Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law raises new concerns over separation of church and state

Jun 20, 2024 6:50 PM EDT
PBS NEWS HOUR
By —Geoff Bennett
By —Courtney Norris


Louisiana will now require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom. Similar bills have been proposed in Texas, Oklahoma and Utah, raising questions about the constitutional separation of church and state. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation promoting First Amendment freedoms.
Read the Full Transcript


Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Geoff Bennett:

Louisiana will now require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public school classroom, the only state in the country to do so.

The state's Republican governor, Jeff Landry, signed the bill into law yesterday.


Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA):

This bill mandates the displaying of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in public elementary, secondary, and post-education schools in the state of Louisiana.

(Cheering and applause)


Gov. Jeff Landry:

Because, if you want to respect the rule of law, you got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses.


Woman:

That's right.


Man:

Amen.


Geoff Bennett:

Under the law, the posters must be no smaller than 11-by-14 inches and the commandments must be the central focus of the poster and in a large, easily readable font. They would be paid for through private donations, not state funds.

It comes as similar bills have been proposed in Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah, all of this raising questions about the constitutional separation of church and state, with civil liberty groups pledging to sue.

We're joined now by Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty at the Freedom Forum. That's a nonpartisan foundation promoting First Amendment freedoms.

Thanks so much for being here.

Charles Haynes, Senior Fellow for Religious Liberty, Freedom Forum: Thanks for having me. Good to be here.


Geoff Bennett:

So Governor Landry said he cannot wait to be sued. Does he have reason to feel confident, given the changing composition of the courts?


Charles Haynes:

He's confident he will be sued. That's that. And he can be sure of that.

Well, yes, because this is a climate in which the Supreme Court has moved the Establishment Clause and interpretation considerably, and I would say lowered the wall of separation, if you want to use that metaphor, so there's almost nothing left. So they think, this is our time. We can get things through.


Geoff Bennett:

Well, legal battles over the Ten Commandments in classrooms are not new, as you well know.


Charles Haynes:

Right.


Geoff Bennett:

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar law in Kentucky was unconstitutional.

Does Louisiana's rationale, does Louisiana's approach change anything in the eyes of federal judges on this?


Charles Haynes:

I don't think so, but they do.

And so they are betting that the last big case, Van Orden v. Perry in 2005, when the Supreme Court upheld a monument, Ten Commandments monument, in the state House park, they think, well, that reasoning gives us support for putting it up in every classroom. I don't see how they're going to make that case. It's a very different kind of case.

And, in fact, on the same day in 2005, the Supreme Court struck down two Kentucky courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments, saying that they promoted religion. So I think the court would be, in ordinary times, more likely to go with the Kentucky decision. But they don't think so.


Geoff Bennett:

As we mentioned, there's similar legislation that pertains to the Ten Commandments. They have been proposed in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah. They haven't been successful yet.

Could this change how these other states proceed, especially as the religious right steps up its effort to amplify expressions of faith in the public square?


Charles Haynes:

I think those other states are going to wait and see how it fares in the courts.

If it's struck down in the lower courts and it doesn't go far, or if it gets to the Supreme Court and they strike it down, then it'll stop this movement. On the other hand, if it makes it to the Supreme Court and the court changes the rules of the Establishment Clause, which it could — it's already done that recently.

It's allowing more government aid to go to religious institutions, for example, which used to be unthinkable. So, who knows? If the Establishment Clause is erased pretty much, then governments can promote religion and say that it's history or for whatever reason.

So — and I think that's going to be very, very difficult for the future of the United States.


Geoff Bennett:

The groups that are opposed to this, what's their argument, and how much precedent do they have on their side?


Charles Haynes:

They have a lot of precedent, because the court has always been very careful to require neutrality by the government in a public school.

Impressionable young people, a captive audience, the government can't take sides in religion or impose religion on young kids. And that side says the Establishment Clause is why we have peace in this country. We have so many religious differences. And yet we have managed to negotiate them, live together, peaceful coexistence, mainly because we have kept the government out of the religion business.

And what happens when the government has the power, like they're asking in Louisiana, to promote a religious message in every classroom? They call it a history message. But the Ten Commandments, as the court said in 1980, read it. It's definitely a religious message.


Geoff Bennett:

One of the co-sponsors of legislation said that the Ten Commandments, in her view, she views it as a historical document.


Charles Haynes:

Right.


Geoff Bennett:

And she says this might not work in California or New York, but, in Louisiana, it does.


Charles Haynes:

Well, it's popular. But the First Amendment isn't a popularity contest. It's meant to protect the conscience of every individual.

And if there are only 10 people in Louisiana who don't want the Ten Commandments promoted, they have a right under the First Amendment to make their case. And I think they might win still. Even a conservative court is going to think long and hard about wiping away barriers to government promoting religion to young kids.

I mean, that just seems unthinkable. But the court changed how they interpret the Establishment Clause. It used to be neutrality in public schools under the Establishment Clause by government. Now it's history and tradition. We're not sure what they're going to do with that.

If they say, well, yes, it's our historical tradition that we have the Ten Commandments and so forth — and the legislators in Louisiana are betting that this court will say, yes, it's been in — we have taught about the Ten Commandments all these years and so why not put it on the wall?


