Roosevelt tried to pack the Court to protect his ambitious agenda from conservatives. Biden, facing a similar threat, has appointed a commission to study options.
he Supreme Court, by design, is undemocratic, but is there a point beyond which its insulation from the will of the people becomes unjust? Much has been said about the fact that the makeup of the current Court does not reflect that of the elected branches of the federal government. In response, on April 9th, Joe Biden signed an executive order establishing a bipartisan Presidential commission, to study the prospect of changing the Court’s composition and culture. The Court can be shrunk or expanded by a simple majority vote in Congress, and the dream of doing just that has occasionally tantalized Presidents beset by judicial opposition—most famously, the predecessor whom Biden cites frequently as an inspiration: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In the Oval Office, Biden has awarded prime real estate—right above the mantel—to a portrait of F.D.R. But, on the issue of the Court, his fondness belies contrasts in the two leaders’ political instincts.
After a landslide reëlection in 1936, Roosevelt, frustrated that one popular New Deal program after another had been struck down in a Court dominated by a group of conservative Justices known as the Four Horsemen, plotted a counterattack: a law that would increase the number of Justices from nine to fifteen, altering the size of the Court for the first time in sixty-eight years. For months, he kept the idea secret, even when Justices dined at the White House. He told an adviser that he could either enjoy “one cocktail before dinner and have it a very amiable affair,” or reveal his explosive plan and “take three cocktails.” Finally, on February 5, 1937, he proposed legislation that would add as many as six new Justices—one for every member of the Court over the age of seventy years and six months—camouflaging his plan as an effort to insure a “systematic addition of younger blood.”
But Roosevelt had miscalculated. Critics accused him of trying to “pack” the Court. “Tell your President, he has made a great mistake,” the liberal Justice Louis Brandeis said. Lawmakers were deluged with mail opposing the plan, and even other Democrats worried that it would erode the separation of powers. In July, after months of controversy, Congress rejected the bill. By then, however, the threat had achieved its effect: Owen Roberts, a Justice who had often voted with the conservatives against the New Deal, had switched sides, and one of the Four Horsemen, Willis Van Devanter, had retired, and the Court never barred another major plank of Roosevelt’s program. As Russell Wheeler, a Supreme Court scholar at the Brookings Institution, put it, “The fuse was stamped out before it got to the dynamite.”
The political obstacles to expanding the Court today remain steep. Doing so would require overcoming a Republican filibuster—or, short of that, uniting enough Democrats to scrap the filibuster itself. But the idea has regained popularity among Democrats since 2016, when Mitch McConnell, then the Senate Majority Leader, prevented President Barack Obama from filling the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, on the dubious claim that it was inappropriate to confirm a Justice in an election year. That November, Donald Trump lost the popular vote but won the Presidency, and in his one term he installed three Justices, establishing a 6–3 conservative majority. The third instance, filling the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September, 2020, came when votes in the Presidential election were already being cast. McConnell abandoned his previous objection and rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.
During the 2020 Presidential campaign, many Democratic contenders argued that McConnell’s manipulation constituted its own form of court-packing, and thus forced them to consider radical reforms, including adding seats. But Biden, who arrived in Washington in 1973, is loyal to many of its traditions. In 1983, as a senator, he called Roosevelt’s maneuver a “bonehead idea”; in 2005, he praised the courage of those who resisted it, and, in 2019, during the primaries, he reiterated his objection to a Democratic-led expansion, saying, “We’ll live to rue that day.” But, after Ginsburg’s death, Biden, under pressure from the left, promised to appoint a panel that would examine a range of reforms, including court-packing, term limits—some scholars have suggested instituting staggered eighteen-year terms—and a code of conduct. (Several Justices have been criticized for appearing at partisan events, failing to recuse themselves from certain cases, and the like.)
Still, Biden’s commission seems designed to project stately deliberation rather than activist urgency. It is charged with holding hearings over the next six months and publishing an analysis, but not with making policy recommendations to the President. Its roster, composed of thirty-six members, features prominent academics and former federal judges, many of whom have been Supreme Court clerks. It includes Laurence Tribe, a leading liberal at Harvard Law School, and Sherrilyn Ifill, the head of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, as well as Thomas Griffith, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who wrote an opinion, later vacated, that would have invalidated crucial parts of the Affordable Care Act. Yet the announcement of the commission satisfied almost nobody. McConnell described it as a “direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary.” Many saw it as a sop to the left, but progressives, too, were dismissive; Demand Justice, an advocacy group that calls for adding four seats to the Court, said in a statement that the commission is “unlikely to meaningfully advance the ball.”
