Canada must be ‘vigilant’ about race replacement conspiracy threat: minister



Amanda Connolly - 

Global News

Canadians must be on their guard for hatred spreading online that can lead to violence, including the race replacement conspiracy theory, says Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino.

His comments to the House of Commons public safety committee come as the conspiracy theory and far-right proponents of it are facing intense criticism following a massacre at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store on Sunday by an apparent white supremacist.

The majority of those killed were Black.

Police say the mass shooting is being investigated as both a federal hate crime and a case of racially motivated violent extremism. According to The Associated Press, the 18-year-old alleged shooter had repeatedly visited websites espousing white supremacist ideologies and race-based conspiracy theories.

“Words matter. Hate can lead to violence. The 'great replacement theory' is a conspiracy that is being driven by white supremacists and is leading to violence, not only in Buffalo but in Canada," Mendicino said. "And we all have to be vigilant.”

Read more:

What is white replacement theory? Police probe conspiracy’s role in Buffalo shooting

Mendicino had been asked what more the government can do to force social media companies to remove content such as material promoting race replacement conspiracies.

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor said the continued spread of the content online shows social media companies are failing to enforce their terms of service when left to their own action.

Read more:

Canadians need to step up to tackle online hate — even with ‘crazy uncles’, says expert

“We’ve got to be sure we’re putting in place the tools that are necessary to prevent these crimes, these awful crimes, from occurring in the first place," Mendicino said, adding that governments need to work together with stakeholders and companies to find solutions.

At the core of the conspiracy known as race replacement or white replacement theory is the baseless claim that governments and other actors around the world are working to replace white citizens and diminish their political power by bringing in growing numbers of more diverse immigrants.

Canadian racism, homegrown extremism also in focus after Buffalo mass shooting

Typically associated with fringe elements online, the conspiracy is gaining traction in more mainstream society as far-right personalities and actors propagate it to wider audiences on a range of social media platforms, cable programming and websites.

It is part of the spectrum of far-right conspiracies raising growing concern among police and national security agencies, prompting them to focus in on the threat posed by ideologically motivated violent extremism.

The term, often shortened to IMVE, refers to a broad swath of anti-immigrant, anti-government, antisemitic, and anti-women extremist ideologies with overlapping and deep roots in white supremacy.

IMVE is a major concern for Canadian national security authorities.

Read more:

Canada’s spy service boosts attention to ‘ideological’ domestic extremism

Global News reported in March that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service now devotes almost as much attention to “ideological” domestic extremism as it does to religiously motivated terrorism, marking a paradigm shift in the spy agency’s priorities.

Documents reviewed by Global News suggest CSIS has gone from closing its right-wing extremism desk in 2016 to spending almost as much time and resources tracking “ideological” domestic extremism as religious terrorist groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda in 2021.

David Vignault, director of the spy agency, said extremists are using anger over the pandemic to recruit new followers and adherents, and fuel violence.

— with a file from Global's Alex Boutilier.

Cohen: How the United States became the Republic of Death

On May 12, the United States marked a grim milestone: one million people have died of COVID-19 since 2020.


© Provided by Ottawa Citizen

A young girl visits the makeshift memorial to victims of the May 15 mass shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

Andrew Cohen - 

On May 15, 10 people were killed in a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York.

To observe the first, President Joe Biden ordered flags at the White House to fly at half-mast. Congress observed a moment of silence. Politicians expressed anger and sadness.

To observe the second, Biden went to Buffalo, where he was, as always, the nation’s mourner-in-chief. The president remembered the dead and comforted the bereaved. Politicians expressed anger and sadness.

Both had a ritual about them. Among Americans, they came with a sense of inevitability — a collective sigh and a shrug — as if viruses and guns are the natural order of things. Carnage was unfolding as it does in different ways in the United States, a fate regretted and accepted.

This has made the U.S., metaphorically, a nation of mourners, eulogists, crepe-hangers and undertakers. Americans are comfortable with death whether it comes from a pandemic or a regime of gun violence.

Eventually, COVID-19 will disappear, followed by another murderous malady from another corner of our borderless world. The U.S. may, or may not, treat it differently than it has this crisis.

Gun violence, though, will not disappear. In fact, it may well increase in a country today buying almost three times the number of guns it did in 2000. With more guns (400 million) than people (334 million), with economic anxiety rising, we can expect Americans to continue killing each other like nowhere else on Earth.

What is it about the American character that is in love with night? Why is the country willing to accept levels of death from disease and guns? In the world’s most affluent nation, comfortable with technology and innovation, why is this? These are questions for moralists and theologians. One historian of the Civil War, which claimed more lives (600,000) than all others in the nation’s history, called America “ the republic of suffering .”

Of course, Americans don’t have to die in the numbers they have from COVID-19. Other countries had far fewer deaths because they managed the pandemic differently. They closed borders, stayed home, wore masks, welcomed vaccines.

These are some of the reasons Canada has about one-third the death rate of the United States. Canadians were more willing to embrace preventive measures, however slow, clumsy and imperfect; Americans were not.

This isn’t because we are morally superior. It means, as a society, we were ready to defer to institutional authority and embrace the common good. Whatever our skepticism and distemper, public health mattered more than individual freedom.

One analysis of the relative success of Australia in handling the pandemic — it’s had one-tenth the death rate of the U.S. — notes “a lifesaving trait that Australians displayed from the top of government to the hospital floor, and that Americans have shown they lack: trust, in science and institutions, but especially in one another.” Many Americans do not trust science, their institutions, or their leaders. Out of faith or philosophy, they refuse to act prudently. This explains why the number of official deaths is a million and probably far more.

