Lindsey Graham: Black People “Can Go Anywhere” in South Carolina if They’re Conservative
By DANIEL POLITI OCT 10, 2020

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) questions former FBI Director James Comey, who was appearing remotely, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Friday that Black Americans “can go anywhere in this state,” as long as they’re “not liberal.” During a debate forum with his Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison, Graham was asked to talk about the recent wave of protests by the Black Lives Matter movement as well as increased talk of police reform and systemic racism. “Do I believe our cops are systemically racist? No. Do I believe South Carolina is a racist state? No. Let me tell you why,” Graham said. “To young people out there, of color, to young immigrants, this is a great state, but one thing I can say without any doubt, you can be an African American and go to the Senate but you just have to share the values of our state.”

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Says Black People, Immigrants Can 'Go Anywhere' in SC, 'You Just Need to Be Conservative, Not Liberal' https://t.co/06IXSLXS9u pic.twitter.com/9VHuOaq6fo— Tommy X-TrumpIsARacist-opher (@tommyxtopher) October 10, 2020

In his answer, Graham said that Black Americans will only be successful in running for statewide office if they are conservative. In his answer, Graham said that Harrison, who is Black, will lose the election not because of his race but rather because of his ideas. “If you’re a young African American or an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative, not liberal,” Graham said. The senator pointed out that his colleague Tim Scott of South Carolina is the only Black Republican in the Senate. That’s an example, Graham said, of why in South Carolina “it isn’t about the color of your skin or where you came from, it’s about your ideas.”

Lindsey Graham finally said the quiet part out loud: he only cares about South Carolinians who belong to his political party.

This isn't about political parties. It's not about left vs. right. This is about right vs. wrong. pic.twitter.com/qIDsiNornL— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) October 10, 2020

Many were quick to criticize Graham’s comments, including Harrison. “Lindsey Graham finally said the quiet part out loud: he only cares about South Carolinians who belong to his political party,” Harrison wrote on Twitter. Others openly called Graham’s comments racist, with many saying Graham appeared to be saying there was only one acceptable path that Black political leaders could take. “This is textbook white supremacy,” tweeted Simran Jeet Singh, a writer and anti-racism activist.

Hello @lindseygraham white people don’t get to tell black people how to think or vote anymore. Your 19th century plantation mentality isn’t welcome in South Carolina. Those days are over. Racism on live tv in 2020. #sc2020 #scpol #scsenate pic.twitter.com/3dTEdyi9sZ— jimmy williams (@Jimmyspolitics) October 10, 2020

Listen to Lindsey Graham declare what Black people can and can’t do.
This is textbook white supremacy.
pic.twitter.com/IRJfSEWWVt— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) October 10, 2020

Graham made the comments during what was supposed to be the second debate but ended up being back-to-back interviews of the Senate candidates. Event organizers were forced to change the format after Graham rejected Harrison’s call to be tested for COVID-19 before the face-off. Harrison said he would not appear in the same space as Graham without the test. Graham said he was tested last week and said the Senate physician had assured him he didn’t need further testing. On Wednesday, the Cook Political Report changed its forecast for the South Carolina Senate race from “lean Republican” to “toss up"

Amy Coney Barrett Is As Cynical As Trump
The SCOTUS nominee has been praised for being kind, but her actions as she tries to secure her seat reveal exactly who she is.

By TOM SCOCCA OCT 11, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Capitol Hill on Oct. 1. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

As she introduced herself to the nation in the White House Rose Garden, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s newest Supreme Court nominee, almost sounded respectful. “The flag of the United States,” she said, “is still flying at half-staff in memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to mark the end of a great American life.”

Really it was a taunt. Barrett, in a venue deliberately decorated to copy Ginsburg’s own nomination scene, was showing up to snatch Ginsburg’s job before the late justice’s body was even in the ground. “I will be mindful of who came before me,” Barrett said—but not so mindful as to acknowledge, let alone respect, Ginsburg’s direct dying wish that the seat stay vacant until a newly elected president could fill it.

The words fit the deed. When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, he used his introductory remarks to praise Trump for having put more thought and effort into the selection than any previous president had. It was absurd to claim Trump had done any such thing; Kavanaugh was merely pledging loyalty, demonstrating that he is a ridiculous liar and a toady. In the same vein, by bringing up Ginsburg, Barrett established who she is: a shameless, cynical careerist who believes nobody can stop her.

So far, the debate around this nomination has purported to be about people being unkind or unfair to Barrett, with Republicans preemptively denouncing Senate Democrats for their plans to attack her charismatic Catholic religious identity or her traditionalist wife-and-mother persona—and Senate Democrats shying away from attacking her at all, in favor of vague hand-wringing about how Trump and Mitch McConnell are abusing the nomination process.