After decades of careful centrism, Biden has proved to be more radical on policy than many Americans predicted. Yet, when it comes to the institutions of American democracy, his instinct is for restoration, not revolution. Even as the Republican Party remains mired in the seditious fervor of Trumpism, Biden is hostile to overt partisanship. That puts him in chronic tension with the progressive frontier of his party—and it means that, like Roosevelt, he could find some of his most ambitious achievements undone by conservative Justices. But, for a President who pledged at his Inauguration to put his “whole soul” into “bringing America together,” expanding the Court runs counter to his belief in the possibility that it can retain at least a shred of insulation from partisan politics.
More than eighty years after Roosevelt’s gambit, another Justice Roberts may concur with that belief. John Roberts has lamented what he calls a “misperception” that the Court’s behavior is preordained by its political makeup, and he has emerged as a centrist vote. Wheeler, of Brookings, sees historical lessons at play. “Roosevelt’s proposal went nowhere, but the Court got the message and changed its jurisprudence,” he said. “I can’t imagine John Roberts doesn’t have that in the back of his mind.”
Reader Supported News is for sale: To you, but not to corporate America. Every time one of our public donors makes the decision to make an investment in community based news reporting what they get is an ownership stake in this vital process. Invest and take control of American news reporting.
oger Stone, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, and his wife owe almost $2 million in unpaid taxes and fees, according to a Justice Department lawsuit. The lawsuit claims that Stone and Nydia Stone had been notified of their tax bill, which includes interest and other fees, but they had “failed and refused to pay.” According to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Stone and his wife underpaid their taxes by $1.59 million from 2007 to 2011 and then did not pay $407,036 in taxes in 2018. The couple used accounting maneuvers, including setting up a commercial entity, to “shield their personal income from enforced collection and fund a lavish lifestyle despite owing nearly $2 million in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties.”
Stone started falling short on paying his taxes in 2007, when he failed to pay a $205,410 tax bill that later increased to almost half a million dollars. Stone and his wife later sealed a deal with the IRS in 2017 to pay $19,485 every month to pay down their debt. But then in 2019, Stone set up a trust and used money that should have gone to pay the IRS to pay for a house in what amounted to an effort to “defraud the United States,” according to the lawsuit. “They purchased the residence shortly after Roger Stone’s indictment and placed it in the name of the Bertran Trust just prior to defaulting on their installment agreement with the IRS,” the filing alleges. “The Stones have long owed back taxes, and they have been parties to numerous installment agreements, some of which were terminated by the IRS. They were aware that their default would result in IRS collection activity.”
That purchase took place as Stone faced a criminal indictment that accused him of lying to Congress regarding his actions during the 2016 campaign to try to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton, Trump’s rival. He was later found guilty of all seven counts against him, including making false statements and witness tampering. He was sentenced to 40 months behind bars. Trump commuted Stone’s sentence when he was on his way to prison in July 2020.
Stone characterized the lawsuit as political, claiming the case “is motivated by blood lust and liberal hysteria.” Stone claims he and his wife were working to pay off their tax bill but then the cost of defending himself “financially destroyed” them and they are now “virtually bankrupt.” He vowed to “fight these politically motivated charges,” which he characterized as “yet another example of the Democrats weaponizing the Justice Department in violation of the rule of law.”
Protests continue after Daunte Wright was shot and killed by a police officer in Brooklyn Center. (photo: Reuters)
ACLU Condemns "Outright Retaliatory Assault" by Minnesota Police Against Journalists Reuters Excerpt: "Minnesota police on Saturday promised not to detain, threaten or rough up journalists covering protests over the police shooting of Daunte Wright, after officers detained and pepper-sprayed journalists on Friday night and forced some to lie face-down."
The Minnesota State Patrol also agreed to stop photographing journalists and their credentials and will no longer order reporters where they can position themselves to cover the demonstrations.