The same goes for gun violence: other countries won’t tolerate what the U.S. does. The shooting in Buffalo was one of more than 200 so far this year in which four or more people were wounded or killed, following 693 such shootings last year. In Canada, which is contemplating more stringent gun control, gun violence is lower. The same goes for Japan, Europe and other industrialized countries.

In the U.S., the reasons are the constitutional right to own guns and the ease of access to them that courts and politicians embrace. Most of all, though, it is the impulse to violence, whether it is Will Smith slugging Chris Rock at the Academy Awards or misanthropes like the one in Buffalo who walk into supermarkets, churches or movie theatres and start shooting.

Once the seat of life and liberty, the United States is now the Republic of Death.

Andrew Cohen is a journalist, professor at Carleton University and author of Two Days in June: John F. Kennedy and the 48 Hours That Made History.

THEY SUPPORT THE NDP

FIRST READING: Youth are fleeing the Liberals (but they still detest the Tories)

© Provided by National Post

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes a selfie with a supporter, after the Liberals won a minority government, at the Jarry Metro station in Montreal,September 21, 2021.

Tristin Hopper - 

TOP STORY

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is hemorrhaging youth support as young people increasingly lose faith in the Liberals’ ability to tackle skyrocketing rises in living costs. But even as the Tories aggressively position themselves as the party of affordability, they’re still not moving the needle for many voters under the age of 40.

New polls this week by Nanos Research show the Liberals enjoying just 22 per cent support among 18- to 29-year-old voters. It’s a massive dip from their usual 34 per cent share in the demographic, and it means the Liberals are in the rare position of being behind even the Conservatives in terms of voter intentions among the under-30 set.

While Nanos numbers have shown a bit of an uptick for the Conservatives among young people, most of those “dislocated” voters — the ones who are abandoning the Liberals — seem to be throwing in their lot with the NDP. And that’s if they plan to vote at all.

This is most apparent regarding housing affordability, one of the most weighty issues for millennials and Gen Z.

In a separate Nanos poll conducted recently, a clear plurality of under-35 voters (32.6 per cent) trusted the NDP most to deal with the housing affordability crisis. Only 20.4 per cent thought the Tories were most likely to help them afford a home — although it was still far ahead of the 11.8 per cent scored by the Liberals.


© Nanos ResearchThe responses to a poll question about which federal parties were best suited to address housing affordability.

As a rule, conservative parties — even really popular ones — consistently score dismal results among Canadian under-35 voters.

Right now, Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford is cakewalking to re-election and even receiving unprecedented endorsements from provincial labour unions. But young people are the worst single demographic for Ford’s Progressive Conservatives.

According to the most recent Leger poll on Ontario voter intentions, just 22 per cent of 18- to 34-year-old voters intend to cast a vote for Ford — compared to 32 per cent the Liberals and 30 per cent for the Ontario NDP.


© LegerOntario voting intentions as of May 18.


Even in Alberta — one of Canada’s most consistent bastions of federal Conservative support — provincial elections would be utterly swept by Rachel Notley’s NDP if they were decided by Albertans under 30.

Just days before Jason Kenney won an easy majority for his United Conservative Party in 2019, polls were still showing that the province’s under-35s wanted a second NDP majority.

As the Conservative leadership race continues on towards a final voting date in September, the campaign of frontrunner Pierre Poilievre has been defined by an unusually youth-centric agenda.

Poilievre, who at 42 is the youngest contender in the race, has outlined a detailed strategy to bring down housing prices via increased construction and deregulation. In campaign speeches, Poilievre often says he is fighting for the “32-year-old in their parents’ basement who can’t afford housing.”

Back in April, the polling firm Abacus showed Poilievre’s introductory campaign video to a cross-section of Canadian voters. The three-minute video included Poilievre’s contention that an entrenched elite was forcing young Canadians into insecure housing and employment.

What most surprised pollsters was how much the video resonated among older millennials. Six of 10 in the 30 to 44 age group agreed with Poilievre, and a majority of those polled said they would be inclined to vote for a Poilievre-led Conservative party.

Poilievre’s rise in the race hasn’t appeared to drive any noticeable youth support to the Tories. In the most recent Leger poll of voter intentions, under-35 voters still had the Conservatives in a distant third place (23 per cent against 33 for the NDP and 30 for the Liberals).

But a clear plurality of that same cohort said that if they had to pick a favourite Tory leader, it would be Poilievre.


© Twitter/Jonathan KayIn an Ontario election defined by terrible campaign slogans, the Ontario Moderate Party deserves special consideration. Also, the party may not be all that moderate after all: Their platform includes price controls on fuel and has a miniature rant against “failed vaccines.”

THIRD WORLD USA
'Twitter philanthropy' reveals chasms in social safety net


Single father Billy Price was already struggling to make ends meet before someone broke into his Michigan storage unit, stole his identity and ruined his credit.



Price filed a police report, and then tweeted about it to Bill Pulte, a multimillionaire who he'd heard uses Twitter to give money to those in need.

“They took nearly everything, including everything that my grandpa gave me before he passed,” Price tweeted last month, only to be met with silence. “On top of that we’re about to be homeless, it’s like the weight of the world. Please help us.”

Price, 35, recently moved from Illinois to Michigan to maintain joint custody of his 5-year-old son Maddox. Price is living at an extended stay Kalamazoo hotel while he searches for a place to live, but he's worried that between his bad credit, his dwindling savings and his lack of employment he won’t qualify for anywhere that isn’t a “slum.”

“I really don’t want that for my son,” said Price, who lost his landscaping job during the pandemic and has relied on odd construction jobs and day-trading cryptocurrency to make money over the past year.

Practically every minute of every hour, someone sends a tweet to Pulte, a 33-year-old private-equity investor and heir to the mammoth PulteGroup homebuilding company.