But what’s wrong with Barrett isn’t that she’s too pious, or that she’s submissive in her personal life. It’s that she’s bent on making herself one of the nine most powerful judges in the country, even if she has to do it in the most graspingly partisan and destructive way possible.

“I never imagined that I would find myself in this position,” she said in the Rose Garden—a lie as brazen, in context, as Kavanaugh’s claim to have been the product of unprecedentedly rigorous presidential vetting. In fact, Trump had long ago hailed her as a Supreme Court justice in waiting, because she’s a dedicated right-wing judicial politician who’s been angling for the job for years. She’s a member of the Federalist Society, loyal to the band of wealthy and publicly anonymous donors who put millions of dollars of ads and campaign donations behind McConnell’s blockade of Merrick Garland.

Their ethics are her ethics. Her own current seat on the federal bench, on the Seventh Circuit, was held open for her by another Senate blockade of an Obama nominee. Her work as a judge, in her brief time doing it, has been cruel and heavily slanted rightward, and she has a prior history of supporting illiberal activist groups and endorsing absolutist positions. To argue about her past holdings or her potential future decisions, though, is to miss the point: She doesn’t care what the public, or the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, think about her as a judge. She didn’t even bother to complete her disclosure forms. What explains this approach? It’s ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it,’ for seats on the bench.

Some liberal legal scholars have gone out of their way to give testimonials about Barrett’s temperament and decency. She is surely kind to her colleagues, but all they’re describing is a networking strategy. Everyone who maneuvers themself into position for a judicial nomination is nice to the other people who populate or operate the pipeline. Yale Law professor Amy Chua wrote an op-ed praising Kavanaugh when he was up for the court; Kavanaugh gave Chua’s daughter a Supreme Court clerkship in return. Barrett’s endorsers are telling the public nothing more than that they personally want to have a Supreme Court justice on their side. Whose side she’ll take in actual court business is irrelevant to them.

Since the Rose Garden speech, Barrett’s pursuit of the seat clarified her character. Her announcement festivities—a crowded series of indoor-outdoor events, full of maskless VIPs schmoozing the maskless nominee and her maskless family, in defiance of basic public-health protocols and municipal limits on gatherings—turned out to be a COVID superspreader event, sickening Trump himself and infecting a broad swath of the administration and multiple senators. Instead of slowing down and trying to take stock of the disaster, or even fully tracing the outbreak and notifying the people who may be in danger, the Republican Party is stampeding on with her confirmation process: abandoning any effort to pass COVID relief legislation, convening yet more meetings with potentially infectious people in them, refusing to even test all the senators so that they won’t have to be quarantined.

And Barrett is encouraging this. The coverage of her campaign for the position projects an odd passivity onto her, as if she’s simply been caught up in events controlled by others. But the truth is that she’s actively lobbying for the job, calling senators to help push the process along, even as the virus runs loose through official Washington. She reportedly already had the virus during the summer, so the odds are it’s not going to harm her personally.

Some people, if they discovered themselves at the center of an orgy of illness and destruction, staged for their own aggrandizement—and to boost the reelection bid of a bigot and multiply accused rapist—might have second thoughts about what they were doing. Barrett could stop the circus if she wanted. She is only 48 years old. If she has to wait for another chance—even until the winner of the 2024 election is sworn in—she’ll be 52. That’s still younger than Kavanaugh, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, or Samuel Alito were when they were nominated, to just look at the current justices.

Why would she need to wait even that long, though? Surely if the American public wants Donald Trump making Supreme Court picks and Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority confirming them, the voters will reelect them a month from now, and Barrett’s seat would be assured, with no need for frantic plague-dodging. She could even take the time to complete her paperwork and go through more than pro forma vetting and hearings, for courtesy’s sake.

But Barrett knows perfectly well that the public is against Trump and McConnell, and against her, too. She is determined to win this victory right now, while she still can, for herself and her agenda. The will of the public doesn’t enter into it, any more than morality does. Barrett is an educated person. She graduated at the top of her law school class. She certainly can count past four. She knows Antonin Scalia, the justice she clerked for, died in February of 2016, and that Ginsburg died in September of 2020—four years and seven months apart—and that Trump is claiming the right to fill both vacancies.

What sort of prospective Supreme Court justice believes a president should get five years’ worth of court picks in a four-year term? The same kind who puts herself forward for an impossibly rushed confirmation process, and who declines to say if she’ll recuse herself from cases that might decide the reelection of the president who is taking such extraordinary measures to give her the job. Like McConnell and Trump, her vision of the law is based on nothing more than what she can get away with; the Constitution is a set of rules to be gamed for personal advantage, not a framework for popular legitimacy or justice. The entire presidency of Donald Trump has been building toward this moment, and Amy Coney Barrett is the woman he was waiting for.

