer v University of Kansas complaint 7-30.pdf
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Challenges of Appealing The Trump Classified Documents Case
The Challenges of Appealing The Trump Classified Documents Case
Civil Rights Policy Brief #229 | By: Rod Maggay | July 29, 2024
Featured Photo by Indy SIlva for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary: On July 15, 2024 Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case United States v. Trump. The case was popularly known as the “classified documents” case because it pertained to Donald Trump’s retention of classified government documents after he left the White House. The basis for Judge Cannon’s order was that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Two days later the United States Department of Justice approved and Special Counsel Smith filed an official notice of appeal. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against former President Donald J. Trump is a difficult decision to comprehend. It is a questionable decision to understand because of the numerous legal precedents it simply sweeps aside and ignores. There are numerous legal authorities that suggest that the case should not have been decided in the manner Judge Cannon decided the case.
But Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team and the government are going to have another chance to plead their case to bring the case again as two days after the dismissal, Mr. Smith and his team filed a notice of appeal. But the appeal is not for certain and can go in different directions.
The most routine and expected way is for the appeal to go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles appeals from cases originating in Florida federal courts. The Eleventh Circuit has already heard appeals from Trump cases coming out of Judge Cannon’s courtroom and their decisions have been highly critical of decisions and rulings that Judge Cannon has made. Ever since Judge Cannon decided to ignore legal precedent and dismiss the classified documents case, many legal scholars believe that bringing an appeal to this appeals court is the best chance to overturn Judge Cannon’s order of dismissal because of their direct criticisms of how she has handled Trump’s case before. They will not be hesitant in criticizing Judge Cannon. An appeals court will likely not allow stand a federal district court judge simply deciding to ignore settled law and decide a case contrary to what other courts have already decided with regard to the constitutionality of the appointment of a special counsel. However, one of the challenges of taking an appeal to this court of appeals is that it will likely delay the case and almost certainly will prevent the case from being tried before the November 2024 presidential election.
An alternative route that Jack Smith and his team could take is a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Jack Smith had tried this before when he appealed directly to the Supreme Court in the election interference case being heard in a Washington D.C. federal court regarding the issue of presidential immunity. The Supreme Court then refused to hear this expedited appeal direct from a district trial court. Only later did the Supreme Court accept the appeal but only after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Trump. An appeal to the high court might face similar hurdles. An appeal would certainly help expedite the case but a ruling from a conservative leaning court could complicate matters tremendously. An appeal to the highest court of the land might result in a decision that might validate Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the case and end the case completely. This is the risk of having this court with a conservative majority getting involved.
Now is just a wait and see moment. Based on information from the briefing notice from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Jack Smith and his team of attorneys have until August 27th, 2024 to submit their opening brief. After that, a responsive brief from Mr. Trump and his attorneys will be due near the end of September 2024 with Mr. Smith allowed one last reply brief around the middle of October. After that, it is anyone’s guess when the appeals court will issue a ruling but almost certainly not before Election Day. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- VOA News – history of special counsel investigations.
- PBS – history of special counsels with more analysis of the cases and legal issues involved.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
Resilience and Tradition: The Political Heartbeat of West Texas
Resilience and Tradition: The Political Heartbeat of West Texas
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #135 | By: Morgan Davidson| August 05, 2024
Featured Photo: www.reddit.com/r/texas
__________________________________
From the Cadillacs of Amarillo to the deserts of the Permian Basin, West Texas is known for its oil, agriculture, and conservatism. The people here are gritty, hardworking, gun-loving, God-fearing, and Friday night fanatics, embodying an underdog spirit born from their characterization and the implicit acknowledgment of being overlooked at both state and federal levels. Who are the people of West Texas?
Analysis
According to Census data, West Texas, home to 2,063,830 people (about 7% of the state’s population), is divided by the Texas Comptroller into three sub-regions: West Texas, the High Plains, and Northwest Texas. Each sub-region has unique demographics, economic traits, and cultural identities, shaping the political landscape and voting behavior of West Texas.
West Texas, my home area, has a median age of 33.1 years, a college education rate of 14.5%, and an average household income of $59,700. It is a majority-minority region, with 53.1% Hispanic or Latino, 39.3% White, 4.2% Black, 1.4% two or more races, and 0.9% Asian, including the metropolitan areas of Midland, Odessa, and San Angelo.