A grieving mother needs $800 to retrieve her young daughter’s ashes. A Texas man needs help paying off more than $60,000 in credit card debt. A family of four is about to lose its house.

People send photos of their eviction notices, tearful videos of their empty refrigerators, screenshots of the paltry sums they have in their bank accounts.

And, nearly every day, Pulte responds. He gave $500 to a man who sent a video of his missing teeth. He gave $125 for a woman to pay for gas so she could make the long drive to her brother’s funeral.

It’s all part of what Pulte calls “Twitter philanthropy” – a concept of direct giving in which Pulte and others offer immediate financial support to a tiny percentage of the thousands who reach out every day over social media.

“I call them hand-ups, not handouts,” said Pulte, who has grand visions of disrupting the traditional philanthropy model by using social media to help form an online army of donors to help people in crisis.

For Timi Gerson, vice president and chief content officer at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Pulte’s generosity is laudable, but she said it’s turned into a “grotesque Hunger Games” in which desperate people compete to get noticed while struggling to survive in a “broken system” that has “deeply unequal access to health care and housing and services.”

Online direct giving is nothing new – for years, people have used sites like GoFundMe to get money for medical expenses, funeral costs and other unforeseen bills.

But Pulte’s approach is nearly instantaneous. Within seconds, on a whim, he can send a follower life-changing money: his largest single donation so far is $50,000, according to his records of the more than $1.2 million he has spread among more than 2,200 followers over the past three years. In that time, his follower count has skyrocketed from around 35,000 to 3.2 million.

Gerson appreciates the “immediacy and the transparency” of Pulte’s approach but she said it’s ultimately far too little to achieve meaningful change, comparing the situation to the old tale of the Dutch boy who kept his finger in a leaking dike to try to prevent his town from flooding.

“Endless fingers in the dike aren’t going to solve anything if the dam wall is crumbling. You’ve got to fix the structure,” Gerson said. “If you want to effectively solve the deeper problem, you’ve got to fund groups and organizations that are looking at things systemically.”

Pulte agrees that systemic change is needed, but bristles at the notion that government and giving to large philanthropic organizations is the answer, saying such approaches come with large overheard costs, as well as “corruption, fraud and abuse.” The very fact that so many people are reaching out to him is proof that not enough action is being taken, he said.

“Government should be doing it,” Pulte told the Associated Press. “But in the absence of government, we have to step up and help people who are dying of cancer, who can’t afford their diabetes insulin pump, who don’t have teeth.”

And it isn’t always Pulte who is fronting all the money. He also works with TeamGiving.com to promote causes – often medical procedures – that his own followers, members of #TeamPulte, can rally behind and chip in to help.

In the long term, Pulte said he is trying to build a huge network of donors in which the TeamGiving community can vote on where to aim funds.

“I think that that in many ways could be just as good, if not better than Social Security or Medicaid,” Pulte said, although he admits, “I haven’t figured that out yet.”

“The biggest thing I want to solve is how do I make it a movement that’s sustainable beyond me? Because I’m just one person. I’m just one millionaire. I’m not able to solve all the issues.”

One person Pulte has helped is Callie Coppage, a 32-year-old single mother who tweeted a photo of herself and her infant son to Pulte on Feb. 27, saying she had just left an abusive relationship and needed support for her two kids.

The next day, as she was braiding hair inside her home, $7,000 suddenly arrived from Pulte via Cash App.

“It felt like I had a godparent who had just swooped in and helped my life get back on track, saying, ‘Here, I’m going to look out for you,’” she told the AP.

Coppage said she immediately put the $7,000 to use, paying off insurance bills, buying a better car – she said her ex took her old one – as well as new car seats and shoes for her kids.

But as overjoyed as she was to receive the money, Coppage said she also was greeted by the dark side of Twitter philanthropy. Her Cash App was immediately inundated with messages from strangers requesting money — an experience that Coppage said made her empathize with Pulte.

“There was a point where I kind of felt a little bit greedy because I wanted to help, but, knowing my circumstance, $7,000 was just the perfect amount that I needed – it wasn’t as if I’d won $1 million. And then how do you even choose?”

Pulte said a few volunteers help him sort through the countless requests he gets each day.

He admits that some of the recipients are probably scammers, but says he and his team work to try to ensure that he’s sending money to people who really need it.

“We’ve gotten a lot better at understanding who is for real and who is not,” said Pulte, who said a traditional charity might spend 20% or 30% on overhead. “If we help 90% of people and 10% of them are scams, I’ll take those odds any day.”

For Price, he continues to regularly tweet his story to Pulte, even though the only responses he ever receives are from scammers trying to trick him into revealing his bank information. He's also applied for various government housing loans — he says there's a huge waiting list — and started a GoFundMe page, though that too has yet to gain traction.

“My focus has been on getting out of this struggle," Price said. "And when all of your focus goes to that, you know, how can you enjoy your life? That’s not a life you want to live.”

R.j. Rico, The Associated Press

Ex-Trump Official Quits GOP, Says Republican Party Is Now A Threat To America

Ed Mazza
Tue, May 17, 2022,

A former Homeland Security official in the Trump administration who later turned into one of the former president’s critics has quit the Republican Party, saying the GOP can’t be saved.

Miles Taylor, who was the agency’s deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, wrote on Twitter:



Taylor also linked to an editorial he wrote for NBC News:

“In the wake of the mass shooting in Buffalo on Saturday, it’s become glaringly obvious that my party no longer represents conservative values but in fact poses a threat to them — and to America,” he wrote.