TV COMMENTATOR 

U.S. recovery doesn’t depend on a stimulus deal, says White House economic adviser



By Tribune Media Services

A fiscal stimulus deal isn’t essential to the U.S. recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, though the Trump administration and Congressional Democrats will keep talking, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said.

“Well no, I don’t think it’s dead at all,” Kudlow said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “All I’m saying is some targeted assistance would go a long way right now.”

Capping a week of shifting signals from President Donald Trump on the amount of stimulus and how to get there, Kudlow said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin may increase the administration’s offer in talks with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Kudlow was asked about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s call last week for more government spending to protect the recovery.

“It’s just getting Americans through a difficult period of time,” Kudlow said. “I don’t want to parse, but I don’t think the recovery is dependent on it.”

The U.S. will post strong economic growth in the third and fourth quarters, he said, bouncing back from the historic dive in the second quarter.

He didn’t elaborate or suggest a clear path to addressing opposition among Senate Republicans. Mnuchin and Pelosi are expected to continue talks this week, he said. Mnuchin headed into the latest talks on Friday with a White House offer of $1.8 trillion in economic stimulus. House Democrats have passed a $2.2 trillion proposal.

———

Tony Czuczka of Bloomberg News wrote this story.
©2020 Bloomberg News
Visit Bloomberg News at www.bloomberg.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Bill Barr is setting the stage to interfere in the election — and set a "dangerous" precedent

Alex Henderson, Salon•October 10, 2020

Bill Barr, Donald Trump and an electoral map of the USA Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

U.S. Attorney General William Barr, one of President Donald Trump's most aggressive loyalists in Washington, D.C., has joined the president in claiming that mail-in voting encourages voter fraud. Reporter Jerry Lambe, in an article published by Law & Crime on October 7, discusses some of the reactions that legal experts have had to Barr's comments — noting that some of them believe he is setting a troubling precedent by interfering in an election.

Citing reporting from ProPublica, Lambe explains that the U.S. Department of Justice has "advised U.S. attorneys' offices that a longstanding policy prohibiting the Department from interfering in U.S. elections will no longer preclude prosecutors who suspect election fraud from taking public investigative steps, even in the hours before polls close on November 3."

The DOJ's Public Integrity Section, according to Lambe, sent out an e-mail on Friday, October 2 announcing an "exception to the general non-interference policy" if a U.S. attorney suspects fraud involving postal workers or employees of the U.S. military. That exception, the e-mail said, applies to circumstances in which "the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy, including, but not limited, to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency."

During an interview with the Chicago Tribune in September, Barr claimed that voting by mail would encourage the "business of selling and buying votes."

Barr's critics are arguing that it is wildly inappropriate for him to interfere in an election. Attorney Daniel Goldman, who advised House Democrats during the impeachment inquiries against Trump, tweeted, "Every DOJ prosecutor and agent must remember that they represent the United States of America, not Bill Barr or Donald Trump. There is no place in our system of justice for the DOJ to interfere in elections, which this policy change is designed to do."

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's civil rights division, described Barr's actions as "profoundly counterproductive." And attorney Matthew Miller, a security analyst for MSNBC, slammed the exception as a "dangerous foreshadowing of what Barr has planned."

Team investigating deadly Calif. fire seizes PG&E equipment

The headline of this story has been corrected to show that PG&E did not tell California that its equipment may have started the fire

PG&E Equipment Might Have Ignited Northern California Wildfire
The Wall Street Journal•October 9, 2020 PAYWALL 

PG&E Equipment Might Have Ignited Northern California Wildfire

The utility disclosed in securities filings that it recorded alarms on certain equipment supporting a power line that served an area near where the deadly Zogg Fire is believed to have originated in Shasta County.

Associated Press•October 10, 2020

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Fire investigators looking into what caused a wildfire that killed four people in far Northern California have taken possession of equipment belonging to Pacific Gas and Electric, the utility has reported.

PG&E said in a filing Friday with the Public Utilities Commission that investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seized some of its electrical equipment near where the Zogg Fire started Sept. 27.

The fire erupted in Shasta County during high winds and quickly grew, killing four people in the community of Igo, population 600. It later spread to neighboring Tehama County. As of Friday, it had scorched 88 square miles (nearly 228 square kilometers) and destroyed more than 200 buildings, about half of them homes. It was almost fully contained.

The utility said it does not have access to the evidence collected by Cal Fire, which has yet to determine a cause for the fire.


PG&E, the nation’s largest utility, recently emerged from bankruptcy stemming from financial fallout from several devastating wildfires caused by its utility equipment that killed more than 100 people and destroyed more than 27,000 homes and other buildings in 2017 and 2018.