The High Plains (Panhandle) has a median age of 33.6 years, 16.3% with a college degree, and an average household income of $56,413. Its population is 50.2% White, 40.1% Hispanic or Latino, 5.7% Black, 2% two or more races, and 2% Asian, encompassing Lubbock and Amarillo.
Northwest Texas has a median age of 37.4 years, a college education rate of 15.1%, and an average household income of $54,037. Its population is 65.5% White, 24% Hispanic or Latino, 6.4% Black, 2.7% two or more races, and 1.4% Asian, including Abilene and Wichita Falls.
Statewide, Texas has a median age of 35 years, a college education rate of 33.9%, and an average household income of $72,284. The population is 39.8% White, 40.2% Hispanic or Latino, 12.5% Black, 5.5% Asian, and 2.1% two or more races. The region’s lower educational attainment and household incomes contrast with statewide averages and highlight the challenges and opportunities facing West Texas.
In the 2020 election, the 20 counties comprising the seven metro areas in West Texas accounted for 371,307 votes for Donald Trump, representing 58.82% of the difference between Biden and Trump in the state. This figure only includes metro counties, not the surrounding deep-red rural counties, where the lowest vote share for Trump was 68.9%. Despite making up only 7% of the state’s population, voters in West Texas significantly prevent the state from being more competitive electorally.
In Texas, discussing politics inevitably involves the border. In West Texas, key concerns include stopping illegal immigration, combating fentanyl, and preventing the spread of cartels and crime. Lubbock, as the region’s hub city, often reports high violent crime rates compared to the state and nation. Republicans have a strong advantage on border issues, with West Texas voters viewing Democrats as too radical on the issue.
Economic concerns in West Texas primarily center around the region’s dependence on oil and agriculture. Many view policies like the Green New Deal as threats to their way of life. Although not everyone is directly involved in these industries, growing up in West Texas fosters a conservative bond that is deeply-rooted.
Religion strongly reinforces conservative beliefs in West Texas. It’s common to see multiple churches in small towns with populations of just a few thousand. Voters in the region hold firm to American principles such as limited government, the right to bear arms, and lower taxes, viewing these as core to their ideology. The region’s norms contribute to its consistently conservative stance.
Do Democrats have an inroad? If they did Texas has the lowest percentage of insured individuals, and with rising medical costs, Democrats could appeal to those in an area with below-state-average incomes. Water scarcity and drilling limitations are growing issues in West Texas. If Republicans continue to ignore climate concerns, Democrats might gain ground if persistent droughts exacerbate the water crisis.
The best chance for Democrats is to engage directly with voters. Beto O’Rourke’s 254-county tour energized the Democratic base by showing up. In a state where leaders often seem detached, Democrats can make a difference by addressing local grievances and making residents feel seen. Campaigning in the areas could counteract negative caricatures in conservative media and boost support.
West Texas’s blend of resilience, traditional values, and reliance on oil and agriculture shapes its strong conservative stance. Democrats could find opportunities by addressing local issues like healthcare, water scarcity, and engaging directly with voters with genuine concern. While Republicans must continue to align with the region’s values and show up to maintain their stronghold.
Engagement Resources
- The “Texas Take” podcast offers in-depth analysis and discussion of Texas politics and policy, featuring insights from experienced journalists on the state’s latest political developments and key issues. https://open.spotify.com/show/7nrIy8PBrkRmySACgW1mzS
- The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit news organization providing in-depth, nonpartisan coverage of Texas politics, policy, and statewide issues, aiming to inform and engage the public through investigative reporting and data-driven journalism. https://www.texastribune.org/
- The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a conservative think tank that advocates for limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. They conduct research and analysis on various policy issues affecting Texas, including energy, education, and healthcare. https://www.texaspolicy.com/
- The Texas Freedom Network is a progressive organization that advocates for religious freedom, civil liberties, and public education. They work to counter the influence of far-right policies in Texas politics and promote progressive values. https://tfn.org/
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes, Part 1: The Russian Trace
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes
Part 1: The Russian Trace
Foreign Policy Brief #151 | By: Yelena Korshunov | August 05, 2024
Featured Photo: www.americanprogress.org
__________________________________
Suspected backstage political connections and long-term mutual curtsies of former US president Donald Trump and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin have been in the center of intelligence investigation and public attention from the time of the US presidential elections in 2016.
Suspected Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
In 2017 The New York Times revealed the Trump team’s connections with the Russians, along with attempts to sway the F.B.I. director, James Comey. (SWAY COMEY TO DO WHAT; PLEASE EXPLAIN. Later, in May 2018, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who joined Trump’s legal team, told Fox News that president Donald Trump fired James Comey because the former FBI director wouldn’t offer public assurances that Trump wasn’t a target of an investigation. “He fired him and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy,’” declaired Giuliani.