Taylor was referring to the white supremacist who shot and killed 10 at a Buffalo grocery store and specifically targeted Black people. The alleged shooter reportedly wrote a manifesto referencing “great replacement theory,” a conspiracy theory that claims Democrats are trying to replace white Americans with people of color. That theory has been shared in Republican circles, and embraced by figures such as Fox News host ― and self-confessed liar ― Tucker Carlson.

Miles Taylor, who was Homeland Security’s deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, also admitted to writing the 2018 “Anonymous” op-ed in The New York Times saying there were people within the Trump administration who were working against the then-president.

 (Photo: Alex Brandon via Associated Press)

Miles Taylor, who was Homeland Security’s deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, also admitted to writing the 2018 “Anonymous” op-ed in The New York Times saying there were people within the Trump administration who were working against the then-president. (Photo: Alex Brandon via Associated Press)

Taylor noted that a poll last year found nearly half of Republicans agreed with sentiments of the “great replacement theory.”

“The Republican Party — which branded a violent insurrection in the nation’s capital as ‘legitimate political discourse’ — is poisoning Americans’ minds and supplanting respectful disagreement with loaded-gun rhetoric,” he wrote.

Although good people remained in the party, Taylor urged them to quit, too, “until it is rehabilitated or a suitable alternative is created.”

Taylor’s time in the DHS involved Donald Trump’s infamous policy of separating migrant children from their families. Taylor later told Telemundo that he regretted not denouncing it at the time.

He publicly came out against Trump in 2020 and said he would vote for Joe Biden. He has also admitted to writing the 2018 “Anonymous” op-ed in The New York Times that claimed there were people within the Trump administration who were working against the then-president.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Leaking a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion or other hot topics is unprecedented – 4 things to know about how the high court works


Eve Ringsmuth, Associate professor of poltiical science, 

Oklahoma State University

THE CONVERSATION
Wed, May 18, 2022

Signs belonging to anti-abortion protesters sit in front of a fenced U.S. Supreme Court building on May 16, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to announce a decision that could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion.

The court is currently considering a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which questions the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But a leaked draft majority opinion was published by Politico on May 2, 2022, indicating that a majority of justices had voted to allow the post-15-week abortion ban, which would overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Court has confirmed the authenticity of the February draft, but a final decision in the case has not been announced.


Most of the Supreme Court’s deliberations occur behind closed doors. And while other information has leaked from the court before, this kind of public circulation of a majority opinion draft is unprecedented.

As an expert on the Supreme Court, I think understanding the court’s decision-making process can help make sense of the leaked draft’s significance and the influence it is having on the court’s credibility. Here are four key points to consider.

1. How are Supreme Court opinions drafted?

Shortly after hearing oral arguments, Supreme Court justices meet privately without legal clerks or staff to discuss and take a preliminary vote on how to resolve the case.

These initial votes are not the final decision. Justices can, and sometimes do, change their minds during the opinion drafting process. Drafting the opinion can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months in more contentious cases.

While tentative, the first votes are significant because they determine the group of justices eligible to write the opinion that could set a legally binding precedent for future cases and legal questions.

There are nine Supreme Court justices. A majority, or at least five, need to jointly support any final decision on a case in order to set precedent.

The author of the majority opinion is selected by the most senior justice who initially voted with the majority. Since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, either Chief Justice John G. Roberts or the most senior Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas, most often chooses who authors the majority opinion.

The selected justice works with his or her team of legal clerks to write an initial draft of the opinion, which explains the legal basis for voting one way or another. The draft is then shared with the eight other justices.

Next, the other justices have an opportunity to weigh in on the content of the majority opinion and attempt to modify its language. Those in the majority have the greatest influence on the draft, but majority opinion authors may respond to points made in a draft dissent. A final decision is reached once all justices have authored or signed onto an opinion.

Justices not in the majority can write or sign onto dissenting or concurring opinions, which do not carry legal authority.
2. How much can draft opinions change over time?

In theory, a Supreme Court majority opinion draft can be completely rewritten.

Enough justices could also change their minds and create a new majority, which supports a different resolution to a case. However, since justices have already read written briefs – meaning a written legal argument submitted by each side in the case – and considered the case with their colleagues, a complete overhaul of a given majority opinion draft is unlikely.

Some revision to a majority opinion draft is common, though.

This is because the majority opinion author must craft language that will secure the votes of at least four other justices. Justices can negotiate over specific wording and also push for larger, substantive revisions.

This drafting process usually results in multiple versions. A final opinion ultimately reflects the views of all of the justices in the majority.

Majority opinion authors are more likely to circulate additional opinion drafts in cases where the justices are closely split – meaning five justices plan to vote opposite four others – and in complex cases. There is more pressure for a majority opinion author to accommodate the other justices’ views in split decisions, since losing one vote would reverse the case outcome.

3. Why are draft opinions kept private?

The court sets a lot of its own policies, including which cases they accept, the format of oral arguments and opinion drafting procedures.

Justices have repeatedly argued that private deliberations are essential to the court’s decision-making. As former Justice Lewis F. Powell said in 1980, “There must be candid discussion. … The confidentiality of this process assures that we will review carefully the soundness of our judgments.”

The court’s procedures promote judicial independence and are designed to establish distance from public opinion and political pressure.

Some observers have argued the court should be more transparent, saying that increased access to things like court proceedings and information regarding when and why justices must recuse themselves from cases would strengthen the accountability of the court.

Roberts has defended the court’s decision-making process, saying in June 2018, “It’s not as if we’re doing this in secret. We’re the most transparent branch in government in terms of seeing us do our work and us explaining what we’re doing.”

4. What is the significance of a leaked opinion draft?

The release of the draft opinion is rare and meaningful – it violates the Supreme Court’s strict expectation of confidentiality among clerks, justices and staff.

Shortly after the draft opinion’s release, Roberts called the leak “absolutely appalling” and an “egregious breach” of trust.

