Monday, July 03, 2023

Shipping faces showdown over greenhouse gases

  • Published
IMAGE SOURCE,
Image caption,
A ship carrying trucks sails from China - shipping is responsible for transporting 
around 90% of the world's goods

The shipping industry is under growing pressure to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions from smokestacks.

Maritime transport emits as much CO2 in a year as Germany, but is the biggest global sector without a goal for cutting emissions to "net zero".

Some delegates at the UN summit starting on Monday want this by 2050 and emissions halved by 2030.

Campaigners say it would be the climate "deal of the decade" if agreed.

Reaching "net zero" would mean that any remaining shipping emissions were matched by actively removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

For years, the shipping industry, governments and environmental groups have wrangled on how to make the transport of goods by sea greener.

The issue was deemed just too difficult to be included in the 2015 Paris climate pact to keep down global warming.

It matters because around 90% of the products and goods the world consumes travel by ship.

These vessels often burn highly polluting fuels which contribute as much as 3% of the world's global carbon dioxide emissions, roughly the same amount as that of Germany or 243 coal plants.

IMAGE SOURCE,
Image caption,
Shipping is responsible the same amount of carbon emissions as Germany

That could grow by as much as 50% by the middle of this century if stronger action isn't taken, experts have warned.

The shipping industry's current plans only envisage a halving of emissions by the middle of this century, a commitment that scientists say is far out of line with the Paris climate agreement.

This week, under the control of the UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO), delegates from 175 shipping countries will meet in London to try and agree on a new timeline for completely decarbonising their industry.

Campaigners want to see a much tougher target, with a reduction of approximately half by 2030 and a new net-zero goal for 2050. Others want to go further still and see a full decarbonisation brought forward to 2040.

"If member states get this right, they can set the shipping sector in line to meet the Paris temperature targets and promote investment in green technologies that will completely transform the sector," said Kerrlene Wills, Director for Ocean and Climate, UN Climate Foundation.

IMAGE SOURCE,
Image caption,
Protestors and campaigners are putting pressure on shipping nations to curb carbon more quickly

Many countries are in favour - and some shipping companies also want to push forward with plans for cleaner transport. The world's second largest container shipping line, Maersk, are taking a bullish approach, setting their own goal of zero emissions by 2040.

Previous attempts to strengthen climate ambition at the IMO, have fallen foul of a number of countries such as China, India and Saudi Arabia, who are keen to protect their own domestic shipping interests.

Observers say that if the London meeting can agree these new goals for all shipping, it would the biggest advance against climate change since the Paris agreement.

"You would quite genuinely have a climate agreement not just of the year, but probably of the decade," said John Maggs, from the Clean Shipping Coalition of campaigners, speaking to reporters.

Within the wider industry, there is a recognition that reform is necessary but there is a concern that new targets will be too challenging and expensive.

However recent research shows that cutting shipping emissions in half this decade would only add some 10% to the total costs of operations.

Last week, the Secretary-General of the IMO, Kitack Lim urged delegates "to make the compromises and find solutions", describing 2023 as "a year of decisive climate action".

His views were echoed by Faig Abbasov from campaigners Transport and Environment:

"Waiting until 2050 to decarbonise is a bit like waiting until your house burns before you call the fire brigade… what is needed is political will; IMO needs to either step up or ship out!"

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

BY JEFFREY M. JONES
GALLUP
JUNE 23, 2022


STORY HIGHLIGHTS

25% of Americans have confidence in Supreme Court, down from 36% in 2021

Current reading is five percentage points lower than prior record low

Confidence is down among Democrats and independents this year


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision before the end of its 2021-2022 term, Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.

These results are based on a June 1-20 Gallup poll that included Gallup's annual update on confidence in U.S. institutions. The survey was completed before the end of the court's term and before it issued its major rulings for that term. Many institutions have suffered a decline in confidence this year, but the 11-point drop in confidence in the Supreme Court is roughly double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline. Gallup will release the remainder of the confidence in institutions results in early July.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case before its summer recess. The decision will determine the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. A leaked draft majority opinion in the case suggests that the high court will not only allow the Mississippi law to stand, but also overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling that prohibits restrictions on abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Americans oppose overturning Roe by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

In September, Gallup found the Supreme Court's job approval rating at a new low and public trust in the judicial branch of the federal government down sharply. These changes occurred after the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, among other controversial decisions at that time. Given these prior results, it is unclear if the drop in confidence in the Supreme Court measured in the current poll is related to the anticipated Dobbs decision or had occurred several months before the leak.