The statement came after state police and officers from eight other law-enforcement agencies in the joint force known as Operation Safety Net were criticized by media organizations for how they treated journalists at the protests in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota said the behavior of some officers "went beyond unlawful detention to include outright retaliatory assault" against journalists, whose work to inform the public is protected against government interference by the U.S. Constitution.
The events led several media organizations to ask Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to intervene.
"I convened a meeting today with media and law enforcement to determine a better path forward to protect the journalists covering civil unrest," Walz said on Twitter.
Police impeded the work of journalists even after a U.S. District Court judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order that forbade them from arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force against journalists.
"Following feedback from media, and in light of a recent temporary restraining order (TRO) filed in federal court, MSP will not photograph journalists or their credentials," the Minnesota State Patrol statement said.
"In addition, MSP will no longer include messaging at the scene advising media where they can go to safely cover events. While journalists have been detained and released during enforcement actions after providing credentials, no journalists have been arrested," the statement said.
It also said journalists would be exempt from general dispersal orders issued to demonstrators, and that state police were banned from using chemical spray against the press.
Reuters was among the media organizations that condemned the police actions.
"All journalists must be allowed to report the news in the public interest without fear of harassment or harm, wherever they are," the international news agency said in a statement.
The protests erupted after Wright was killed during a traffic stop on Sunday in Brooklyn Center. Former officer Kimberly Potter, who turned in her badge on Tuesday, has been charged with manslaughter.
Tensions in the area are running high as the trial of former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin nears an end, with closing arguments scheduled for Monday. Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder for his part in the deadly arrest last May of George Floyd.
Health professionals say Alexei Navalny risks cardiac arrest. (photo: AFP)
Jailed Kremlin Critic Alexei Navalny Could Die 'Any Minute,' Doctors Warn The Telegraph Excerpt: "Jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny risks cardiac arrest at 'any minute' as his health has rapidly deteriorated, doctors warned on Saturday, urging immediate access to Russia's most famous prisoner."
On Saturday, US President Joe Biden added his voice to a growing international chorus of protest at the treatment of the activist, describing his situation as "totally unfair".
Mr Navalny, 44, was imprisoned in February and is serving two-and-a-half years on old embezzlement charges in a penal colony in the town of Pokrov around 100 kilometres (60 miles) east of Moscow.
"Our patient can die any minute," Dr Ashikhmin said on Facebook on Saturday, pointing to the opposition politician's high potassium levels and saying Mr Navalny should be moved to intensive care.
"Fatal arrhythmia can develop any minute."
Mr Navalny barely survived a poisoning with the Novichok nerve agent in August which he has blamed on the Kremlin. His doctors say his hunger strike might have exacerbated his condition.
Having blood potassium levels higher than 6.0 mmol (millimole) per litre usually requires immediate treatment. Mr Navalny's were at 7.1, the doctors said.
"This means both impaired renal function and that serious heart rhythm problems can happen any minute," said a statement on Vasilyeva's Twitter account.
The doctors said he had to be examined immediately "taking into account the blood tests and his recent poisoning".
Mr Navalny's spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh, who accompanied him when he collapsed on a plane after the poisoning in August, said the situation was critical again.
"Alexei is dying," she said on Facebook. "With his condition it's a matter of days."
She said she felt like she was "on that plane again, only this time it's landing in slow motion", pointing out that access to Mr Navalny was restricted and few Russians were aware of what was actually going on with him in prison.
On Saturday, responding to reporters' questions about Mr Navalny's plight, Mr Biden responded: "It's totally, totally unfair, totally inappropriate".
More than 70 prominent international writers, artists and academics, including Jude Law, Vanessa Redgrave and Benedict Cumberbatch, have called on Mr Putin to ensure that Mr Navalny receives proper treatment immediately.
Their appeal was published late Friday by France's Le Monde newspaper.
Mr Navalny's team had earlier announced plans to stage what they said would be "modern Russia's biggest protest".
Mr Navalny's allies said they would set a date for the protest once 500,000 supporters had registered with a website. As of 2230 GMT Saturday, more than 450,000 people had signed up.
Ms Yarmysh on Saturday urged more Russians to sign up, saying that a big rally could help save Mr Navalny's life.
"Putin only reacts to mass street protests," she added.
Earlier this week, Mr Navalny's wife Yulia, who visited him in the penal colony, said her husband now weighed 76 kilograms (168 pounds) - down nine kilograms since starting his hunger strike.