Geoff Bennett:

Charles Haynes is a senior fellow for religious liberty at the Freedom Forum.

Thanks so much for your insights. We appreciate it.


Charles Haynes:

Thanks for having me.

Related

Jun 19

Louisiana to become first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom
By Sara Cline, Associated Press


Feb 01
Watch 7:17

What is Christian nationalism and why it raises concerns about threats to democracy
By Laura Barrón-López, Sam Lane


Aug 04

In Oklahoma, a new test of religion in public schools
By Adam Kemp

Geoff Bennett serves as co-anchor of PBS NewsHour. He also serves as an NBC News and MSNBC political contributor.@GeoffRBennett

How right-wing disinformation is fueling conspiracy theories about the 2024 election

Jun 20, 2024 

PBS NEWSHOUR

By — Laura Barrón-López
By —Ali Schmitz

It’s been more than three years since baseless claims about the 2020 election inspired an attack on the Capitol, but the lies haven’t stopped. With less than five months until November, Donald Trump is at it again with help from right-wing media. Laura Barrón-López discusses the conspiracy theories and their impact with David Becker of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research.

 Full Transcript


Geoff Bennett:

It's been more than three years since baseless claims about a rigged 2020 election inspired an attack on the U.S. Capitol, but the lies have not stopped.

Laura Barron-Lopez is here with more — Laura.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

Thanks, Geoff.

Before and after the 2020 election, Donald Trump repeatedly sowed doubt about the legitimacy of the U.S. election system. Now, less than five months ago before November, he's doing it again. Here he is in the swing state of Wisconsin this week.

Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: The radical left Democrats rigged the presidential election in 2020, and we're not going to let them rig the presidential election in 2024.

(Cheering and applause)


Donald Trump:

And every time — we're not going to let them do it.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

And, much like last time, the former president has help from right-wing media.


Greg Gutfeld, FOX News Anchor:

What is up the Dems' sleeve to drag that body back into the White House? What's the dog that's not barking? And then let's say by some weird miraculous chance that we didn't see coming, given that Trump is ahead, has a 66 percent chance of winning, looks like he's going to get the electoral count, and Joe still wins.

Well, then what do you do after you win? How do you convince anyone that's real? Have they even thought of that? Like, even the Dems behind the scenes better hope he doesn't win, because no one's going to believe it.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

To separate fact from fiction, I'm joined by David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research.

David, thanks so much for joining us.

Those two examples were just from recent days. The FOX News host, Greg Gutfeld, repeated his claim, saying that if President Biden wins in November, he will only win if there are — quote — "shenanigans," AKA cheating.

Debunk this for us.

David Becker, Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation and Research: Well, our elections, by every measure, are more secure, transparent, and verified than ever before.

We know this because we have more paper ballots than ever before. Over 95 percent of all voters in the United States are going to vote on verifiable paper ballots this fall, and that's the highest percentage ever. It was about 95 percent or so in 2020. Those ballots are audited. The machines are audited to make sure they were tabulated correctly.

Our voter lists are more clean than ever before, and we have more litigation but before and after the election to confirm the results and the rules than ever before. Our elections are very, very good in the United States. So people should know and can know that we will know the winner, and that winner will be correct.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

That spreading of disinformation by Republican politicians, Americans across social media, and right-wing media, is it worse this election cycle than previous cycles?


David Becker:

I think it's worse because of the cumulative effect that we have seen over about four years.

Of course, we had disinformation in the 2020 election cycle, especially during the pandemic, where people were isolated and alone, when people had strong opinions about the election. We saw record turnout, 20 million more ballots cast in 2020 than we'd ever seen in any election before.

There was a lot of disinformation spread, particularly after the election, by former President Trump after he had lost. But that election in 2020 was the most scrutinized election in American history. Roughly, perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the American public still thinks that the most secure, transparent, and verified election we have ever had there was something wrong with.

And that potentially could be problematic for 2024 and the aftermath.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

There's another big election conspiracy theory being spread by Republicans right now.


Donald Trump:

He's going to let everybody come in, because you know what they're trying to do? They're trying to sign these people up and register them. They're not citizens. They're not allowed to do it. It's illegal as hell. So what they're trying to do is they're trying to use all of these people that are pouring into our country to vote. What other reason?


Laura Barron-Lopez:

Trump isn't the only person saying this.

This week, in response to President Biden's action to streamline a pathway to citizenship for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X on June 18 — quote — "This is proof-positive of the Democrats' plan to turn illegal aliens into voters."

And FOX News hosts also claimed this week that 49 states are providing voter registration without showing proof of citizenship to undocumented migrants. What's the reality here?


David Becker:

The reality is that this is again a misstatement of what the law and the facts are here in the United States.

First, it is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. It has been for decades. It's very clear. It comes with criminal penalties. Second, every single voter in the United States to register to vote in a federal election has to provide I.D., almost always a driver's license number.

And thanks to REAL ID and other things, go on to your driver's bureau's Web site and see what you need to bring. You need to bring proof of legal presence, which will either prove that you're a U.S. citizen or you're a noncitizen who's here legally in most cases, in which case you shouldn't be registered to vote when that I.D. is checked against the database, which it is.