Thomas said it was “tremendously bad,” likening it to an “infidelity” that cannot be undone.

Although the full ramifications of the leak are not yet known, this breach of trust could change the openness with which justices discuss cases internally.

Scholars and the public have previously seen records of the court’s internal discussions and early opinion drafts through justices’ personal papers. But justices typically do not make their personal papers available until they have retired or died.

Ultimately the leaked opinion draft places a spotlight on the Supreme Court that the institution prefers to avoid.

The leaked draft sparked protests outside the Supreme Court building defending Roe v. Wade and new proposed legislation that would establish abortion as a federal right. Following the leak in early May, the Supreme Court installed security fencing.

The draft opinion also brought a wave of criticism from outside experts about the legitimacy of the court.

Suggestions that the court has become politicized are a potential problem for an institution that relies on public credibility and good will to be able to enforce its decisions.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Eve Ringsmuth, Oklahoma State University.

Read more:

Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them


Abortion: the story of suffering and death behind Ireland’s ban and subsequent legalization

Why will abortion rights tumble? Because conservatives built a well-oiled machine.

Tessa Silverman and Oliver Ma
Thu, May 19, 2022

In a draft opinion that would overturn 50 years of precedent to eliminate the right to abortion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito insisted that he pays no mind to politics.

"We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey," Alito wrote in the leaked document. "And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision."

It does not take a law degree to understand that Alito's claims of political neutrality are specious. The draft decision advanced by Alito and four of his conservative colleagues in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is part of a public right-wing campaign to roll back the liberties of women and pregnant people.

As law students, we feel it would be helpful to share how conservative politics, like the fight to outlaw abortion, are incubated on law school campuses across the country. From there, these ideas travel through a well-funded pipeline to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivers remarks during a Federalist Society dinner gathering in November 2006 less than a year after his confirmation.

If the name "Federalist Society" sounds familiar, you may recall that Donald Trump committed on the campaign trail to appoint "great judges, conservative, all picked by Federalist Society." As president, Trump delivered on that promise. Now six of the nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court have ties to the Federalist Society: Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas.


Just one veteran: Judge Jackson's historic rise leaves Alito as only justice with military experience

Text with the USA TODAY newsroom about the day’s biggest stories. Sign up for our subscriber-only texting experience.

Leaders of the Federalist Society often describe it as a nonpartisan forum for the free exchange of ideas. From the start, though, the group has been intensely political.
What is the Federalist Society?

It was founded in 1982 by conservative law students at the University of Chicago, Yale University and Harvard University. The statement of purpose for the inaugural Federalist Society symposium read: "Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology. ... No comprehensive conservative critique or agenda has been formulated in this field. This conference will furnish an occasion for such a response to begin to be articulated." At the conference, featured speakers railed about "the onslaught of the New Deal" and argued that abortion and "acceptable sexual behavior" should be "reserved to the states."

In the 40 years since, the Federalist Society has concentrated power through the support of prominent conservative legal figures and politicians. The group is fueled by more than ideology, though. In 2019, the Federalist Society listed almost 50 "Madison Club Platinum" benefactors who contributed $100,000 or more.

Less publicly, its leaders are embedded in a network of nonprofits that feed each other millions of dollars to disseminate right-wing talking points and pack the courts with conservative judges.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in 2012. AEI and the Federalist Society held a book discussion with Scalia, who coauthored "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts." Scalia served on the Supreme Court until his death in February 2016.

Essentially, the Federalist Society has vast resources that it uses to recruit, train and prop up new generations of conservative lawyers. That project starts on law school campuses. There are more than 200 student chapters of the Federalist Society across the country. Some law students join these chapters because they are just fervently devoted to the Federalist Society’s mission.

Many, though, are enticed by the prestigious professional advantages that only the society can offer them. A big part of that is clerkships.

Great Replacement Theory?: Try language of death wielded by opportunistic right-wing figures

Clerking is a popular, incredibly competitive opportunity for law students to work closely with judges after graduation. The Federalist Society has a track record of securing elite clerkships for its members early in their law school tenure. These clerkships function as launching pads to high-profile careers in government, private practice and the judiciary. For the Federalist Society, they are the channel between arming law students with conservative principles and positioning lawyers to implement conservative policies.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas addresses the Federalist Society in 1995 in Washington. Thomas spoke about how the concepts of victimhood and group rights have affected public debate and decision-making. Thomas has served on the court since 1991.

Take, for example, Scott Stewart, a graduate of Stanford Law School and member of the Federalist Society. Stewart first clerked at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before serving as a law clerk to Thomas at the Supreme Court. Last year, Stewart became Mississippi's solicitor general. In that capacity, he brought Dobbs to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate abortion rights.
They'll go after other rights next

The Supreme Court's final decision in Dobbs, which is likely to come in late June, will emerge from the ecosystem of conservative ideology and policy constructed by the Federalist Society over the past four decades. And the same system will be used to attack other well-established freedoms that conservatives disfavor, like the right to same-sex marriage and to contraception.

So how should those of us who are serious about protecting women, LGBTQ+ people, people of color, people in poverty and other vulnerable communities respond?

First and foremost, we have to stop pretending the law is apolitical. There is a fear that, if we acknowledge the politicization of the Supreme Court, we will erode its institutional legitimacy. But that ship has sailed. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that public opinions of the court are "among the least positive" in 40 years, and that only 16% of Americans say the justices are doing a good job keeping political views out of their decisions.

Insisting on the neutrality of the court does nothing to improve that reality; it only gives cover to conservatives to continue abusing the system to their advantage.