According to the New York Times, Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections and Vladimir Putin’s desire to establish control over eastern Ukraine could be linked. This assumption was based on FBI director Robert Mueller’s documents from the “Russia investigation” conducted by the intelligence committee of the US Senate and on dozens of interviews and other materials.
The central figure of this case is Paul Manafort, the head of Donald Trump’s election campaign, who worked for many years in Ukraine with former Ukrainian pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych, and his colleague in Ukrainian projects Konstantin Kilimnik, whom American investigators consider an agent of Russia’s intelligence (Klimnik denies this). In August 2016, Kilimnik presented to Paul Manafort the so-called “Mariupol Plan” developed to create an autonomous republic in eastern Ukraine. The plan had to be headed by Viktor Yanukovych, former pro-Russian Ukrainian president who fled to Russia in 2014.) These territories would be under the control of Putin while formally remaining a part of Ukraine.
According to The New York Times, this plan essentially coincides with what Putin is trying to achieve in Ukraine by annexing Ukrainian territory captured during the war. Russian interference in the US presidential election is believed to have been aimed at damaging Trump’s rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The implementation of the “Mariupol Plan” would have been impossible without the participation of the United States and would be a pay for the Russia’s interference in the US election supporting Trump in his presidential race. The New York Times writes that all this was the conclusion of the prosecutors who discovered the existence of the plan. The article notes that Trump’s victory in elections was necessary for the implementation of the “Mariupol Plan”, since Hillary Clinton as the US president would not have agreed to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.
In November 2023 CBS News declared that materials from a binder containing highly sensitive intelligence related to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election went missing at the end of the Trump administration and have not yet been recovered. It’s not clear whether the disappeared information was an official document or a compendium of things put together by former president Trump’s allies in the administration.
Vladimir Putin about Donald Trump, “We had such a personal relationship.”
In June 2019, Putin and Trump held a bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka. The day before, in an interview with the Financial Times, Vladimir Putin praised Donald Trump, describing him as a “talented person” having “a very keen sense of what the voter expects from him.”
Later, In February 2024, at the interview with Tucker Carlson in Moscow, Putin emphasized that “Trump and I had such a personal relationship.”
On July 4, 2024, Reuters reported from Astana (the capital of Kazakhstan where Putin arrived) that the Russian president expressed his belief that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was sincere about wanting to end the war in Ukraine. “The fact that Mr. Trump, as a presidential candidate, declares that he is ready and wants to stop the war in Ukraine, we take this completely seriously,” Putin said. “I am not, of course, familiar with possible proposals for how he plans to do this. This is the key question. But I have no doubt that he means it sincerely, and we support it (the idea of ending the war).” The Washington Post reported in April that Trump had privately spoken about the option of allowing Putin to keep Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, and the Donbas area – which Russian forces partially control – in return for peace. However, Trump’s campaign didn’t confirm it officially.
What makes Russia’s president so loyal and supportive toward former US president Donald Trump — who is currently betting on securing his second term in office? What supports this warm attitude in the background of Russia’s official hate of the US and the entire Western world? Part 2 of this brief may bring us closer to the answer.
Engagement Resources
- Russian Interference in 2016 U.S. Elections, https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl
- Putin Says He Thinks Trump is Sincere About Ending Ukraine War, https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-preference-biden-remains-unchanged-despite-debate-2024-07-04/
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Olympic Games Political and Social Issues, Early Update
Olympic Games Political and Social Issues, Early Update
Foreign Policy Brief #150 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | July 31, 2024
Featured Photo: www.healthnews.com
__________________________________
The Paris 2024 Olympic Games held their opening ceremony a little over 24 hours ago. In the opening day or two of the games there has already been criminal activity attempting to disrupt the Games, a doping scandal, water quality tests and checks of the Seine, and the misidentification of South Korea as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (otherwise known as North Korea). It has been a busy, and eventful opening to a historic and monumental Olympic Games. There have also been several medals awarded, including a few for Team USA.
Analysis
Paris 2024, in the build up to the Games, was pegged as being a monumental opportunity for the world as the first post-pandemic Olympic Games. It has been made into a transition point for society to move beyond the pandemic and get back to normalcy. The Games held their historic opening ceremony with the parade of nations taking place on the Seine; making it the first time an opening ceremony has been held outside of a stadium (let alone on a series of boats moving down one of the most famous rivers in the world).
