Monday, June 8, 2020

RSN: FOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump's Use of the Military Backfired – but Will It Back Him if He Refuses to Go?









Reader Supported News
08 June 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News





FOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump's Use of the Military Backfired – but Will It Back Him if He Refuses to Go?
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Robert Reich, Guardian UK
Reich writes: "History teaches that mass protests against oppression can lead either to liberation or brutal repression."


Faced with the George Floyd protests, the president wants to be seen as a strongman. What happens if he loses at the polls?


istory teaches that mass protests against oppression can lead either to liberation or brutal repression.

This past week, Donald Trump bet his political future on repression. Much of the rest of America, on the other hand, wants to liberate black people from police brutality and centuries of systemic racism. As of this writing, it looks like Trump is losing and America winning, but the contest is hardly over.

Trump knows he can’t be re-elected on his disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic or on what’s likely to be a tepid economic recovery. But he must believe a racist campaign could work. After all, stoking racism got him into the White House in the first place.

The protests against George Floyd’s brutal killing by Minneapolis police seemed like a golden opportunity. 

“The nation needs law and order,” Trump responded immediately, repeating the phrase that propelled Richard Nixon to the presidency after a summer of black unrest across the country.

His trump card was threatening to send federal troops into American cities. Trump called on states to bring in the military to combat “lowlifes and losers”, promising “total domination” of protesters and telling governors “if you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time.” Previous presidents haven’t even used this language to describe invading other countries.

But Trump overplayed his hand.

He looked like a deranged dictator, an impression made all the more vivid as officers in riot gear used flash grenades and chemical spray (a weapon banned in war) on peaceful protesters to clear a path for Trump to walk from the White House through Lafayette Square to a photo op in front of St John’s church.

It was too much even for Trump’s own top military brass. The defense secretary, Mark Esper, insisted military personnel “be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations”. Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, reminded the armed services of the rights of their fellow citizens to free assembly, adding: “We all committed our lives to the idea that is America – we will stay true to that oath and the American people.”

But it was Trump’s own former secretary of defense, James Mattis, whose rebuke cut deepest.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people,” Mattis said. “Instead he tries to divide us … We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our constitution.”

It was an “emperor-has-no-clothes” moment that prompted the Republican senator Lisa Murkowski to admit she was considering not voting for Trump and suggest other Senate Republicans felt the same way. 

“Perhaps we’re getting to the point where we can be more honest with the concerns that we might hold internally and have the courage of our own convictions to speak up,” she said.

Trump expected white voters to recoil from the rioting and looting. Over the past week, Fox News obliged by mentioning rioting or rioters six times as much as CNN. But 64% of Americans sympathize with the protesters and appear receptive to stopping police brutality and 55% disapprove of Trump’s response.

Black Americans are now more committed than ever to defeating him in November. More than 80% believe he’s a racist. If black voters return to the polls at 2012 levels, Joe Biden would win the electoral college 294-244, according to the Center for American Progress.

College-educated white people and younger voters have also been galvanized against Trump. The most racially diverse generations in American history, millennials and Gen Z voters could make up as much as 37% of the electorate this year.

But although Trump’s response to the protests seems to have backfired, it also raises a troubling question. If Trump loses and refuses to give up the presidency, will the military support him?

The possibility is hardly far-fetched. As Trump’s former bagman Michael Cohen warned in congressional testimony in March 2019, “I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 there will never be a peaceful transition of power.” After winning in 2016, Trump claimed without evidence that 3-5m votes were illegally counted for Hillary Clinton.

A former chairman of joint chiefs of staff, Adm Mike Mullen, wrote recently that although he remains “confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform”, he is “deeply worried” they “will be co-opted for political purposes”.

If that happens, the mass protests against decades of harsh policing and unjust killings of Black Americans will be followed by another uprising, this time against Trump’s murder of American democracy.



READ MORE













Watch: US Senate Debate between Ed Markey, Joe Kennedy


















RSN: FOCUS: Defund the Police? Here's What That Really Means.