We need to take action: Our well-meaning hashtags won't stop racist mass shootings

What would actually help are reforms to the Supreme Court, such as term limits, a binding ethics code and expansion of the bench. In the meantime, though, we need to equip ourselves to deal with the judiciary we have.

Law schools have a critical role to play here. Far too often, our classes train us to argue before an impartial court that simply does not exist. Professors should be explicit about the extralegal influences that shape judicial decisions and teach future lawyers how to leverage them to achieve fair, humane outcomes.
Progressives need their own machine

More broadly, we need to build a movement that can compete with the Federalist Society to imbue our courts and public offices with progressive values. That’s a heavy lift, but the work is already underway.

The American Constitution Society is a network of progressive law students, lawyers, judges, government officials and many others who are committed to equality, democracy and justice. Although ACS, which was founded in 2001, is much younger than the Federalist Society, it has begun to pick up steam.

Last year, the group supported President Joe Biden's efforts to nominate diverse candidates for judicial office and other federal positions. More than 200 people affiliated with ACS obtained federal appointments. ACS also fosters conversation about the discriminatory underpinnings of the law and promotes a view of the Constitution as a living document meant to serve the people – all people.

Constitution won't interpret itself: Ketanji Brown Jackson owes us an answer on her judicial philosophy

This is the kind of movement that liberals and progressives must rally around if we hope to reclaim our country’s judicial system. The law is political, which means politics should matter to lawyers. But it also means the law should matter to anyone who wants to see real change take place for the better. For those who are ready to join the fight, we welcome you.

Tessa Silverman is a first-year student at Stanford Law School. Oliver Ma is a second-year student at Harvard Law School. Silverman and Ma are incoming co-presidents of American Constitution Society chapters at their respective institutions. The opinions in this article reflect their views as individuals.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SCOTUS abortion ruling draft - Progressive lawyers must push back

Elon Musk Has a Bigger Problem Than Twitter Bots: A Huge Debt Burden




Paula Seligson
Tue, May 17, 2022,

(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk may be directing his buyer’s remorse at Twitter Inc.’s bot problem. But underpinning the deal is a $13 billion debt bill that’s looking like a bigger burden by the day.

The package, drummed up in a rush and signed by banks before the end of the billionaire’s beloved April 20 weed holiday, will leave the social media platform with an annual interest expense approaching $1 billion, giving the company an alarmingly small margin for error.

To sober-minded credit analysts, second thoughts about the deal are to be expected.

The purchase will be funded with a leveraged loan and high-yield bonds. CreditSights estimates this will dramatically increase Twitter’s annual interest expense to around $900 million, while Bloomberg Intelligence sees $750 million to $1 billion.

With numbers like those, Twitter looks poised to burn cash, boosting the pressure on Musk to transform the company by finding new sources of revenue and slashing costs. That’s even the case with Wall Street analysts estimating record earnings in 2022, though those rosy forecasts could be imperiled if predictions for a US recession -- Musk said Monday one is already under way -- come true.

“This is just a bad capital structure to put on a business like Twitter that has never proven to be highly profitable,” said John McClain, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management. “It’s been a public company for quite some time and they never have seemed to really figure out how to attractively monetize the consumer.”

Musk himself is casting doubt over his own deal, saying this week that he won’t proceed unless Twitter proves bots make up fewer than 5% of its users.

Debt is only one of three components of Musk’s financing. He’s found 19 other equity investors to join him in $27.25 billion of equity commitments. And he’s taken out a $6.25 billion margin loan against his Tesla shares, but he’s currently trying to replace that by bringing in preferred equity investors, which could include Apollo Global Management Inc. and Sixth Street.

Bankers pulled all-nighters and worked through the Easter and Passover holiday weekend, rushing to meet Musk’s April 20 deadline to build the financing package. What they cooked up will take Twitter far deeper into debt, boosting its interest costs from $53.5 million during the past 12 months.

That gives Musk little room for error, though he’s not on the hook for the debt. As is typical in a leveraged buyout, Twitter will be stuck repaying if anything goes wrong, while Musk and his fellow equity investors can only lose the cash they put into the deal.

“Leverage is really high and free cash flow is going to be negative out of the gate, so that certainly adds an element of risk to the deal,” Jordan Chalfin, a senior analyst at credit research firm CreditSights, said in an interview. “Twitter really needs to grow into their capital structure and drive earnings higher in order to cover both their capital expenditures and their interest expense.”

Confused by Musk’s Twitter LBO? Here’s What’s Weird: QuickTake

Fears are also growing that a recession could be on the horizon, which would make this an even worse time to load debt onto Twitter, as most of its revenue comes from advertising. “In a poor macroeconomic background, the first things that companies pull in terms of marketing budgets is advertising spending,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Robert Schiffman.

Meanwhile, selling corporate debt has gotten more difficult in recent weeks. Rising rates have hit junk bonds the hardest, and the average yield, a proxy for the cost of borrowing, has increased by more than a full percentage point since banks agreed to the Twitter deal to about 7.6%. The leveraged loan market has cooled, too.

Analysts see Twitter posting record earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $1.67 billion in 2022. Twitter has forecast roughly $925 million of capital expenditures. Deduct that and Twitter’s newly increased interest expense from its Ebitda, and the company would be burning through cash.

If Musk successfully grows Twitter, the debt load would become more manageable over time, and the company could hit neutral cash flow in 2023 and positive cash flow in 2024, Chalfin said. If Musk can’t make good on his promises to turn around the company, the debt load could become a problem.

Twitter does have about $6.3 billion in cash and short-term investments that could support burning cash for a few years, Bloomberg Intelligence’s Schiffman said.