The prior low in Supreme Court confidence was 30% in 2014, which was also the year when confidence in major U.S. institutions in general hit a low point, averaging 31%.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been lower over the past 16 years than it was before. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in the court. During this 33-year period, no fewer than four in 10 Americans expressed high confidence in the court in any survey, apart from a 39% reading in October 1991 taken during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Since 2006, confidence has averaged 35% and has not exceeded 40% in any survey.
Democrats, Independents Behind Confidence Slide

Confidence in the Supreme Court is down by double digits among both Democrats (30% to 13%) and independents (40% to 25%) this year, but it is essentially unchanged among Republicans (37% to 39%).

The Democratic figure is the lowest Supreme Court confidence rating Gallup has measured for any party group historically, eight points lower than the 21% figure among Democrats in 2019. Independents' 25% confidence rating is the lowest registered for that group historically, with the prior low being 28% in 2015.

Republican confidence has been lower in the past than now, with the 26% measured in 2010 still the lowest for GOP supporters to date. That low point occurred after Barack Obama picked a liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, in 2009 and nominated another, Elena Kagan, in 2010 before the poll was conducted.

While Republicans' confidence hasn't changed much in the past year, it has come down significantly from 53% in 2020. That measure was taken during Donald Trump's reelection year -- after he had two of his nominees confirmed to the Supreme Court, but before a third Trump justice was confirmed days prior to his being defeated for reelection in November.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court is likely to issue one of its most consequential rulings at a time when public confidence in the institution has never been lower. If, as expected, the conservative-leaning court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is unclear whether that decision would further harm the institution's reputation among Americans or perhaps improve it if Americans agree with the court's reasoning. Invalidating Roe would allow state governments to decide whether abortion is legal or illegal in their state.

The public may have already taken the Supreme Court's stance on the abortion issue into account, with its decision on the Texas law and the leaked draft majority opinion on the Mississippi law. But an actual, rather than hypothetical or expected, decision may have more potency in shifting Americans' views of the court.

To stay up to date with the latest Gallup News insights and updates, follow us on Twitter.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).

‘Profoundly disrespectful’: AOC responds to Justice Thomas’ criticism of Justice Jackson

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joins CNN's Dana Bash to respond to the Supreme Court's decisions on affirmative action and LGBTQ rights. 

 

Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez call for changes to the Supreme Court

The calls come after the Supreme Court handed down a slate of decisions decried by many Democrats.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) joins female House Democrats at an event at the Capitol in Washington on July 15, 2022. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

By KELLY GARRITY
07/02/2023

House progressives are calling for changes to the Supreme Court following a slate of decisions affecting affirmative action, student debt cancellation and LGBTQ protections.

“The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Ocasio-Cortez has called for changes to the high court, including expanding the number of justices on the bench. In ending federal abortions rights last year, and landing a blow to LGBTQ protections in a decision out Friday, the court is signaling “a dangerous creep toward authoritarianism,” she said.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), another prominent House progressive, also slammed the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on Sunday, saying if the court were a caucus in Congress, would be the “bootstrapper forced to birth don’t say gay caucus.”

“They continue to overturn the will of the majority of the people and to make history for all the wrong reasons, legislating from the bench and being political from the bench,” Pressley said during an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show.” “It is nothing but intersectional oppression,” she added.

Both members of Congress said that every option should be on the table when it comes reining in the court’s power and reforming its ethics.

“We should be considering subpoenas and investigations. We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“I think everything should be on the table,” Pressley said when asked whether she supports adding more seats to the nine-justice bench. “[Here’s] a Supreme Court that has been emboldened in rolling back the hands of time, undermining and rolling back what should be fundamental civil human rights. So everything should be on the table: reform and expansion.”

Any bills to expand the court have little chance of passing in a divided Congress. And even if they do, President Joe Biden does not support the change. Doing so would be a “mistake” he said last week.