Customers in the area where the fire started, near Zogg Mine Road and Jenny Bird Lane north of Igo, are served by a 12,000-volt PG&E circuit. On the day the Zogg Fire began, the utility’s automated equipment in the area “reported alarms and other activity between approximately 2:40 p.m. and 3:06 p.m.,” PG&E told regulators. The line was then de-activated.

The Shasta County Sheriff’s Office identified one of the victims as Alaina Michelle Rowe, 45, who was found dead along a road on Sept. 28. The sheriff’s department said another victim was a minor but did not report the identity. KRCR-TV in Redding reported that Rowe and her eight-year-old daughter Feyla died as they tried to escape the fire.

In June, Pacific Gas & Electric confessed Tuesday to killing 84 people in one of the most devastating wildfires in recent U.S. history during a dramatic court hearing punctuated by a promise from the company’s outgoing CEO that the nation’s largest utility will never again put profits ahead of safety.

PG&E CEO Bill Johnson pleaded guilty to 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter stemming from a November 2018 wildfire ignited by the utility’s crumbling electrical grid. The blaze nearly wiped out the entire town of Paradise and drove PG&E into bankruptcy early last year.

___

CLIMATE CHANGE & WILDFIRES 

Three dead as hundreds of wildfires ravage the Middle East

NOT JUST CALIFORNIA, AUSTRALIA, 

OR EUROPE 

Abbie Cheeseman, The Telegraph•October 11, 2020

An aerial picture shows smoke billowing from a forest fire in Lebanon's Ras El Metn area - -/AFP  THE BIBLICAL CEADERS OF LEBANON 

Hundreds of massive wildfires ravaged parts of the Middle East over the weekend, forcing thousands to flee their homes.

In Syria, the hardest-hit country, three people were killed according to the health ministry.

On Friday, the first day of the renewed fires, the health ministry said that 70 people in Latakia province alone had been taken to the hospital with breathing difficulties.

The fires continued to spread across the west coast of the country over the weekend, but were brought under control on Sunday according to state media.

Mohammed Hassan Qatana, Syria’s health minister, told a local radio station on Friday that the fires were the worst in Syria’s history.

In neighbouring crisis-hit Lebanon, firefighters were tackling blazes in the north, centre and south of the country, backed up by military helicopters.

According to the state news agency, fires in villages in the south of the country triggered the explosions of land mines along the border with Israel.

Flames rise at the scene of forest fire in Ras el-Harf village, in the Baabda district, Lebanon - -/AP

In Israel’s north, more than 5,000 residents were evacuated from their homes in the city of Nof Hagalil as the fires spread across Israel and the occupied West Bank.

The cause of the hundreds of fires remains unknown but the spread will have been facilitated by high temperatures and winds.

Syria, Lebanon and Israel are each facing severe economic crises that hinder their ability to tackle the raging forest fires.

In 2019 Lebanon faced its worst bushfire season in decades with more than 1200 hectares of forest destroyed in just three days. The volunteer-led civil defence teams that fight the fires are under-equipped and under-resourced.

As more than 100 fires ravaged the country last year three of the firefighting Sikorsky S-70 helicopters were unable to be used as the government had not maintained them. Just days later the mass anti-government protest movement broke out that rocked the country for months and saw Prime Minister Saad Hariri step down.

This June, as temperatures began to creep up in time for wildfire season, the government approved a request from the defence ministry to sell the helicopters. By October, more than 100 wildfires were spreading again.

#MAKETHERICHPAY

WFP chief seeks million from donors, billionaires for food

EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press•October 9, 2020



World Food Program (WFP) Executive Director David Beasley speaks to the media about the organization's Nobel Peace Prize win, at the airport in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, late Friday, Oct. 9, 2020. The World Food Program won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for fighting hunger and seeking to end its use as "a weapon of war and conflict" at a time when the coronavirus pandemic has driven millions more people to the brink of starvation. (AP Photo/Sam Mednick)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Even before COVID-19 became an issue, World Food Program chief David Beasley was warning global leaders that the world would face the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II in 2020.

He said that was because of wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, locust swarms in Africa, frequent natural disasters, and economic crises including in Lebanon, Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia. Then came COVID-19 which quickly became a pandemic that has swept the world, escalating the need for food — and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says it is still not under control.

Beasley, who got COVID-19 in April, has spent the months since he recovered reaching out to world leaders and visiting stricken countries with a new warning that he delivered to the U.N. Security Council last month: millions of people are closer to starvation because of the deadly combination of conflict, climate change and the coronavirus pandemic.

He said the WFP and its partners were going all out to reach as many as 138 million people this year — “the biggest scale-up in our history.”