On Friday, Russian prosecutors asked a court to label Mr Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation and the network of his regional offices "extremist" organisations in a move that would outlaw them in Russia and could result in jail time for their members.
"The darkest times are beginning for free-thinking people, for civil society in Russia," said Leonid Volkov, the head of Mr Navalny's regional offices.
Special Forces Brotherhood Motorcycle Club. (photo: unknown)
In Secret Facebook Groups, America's Best Warriors Share Racist Jabs, Lies About 2020, Even QAnon Theories Carol E. Lee, NBC News Lee writes: "They're the most elite, lethally trained members of the U.S. military, widely considered the best of the best. And yet in secret Facebook groups exclusively for special operations forces that were accessed by NBC News, they share misinformation about a 'stolen' 2020 election, disparaging and racist comments about America's political leadership and even QAnon conspiracy theories."
Among the hundreds of Facebook posts NBC News reviewed from forums for current and former Rangers, Green Berets and other elite warriors: a member of a special forces group lamenting that several aides to former Vice President Mike Pence were part of a "Concerted effort by the thieves and pedophiles walking the hallowed halls of the peoples government" to undermine former President Donald Trump.
"In a just world, they would have already been taken out behind the court house and shot," another member commented.
In yet another post, a member of one of the groups responded to criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement with an image of a noose and the message "IF WE WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE EVIL PEOPLE FEAR PUNISHMENT AGAIN."
"The story of radicalization in special operations is a story that needs to be told," said Jack Murphy, a former Army Ranger and Green Beret who has written extensively about the special operations forces community. "It has shocked and horrified me to see what's happened to these guys in the last five or six years."
Extremism in the military has been in the spotlight since more than two dozen current and former service members were linked to the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. But the private Facebook groups reveal an underbelly of a segment of the military that has long been revered as America's front line of defense.
NBC News reviewed posts from four private groups that describe themselves as solely for special operations forces. While the majority of the content in two of the groups, SF Brotherhood - PAC and US Special Forces Team Room, is political in nature, the forums shouldn't be seen as reflective of the overall views of the whole special operations forces community.
Collectively, the two groups have more than 5,000 members, with some belonging to both. U.S. Special Operations Command has about 70,000 personnel, and there are tens of thousands more retired members of special operations forces.
Facebook has flagged a few of the posts in the groups as including false information, or they have received pushback from fellow members.
The politically charged ones often ridicule President Joe Biden — describing him as "senile" and weak compared to leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin — and refer to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin with derogatory terms like "bubba."
Many of the posts express support for Trump, including his false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. One member of a group, for instance, commented on an image of law enforcement officers with their guns drawn while barricaded inside the House chamber during the Jan. 6 riot, writing, "too bad they didn't bother to defend the Constitution."
Other posts promote conspiracy theories that those involved in the Jan. 6 riot were members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, not Trump supporters.
"Trump was sabotaged once again!" a member of US Special Forces Team Room wrote Jan. 7 about the Capitol riot. And because of those posing as Trump supporters at the Capitol, he added, "trying to get to the bottom of the obvious election fraud now looks like it doesn't have a chance."
"Well said!" a member responded. But another disagreed. "Nope, they were definitely real trump supporters," he wrote.
Robert Wilson, a former Green Beret who was commander of the 3rd Special Forces Group, said members of the community "are radicalizing themselves online, just like many of these lone-wolf ISIS terrorists did."
"It's a problem, and it's an internal threat to the United States," said Wilson, who was counterterrorism director on the National Security Council during the Obama and Trump administrations.
The secret Facebook groups for special operations forces can be found only by members. All of the groups reviewed by NBC News say they rigorously vet their members to ensure tat their special operations forces backgrounds are authentic.
SF Brotherhood – PAC, for instance, tells its 719 members that "only SF vetted are allowed here" and urges them to "Remain Quiet Professionals." US Special Forces Team Room, which has 4,700 members, is described as "for US Special Forces qualified individuals only."
"You can say what you want, post what you want, but most importantly you can dislike what you want and get over it. Same rules as a team room," the group's description says. (A "team room" is what a special operations unit calls the room where members congregate while deployed, and one rule is that what happens there, stays there.)