US supreme court ‘creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism’, AOC says

Congresswoman’s comments come days after nation’s highest court released batch of incendiary and far-reaching rulings




Richard Luscombe
THE GUARDIAN
Sun 2 Jul 2023 17.49 BST

The conservative supreme court is “creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism”, the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Sunday, raising again the unlikely scenario of impeaching justices for recent actions.

Her comments came just days after the nation’s highest court released a batch of incendiary and far-reaching rulings striking down affirmative action in colleges, LBGTQ+ rights and Joe Biden’s student loan relief program.

“These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court,” she told CNN’s State of the Union.

“In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a legislature right now.

“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself. And that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on, the danger of this court and the abuse of power.”

Referring to ethics scandals that have involved two of the conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Ocasio-Cortez repeated previous calls for Congress to look at removing them, a proposal that would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.

Senate Democrats and independents who caucus with them, meanwhile, hold only a slim majority.

Alito is accused of not disclosing gifts from a rightwing billionaire who lobbied for the court to end Biden’s loan relief program. Thomas is also alleged to have taken undeclared gifts, among other alleged transgressions, prompting an ethics watchdog last month to urge him to resign.

“We must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines, where we see members of the supreme court potentially breaking the law,” she said.

“There also must be impeachment on the table. We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power in the supreme court [that] has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy.

“And in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.”

Ocasio-Cortez also called on Biden to expand the court to 13 justices, something the president has said he is unwilling to attempt.

Her comments reflect a wave of Democratic outrage at the decisions, which came after Donald Trump’s appointments of justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett gave conservatives a 6-3 majority on the supreme court.

Ocasio-Cortez’s fellow progressive Ayanna Pressley, Democratic congresswoman for Massachusetts, was equally scathing on MSNBC’s Katie Phang show, calling the conservative majority “far-right extremists”.

“They continue to overturn the will of the majority of the people and to make history for all the wrong reasons, legislating from the bench and being political from the bench,” she said.

The panel’s most controversial ruling last year, written by Alito, reversed its 1973 decision on Roe v Wade and ended almost half a century of federal abortion protections in the US.

As Biden put it after an address at the White House on Friday: “This is not a normal court.”

poll released Sunday by ABC’s This Week showed that 52% of Americans believed that justices ruled “mainly on the basis of their partisan political view rather than on the basis of the law”, a significant rise from January 2022 when only 38% felt that way.skip past newsletter promotion

The poll, however, did show that a majority, 52%, approved of the decision ending affirmative action in colleges.

Condemning the ruling that allowed a Colorado website designer to refuse business from a same-sex couple, transport secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is openly gay, noted the court addressed a situation “that may have never happened in the first place”.

“We’re seeing more of these cases, of these circumstances that are designed to get people spun up and [are] designed to chip away at rights,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.

“You look at the supreme court taking away a woman’s right to choose, Friday’s decision diminishing … same sex couples’ [quality of life], you look at a number of the decisions, they pose the question, ‘Did we just live to see the high-water mark of freedoms and rights in this country before they were gradually taken away?’

“Because up until now, not uniformly, but overall, each generation was able to say they enjoyed greater inclusion, greater equality, and more rights and freedoms than the generation before.”

In other interviews on Sunday, two prominent Republican presidential candidates said they supported the supreme court’s recent rulings, with one, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy.

“For decades the Democratic party cheered a supreme court that went outside the constitution and made extra-constitutional decisions, in my opinion, because the decisions went in a philosophical direction that they liked,” Christie said on State of the Union.

“Now, when the court makes decisions they don’t like, all of a sudden the court is ‘not normal’. This is a results-oriented type of judgment. Instead, what they should look at, is the way they analyze the law.”

Former vice-president Mike Pence, speaking on CBS, praised the website ruling. He said: “I’m a Bible believing Christian, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe every American is entitled to live, to work, to worship, according to the dictates of their conscience.

“The supreme court drew a clear line and said yes to religious liberty.”

Khanna claims Supreme Court overruled Congress on student loan forgiveness, lauds Biden's Plan B


The high court had rejected the White House trying to use the HEROES Act.

ByTal Axelrod
July 2, 2023

California Rep. Ro Khanna on Sunday praised President Joe Biden's continued efforts to cancel federal student loan debt after the Supreme Court struck down his initial plan to forgive up to $20,000 for some borrowers.