Security has been a large question at these Olympic Games, and early in the day, before the Opening Ceremony, there were concerns about security as railway lines in and around Paris were the target of, what appears to be, criminal arson. The ceremony is also drawing criticism from right-wing media outlets in the United States for a depiction of The Feast of Dionysus (or Bacchus), the Greek god of wine, due to the false interpretation that it was depicting the The Last Supper painting of Jesus and his apostles. The criticism is largely due to the presence of “drag queens”, as the Associated Press stated, and many icons of the LGBTQ+ community to represent the inclusivity of French society.
Also during the Opening Ceremony, the Olympic officials introduced The Republic of Korea (otherwise known as, South Korea) as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (also known as, North Korea) – which has seemed to lead toward a diplomatic issue, and an official apology from the IOC President Thomas Bach to the President of South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, according to ESPN.
The Seine has also been the cause of controversy, and concern, due to the water quality of the river. There are several events set to take place in the river, such as the Olympic Triathlon and other open-water swimming events. For months there have been concerns of these events being altered or canceled due to higher levels of E. Coli. Olympic and city officials have been working on lowering these concerns, the mayor of Paris – Anne Hidalgo – took a swim in the river just about a week ago.
When it comes to the Olympics, and many other high-level sporting tournaments, doping is always a concern; especially, after the Olympics in Sochi where the Russian Federation created a state-sponsored doping program for many of their athletes across all sports. Very early on in the Games, an Iraqi judoka, Sajjad Sehen, tested positive for various steroids – marking the first positive test at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. As the opening days have gone on, a Nigerian boxer, Cynthia Ogunsemilore, tested positive for furosemide. Furosemide is a banned substance in international sports, and is often used for two different purposes: the first being to mask other substances that may be discovered via testing a urine sample, and the second would be to help lose weight via loss of water/fluids, as it is a diuretic. According to NPR, the Chinese swimming team is under the microscope and are denying accusations of doping. Prior to the 2021 Games in Tokyo, there were 23 swimmers who had positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs; of those 23 athletes, 11 of them are competing in Paris. Adding to the drama and accusations, is that some of those 11 swimmers (who tested positive at the previous games) have already won medals in Paris. China also is leading the medal count at the time of my writing this brief; and Team USA is sitting in fifth place.
Engagement Resources:
- World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List 2024 – https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/2024list_en_final_22_september_2023.pdf
- Olympics Live Updates – https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024
For more on the Olympics, check out USResistNews.org/Olympics.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
AI: Is It Worth the Climate Cost?
AI: Is It Worth the Climate Cost?
Technology Policy Brief #113 | By: Mindy Spatt | June 31, 2024
Featured Photo by Indy Silva for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________
A dire one-sentence warning from the Center for AI Safety reads “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war. It was signed by prominent engineers and executives in the field including Sam Altman, chief executive of Open AI, and Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic. The threat AI poses to the environment wasn’t included, but by all estimates is equally alarming and is already having a huge impact on greenhouse emissions and water use.
Analysis
Google grabbed headlines a few years ago by announcing that it intended to be carbon neutral by 2030. However, a recent company report shows that goal is further away than ever before; emissions last year were 48% higher than in 2019. Tech giants Microsoft and Meta have also reported higher emissions and increased water use. The culprits? Data centers and the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
With that growth, policymakers and researchers are raising critical concerns about the vast amounts of water and energy AI requires, which is growing by leaps and bounds. That’s because data centers consume energy in proportion to their computational workload. Training AI models involves continuous and intricate computations on vast databases using increasingly larger hardware setups. All this energy consumption generates heat, hence the need for vast amounts of water to cool things down.
According to the World Economic Forum, the energy required to power AI is accelerating by up to 36 percent annually. In addition, the “computational power required for sustaining AI’s rise is doubling roughly every 100 days. This means by 2028, AI could be using more power than the entire country of Iceland used in 2021.”
The International Energy Agency estimates the energy use from data centers that power AI will double in just the next two years, reaching 1,000 terawatts, as much energy as the entire country of Japan uses.
These estimates don’t include the additional energy drain of cooling, the amount of which is dependent on where data centers are located; in some locations, it could add as much as 50% to energy use.