The two other groups reviewed by NBC News focused largely on military news, although there were some discussions about political issues, such as discussions about members of the military who participated in the Jan. 6 riot.
While the groups include current special operations forces, more members are retired than active-duty, a member said. NBC News reached out to members of the groups behind the posts described in this article — all of whom are men — but none of them responded on the record.
Garry Reid, director for defense intelligence at the Defense Department, said the Pentagon is trying to better "identify, detect, categorize and take action against any such behaviors in this department."
"This is very disturbing material for me and very disturbing content that in no way would mirror the behavior expected of persons employed by the Department of Defense, and certainly not serving in the U.S. military," Reid said.
When it comes to special operations forces, he said, "because of the sensitivity of the missions and the criticality to security that some of these operations have, people would be even more concerned and upset to know that that exists in that community."
Such behavior isn't acceptable in the military, but it can be difficult to detect and root out, he said.
"Humans have thoughts, and we don't like all the thoughts that people have. But what's not tolerated is putting thoughts into action," Reid said. "And taking action in this case, [meaning] posting something to a site on the internet, is contrary to policy, because it is espousing the views that bring forward aspects of hate and violence and unlawful discrimination. That is just flatly unacceptable."
The posts viewed by NBC News "would be a reason for further investigation," he said.
A spokesperson for Facebook said that while its private groups have the option to be visible or hidden, the company's standards apply to both, and that they are enforced by a combination of technology and employees who review content.
The military's handling of extremism in its ranks has come under intense scrutiny in recent months, and internal data about the scope of the problem are scant. The Pentagon has acknowledged that it doesn't know how many current or former service members are affiliated with extremist groups.
Since the attack on the Capitol, the military has sought to get a better sense of the problem. Austin ordered a 60-day "stand-down" to address the issue, and last week he released a memo outlining new initiatives based on initial findings.
A Countering Extremism Working Group will oversee the implementation of the initiatives, according to the memo. They include screening military recruits for extremist behavior and training outgoing service members in ways extremist groups might target them.
U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, also published a plan last month to try to improve racial and ethnic diversity and remove bias within an arm of the military that is overwhelmingly white and male. "As national and global demographics shift and become more diverse, so must our enterprise," the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan states.
A recent attempt by SOCOM's recent moves to address diversity created a hiccup. SOCOM reassigned the organization's new chief of diversity and inclusion because of his social media posts, including a derogatory one that essentially compared Trump to Adolf Hitler.
Some retired special operations forces have been among those facing charges in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, including a former Green Beret who is charged with assaulting a Capitol Police officer with a flagpole.
The FBI is investigating active-duty troops and reservists as part of its investigation into the riot. There is growing concern that the problem is more pervasive than it appears among those currently serving.
"I am concerned about active duty," Wilson said. "I don't think special operations forces just develop these ideas in their head when they get out and are in their late 40s. So I think it starts in the military and probably gets worse when they're out."
Part of what could make special operations susceptible to extremism is its insular culture, experts said, because it is composed of small, tight-knit units and lacks diversity.
Military officials have acknowledged that rooting out extremism in such a vast organization of current and retired personnel is difficult. The Pentagon, for instance, doesn't specifically ban membership in extremist groups. Among the new efforts outlined in Austin's memo is to update the Defense Department's definition of banned extremist activities.
"The vast majority of those who serve in uniform and their civilian colleagues do so with great honor and integrity, but any extremist behavior in the force can have an outsized impact," Austin wrote in his recent memo.
Austin's efforts to address extremism have made him the target of vitriolic commentary in the special operations forces Facebook groups.
"Racist punk," "pus-gut maggot" and "bubba" are some of the attacks on Austin in response to his calls for troops to report extremism by fellow troops. Other posts question the merit of Austin's Silver Star or say he got to his current position only because he's Black.
"He has risen to the very peak of his profession, riding on the color of his skin," a member of SF Brotherhood – PAC wrote Feb. 26 about Austin's efforts to address extremism.
More broadly, in terms of race, there are expressions of frustration in multiple posts that white men are being targeted.
Austin has also come under criticism in the Facebook groups for changes to allow transgender people to serve in the military. "Well if this doesn't get the troops ready for combat, I am not sure what will!" a member wrote when posting a Newsmax story with the headline "US Eyes Free Transgender Surgery for Military."