Biden said Friday that he will now rely on the 1965 Higher Education Act to try to enact debt forgiveness, rather than the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003, on which his initial plan was based.

"I am pleased that the White House is invoking the Higher Education Act," Khanna, a progressive Democrat, told ABC "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "I do hope that the White House will make sure that the interest doesn't accrue starting in September. I know the president has said he isn't going to refer students to the credit agency. I also believe under the Higher Education Act he can stop the interest accrual."

While Khanna said he was supportive of Biden's new path forward -- and would like there to be a broader payment pause while the administration pursues more ways to legalize loan forgiveness -- he sharply criticized the Supreme Court.

MORE: SCOTUS student loan ruling could be a 'modest headwind' against economic recovery: Economists


He argued the justices overstepped their bounds and "usurped the authority of Congress" by limiting how the HEROES Act can be used, rather than deferring to legislators, "just because they think Congress gave too much power to the president."


The post-9/11 era HEROES law enabled the U.S. education secretary to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision" regarding student loans to initially protect borrowers impacted by terror attacks. That law was later altered to include people affected by "a war or other military operation or national emergency" -- with Biden maintaining that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified.

Karl noted on "This Week" that the Supreme Court's analysis rejected the White House's arguments, even citing a comment made by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2021 that Biden "can postpone [student loan debt]. He can delay. But he does not have that power [to cancel it]. That has to be an act of Congress."

The high court's conservative majority on Thursday ruled 6-3 that Biden did not have the authority under the HEROES Act to issue sweeping federal student loan cancellation, which the White House had hoped to do for more than 40 million borrowers.

In this Feb. 28, 2023, file photo, Rep. Ro Khanna questions witnesses during a hearing of a special House committee dedicated to countering China, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C.
Alex Brandon/AP, FILE

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion knocking down Biden's plan, found that precedent "requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy."

Khanna, on "This Week," took another view.

"We can have an argument that the HEROES Act passed in 2003 shortly after 9/11 was way too broad in giving that kind of authority to the president and the secretary. I don't believe it was the case. That's a legitimate argument. The place to make that argument is in the United States Congress," he said.

"It's not for unelected justices to override what Congress has passed. And that's what this court is doing. It's very dangerous," he continued. "They are basically reinterpreting congressional statute to fit their ideological preconceptions."

MORE: Biden outlines 'new path' to provide student loan relief after Supreme Court rejection


While the White House had long resisted discussing what other avenues they might pursue if the student loan cancellation program was rejected, the president on Friday said he will invoke the Higher Education Act to allow Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to "compromise, waive or release loans under certain circumstances."

But it's currently unclear how much forgiveness would be enacted under this strategy.

The White House will also implement a 12-month "on-ramp repayment program" during which the government will not refer borrowers who miss payments to credit agencies.


"This new path is legally sound," Biden said in remarks after the Supreme Court ruling. "It's going to take longer. And in my view, it's the best path that remains to student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible."

6 Moms for Liberty protesters arrested on final day of the group’s Philly summit

Five people arrested were holding hands while standing in the middle of the intersection at 12th and Filbert Streets, and a sixth was a trans woman waving a flag, according to ACT UP Philadelphia.

Philadelphia police arrested five Moms for Liberty protesters for blocking traffic outside the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Sunday morning.
Courtesy of Nico Wisler



Updated on Jul 2, 2023

Five Moms for Liberty protesters were arrested Sunday morning for blocking traffic outside the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, and a sixth for waving a flag over a barricade set up outside the hotel, according to activists.

Philadelphia police said the six people were arrested on charges of failure to disperse, but did not provide further details. ACT UP Philadelphia, the AIDS activism group, provided photographs of five people, who were holding hands while standing in the middle of the intersection at 12th and Filbert Streets.

“They were chanting for Moms for Liberty to go home and blocking traffic,” said Aaron Bodiford, an activist with the group. He said police gave the activists three warnings before making the arrests, pulling their vans up in front of the barricades where the rest of the protesters were stationed.