Beasley urged donors, including governments and institutions, to help, and he made a special appeal to the more than 2,000 billionaires in the world, with a combined net worth of $8 trillion, to open their bank accounts.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday to the U.N. food agency is a tribute not only to its work in the even greater humanitarian crisis than Beasley envisioned in this COVID-ravaged year, but as the Nobel committee made clear it is a plea for unity and multilateral cooperation to tackle global challenges as WFP has done in a world facing increasing nationalism and populism.

Beasley called the award “a humbling, moving recognition of the work of WFP staff who lay their lives on the line every day to bring food and assistance for close to 100 million hungry children, women and men across the world — people whose lives are often brutally torn apart by instability, insecurity and conflict.”

He also paid tribute to the agency's government, organizations and private sector partners who help the hungry and vulnerable.

“Every one of the 690 million hungry people in the world today has the right to live peacefully and without hunger,” Beasley said in a statement on the WFP website.

“Today, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has turned the global spotlight on them and on the devastating consequences of conflict. Climate shocks and economic pressures have further compounded their plight,” he said. “And now, a global pandemic with its brutal impact on economies and communities, is pushing millions more to the brink of starvation.”

While the food crisis is mainly the result of conflict, Beasley said in April that he raised the prospect of a hunger pandemic because of the economic impact of COVID-19.

He told the Security Council last month that famine has been averted because of generous donations, but “this fight is far, far, far from over — the 270 million people marching toward the brink of starvation need our help today more than ever.”

And he said 30 million people who rely solely on WFP for food to survive will die without it, and WFP needs $4.9 billion to feed them for a year.

“We’re doing just about all we can do to stop the dam from bursting,” Beasley said. “But, without the resources we need, a wave of hunger and famine still threatens to sweep across the globe. And if it does, it will overwhelm nations and communities already weakened by years of conflict and instability.”

WFP’s logistics operation is key to delivering food to tens of millions in need, and lockdowns and closed borders because of the pandemic have created immense difficulties for the agency.

Beasley has stressed that measures to contain the coronavirus must be balanced with the need to keep supply chains and trade moving across borders. And he has repeatedly expressed concern over COVID-19 shutdowns not only impeding the delivery of food but worsening other problems, such as disrupting vaccinations and treatments for other illnesses.

“There is a grave danger that many more people will die from the broader economic and social consequences of COVID-19 that from the virus itself, especially in Africa,” Beasley has said, “and the last thing we need is to have the cure be worse than the disease itself.”

At least 12,000 mink dead as coronavirus spreads among fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin

Harriet Alexander, The Independent•October 9, 2020

Thousands of mink bred in fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin have now died form Covid-19 (AP)

Thousands of mink bred in fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin have died from coronavirus, after scientists believe the virus was introduced to the animals by humans.

The outbreak was first noticed in Utah in August. Ten thousand mink have now died in Utah fur farms, a spokesperson from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) told CBS News on Friday.

This week Wisconsin, the largest fur-producing state, became the second state to confirm a Covid-19 outbreak among their mink population, with one farm affected so far.

Two thousand mink in the one farm - which is now under quarantine - have died, the channel reported.

Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) said that it had implemented new measures for "carcass disposal, cleaning and disinfecting the animal areas, and protecting human and animal health."

On Wednesday a third state, Michigan, confirmed that mink there had tested positive too.

Wisconsin has the largest mink fur farming industry in the United States

Professor Tim Blackburn / UCL

Scientists believe that humans passed the virus to the animals, and not the other way round.

This week researchers from University College London (UCL) concluded that 26 animals, including farm animals like pigs, horses and sheep, may be vulnerable to infection with coronavirus and could “warrant further investigation and possible monitoring”.

Professor Christine Orengo, from UCL Structural and Molecular Biology and lead author of the study, said: “We wanted to look beyond just the animals that had been studied experimentally, to see which animals might be at risk of infection, and would warrant further investigation and possible monitoring.

“The animals we identified may be at risk of outbreaks that could threaten endangered species or harm the livelihood of farmers.”

She pointed towards cases of coronavirus outbreaks in mink farms that show some animals may act as “reservoirs” of Covid-19, with the potential to re-infect humans.

The scale of the outbreak among mink is unclear, as the fur farms say it is impossible to test every single animal.

The Fur Commission USA, which represents mink farmers, say that there are approximately 275 mink farms in 23 states across the county, producing about three million pelts annually, with a value of more than $300m.

Fur from the dead, infected mink is still being used commercially, and Fur Commission USA told the AP that the fur is processed to eliminate all traces of the virus before it is used for clothing.

As with humans, younger mink are less likely to contract the virus, and most deaths occur among older mink, ages one to four years old.

Difficulty breathing is a common symptom, but the virus progresses extremely quickly, killing most infected mink by the next day.

Researchers have reported that mink are especially susceptible to the virus due to a specific protein in their lungs.