Reader Supported News
08 June 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News





FOCUS: Defund the Police? Here's What That Really Means.
A memorial to George Floyd set up near where he was arrested. (photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters)
Christy E. Lopez, The Washington Post
Lopez writes: "Be not afraid. 'Defunding the police' is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds, and engaging on this topic is necessary if we are going to achieve the kind of public safety we need."


ince George Floyd’s death, a long-simmering movement for police abolition has become part of the national conversation, recast slightly as a call to “defund the police.” For activists, this conversation is long overdue. But for casual observers, this new direction may seem a bit disorienting — or even alarming.
Be not afraid. “Defunding the police” is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds, and engaging on this topic is necessary if we are going to achieve the kind of public safety we need. During my 25 years dedicated to police reform, including in places such as Ferguson, Mo., New Orleans and Chicago, it has become clear to me that “reform” is not enough. Making sure that police follow the rule of law is not enough. Even changing the laws is not enough.
To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.
Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.
Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.
Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety. It means recognizing that criminalizing addiction and poverty, making 10 million arrests per year and mass incarceration have not provided the public safety we want and never will. The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery. That aspect of policing must be literally abolished.
Still, even as we try to shift resources from policing to programs that will better promote fairness and public safety, we must continue the work of police reform. We cannot stop regulating police conduct now because we hope someday to reduce or eliminate our reliance on policing. We must ban chokeholds and curb the use of no-knock warrants; we must train officers how to better respond to people in mental health crises, and we must teach officers to be guardians, not warriors, to intervene to prevent misconduct and to understand and appreciate the communities they serve.
Why must we work on parallel tracks? First, all police will not be defunded or abolished anytime soon, and we cannot wait to make changes that will save lives and reduce policing harm now. Experienced advocates know this. This is why, for example, Campaign Zero just launched the #8cantwait campaign, which urges law enforcement agencies to immediately adopt eight use of force reforms, even as it continues its divest/invest strategy to end police killings.
More fundamentally, we must continue with reforms because abolition doesn’t go far enough. Policing didn’t invent America’s institutionalized racism, social inequity or stereotyped masculinity: Policing harms are a product of these broader pathologies. If we were to get rid of policing tomorrow, those pathologies would remain. And they would continue to be deadly: Race bias in our health-care system has likely killed far more African Americans and Latinx via covid-19 than the police have this year. Successful police reforms help us learn how to identify and mitigate the harms of these structural features, even as we work to remake them.
In this moment, we have a chance to make not just policing, but our entire country, fairer and safer. We must think creatively and educate ourselves. We must ask hard questions and demand answers about public safety budgets.
We should have unflinching debates about when, where and how to seek police reforms instead of defunding. But we should move forward on both tracks so that we can save lives even as we transform the police.


















Virginia man who plowed his truck into Black Lives Matter crowd is the head of the state’s Ku Klux Klan



Over the weekend, a Virginia man was arrested for driving his truck into a crowd of protesters. It has now been revealed that the accused, Harry H. Rogers, is also the head of the Virginia chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

WTVR News reported Monday that Rogers was charged by police with attempted malicious wounding (a felony), destruction of property (also a felony), and assault and battery (a misdemeanor) after the incident. When he was arrested, Rogers confessed to officers he is the president of the Ku Klux Klan in the state and claimed to be the highest-ranking member of the Klan that is not in prison. 
“The accused, by his own admission and by a cursory glance at social media, is an admitted leader of the Ku Klux Klan and a propagandist for Confederate ideology,” said Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor in a statement. “We are investigating whether hate crimes charges are appropriate.”
“While I am grateful that the victim’s injuries do not appear to be serious, an attack on peaceful protesters is heinous and despicable and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law,” she also said. “We lived through this in Virginia in Charlottesville in 2017. I promise Henricoans that this egregious criminal act will not go unpunished. Hate has no place here under my watch.”
Those who experienced the attack recalled that the “vehicle revved their engine” before he “drove through the protesters occupying the roadway,” said the Henrico Police spokesperson.
No one was seriously injured physically.
See the local news report ON LINK 



LINK

EXONERATED BY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO: 
MEET TERRENCE JEREMY SKEEN. HE IS THE 42 YEAR OLD, FIRST RESPONDER WHO SPIT ON A THREE YEAR OLD TODDLER IN A KANSAS CITY, MO HOOTERS AND CALLED HIM N*****R, I THINK HIS NAME AND FACE SHOULD BE KNOWN.


Image may contain: 2 people, sunglasses and closeup

Mitzi Stone Surveillance video exonerated the man. Two witnesses present who knew neither of the men testified in court it never happened. What are you trying to do here????





Image may contain: one or more people, ocean and outdoor, text that says 'ANTI-FASCISTS DISRUPTING A LARGE GATHERING OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS...'







The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls

    This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...