Philadelphia police arrested five Moms for Liberty protesters for blocking traffic outside the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Sunday morning.
Courtesy of Nico Wisler

Later Sunday, Bodiford said a trans woman was also arrested for waving a trans flag over the barricade set up around the Marriott.

The arrests came on the fourth and final day of the summit for the controversial “parental rights” group, which targets LGBTQ issues and diversity education and has drawn protests since its arrival in Philadelphia Thursday. The event, attended by 650 people from across the country, featured speeches from former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, among other Republican presidential contenders.

Sunday’s program included North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a GOP candidate for governor who has said “there’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth”; and KrisAnne Hall, a self-described “constitutional attorney” who has previously addressed the Oath Keepers militia group.

The summit contained a heavy focus on opposing transgender identity and gender transitioning — messages not lost on protesters, who throughout the conference have been waving Pride flags and chanting “Philly is a trans city” and “Philly is a queer city.”

Philadelphia police arrested five Moms for Liberty protesters for blocking traffic outside the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown Sunday morning.
Courtesy of Nico Wisler

Police have been stationed at the protests, which started Thursday outside the Marriott and the Museum of the American Revolution as it hosted a welcome reception for Moms for Liberty that night over outcry from its staff. While some interactions have been tense — police threatened to arrest anyone who blocked traffic Thursday night — only one arrest had been reported before Sunday.

Saturday’s protests were family-oriented, with children drawing on the street with chalk and decorating signs during a daylong dance party. Bodiford said activists hadn’t wanted to risk arrests of families.

As the dance party resumed Sunday, Bodiford said protesters wanted to send a message.

“We are willing to take things further than we have been,” he said from outside the Marriott, where Moms attendees were trickling out as the summit ended. “It’s actually not on their terms. It’s on our terms.”

Shame Went to Die at Moms for Liberty’s Philadelphia Summit

Jared Holt
The Daily Beast.
Sat, July 1, 2023 

Michael M Santiago/GettyImages

In another era of politics, Republican presidential hopefuls may have hesitated before hitching their brands to an organization whose members have harassed and threatened opponents, fantasized about enacting gun violence, mingled with known extremist groups, quoted Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in their materials, and earned a designation as an anti-government extremist group. It’s safe to say that time is long gone.

Five 2024 candidates traveled to the birthplace of the United States to take turns auditioning for the support of a sold-out crowd of Moms for Liberty activists and rhetorically kissing the rings of the group’s co-founders, former school board members Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, at their “Joyful Warriors” conference in Philadelphia this week.

It’s little surprise; Moms for Liberty has emerged as a juggernaut in the conservative movement since its inception two years ago. The group claims to fight for “parental rights at all levels of government,” but it’s better known for what it opposes: COVID-19 health precautions, the contents of school libraries, and educational curricula that feature lessons about race, sexuality, and gender. Moms for Liberty has ridden its successes into statehouses across the country, where it hopes to help push anti-LGBTQ bills into law.

The Southern Poverty Law Center added Moms for Liberty to its database of extremist groups last month: a move swiftly rejected by the group as a “political hit job” and frowned upon by many of the group’s conservative media allies. For many speakers, including presidential candidates, that extremist group designation was acknowledged via a punchline.

“I’m telling you these people are sick,” former President Donald Trump said, earning laughter from the audience. “Moms for Liberty is no hate group… You’re the best thing that’s ever happened to America.”

The America First Political Action Conference Is Courting Republicans Towards Extremism

Even Nikki Haley, a relative moderate in the current slate of Republican candidates, shrugged off the group’s scandals.

“When they mentioned that this was a terrorist organization, I said, ‘Well, then count me as a Mom for Liberty,’” Haley proclaimed to the sold-out crowd. She was met with roaring applause.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told Moms for Liberty that scrutiny of the group was “a sign that we are winning this fight.”

Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction who has called teachers’ unions “terrorist organizations” and is facing fallout for his handling of federal funds, took his pushback a step further.

“You know who else was called a terrorist group, an extremist group?” Walters rhetorically asked. “Those founding fathers. That’s who you are today. You are the most patriotic, pro-America group in the country right now.”

It’s clear that the SPLC’s extremist group designation struck a chord at Moms for Liberty. The joking candor shifted briefly before Trump spoke on Friday, when co-founder Justice teased that her group would be exploring retribution, hinting at possible legal action, against its opponents and critics.