And we know this has been incredibly successful. We know that very, very few, if any noncitizens ever actually vote. And we know this because states like Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger did a complete audit of their voter list as recently as 2022, looked at all of those that he couldn't find proof of citizenship for in the database.

It was only about 1,500 statewide out of millions of voters. And the total number of those individuals who had voted in previous elections was zero. This is incredibly successful, we are, in terms of keeping noncitizens from voting. Very, very few noncitizens vote.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

Zero noncitizens in Georgia.


David Becker:

In Georgia in that one audit, yes.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

You work with Republican and Democratic election officials who administer elections and who oversee them. Is this disinformation directly impacting them?


David Becker:

Yes.

Their jobs are much, much harder now. They're having to face disinformation all the time. They're getting it in their offices. They're getting it at election meetings that are public. They're getting it through public records requests. They're requesting duplicative things that are just sucking up their bandwidth.

I have even heard from particularly Republican election officials that they're getting it in their communities, that, when they go to the grocery store or to their children's school or even to their places of worship, they have people who are accusing them of — engaged in a massive conspiracy with millions of people to overturn the will of the voters.


Laura Barron-Lopez:

What are the two big disinformation waves that you think are coming this election cycle?


David Becker:

So I think those waves are really divided by the close of the polls on election night.

We're going to see a wave before then that tries to influence voters, makes them think that voting is rigged or voting is hard, or that their particular polling place or method of voting might not be available to them to get them to self-suppress, to not show up to vote, even though they should still be able to vote.

People should be very skeptical and only rely upon official sources of information, their official election office in their county or locality or state.

And then, after the polls close, I think it's very likely we're going to see a really dangerous wave of disinformation that makes us to believe — that's really going to be focused on the losing candidate or the candidate that thinks he's losing, and is designed to make his supporters feel as if the election has been stolen.

This could lead to a lot of instability and chaos in the post-election period of time and potentially violence like we saw on January 6.

By —Laura Barrón-López
Laura Barrón-López is the White House Correspondent for the PBS NewsHour, where she covers the Biden administration for the nightly news broadcast. She is also a CNN political analyst.

RFK Jr. heats up anti-press rhetoric and CIA conspiracies, as he fails to make debate stage

"The new head of NPR is a CIA agent," Kennedy told supporters in April

By GRIFFIN ECKSTEIN
PUBLISHED JUNE 20, 2024 

Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. speaks at the Nixon Library on June 12, 2024, in Yorba Linda, California. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is peddling conspiratorial attacks on the press, decrying CIA connections as his poor performance keeps him out of the June debate.

"The new head of NPR is a CIA agent," Kennedy told supporters in April, per ABC News, adding that CEO Katherine Maher was part of a “systematic takeover of the American press, particularly the liberal media.”

Kennedy, whose support in polls of the November election hovers near 10%, has long amplified dangerous conspiracy theories, but this is a fresh batch. Ramping up to the election, he has reportedly been repeating claims that “Operation Mockingbird,” a conspiracy theory that holds that the CIA manipulates American journalists, is “alive and well” at rallies, ABC says.

Citing Q-Anon supporter and conspiracy theorist Kevin Shipp, the vaccine conspiracist alleged that swathes of publications were “compromised by the CIA.” The big-money-backed campaign slammed individual outlets for their minimal coverage, too.
Advertisement

Kennedy’s campaign continued attacks on CNN after failing to meet the qualifications for its June 27 presidential debate, claiming in a statement earlier this month that CNN and employees involved in the production of the televised event would violate campaign finance laws if he were left off the stage. CNN denied the claim.

Kennedy’s attacks on journalists come as a report on press freedom from Reporters Without Borders demonstrates a worrying increase in political pressure and violence against the press going into the 2024 election.

 

TikTok accuses federal agency of 'political demagoguery' in legal challenge against potential US ban

TIKTOK FIGHTS US BAN

Haleluya Hadero, The Associated Press - Jun 20, 2024 /  | Story: 493380

Photo: The Canadian Press

TikTok disclosed a letter Thursday that accused the Biden administration of engaging in “political demagoguery” during high-stakes negotiations between the government and the company as it sought to relieve concerns about its presence in the U.S.

The letter — sent to David Newman, a top official in the Justice Department’s national security division, before President Biden signed the potential TikTok ban into law — was submitted in federal court along with a legal brief supporting the company’s lawsuit against measure.

TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company ByteDance is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is expected to be one of the biggest legal battles in tech and internet history.

The internal documents provide details about negotiations between TikTok and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive inter-agency panel that investigates corporate deals over national security concerns, between January 2021 and August 2022.

TikTok has said those talks ultimately resulted in a 90-page draft security agreement that would have required the company to implement more robust safeguards around U.S. user data. It would have also required TikTok to put in a “kill switch” that would have allowed CFIUS to suspend the platform if it was found to be non-compliant with the agreement.