The Netherlands has now moved up its deadline to end mink fur farming by three years to prevent future outbreaks, and killed thousands of animals earlier this year to stop the spread. Spain followed a similar path, and last week Denmark announced a million mink will be killed to stop the outbreak among animals there.

The Humane Society of the United States has called the inaction by the US government "indefensible."

"Fur farms are miserable places for wild animals like mink," Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the US.

"Now, with the coronavirus outbreak killing the animals by the thousands, the suffering has only intensified.

"The only way to end the dual problems of pandemic outbreaks on fur farms and the animal suffering inherent in fur farming is to close down this industry for good."

Read more

Scientists test whether coronavirus can be passed from minks to humans

‘Considerable risk’ of humans transmitting Covid-19 to wild animals

Calls to shut down fur trade after mink become infected with Covid-19

TALIBAN AND SEX PISTOL 

ENDORSE TRUMP

John Lydon Doubles Down on Supporting Trump: ‘I’d Be Daft as a Brush Not to’

THE NEW AXIS OF EVIL;

JOHNNY ROTTEN, TALIBAN, TRUMP 

Katrina Nattress, SPIN•October 11, 2020


Click here to read the full article on SPIN.

John Lydon is known for unapologetically championing Trump, and during a recent interview with the Observer he doubled down on his support of the president.

The Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd frontman cited the economy as the reason why he’ll be voting to re-elect Trump. “I’d be daft as a brush not to,” he said. “He’s the only sensible choice now that Biden is up — he’s incapable of being the man at the helm.”

More from SPIN:
John Lydon Talks Shit to Henry Rollins and Marky Ramone at Punk Doc Event

John Lydon to Voice Mutant Pig in New Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Series


Lydon went on to explain that his support began after the president was accused of being racist. “I’ve been accused of the very same thing, so I’m offended for anybody who’s called that,” he divulged.

For those who need a refresher, the singer and his crew were involved in an altercation with Kele Okereke at 2008’s Summercase festival. The Bloc Party vocalist asked Lydon if he’d consider getting Public Image Ltd back together, and he allegedly responded by going on a racist tirade that included the statement “your problem is your black attitude” and physically assaulting Okereke.

Mogwai’s Stuart Braithwaite witnessed the attack and called out Lydon via Twitter after the interview was published. “John Lydon’s entourage attacked @keleokereke and used racist language,” he wrote. “We were there. That he uses that incident as his reason to support Trump is extremely telling. What a disappointing man.”

John Lydon’s entourage attacked @keleokereke and used racist language. We were there. That he uses that incident as his reason to support Trump is extremely telling. What a disappointing man. https://t.co/P1g7U9tiph
— stuart braithwaite (@plasmatron) October 11, 2020

Lydon denied the allegations at the time, and told the Observer he was “shocked” to be called racist.

When asked about George Floyd’s death, the punk legend said “There’s not anyone I know anywhere that wouldn’t say that wasn’t ghastly.”

“It doesn’t mean all police are nasty or all white folk are racist. Because all lives matter,” he added.

When it was pointed out to him that some consider the “all lives matter” motto to diminish Black Lives Matter, Lydon reiterated his stance. “Of course I’m anti-racism,” he said before adding that he won’t be controlled by political groups or movements.



The Taliban on Trump: "We hope he will win the election"

Sami Yousafzai, CBS News•October 10, 2020


Editor's Note: A statement in this article was incorrectly attributed to Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. It was told to CBS News by another senior Taliban leader. CBS News has corrected that attribution and added additional statements from the interview with Mujahid.

President Trump's reelection bid received a vote of support Friday from an entity most in his party would reject: the Taliban.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told CBS News in a phone interview, "We believe that Trump is going to win the upcoming election because he has proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people, although he might have missed some small things, but did accomplish the bigger promises, so it is possible that the U.S. people who experienced deceptions in the past will once again trust Trump for his decisive actions."

Mujahid added, "We think the majority of the American population is tired of instability, economic failures and politicians' lies and will trust again on Trump because Trump is decisive, could control the situation inside the country. Other politicians, including Biden, chant unrealistic slogans. Some other groups, which are smaller in size but are involved in the military business including weapons manufacturing companies' owners and others who somehow get the benefit of war extension, they might be against Trump and support Biden, but their numbers among voters is low."


Another senior Taliban leader told CBS News, "We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan."

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Saturday that they "reject" the Taliban support. "The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary," Murtaugh said.

The Taliban's enthusiasm for Mr. Trump is grounded in the goal they share of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after 19 years of war — a longtime promise of the president.

There are now fewer than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and national security adviser Robert O'Brien has said that number would drop to 2,500 by early next year.