The impacts of that energy use also vary. A report by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization Friends of the Earth (FOE) predicts that absent major changes AI will “only exacerbate environmental injustice. Marginalized communities continue to bear the brunt of climate change and fossil fuel production, and studies are already finding that AI’s carbon footprint and local resource use tend to be heavier in regions reliant on fossil fuels.” FOE’s view is that the risk of misinformation about the climate being created and disseminated by AI is also an urgent concern.
The World Economic Forum and other critics suggest that AI’s negative impacts on the environment can be mitigated by the potential of the technology for innovation in the energy industry including improvements in weather predictions, making smart grids even smarter, and streamlining methods of delivering renewable energy. These arguments are very similar to the ones made by California utilities during the Smart Meter wars of the 2010s when expensive new digital meters were installed over customers’ objections under the guise that the usage data they produced would help consumers use electricity more efficiently and help utility companies avoid wildfires. Neither has proven true.
And in the end isn’t the smartest solution, perhaps the only solution to climate change, to reduce emissions? And the dumbest to increase them?
Alex de Vries, a data scientist in the Netherlands who studies the energy costs of emerging technologies and has critiqued cryptocurrency for its carbon footprint, said in an interview with Scientific American “I think it’s healthy to at least include sustainability when we talk about the risk of AI. When we talk about the potential risk of errors, the unknowns of the black box, or AI discrimination bias, we should be including sustainability as a risk factor as well.”
And he raises the obvious question that other analysts seem to avoid. Do we really need to be using this technology in the first place?
Engagement Resources:
- Friends of the Earth, Artificial Intelligence Threats to Climate Change
- Peter Herweck, Climate Change Won’t Wait for AI — And We Must Not Either, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Jan 8, 2024
- David Berreby, As Use of A.I. Soars, So Does the Energy and Water It Requires, Feb. 6, 2024
Check out USResistNews.org/AI for more news on Artificial Intelligence policies, technologies, and trends.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
Judge Aileen Cannon’s Dismissal of Trump’s Case Ignores Legal Precedent and History
Judge Aileen Cannon’s Dismissal of Trump’s Case Ignores Legal Precedent and History
Civil Rights Policy Brief #228 | By: Rod A. Maggay | July 29, 2024
Featured Photo: www.secure.numero.ai
__________________________________
On Jul 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an order granting former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment in the criminal case United States v. Trump. The basis of Judge Cannon’s order is that the appointment of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to pursue the case against Mr. Trump was in violation of two sections of the United States Constitution – the Appointments Clause and an Appropriations Limitation Clause found in Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Article II, Section Two, Clause Two of the Appointments Clause provides that the President shall appoint all Ambassadors, members of the Supreme Court and all other officers. Additionally, the President is empowered to make all other appointments (usually referred to as “inferior officers”) that are established by law. Article One, Section Nine, Clause Seven of the Constitution refers to funding and while Judge Aileen Cannon mentions that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment violated this clause too because of the indefinite period of funding for his activities, she did not rely on it to dismiss the case. She relied only on the Appointments Clause. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: In the long history of the use of special counsels and special prosecutor’s in this nation’s history, how did it get to the point where a federal district judge seemingly out of the blue declared them unconstitutional?
It starts with former President Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, D.C. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court that he had broad immunity for a number of actions he took while President. The Supreme Court issued their landmark decision and made it a point that presidential immunity must distinguish between official acts and unofficial acts before proceeding with a criminal case. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case (not joined by any other member of the Court) that questioned the constitutionality of the appointment of special counsels and prosecutors. Justice Thomas reasoned that if a special counsel is a “principal officer” then he must be appointed by a President and then be confirmed by the Senate, similar to the selection of Supreme Court Justices. If a special counsel is considered an “inferior officer” Senate approval would not be required but a congressional statute authorizing a special counsel would still be needed. Currently, there is no congressional statute on the books authorizing the appointment of a special counsel or special prosecutor. This language in Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion is what Judge Cannon seized on to rule on her motion dismissing Trump’s criminal case.
However, Judge Aileen Cannon may have committed judicial malpractice in her order because of how she ignored legal precedents, even a unanimous prior Supreme Court case. In the 1974 case United States v. Nixon that arose out of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a President had to hand over documents and tapes to a special prosecutor. They also analyzed the appointment of the special prosecutor and found it to be valid under the law at the time. The rule appointing special prosecutors was later changed in the 1990’s and written into Department of Justice regulations with input by members of Congress. However, since Congress did not officially vote to make these new regulations law, the appointment of special prosecutors is viewed in some circles as not legally valid. But other lower court cases have reviewed the appointment of special counsels and held them to be valid – notably in 1987 when reviewing the appointment of a special counsel for the Iran – Contra scandal and in 2019 when reviewing the appointment of Robert Mueller III to investigate ties between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals. However, Judge Cannon has rejected all of these precedents and proceeded to use Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion as the basis for her order dismissing the case.