However, attorneys for TikTok said the agency “ceased any substantive negations” with the company after it submitted the draft agreement in August 2022. CFIUS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The letter sent to Newman details additional meetings between TikTok and government officials since then, including a March 2023 call the company said was arranged by Paul Rosen, the U.S. Treasury's undersecretary for investment security.

According to TikTok, Rosen told the company that “senior government officials” deemed the draft agreement to be insufficient to address the government’s national security concerns. Rosen also said a solution would have to involve a divestment by ByteDance and the migration of the social platform's source code, or its fundamental programming, out of China.

TikTok’s lawsuit has painted divestment as a technological impossibility since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.

After the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2023 that CFIUS had threatened ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a ban, TikTok’s attorneys held another call with senior staff from the Justice and Treasury departments where they said leaks to the media by government officials were “problematic and damaging.”

That call was followed by an in-person meeting in May 2023 between TikTok's attorneys, technical experts and senior staff at the Treasury Department focused on data safety measures and TikTok's source code, the company's attorneys said. The last meeting with CFIUS occurred in September 2023.

In the letter to Newman, TikTok's attorneys say CFIUS provides a constructive way to address the government's concern. However, they added, the agency can only serve this purpose when the law - which imposes confidentiality - and regulations "are followed and both sides are engaged in good-faith discussions, as opposed to political subterfuge, where CFIUS negotiations are misappropriated for legislative purposes.”

The legal brief also shared details of, but does not include, a one-page document the Justice Department allegedly provided to members of Congress in March, a month before they passed the federal bill that would require the platform to be sold to an approved buyer or face a ban.

TikTok’s attorneys said the document asserted TikTok collects sensitive data without alleging the Chinese government has ever obtained such data. According to the company, the document also alleged that TikTok’s algorithm creates the potential for China to influence content on the platform without alleging the country has ever done so.

PETA calls for 'sex strike' against 'meaty' men: 'Don't Give a F---'

PETA previously promoted a sex strike against men back in 2022 for contributing more greenhouse gases

By Lindsay Kornick Fox News
Published June 20, 2024 

PETA president discusses her grizzly post-mortem plans for her that she announced Monday.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling for another sex strike until men agree to become vegans to save animals and stop climate change.

PETA announced on its official blog that it will be launching a new campaign to promote a sex strike to target men for their eating habits.

"PETA is erecting—ahem—launching new ads warning that eating animal flesh can cause impotence and is calling on people to join the sex strike, and stop having sex with their meat-eating husbands and boyfriends until they go vegan. Why? A study found that men contribute significantly more to the climate catastrophe than women through their consumption of animal flesh," the post read.


It included an ad that read "Don’t Give a F---. Meat is linked to IMPOTENCE and clogs other arteries, too. Join PETA’s sex strike until men stop eating meat. Please, go vegan."

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched a new ad campaign calling for men to become vegans. (YANN SCHREIBER/AFP via Getty Images)

PETA cited a study from 2021 that claimed men contributed 41% more greenhouse gases than women, likely due to their diets.

"Leave the Meat in the Sheets—Go Vegan in the Streets," one slogan read.

PETA told Fox News Digital: "Women went wild for PETA’s call for a sex strike on meat-eating men in 2022, and with a new study showing that men’s meaty eating habits cause 41% more greenhouse gasses, we know it’s time to ramp it back up. Women have always had power in the kitchen and the bedroom—so we’re combining them to save animals, the planet, and our men’s health. After all, vegans don’t need Viagra and all its attendant risks!"

As the animal rights organization noted, it put out a similar call for a sex strike back in 2022, citing the same study and attacking men for "hurting animals" and "harming the planet."

PETA cited a study that claimed men eating meat contributed 41% more greenhouse gases than women. (Leigh Vogel/WireImage | istock)

"Men need to take accountability for their actions. Now that research shows that their impact on the climate is so disproportionately large, they should take steps to rectify that. And the easiest, healthiest, simplest way to do this is by going vegan," the post read.

It continued, "For all fathers who still are grilling meat but want their children to have a healthy future on a habitable planet, it’s time for a lifestyle change. Pledge to go vegan today."

PETA has faced increased mockery in the past few years over its public statements and ads. In November, the organization was attacked online and fact-checked by X’s Community Notes after posting a picture of turkeys sitting around a human meal for Thanksgiving and claiming "turkeys would never do this to us."

PETA previously called for a sex strike back in 2022 for men to "take accountability." (Photo by Wodicka/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

"Turkeys are not vegetarians," according to the Community Note. "Turkeys eat mice, lizards, frogs, and just about anything they can fit in their mouth. If turkeys were larger or had the technological means to farm and eat humans, their current diet reveals they likely would."

‘Don’t Give a F**k’: With Meat-Eating Men Killing the Planet, PETA Calls For Sex Strike

For Immediate Release:
June 20, 2024

Norfolk, Va. – Because men apparently don’t give a f**k about the planet, as a new study shows that males contribute significantly more to the climate catastrophe than females through their higher consumption of meat, PETA is asking people to stop giving a f**k—literally—by withholding sex from their meat-eating husbands and boyfriends until they go vegan. New ads from the group asking people to join its sex strike against male meat-eaters will soon be popping up across the country. 