Heidi Beirich, a co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, said the review of the secret Facebook groups was "an incredible find" given how difficult it is to get access to the forums.
"But also it's giving you on the ground real information about the most dangerous people in the military, right?" she said. "These are the exact troops who we do not want involved with things like QAnon."
Extremism among special operations forces is particularly dangerous given their specialized training, experts said, and that's even more the case when it comes to QAnon. The private special operations forces groups feature multiple references to QAnon.
"If you have been following Q for a while you know that Q taught many of us lurkers how he was going to communicate with us to by pass the mainstream media," a member wrote. "He's a mathematician by trade and had a brilliant aptitude to pick up Gematria code early in which the Cabal used to communicate with each other on SM," or social media.
Another post elicits QAnon comments from other members after suggesting it's suspicious that an aide to Pence, Olivia Troye, publicly turned against Trump, that a separate former Pence aide testified in Trump's impeachment trial and that one of Pence's former chiefs of staff was married to an FBI agent.
"They will do anything to destroy Trump and Pence in order to prevent them from exposing their vile plans," a member responded.
QAnon followers aren't necessarily common among special operations forces. But if any member of the military believes in the conspiracy theory, that could create parallel, and competing, chains of command for those forces, Murphy argued, given that QAnon followers swear an oath to the movement that involves fighting the U.S. government. In the QAnon world, the military is responsible for cleansing corruption from the U.S. by rounding up politicians, pedophiles and human traffickers.
"If you really believe that sort of thing and you're a special forces guy, explain to me why you wouldn't pick up a gun and do something about it," he said, saying his former special forces team sergeant is now a QAnon believer who was present at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
"It's not just the occasional private in the 3rd Infantry," he said. "There are senior officers and noncommissioned officers in the military who believe this."
policy pamphlet for a group of pro-Trump House Republicans explicitly calls for respecting white traditions, according to a document obtained by Punchbowl News.
“America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” the document, titled the “America First Caucus Policy Platform,” says.
A group of pro-Trump Republicans are working to form the new caucus, led by representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Paul Gosar of Arizona. The “Platform,” however, does not list any authors.
Punchbowl News, which first reported on the document on Friday, said it contains “some of the most nativist stuff we’ve seen.”
“History has shown that societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse into a country,” the pamphlet says, “particularly without institutional support for assimilation and an expansive welfare state to bail them out should they fail to contribute positively to the country.”
The document also goes on to demand that any new American infrastructure “reflects the architectural, engineering and aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture.”
Democrats condemned the platform.
“This document is nakedly racist and disgusting,” tweeted Rep Peter Welch of Vermont. “This supposed caucus and its members represent a dangerous nativist perspective that hurts our country, but sadly is not surprising.”
“As an immigrant, I served on active duty in the US military to defend your right to say stupid stuff,” Rep Ted Lieu of California wrote in a tweet addressed to Ms Greene and Mr Gosar. “What makes America great is that we don’t judge you based on bloodline, we look at your character. So take your nativist crap and shove it.”
Despite such criticism, some House Republicans have already expressed interest in joining the new caucus. Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida has announced he’ll be a member, and Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said he was “looking at” joining.
The caucus says in its introduction that it seeks to “follow in President Trump’s footsteps.” Unsurprisingly, the first area of policy it addresses is “Election Fraud.”
“We will work towards an end to mail-in voting, implementation of national voter ID and substantive investigations into mass voter fraud perpetrated during the 2020 election,” the document says.
In reality, no substantial fraud was ever uncovered in the 2020 presidential election, despite the dozens of lawsuits brought by former president Trump’s campaign.
One of the longest sections of the document is devoted to immigration. That section is where the “Anglo-Saxon” comment comes up, but it includes several other controversial statements as well.
“An important distinction between post-1965 immigrants and previous waves of settlers,” the document says, “is that previous cohorts were more educated, earned higher wages, and did not have an expansive welfare state to fall back on when they could not make it in America and thus did not stay in the country at the expense of the native-born.”
According to the Pew Research Center, immigrants to the United States before 1965 were significantly more white.
This is not the first time Congresswoman Greene has been accused of racism. In February, the House of Representatives voted to strip her of her committee positions as punishment for what critics call her hateful and conspiracy-mongering comments on social media. All Democrats in the House voted for the measure, with only 11 Republicans joining them.