The amazing thing about Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in the presidential immunity case was that it was not necessary. Judges and Justices are trained to only rule on the issues before them and only those issues are binding precedent on all other lower courts. But by bringing up the issue of the constitutionality of appointment of special prosecutors, Justice Thomas put the issue out there for other judges and Trump defense attorneys to grasp on. A judge has now decided to use it as the basis for her order and sets up the possibility that other Trump cases will use this issue to delay the case, set up a likely lengthy appeals process and maybe even have other Trump cases dismissed. As disappointing as Judge Cannon’s decision was, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and his team are now in the process of appealing Judge Aileen Cannon’s order to see if they can have her misguided order overturned. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- VOA News – history of special counsel investigations.
- PBS – history of special counsels with more analysis of the cases and legal issues involved.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
President Biden Drops Out, Vice President Harris Moves In
President Biden Drops Out, Vice President Harris Moves In
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #134 | By: Arvind Salem| July 25, 2024
Featured Photo: www.wpr.org
__________________________________
President Biden, on July 21st, ended his candidacy for re-election stepping down and then endorsing Vice President Harris for the nomination, although the convention is technically open and anyone can win the nomination. Biden promises to address the nation later this week to further explain his dramatic decision.
Biden withdrew over concerns about his mental acuity and repeated polls showing that he was down nationally and that he could drag down-ballot candidates down with him if he remained on the ticket. His poor performance in the debate, a disappointing follow up interview, and continued gaffes, resulted in a cascade of Democratic donors, party insiders, and even grassroots voters calling for Biden’s resignation. Some were so concerned there was speculation about forcing Biden out even with his pledged delegates.
The Democratic party since this withdrawal, has lauded Biden for making the right decision. Yet that leaves the party in disarray just over 3 months until Election Day. Mobilizing the infrastructure and political momentum to beat Donald Trump when he is at his strongest, and the Democratic Party is close to their weakest, will be difficult regardless of the new nominee. If this nominee doesn’t work out, there is no time to replace them.
Analysis:
Vice President Harris has access to the Biden campaign’s millions of dollars in funding, which could prove to be a huge advantage. Additionally, Harris has significant experience as vice-president and has been tested on a national stage, which some other possible replacements (the governors) have not been. Harris also has the advantage of the public backing of Rep Jim Clyburn, who has acted as a kingmaker for the Democratic party, since his support for Biden was crucial in his 2020 primary win.
Extremely strong candidates, such as Governors Whitmer and Newsom, have publicly stated they wouldn’t contest the nomination even if Biden stepped aside. They then publicly endorsed Vice President Harris. A bevy of governors also threw their support behind Harris, including some that were viewed as possible candidates themselves: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Maryland Governor Wes, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (Minn.), Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. Voices at the top rung of the party have also endorsed Harris, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons. Notably, President Obama hasn’t yet endorsed Harris, but it is widely thought that is because he is against intervening in the nomination process by principle, rather than having reservations against Harris. Some of those who endorsed Harris, chiefly Andy Beshear and Josh Shapiro, are viewed as strong picks for vice-president.
According to polls Harris is making up ground relative to Biden against Donald Trump, but Trump is still ahead. There is huge variance in these polls, and they tested Harris as a hypothetical nominee, whereas now she is the presumptive nominee. Those polls clearly show that Harris has the potential to beat Trump, whereas Biden towards the end had essentially no chance. The views on Harris tend to be less concrete, meaning she has a lower floor, but a higher ceiling than Biden, and that these next few months will be crucial in shaping her image. This switch also takes away the Republicans chief criticism of the Democrats, which was Biden’s senility, and resets the news cycle to focus on Harris rather than the favorable news coverage towards Trump (Biden’s poor debate performance, failed assisination attempt, and pressure on Biden to withdraw). Harris’s candidacy is also re-energizing the party: she raised a record 81 million in the first 24 hours of her candidacy.
Engagement Resources:
- Harris for President: Readers interested in donating or otherwise supporting Harris’s campaign for President can go to this site to get involved.
- ActBlue: ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers who want to support the whole Democratic party can visit this website to learn more.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.