“Animal agriculture is a killer, spewing methane that’s destroying the planet, hardening humans’ arteries with cholesterol, and sending billions of animals to their deaths,” says PETA President Ingrid Newkirk. “PETA urges lovers everywhere to ditch deadly meat and reach for vibrant vegan foods instead and has free downloadable vegan starter kits for everyone ready to make the switch.”

According to the United Nations, about a third of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are linked to food production and the largest percentage of these emissions come from the meat and dairy industries. PETA notes that growing water-intensive crops just to feed animals raised for food consumes more than half the water used in the U.S. and that up to 80% of deforestation in the Amazon is linked to meat production, either for grazing or for growing food for cows. Vegan foods—such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils—require less energy, land, and water.

Additionally, each person who goes vegan spares nearly 200 animals every year and reduces their own risk of suffering from cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and obesity. 

IT'S AN OLD IDEA

Gutenberg.orgwww.gutenberg.org/files/7700/7700-h/7700-h

Lysistrata, by Aristophanes - Project Gutenberg

We must refrain from every depth of love.... Why do you turn your backs? Where are you going? Why do you bite your lips and shake your heads? Why are your faces ...

Britannica.comwww.britannica.com/topic/Lysistrata-by-Aristophanes

Lysistrata | Comedy, Ancient Greece, Women's Rights - Britannica

Apr 24, 2024 ... Lysistrata, comedy by Aristophanes, produced in 411 bce. Lysistrata depicts the seizure of the Athenian Acropolis and of the treasury of .

ALSO SEE

shs.hal.science/halshs-02864005/document

The Animal Rights Struggle: An Essay in Historical Sociology

Aug 26, 2020 ... Early concern for animal welfare was rooted in the growing aversion to violence, and to the spectacle of the effects of violence on bodies. The ...

Utoronto.catspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/67306/1/OBrien_Sarah_J_201211_PhD_thesis.pdf

cinematic representations of animal slaughter and the ethics of shock

... on the labour of meat-making make a similar assertion with the title of ... slaughterhouse] and they said, 'no, we don't give tours of this plant.' 'What ...

more open Internet? Why are the Chinese so accepting of these ...

Uwo.cair.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2089&context=etd

The History of Animal Welfare Law and the Future of Animal Rights

Aug 23, 2012 ... The conclusion is that animal rights theory could build on the precedent set by the anti-cruelty laws if legal rights for animals are used as a ...

Wordpress.comgrupojovenfl.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/peter-singer-animal-liberation-1.pdf

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation - WordPress.com

themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive ... PETA News (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,. Washington, D.C.) 4 ...

US bans Russia's Kaspersky antivirus software
AFP|Update: 21.06.2024 


The US Commerce Department said it would prohibit the sale of Kaspersy's software in the United States / © AFP/File

President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday banned Russia-based cybersecurity firm Kaspersky from providing its popular antivirus products in the United States over national security concerns, the US Commerce Department said.

"Kaspersky will generally no longer be able to, among other activities, sell its software within the United States or provide updates to software already in use," the agency said in a statement.

The announcement came after a lengthy investigation found Kaspersky's "continued operations in the United States presented a national security risk due to the Russian Government's offensive cyber capabilities and capacity to influence or direct Kaspersky's operations," it said.


US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said "Russia has shown time and again they have the capability and intent to exploit Russian companies, like Kaspersky Lab, to collect and weaponize sensitive US information."

Kaspersky, in a statement to AFP, said the Commerce Department "made its decision based on the present geopolitical climate and theoretical concerns," and vowed to "pursue all legally available options to preserve its current operations and relationships."

"Kaspersky does not engage in activities which threaten US national security and, in fact, has made significant contributions with its reporting and protection from a variety of threat actors that targeted US interests and allies," the company said.

The move is the first such action taken since an executive order issued under Donald Trump's presidency gave the Commerce Department the power to investigate whether certain companies pose a national security risk.

Raimondo said the Commerce Department's actions demonstrated to America's adversaries that it would not hesitate to act when "their technology poses a risk to the United States and its citizens."

While Kaspersky is headquartered in Moscow, it has offices in 31 countries around the world, servicing more than 400 million users and 270,000 corporate clients in more than 200 countries, the Commerce Department said.

As well as banning the sale of Kaspersky's antivirus software, the Commerce Department also added three entities linked to the firm to a list of companies deemed to be a national security concern, "for their cooperation with Russian military and intelligence authorities in support of the Russian government's cyber intelligence objectives."

The Commerce Department said it "strongly encouraged" users to switch to new vendors, although its decision does not ban them from using the software should they choose to do so.

Kaspersky is allowed to continue certain operations in the United States, including providing antivirus updates, until September 29 this year, "in order to minimize disruption to US consumers and businesses and to give them time to find suitable alternatives," it added.

NOBBY

  

 

Anthony Fauci Says Trump Got Hydroxychloroquine Idea From Right-Wing TV Host

Ron Dicker
Wed, 19 June 2024 

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday that Donald Trump got the notion to push hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment from none other than Fox News host Laura Ingraham. (Watch the video below.)