The Trump administration signed a historic pact with the Taliban in February in which the U.S. and its allies set a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw by the spring of 2021. The pact requires the Taliban to break from al Qaeda and negotiate a power-sharing deal with Afghan government rivals.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reiterated last month, after meeting with Taliban co-founder and political deputy Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Doha, that the U.S. was set for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by April or May of 2021.

The Obama administration was unsuccessful in its attempts to broker a similar diplomatic deal. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told "Face the Nation" in February that the U.S. should draw down but also keep a residual force of "several thousand people to make sure we have a place from which we can operate" should al Qaeda or ISIS gain capacity to strike the U.S.

This week, President Trump said all troops should be "home by Christmas," although it is unclear if that is actually expected to happen or if he was simply reiterating his position on wanting to bring troops home.

"We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," he tweeted.

That timeline is at odds with the advice of U.S. military commanders, who do not believe it is safe to reduce troop levels below 4,500 unless the Taliban breaks with al Qaeda and reduces the level of violence. It is also unclear how it will affect peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban negotiators in Qatar.

Civilians continue to be caught up in ongoing violence in Afghanistan, many in Taliban attacks. From January 1 to June 30 this year, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) documented 2,176 civilian injuries and 1,282 civilian deaths due to the conflict.

The Taliban also noted it thinks highly of Mr. Trump's "America first" creed.

"It is the slogan of Trump from the start that they are not cops for the world and don't want a single flag and anthem for the globe, but their priority is America," Mujahid said. "When there is no interference by U.S. in other countries, we believe they are facing fewer threats compared to their aggressive position. Trump has a concrete policy in this regard and it is better for America."

The senior member of the Taliban praised the president's honesty. "Honestly, Trump was much more honest with us than we thought, even we were stunned with his offer to meet Taliban in Camp David."

In 2019, President Trump disclosed that he had invited the Taliban for peace talks at Camp David — days before the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said he canceled the plans after the Taliban killed a U.S. soldier.

The senior Taliban member told CBS News, "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."

The senior leader also expressed concern about Mr. Trump's bout with the coronavirus: "When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better."

Contributing: Margaret Brennan, David Martin, Haley Ott and Nicole Sganga

'We reject their support': Trump campaign strongly declines Taliban endorsement for his 2020 reelection

David Choi, Business Insider•October 10, 2020

President Donald Trump. Getty

A representative of the Taliban said the group supports President Donald Trump's reelection on Friday, according to CBS News.

"When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better," a senior leader reportedly said.

Tim Murtaugh, the campaign director for Trump's reelection, told Insider he rejected the group's endorsement.

A representative of the Taliban said the group supports President Donald Trump's reelection on Friday, according to CBS News.

"We hope he will win the election and wind up US military presence in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid told the news organization.

Mujahid reportedly added that it approved of the Trump campaign's "America first" slogan. Trump has mentioned the phrase in numerous speeches throughout his presidency and campaign.

"It is the slogan of Trump from the start that they are not cops for the world and don't want a single flag and anthem for the globe, but their priority is America," Mujahid said to CBS News.

Another senior leader from the group said he grew concerned after the US president tested positive for the coronavirus earlier this month.

"When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better," the senior leader told CBS News.

A senior Taliban member also reportedly added: "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."

Afghan Taliban fighters. AP Photo

Tim Murtaugh, the communications director of Trump's reelection, vehemently rejected the group's statements and ribbed former Vice President Joe Biden's tenure.

"We reject their support and the Taliban should know that the President will always protect American interests by any means necessary, unlike Joe Biden who opposed taking out Osama bin Laden and Qassem Soleimani," Murtaugh said in a statement to Insider.

The statements from the terrorist organization comes as Trump announced on Wednesday that he wanted to completely pull all US troops from Afghanistan by the holiday season.

"We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," Trump tweeted.

It is unclear exactly how many US forces remain in the country; however, US Central Command, the military command responsible for the region, previously said it expected around 4,500 troops in Afghanistan by November.

Following Trump's tweet, Mujahid described the move as "a very positive step," according to The Washington Post.

US military officials were caught off-guard by Trump's Twitter announcement, which has been a prevailing sentiment throughout his presidency. Republican lawmakers and former military leaders have also expressed frustration at the timeframe of the withdrawal, leading many to speculate that the terrorist group would surge once the US withdraws.

Meanwhile, peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban remain ongoing. In February, the US signed a peace deal that included steps for it to withdraw all forces from the country in exchange for security assurances. But the efficacy of the peace agreement has been called into question, due to continued violence against Afghan forces by the Taliban.