Ms Greene’s office did not immediately respond toThe Independent’s request for comment.
"It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)” Dylan’s first foray into Rap, before Rap existed.
Darkness at the break of noon Shadows even the silver spoon The handmade blade, the child's balloon Eclipses both the sun and moon To understand you know too soon There is no sense in trying.
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn Suicide remarks are torn From the fools gold mouthpiece The hollow horn plays wasted words Proves to warn That he not busy being born Is busy dying.
Temptation's page flies out the door You follow, find yourself at war Watch waterfalls of pity roar You feel the moan but unlike before You discover That you'd just be One more person crying.
So don't fear if you hear A foreign sound to your ear It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing.
As some warn victory, some downfall Private reasons great or small Can be seen in the eyes of those that call To make all that should be killed to crawl While others say don't hate nothing at all Except hatred.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark As human gods aim for their mark Make everything from toy guns that spark To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark It's easy to see without looking too far That not much Is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates Teachers teach that knowledge waits Can lead to hundred-dollar plates And goodness hides behind its gates But even the President of the United States Sometimes must have To stand naked.
And though the rules of the road have been lodged It's only people's games that you got to dodge And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.
Advertising signs that con you Into thinking you're the one That can do what's never been done That can win what's never been won Meantime life outside goes on All around you.
You lose yourself, you reappear You suddenly find you got nothing to fear Alone you stand with nobody near When a trembling distant voice, unclear Startles your sleeping ears to hear That somebody thinks They really found you.
A question in your nerves is lit Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy Ensure you not to quit To keep it in your mind and not forget That it is not he or she or them or it That you belong to.
But though the masters make the rules For the wise men and the fools I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.
For them that must obey authority That they do not respect in any degree Who despise their jobs, their destiny Speak jealously of them that are free Do what they do just to be Nothing more than something They invest in.
While some on principles baptize To strict party platforms ties Social clubs in drag disguise Outsiders they can freely criticize Tell nothing except who to idolize And say "God Bless him".
While one who sings with his tongue on fire Gargles in the rat race choir Bent out of shape from society's pliers Cares not to come up any higher But rather get you down in the hole That he's in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault On anyone that lives in a vault But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
Old lady judges, watch people in pairs Limited in sex, they dare To push fake morals, insult and stare While money doesn't talk, it swears Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony.
While them that defend what they cannot see With a killer's pride, security It blows the minds most bitterly For them that think death's honesty Won't fall upon them naturally Life sometimes Must get lonely.
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards False goals, I scoff At pettiness which plays so rough Walk upside-down inside handcuffs Kick my legs to crash it off Say okay, I have had enough What else can you show me?
And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.
A long queue of mountain climbers line a path on Mount Everest in Nepal. Snow samples around the summit showed traces of toxic chemicals known as PFAS. (photo: Rizza Alee/AP)
'Forever Chemicals,' Other Pollutants Found Around the Summit of Everest Murray Carpenter, The Washington Post Carpenter writes: "From an elevation of 27,600 feet, just below the summit of Everest, researcher Mariusz Potocki could see one of the planet's most dramatic scenes - the snow-capped Himalayas against a deep blue sky."
rom an elevation of 27,600 feet, just below the summit of Everest, researcher Mariusz Potocki could see one of the planet’s most dramatic scenes — the snow-capped Himalayas against a deep blue sky. He was on a mission to gather snow and ice samples at the summit, but just above him was another startling sight: a line of climbers so dense that a photo of it went viral.
His team had stopped at a resting spot climbers call “The Balcony,” and the snow there was littered with feces, oxygen bottles and other trash. But he wanted to gather what samples he could, so he ascended a short distance to find some cleaner snow off to the side of the trail. “I just pulled out the bottles and took samples,” he said.
And then another surprise: There, at the roof of the world, the snow samples showed traces of toxic chemicals known as PFAS, laboratory analyses done later showed. More notable results came from samples his colleagues gathered at lower elevation, which revealed these substances at levels far higher than at other mountains around the world.
“We were shocked,” said Kimberley Miner, an assistant research professor at the University of Maine Climate Change Institute, who coordinated the research remotely from the United States. “We retested everything like three times, because it was much higher than we expected.”