Fauci, a White House coronavirus task force member during the pandemic, said the former president fixated on so-called miracle cures with “no basis in science.”

Trump yelled at Fauci for openly dismissing the supposed effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug that was promoted by conservatives as a COVID treatment without any real evidence.

“I’m telling the American public the facts,” Fauci said he told Trump. “Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.”

Fauci, who describes his complicated relationship with Trump in his new book “On Call,” told MSNBC’s Ari Melber what he speculated was the reason for Trump’s insistence on the drug’s ability to quell the outbreak.

“I believe he wanted so badly for this to go away the way influenza goes away, and when he saw it was not going away, then he was hoping for some magical solution, and he even used those words, ‘It’s going to go away like magic,’” Fauci said. “And then when that didn’t work, then we had to have these miracle cures like hydroxychloroquine, which he got from Laura Ingraham on Fox News.”

Claims about the drug’s purported usefulness against the coronavirus were bandied about through right-wing channels before Ingraham visited the White House in April 2020 to sell Trump on the drug.

Ingraham, who had already been touting hydroxychloroquine on her show along with other Fox personalities, brought cardiologist Dr. Ramin Oskoui, who was included in a New York Times opinion piece about “dangerous doctors in a pandemic,” and Stephen Smith, an infectious disease specialist, to the meeting, The Wall Street Journal reported. Smith said in April 2020 that he thought the drug combined with an antibiotic was “the beginning of the end of the pandemic.”

Trump was sold. In mid-May 2020, he announced that he had been taking the drug for weeks. “I’ve heard a lot of good stories,” he said.

But a study published in June 2023 by the National Institutes of Health highlighted the futility of the medicine as a pre-exposure treatment for COVID-19. It noted no significant difference between a placebo and the actual drug in preventing infection.

A study released in January 2024 determined that the drug Trump championed as a silver bullet actually increased the mortality rate by 11% among those who took it to treat COVID-19. It was linked to nearly 17,000 deaths in six countries during the pandemic’s first wave.

BMJ study did not prove Covid-19 vaccines caused excess deaths

Gwen Roley / Rossen BOSSEV / AFP Canada / AFP Bulgaria
Thu, 20 June 2024 

Articles and social media posts claimed that research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) proves Covid-19 vaccines caused global excess mortality. This is misleading; the researchers theorize vaccination may have been a contributing factor, but the study's publisher and medical experts point out that the paper does not establish a link between mortality and the shots.

"And right when the shots start the deaths happen and then continues on. And the countries with the highest uptake of the shots have the highest death numbers," says conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in a video posted to X on June 6, 2024.

In the clip, Jones discusses a June 3 study published in the BMJ titled: "Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the Covid-19 pandemic: 'Our World in Data' estimates of January 2020 to December 2022" (archived here).

Similar claims about the paper spread across X while jumping to Facebook and Instagram -- often referencing an article by British daily The Telegraph covering the study (archived here). The posts also circulated in other languages, including French and Bulgarian.

Screenshot of an X post taken June 19, 2024

Screenshot of an X post taken June 19, 2024


The posts come amid a wave of vaccine misinformation, including false claims about adverse effects, which has undercut confidence in public health efforts to fight Covid-19 and other diseases.

The New York Post also shared a link to an article on X on June 6, 2024 with the headline: "Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths since pandemic: study." However, an editor's note attached to the story on its website said the text had been updated to reflect that the study did not analyze the impact of vaccination (archived here)

On that same day, the BMJ stated on its X account that the paper had been misreported and added that various news outlets "have claimed that this research implies a direct causal link between Covid-19 vaccination and mortality. This study does not establish any such link."

What did the study find?

According to the paper's abstract, the Dutch researchers used figures from 47 countries as found in aggregator Our World in Data to assess excess mortality -- or the number of deaths above the anticipated amount -- between 2020 and 2022.

The study concluded that the rate of excess mortality was high in the observed countries, which included the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, during that time, despite the pandemic mitigation measures that were in place.

"This raises serious concerns. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality," the researchers wrote in their conclusion.

While the paper comments on the possibility of suspected adverse events of Covid-19 vaccines contributing to excess deaths, the text also points to infection from the virus and indirect effects of containment measures as potential underpinning factors driving the trend.

The research does not present evidence for a link between vaccination and excess mortality, with the authors pointing out that governments "may be unable to release their death data with detailed stratification by cause."
Experts criticize the paper

After the study was published, it received criticism online, including an X thread (archived here) by Jeffrey Morris, a professor of public health and preventative medicine and director of the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine (archived here).

"This paper provides no evidence whatsoever that Covid-19 vaccines have increased mortality," he told AFP in a June 13 email. "All they do is demonstrate excess deaths did not stop in 2020 but continued in 2021-2022 'in spite of containment measures and vaccines.'"

John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, said placing the burden of excess deaths on Covid-19 vaccines was "a long stretch"(archived here).

"I think that overall vaccines saved many lives in the balance: not as many as some claim, trying to paint an all-perfect story around them, but I definitely don't think that they killed more people than they saved!" he said in a June 13 email.
Publisher and hospital pull back from research

Following criticism of the study BMJ said in a June 13 press release (archived here) that an expression of concern would be placed on the paper.