Taliban denies endorsing Donald Trump

Emily Goddard, The Independent•October 11, 2020

Donald Trump takes his mask off before speaking from the South Portico of the White House in Washington, DC during a rally on 10 October (AFP via Getty Images)

The Taliban has denied endorsing Donald Trump after reports emerged claiming the Afghan militant group had said it hoped the US president would be re-elected.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson for the Taliban, was reported to have supported Mr Trump’s bid to remain in the White House and expressed concern over his health.

CBS News quoted Zabihullah Mujahid to have said during a phone interview: “We hope he will win the election and wind up US military presence in Afghanistan.”

The American news outlet also said another Taliban senior leader told them: “When we heard about Trump being Covid-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better.”- 

In response, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said they “reject” the Taliban support, adding: “The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary.”

But the Taliban also appeared to reject the comments as Mr Mujahid published a “clarification” on Sunday, saying CBS “misinterpreted and misrepresented my words”.

“US news outlet @CBSNews has interpreted and published my remarks incorrectly. Nothing of the sort has been communicated as publicised by them,” he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Trump announced in a tweet on Thursday that he wants to bring US troops serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas.

Such a move to withdraw the remaining 5,000 troops and ending 19 years of US military presence in the country would likely be claimed as a victory by the Taliban.

The US deal with the Taliban had scheduled the withdrawal of troops by May 2021, subject to certain security guarantees.

Mr Trump said the US was “dealing very well with the Taliban” after Taliban and Afghan government peace negotiators held their first formal meeting to end two decades of war in September.

Read more

Taliban expands influence in Afghanistan as US troops withdraw

Taliban welcome Trump tweet promising early troop withdrawal

US troops in Afghanistan to be 'home by Christmas,' Trump tweets

Faith leaders back Biden in sign that evangelical support for Trump is waning

Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent, The Guardian•October 9, 2020

Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

More than 1,600 faith leaders in the US have publicly backed Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate in next month’s presidential election, amid signs that some evangelical voters are turning away from Donald Trump.

The Biden endorsements mainly come from Catholics, evangelicals and mainline Protestants. They include Jerushah Duford, the granddaughter of Billy Graham; Susan Johnson Cook, a former US ambassador for religious freedom; Michael Kinnamon, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches; and Gene Robinson, a former bishop in the Episcopal church.

“This record-breaking group of endorsers shows that President Trump’s lack of kindness and decency is energizing faith communities and will cost him this election,” said Doug Pagitt, executive director of the Christian campaign organisation Vote Common Good, which compiled the endorsements.

The organisation said the announcement represents the largest group of clergy to endorse a Democratic candidate for president in modern history.


Related: Meet the anti-abortion Republicans defecting from Trump and voting Biden this year | Will Samson

“Four years ago, many religious voters decided to look the other way and give Trump a chance, but after witnessing his cruelty and corruption, a growing number of them are turning away from the president.”

In the 2016 election, more than 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, with many taking the view that his pledge to make conservative and pro-life appointments to the supreme court outweighed unease about his personal behaviour. White evangelicals make up about a quarter of the US electorate.

But some surveys have suggested an erosion of support for Trump among white evangelicals. A poll conducted last month on behalf of Vote Common Good in five key battleground states found an 11-point swing among evangelical and Catholic voters towards Biden.

In July the Public Religion Research Institute found a seven-point drop in white Christian support for Trump, and a Fox News survey in August showed 28% of white evangelicals backed Biden, compared with 16% who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016.

A group called Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden said that, despite disagreeing with the Democratic candidate’s stance on abortion, “we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore … we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”

Biden, a Catholic who has frequently spoken of how his faith has sustained him through challenging times, is hoping to win over undecided Catholic voters with a series of ads broadcast in battleground states.

Some Catholic bishops have issued statements criticising Trump’s policies. Last month, more than 150 Catholic theologians, activists and nuns signed an open letter to Catholic voters urging them to oppose Trump, saying he “flouts core values at the heart of Catholic social teaching”.

Responding to the Christian leaders’ endorsement of Biden, Josh Dickson, faith engagement director of the Democratic candidate’s campaign, said: “The common good values of the Biden-Harris agenda are resonating with voters motivated by faith. We know that Joe Biden and [running mate] Kamala Harris are the clear moral choice in this election. We hope this show of support will encourage other voters of faith to make their values, not party affiliation, their primary voting criteria this year.”

One of those publicly backing Biden, Ronald Sider, president emeritus of Evangelicals for Social Action, said: “I urge everyone, especially evangelicals, to support Joe Biden as president. Poverty, racism, lack of healthcare and climate change are all ‘pro-life’ issues. On those and many other issues, Biden is much closer than Trump to what biblical values demand.”

Belinda Bauman, the author of Brave Souls: Experiencing the Audacious Power of Empathy, said: “In all my years I’ve never publicly endorsed a candidate. But this year is different – very different. This year we don’t just face a political choice, we face a moral one.”