Tucker Carlson Is Happy To Make Excuses For Mass Shooters -- When They're White

Ben Blanchet
Thu, May 19, 2022, 3:50 AM·2 min read

A clip shared Wednesday compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson's coverage of acts of mass violence. (Photo: Fox News)

A clip shared Wednesday compared Fox News host Tucker Carlson's coverage of acts of mass violence. (Photo: Fox News)

Some mass shootings and violence bring out a different side of Tucker Carlson than others.

In a clip shared by MSNBC host Ari Melber, the Fox News host shows a “double standard” when he covers violence committed by white perpetrators versus covering violence against white people.

The clip starts off with Carlson’s coverage of the Buffalo, New York mass shooting that left 10 people dead at a supermarket Saturday. Most of the victims were Black and the attack took place in a predominantly Black neighborhood.


The alleged shooter, who is white, stated that he wanted to “kill as many Blacks as possible” and cited the baseless “replacement theory” in a 180-page document that was posted online.

In his coverage of the attack, Carlson stopped short of calling the document, which was filled with racist ideology, a “manifesto.”

“It is not a blueprint for a new extremist political movement,” Carlson said.

“Because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views,” he added.

Carlson’s coverage of last year’s parade attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, struck a different tone.

The alleged attacker, who is black, reportedly drove an SUV through a Christmas parade route, killing 6 people in the predominantly white city. White supremacists later used the incident, along with conspiratorial beliefs by the attacker, to ”[sow] racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories,” according to a blog post from the Anti-Defamation League.

Carlson’s take on the Waukesha attack mimicked those of racist conspiracy theories online. He also linked Black nationalism and the Black Lives Matter movement to the “slaughter” in Wisconsin.

You can look for the difference in Carlson’s coverage in the clip below:



The ADL’s Center on Extremism ruled out “overarching extremist ideology” in an overview of the alleged Wisconsin attacker’s social media posts.

“Waukesha has become yet another current event, as seen through the white supremacist lens, supporting unsubstantiated but perceived claims of escalating crimes targeting white victims,” the ADL stated.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Tucker Carlson ‘Not Sure’ About Great Replacement Theory After Pushing It 400 Times

Nick Visser

Tue, May 17, 2022, 

Fox News host Tucker Carlson tried to distance himself Tuesday from the white supremacist “great replacement” theory he’s peddled on his prime time show for years, before launching into a long rant about Democratic plots to encourage immigration to win elections, a key tenet of the conspiracy idea.

Carlson opened his program Tuesday denouncing the 18-year-old suspect accused of killing 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York last week. The man, Payton Gendron, is accused of targeting the store, which sits in a predominantly Black neighborhood, after posting a 180-page screed online featuring racist, white supremacist tropes. The document references extreme versions of what’s known as “replacement theory,” which baselessly claims powerful Democrats and others are plotting to replace white Americans with people of color through immigration policies.

Carlson has spent years pushing the idea, and a New York Times investigation found he has promoted it in more than 400 episodes of his program since he joined Fox News’ prime time lineup in 2016.

But Carlson said Tuesday he’s still unsure what the conspiracy theory is.

“You’ve heard a lot about the great replacement theory recently, it’s everywhere … we’re still not sure exactly what it is,” the host said Tuesday. He quickly pivoted to accuse Democrats of touting immigration as a means to secure electoral victories. “Here’s what we do know for a fact: There’s a strong political component to the Democrats’ immigration theory. We know this because they have said so ... They say, out loud, ‘we are doing this because it helps us win elections.’”

“The Democratic Party has decided that rather than convince you, people who are born here, that their policies are helping you and making the country better and stronger, they will change the electorate,” Carlson went on, adding Democrats were “importing” people that would vote for them.

The comments build on the host’s claim Monday that Democrats — namely President Joe Biden — are using the Buffalo massacre to strip Americans of their First Amendment right to free speech.

Democrats have directly pointed at Carlson in recent days for his role in promoting the great replacement idea. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on Fox News leadership to stop amplifying the racist idea, saying doing so was “reckless.”

“In a craven quest for viewers and ratings, organizations like Fox News have spent years perfecting the craft of stoking cultural grievance and political resentment that eerily mirrors the messages found in replacement theory,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Monday.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Related...

• Tucker Carlson Says Race Politics Is ‘A Sin,’ Ignores Racial Conspiracy Theories He's Pushed

• In Wake Of Racist Buffalo Shooting, Chuck Schumer Goes After Fox News

• Lawrence O’Donnell Accuses Rupert Murdoch Of Shaping Thinking Of White Supremacist Killers

Fox News Host Mark Levin Proudly Stokes 'Great Replacement Theory'

Ron Dicker

Wed, May 18, 2022

Fox News host Mark Levin blatantly supported the “great replacement theory” Tuesday on his radio show, joining colleague Tucker Carlson and top House Republican Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in pushing a racist conspiracy embraced by the gunman charged in the Buffalo, New York, mass killing. (Listen below.)

Carlson, denounced by political leaders for promoting the baseless idea hundreds of times on his prime time show, on Tuesday attempted to dance around the controversy by declaring he wasn’t sure what it was.

Levin took the direct route.

The theory stokes white fear by asserting that elite Democrats and others are scheming to replace white Americans with people of color through immigration or to undermine white influence in other ways. It has gained footing among conservatives, including several mainstream Republican Senate candidates.

The accused Buffalo shooter repeatedly cited the white supremacist theory in a 180-page racist screed.

“The ‘great replacement’ ideology is indeed a policy of the Democrat policy,” Levin said. “They have celebrated it. They’ve spoken of it. Obama has, Biden has.”

Levin, the host of “Life, Liberty and Levin” on Fox News, praised Stefanik for her leadership and for her ad asserting that “illegal immigrants ... will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.”

“Isn’t that why the Democrats are doing this? Is there some other reason?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.” “Does anybody believe if people coming across the border illegally would potentially be Republicans, that the Democrat Party would support it?”