On June 11, the Utrecht-based Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, listed as the affiliation for three of the study's four authors, also published a statement distancing itself from the paper (archived here).

According to the statement, the original idea of the study "was to look at the effect of Covid measures on, among other things, the mortality rate of children with cancer in low-income countries".

However, during the course of the study, the hospital said: "The focus shifted and diverted in a direction that we felt was too far from our expertise: pediatric oncology. We are not experts in epidemiology, nor do we want to give that impression."

Its statement said: "The study in no way demonstrates a link between vaccinations and excess mortality; that is explicitly not the researchers' finding. We therefore regret that this impression has been created."
Benefits outweigh risks

Some studies have estimated that Covid-19 vaccines saved millions of lives (archived here and here). Physicians have continually told AFP the shots are effective at preventing severe illness and death, outweighing the risks of possible side effects (archived here).

Researchers estimate the Covid-19 virus itself directly led to more than 7 million deaths worldwide, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (archived here).

In Canada, the most recent government data reports that out of more than 100 million doses of the shot, 488 deaths were reported after vaccination with four of these being consistent with causal association to immunization (archived here).

"The BMJ paper gives an overall balanced discussion of many possibilities of contributing factors that are very difficult or even impossible to disentangle as to their relative contribution with these types of data," Ioannidis said. "Many of the contributing factors tend to co-exist, making their disentanglement even more difficult."

Read more of AFP's reporting on vaccine and health misinformation here.


Fact check: Excess deaths are far below pandemic levels

Joseph Hook, PA
Thu, 20 June 2024 

Reform UK’s “contract“, published on June 17, includes the claims: “Excess deaths are nearly as high as they were during the Covid pandemic. Young people are over-represented.”
Evaluation

Excess deaths are far lower than during the Covid-19 pandemic: from an average of more than 2,000 excess deaths per week during the first 52 weeks of the pandemic, they have fallen to around a quarter of that in 2023 (the most recent comparable period).

More young people aged 0-24 have died than expected in the first four months of 2024, the only age group for which this is the case. However, across 2023, excess deaths were much more likely among older people.
The facts

In the Reform UK manifesto – which the party calls its “contract” – published on June 17, under the heading “Excess Deaths and Vaccine Harms Public Inquiry”, the party says: “Excess deaths are nearly as high as they were during the Covid pandemic. Young people are over-represented.”

Excess deaths data is monitored by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) for England. It is calculated by comparing the number of deaths reported each week to an average for the preceding five years.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, excess deaths peaked in the week ending April 17 2020, when 11,683 more people died than expected. Over the 52 weeks of data recorded for the pandemic, between March 21 2020 and March 19 2021, an average of 2,072 excess deaths were recorded each week.

This is almost four times the 519 weekly excess deaths recorded between December 31 2022 and December 29 2023.

Since the end of 2023, the OHID has changed the methodology it uses to calculate excess deaths, and it is not comparable with the previous system.

The OHID has published revised figures for 2023 under the new methodology, showing an average of 209 excess deaths each week. In the first four months of 2024, the most recent data published, 729 fewer people have died than expected on average each week.

In the first four months in 2024, people aged 24 and younger were the only age group with more deaths than expected, with around six excess deaths per week.

But across 2023, by far the highest number of excess deaths was in the 85-plus age group, with 203 excess deaths per week on average, compared with six (again) for those aged 0-24.

An assessment of Nigel Farage and Reform UK

Since his announcement that he was going to stand in this General Election, his rhetoric and statements have been like when he lied and scaremongered about immigration in the run up to Brexit.

byChris Wade
20-06-2024 
in Opinion, Politics



David Cameron described UKIP, a previous incarnation of Reform, as a party of loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists.

A pretty good assessment, in my opinion.
Reform

I think Reform is exactly the same, but with one difference.

I believe that Farage and others by continuing to demonise immigrants has emboldened a significant number of British to come out of that particular ‘closet’. It now seems OK to voice in public what previously was only talked about in like-minded company.

For instance, approximately 10% of Reform candidates are Facebook friends with the Fascist leader of the New British Union.

That’s what Farage has been able to achieve.

Let us not beat about the bush, Farage is one of the most divisive, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobes in British politics today.

Is he racist though?

His politics and statements are there for all to see and assess.

Just a quick internet search will provide plenty of evidence.

A recent dog whistle was accusing Muslims of not having ‘British Values’

He followed up by accusing the PM of being unpatriotic and not understanding our culture. He quickly stated that he meant Sunak’s wealth, not his skin colour or immigrant heritage, that prompted his statement.

So, apparently if you are wealthy, that prevents a person from being cognisant of British Culture.

Strangely, wealth hasn’t prevented Farage himself or Richard Tice from being patriotic.
Farage greatest hits

Hope not Hate has compiled several instances which demonstrate this, and it makes for interesting, if not pleasant, reading.

It isn’t a definitive list, just a snapshot.

So, is he racist?

Since his announcement that he was going to stand in this General Election, his rhetoric and statements have been like when he lied and scaremongered about immigration in the run up to Brexit.