The study by Miner and colleagues, published in December, was part of the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition, a large, interdisciplinary research project intended to understand the climate change threats facing mountain systems. It shows chemical fingerprints smudging even the world’s tallest peak in ways unseen and previously unstudied.
“The purpose of the expedition was to see if the highest parts of the planet are affected by human activity,” said Paul Mayewski, the expedition leader and director of the university’s Climate Change Institute.
Such pollutants are found in low concentrations in the atmosphere, and they are blown all over the globe. Then, when it rains or snows, they often are deposited on the ground. So Miner suspected the Everest samples would only show low levels of persistent chemicals from this sort of atmospheric deposition.
But when the Everest samples were shipped to an analytical lab, she learned about the PFAS levels that were particularly high in the samples from lower down on the mountain.
“I thought we’d screwed up, and we hadn’t,” Miner said. “We got consistently these very, very high levels.”
Miner’s samples showed two specific PFAS chemicals were especially high — perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The chemicals have been used since the 1950s to repel stains and water in carpeting, upholstery and apparel; in nonstick cookware and food packaging; and in floor wax, textiles, fire fighting foam and sealants. Neither is still manufactured in the United States, but they are made in other countries.
Both have been linked to health problems. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “both chemicals are very persistent in the environment and in the human body — meaning they don’t break down and they can accumulate over time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects.”
These effects may include increased cholesterol, changes in liver enzymes and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“What we found was that the PFOS was at such higher levels than had been reported anywhere else in high mountain ranges,” Miner said. “And then the rest of the story was how the heck did these get there, and why were they so high?”
Fortunately, Cyclone Fani dropped 10 inches of fresh snow while the expedition was still at the Everest Base Camp, where a colleague of Miner’s at the Climate Change Institute, Heather Clifford, was gathering samples for the team. (The Base Camp is at an elevation of about 17,400 feet and more than 1,000 people were there at the time.)
Clifford took samples of the fresh snow, and one of the samples showed no PFAS; the other a trace. Taken together, the findings suggest that the high levels of PFAS were not from atmospheric deposition. Instead, it appeared that they had been shed from climbers’ outdoor gear such as parkas and tents, which are often treated with chemicals to weatherproof.
Other samples, gathered for a different research group, found microplastics — shreds of polyester — that probably came from outdoor gear. The plastic levels were highest in the areas most used by climbing teams, as with PFAS.
“You’re seeing the highest concentrations where you have the most people and the most garbage,” Miner said. “It’s kind of like sampling a frozen landfill.”
Fabric companies have long used PFAS to repel water in outerwear, although some companies have now moved away from the chemicals for environmental reasons. W.L. Gore & Associates, the maker of Gore-Tex, for instance, said the company does use some chemicals in the PFAS family, but has transitioned to those believed to be less harmful, Gore spokesperson Amy Calhoun said. Of the four compounds Miner detected on Everest, Calhoun said, three “have either been eliminated from or never used in Gore’s consumer fabrics supply chain.” But traces of the fourth one may still be detected in some of its products.
Rainer Lohmann leads a University of Rhode Island research center focused on PFAS. He said he accepts that the chemicals Miner found probably came from outdoor gear, but said he would like to see more sampling on Everest to fill out the picture.
Lohmann said the levels of PFAS in Everest meltwater, although higher than expected from an alpine glacier, would still be within safe drinking water limits in the United States.
Still, Miner said she is concerned about possible health risks as more chemicals melt out of glaciers.
“The more chemicals and the more plastics we put into the environment, the more they are going to build up and they are going to stay, and they are not going to go away,” Miner said. “And it is going to impact us more and more, in lots of different interlocking ways.”
Lohmann said it is especially striking to see this pollution on Everest.
“Everest is treasured very highly as a unique monument for the globe,” he said. “It’s kind of sad to see very high concentrations at some places on the mountain. We say, ‘Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints,’ but we leave chemicals.”
his isn’t about pornography, but about rape and sexual abuse.
oger Stone, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, and his wife owe almost $2 million 
policy pamphlet for a group of pro-Trump House 
rom an elevation of 27,600 feet, just below the summit of Everest, researcher Mariusz Potocki could see one of the planet’s most dramatic scenes — the snow-capped Himalayas against a deep blue sky. He was on a mission to gather snow and ice samples at the summit, but just above him was another startling sight: a line of climbers so dense that a photo of it went viral.