“How many people have died as a result of the Democrat Party and Biden’s great replacement ideology? I’m just wondering.”

H/T Media Matters

Legendary sniper Olena Bilozerska on her war, enemy tactics

Thu, May 19, 2022, 2:58 AM·6 min read

According to Olena Bilozerska, in the Ukrainian army today almost 20% of service members are women

Russia has been waging war against Ukraine for the ninth year in a row, and, with the exception of a few short breaks, sniper Olena Bilozerska has been defending her homeland all this time. The New Voice of Ukraine asked her what was happening at the front and when the turning point would come.

- What tactics is the enemy employing? How different are they from the ones used in February-March?

- In the first days of the war, it was like a safari: enemy vehicles moving in dense columns were destroyed by ambushes on roads passing through forests. The surviving personnel fled into the woods, where they were caught by the territorial defense or simply local hunters.


Now the enemy primarily resorts to “pressing-out by firing” tactics, using a large number of artillery pieces and a large number of shells. The enemy's task is to "grind" our positions and then try to occupy them. Nothing new – these are classic tactics since the First World War.

Read also: Texas paratrooper and Iraq veteran reveals his reasons for protecting Ukraine

- How many women are currently fighting in the Armed Forces? How comfortable do they feel in such extremely difficult and dangerous conditions?

- A lot. Currently, 17% of Ukrainian service members are women. Of course, the vast majority of them do not fight directly on the front line, but there are more and more girls on the front line too. They feel the same way as guys. Women do not have any specific needs that prevent them from fighting. If some women do have such needs, then the war is no place for them.

- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian army?

- Strength: they have mechanisms to influence personnel to achieve their goals at any cost. Soldiers are simply treated as cannon fodder, and they are forced to accept it as their due.

The weakness is the absolute lack of initiative on the part of sergeants and junior officers. As a result, an inability to make autonomous decisions.

- Has the personnel of the Russian army changed qualitatively in comparison with the offensive in February?

- It has not changed. And why would it change? The same mercenaries, diluted by contractors.

Read also: South Korean ex-navy seal shares story of fighting in Ukraine

- How do you assess the operation to rescue the fighters from Azovstal, and was it possible to save them earlier by military means?

- Like all normal people, I rejoice in every saved life of the Ukrainian soldier.

It was absolutely impossible to save Azovstal's defenders by military means from the very beginning. Mariupol can be liberated only as part of a general counteroffensive by the Ukrainian army, which requires lengthy training.

The only chance Azovstal's defenders had for survival was through diplomacy. At the same time, it is the seriously wounded that are the most likely to be spared, because there is a worldwide practice of exchanging wounded soldiers who will not be able to return to battle.

- What, in your opinion, does the front line lack today, and how important a factor for the war is the signing of the lend-lease for Ukraine?

- Many things are missing because when almost the whole state became an army at once, the bureaucratic army machine does not keep up with these processes. There are problems with not responding quickly to daily challenges, and the rest stems from this.

Lend-lease is very important, it will give the opportunity to replenish the existing military units with the latest weapons, and to arm the newly created ones. With the "full-fledged" arrival of the lend-lease, we can hope for the deployment of military units that will quickly and completely liberate Ukraine.

Read also: Escape from hell: Women of Mariupol tell their stories of living under occupation and escaping the siege

- And how significant is the volunteer help for the front?

- No less significant than in 2014. The army has long since ceased to be hungry or barefoot, and the front still stood, stands and will stand on the shoulders of volunteers. It goes beyond supplies – it is about the phenomenon of national mindset. For example, only a few of the Russian “experts” have expensive high-quality equipment that helps to identify the enemy in time and hit it well; in this aspect, they are far inferior to us. And it’s all because they do not have a developed volunteer movement.

- What is your most vivid impression of this war?

- My most vivid impression from the previous eight years has nothing to do with fighting or stories like the one where I was blown out of a burning building or hit in the face with a tracer bullet.

It was April 2014, I had just arrived in the sun-drenched, but tense — unlike in peacetime — Dnipro, got out of the car in a military uniform with a machine gun, and walked down the street towards the hotel. I openly, without hiding from anyone, walked through the center of a big city with a machine gun! It was such a surreal feeling for me at the time! And at that moment came the realization that reality had changed, that I was now at war.

And after the start of the full-scale invasion, the most vivid impression was the dawn of Feb. 24, when my husband woke me up and said, "It's started." As we were getting ready, I admit that we seemed ready, but my hands were still shaking from the stress.

Because it is one thing to fight in the Donbas, having a strong rear in Kyiv, and quite another – not to have a rear at all and realize that your destiny is somewhere here, not far from your home, to stand to the end, because I cannot be captured, you know.

On the first day, I recruited new fighters and perused Telegram channels every free second, and my partner Nadia, who had two children left at home, told me: “Come on, leave it! Don't read the bad news." And then, in a couple of days, there was such relief and such pride for the state and the people that there was nothing to be scared of at all.

- What are your personal conclusions about the 2.5 months of the all-out war in Ukraine?

- The same as everyone else. That the (Russians) turned out to be easier to defeat than we all expected.

Read also: Ukraine’s upcoming counterattack will change the tide of the war, amidst massive Russian losses

- How do you see the prospects of the Russo-Ukrainian war? When to expect the turning point and when do you think this war will end?

- The turning point will come when new units are formed and deployed, armed with the help of our Western allies. In particular, when we get a significant amount of modern aviation.

No one knows when the war will end. In my opinion, it will last at least another year. And it will end, of course, with our victory – the restoration of control over Ukrainian territories within internationally recognized borders, i.e. with Donbas and Crimea.