You could almost ‘cut and paste’ his interviews from 2016 and not waste everyone’s time by interviewing him today.
Crisis in the NHS, education, housing?

All caused by immigrants, the eternal Farage scapegoat.

If it wasn’t for these people, the ones who look and sound different to him then everything would be fine.

So, is he racist?




Chris Wade
Semi-retired, ex Railway MFC season ticket holder Husband, father, friend Cyclist (slow) Socialist Hate discrimination. Fave description of self... odd but nice

Sound the alarm: racism and Reform UK on the rise

Racist politics and the far right are on the rise. We need mass resistance to fight back

By Charlie Kimber
Thursday 20 June 2024 
SOCIALIST WORKER

Reform UK, lead by Nigel Farage, has seen a rapid rise in the polls (Photo: flickr/Gage Skidmore)

It’s time to sound the alarm louder—the growth of the far right and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK threatens to become a seismic shift.

And in response, sections of the trade union and “left” movement are making compromises with the devil. Anti-racists need to react urgently.

Several opinion polls have now shown Farage’s party level with or ahead of the Tories nationally. And they confidently predict Farage will win in Clacton, Essex, where he’s running to be MP. We can’t know if the polls are reflecting reality or whether at least some of them are simply expressing the wishes of those who want to boost Reform UK.

Because of Britain’s electoral system, that doesn’t mean Reform UK will necessarily surpass the Tories’ number of MPs. But it does mean the poison that Farage pumps out will be injected even deeper into political debate.

The far right, and the fascists who cluster around them, could be on the verge of a breakthrough.

Years of state racism and Islamophobia from the Tories, unchallenged by Labour, is the crucial background to Farage’s growth. And the Tories, in an ever more desperate situation, have reached even deeper into the racist cesspit.

On Thursday they unveiled an advert purporting to believe that Labour would roll out the red carpet to “illegal immigrants” and write “welcome” in the sand on British beaches to attract them. And Labour began its election campaign with Keir Starmer’s declaration, “Read my lips—I will bring immigration numbers down. I will control our borders and make sure British businesses are helped to hire Brits first.”

Farage is taking that further with calls for “freezing non-essential immigration”, and parts of what passes for the left are following his politics eagerly.

After his manifesto launch this week, George Galloway of the Workers Party of Britain was asked about migrants and refugees coming across the Channel. Instead of kicking back against racism and pointing out that many were fleeing the devastation caused by Western imperialism, Galloway demanded more vicious measures that the Tories have dared to propose.

“Where were the ships?” he said. “The ships were in the Red Sea, in the Black Sea, in the South China Sea. The Royal Navy’s principal purpose and duty is to defend the shores of His Majesty’s realm, but they’re not doing so.

“They’re in every sea except our own sea. They are not involved in turning back illegal departures from France,” he said.

“Illegal arrivals in England, which then cost £80 a night per person, and potentially forever to the British taxpayer. We’ve got all these Royal Navy assets—the problem is they’re deployed everywhere except defending our own shores.”

Galloway claimed the French authorities are “watching migrants leave their shores”. He added, “We certainly wouldn’t allow them to leave unmolested from the beaches of France.”

He is disgustingly echoing Farage’s filth—and the language of the fascists in France.

RMT union leader Mick Lynch told an election event, “There’s a problem on the left. If working class people say there’s a problem in my town, we haven’t got enough resources to deal with an influx of people, you’ve got to deal with that. You can’t say that’s not true.”

He argued that there must be “a left response” to “the migration issue”. “If that upsets some people or is anti-woke, I don’t care.”

Organised workers and trade unions have been and must again be central to the anti-racist response we need. We need clear class politics.

How about an answer that doesn’t pander to the idea that migrants are the problem and instead targets the class enemy—the rich and the corporations. Let’s rage against the chief executives who live in obscene luxury and the billionaire class that is looting society.

A working class divided by racism will never fight effectively against the bosses and the ruling class. That means we must confront racism.

Our sisters and brothers are workers from anywhere in the world, however they come to Britain. And our enemies are those who sit at the top of society, living off the work of the rest of us.

There’s plenty of money for housing, the NHS and everything else we need if we tear down the system of profit.

These are urgent times. We need mass resistance to racism and revolutionary socialist politics at the heart of that fightback.

Join Stand Up To Racism’s campaigns, and make sure there is a mass turnout on Saturday 27 July when the fascist Tommy Robinson seeks to profit from the growth of racism during the election. And build a principled socialist opposition for now and after the election. As racism rises, no section of Labour—left or right—will be enough to deal with it.
Blame the rich, not migrants

The richest 52 families in Britain have more wealth than the poorest half of the British population—33 million people. The 52’s combined wealth is £795 billion—roughly the equivalent of giving every family in Britain £41,000.

It’s more than all the goods and services produced each year in Poland, a country with a population of almost 37 million people. Over the last 35 years, the wealth of the 200 richest families has grown from £42 billion to £711 billion, a 15 percent annual increase in real terms.

There are now 165 billionaires in the UK—there were 11 in 1989.For Stand Up To Racism campaign materials and details of the days of action on 22 and 29 June and the demonstration on 27 July go to standuptoracism.org.uk