But even with that scrutiny in front of mind, Moms for Liberty made no apparent effort to tamp down on the kinds of extreme rhetoric and far-right affiliations that earned its spot on SPLC’s list to begin with. Even a passing glance at the event’s speakers lineup reveals a wash of far-right ideologues.

One featured speaker was KrisAnne Hall, who has espoused far-right rhetoric and affiliated with less-debatable extremist groups like the anti-government Oath Keepers and neo-Confederate League of the South. Others include James Lindsay, an anti-LGBTQ social media performer who has described the Pride flag as that “of a hostile enemy” and North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, an unabashed Christian nationalist who has declared the transgender rights movement “demonic” and “full of the Antichrist spirit.” Many speakers have publicly accused teachers and officials who promote LGBTQ inclusion in schools of grooming children for sexual exploitation—incendiary rhetoric that has undergirded surges in anti-LGBTQ threats in the US.

That sort of sentiment was mirrored by DeSantis, who maintains a fandom within Moms for Liberty, and the other presidential hopefuls, too. At one point in DeSantis’ speech, he declared that gender-affirming care for transgender youth was “wrong” and “has no place in our society.”

Haley accused transgender rights advocates of “trying to erase” the progress of women in America. Audible groans of disgust could be heard from audience members when Trump bemoaned parents who take their children to drag shows.

The incendiary rhetoric directed toward LGBTQ people and their advocates on stage was certainly hateful, but it also serves to justify a host of behaviors and policies that don’t actually help parents or their children. It also works to cast Republicans’ political opponents not just as people who disagree but as immoral villains who must be defeated by any means necessary, let alone compromised with.

Trump’s Gone Full QAnon. There’s No Point in Denying It Anymore.

The establishment conservative movement has long sought to undermine public education, and some of its biggest players have predictably rushed to support Moms for Liberty and groups like it. Its founders have discovered allies in a host of conservative movement groups with large bases of support and dollars. Heritage Foundation and Liberty Institute, two of the most powerful and well-funded think tanks in Washington, sponsored Moms for Liberty’s summit this year.

If you believe Trump, all of this debasement is in service of fighting “a cult” of “Marxists and perverts” who are pushing a “poison” of gender ideology on children. Those who believe DeSantis might think of themselves like those who battled for a democratic Berlin after World War II. Whatever it might be, to the true believer, it must be better than the child abuse Democrats supposedly hope to normalize.

The only viable currency in the modern Republican Party is raw power: a fact made self-evident in presidential candidates’ appearances at the Moms for Liberty summit. In their run to the top of the ticket, these Republican candidates have also submitted to a race to the bottom of a barrel, where shame is a benchable injury.


Moms for Liberty’s focus on school races nationwide sets up political clash with teachers unions


PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Moms for Liberty, a “parental rights” group that has sought to take over school boards in multiple states, is looking to expand those efforts across the country and to other education posts in 2024 and beyond. The effort is setting up a clash with teachers unions and others on the left who view the group as a toxic presence in public schools.

By Ali Swenson The Associated Press
Sunday, July 2, 2023


Matt Rourke / AP Photo
Moms for Liberty co-founders Tiffany Justice speaks at their meeting, in Philadelphia, Friday, June 30, 2023.



PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Moms for Liberty, a “parental rights” group that has sought to take over school boards in multiple states, is looking to expand those efforts across the country and to other education posts in 2024 and beyond. The effort is setting up a clash with teachers unions and others on the left who view the group as a toxic presence in public schools.


The group’s co-founder, Tiffany Justice, said during its annual summit over the weekend in Philadelphia that Moms for Liberty will use its political action committee next year to engage in school board races nationwide. It also will “start endorsing at the state board level and elected superintendents.”


Her comments confirm that Moms for Liberty, which has spent its first two years inflaming school board meetings with aggressive complaints about instruction on systemic racism and gender identity in the classroom, is developing a larger strategy to overhaul education infrastructure across the country.

As the group has amassed widespread conservative support and donor funding, its focus on education ensures that even as voters turn their attention to the 2024 presidential race, school board elections will remain some of the most contentious political fights next year.

Moms for Liberty started with three Florida moms fighting COVID-19 restrictions in 2021. It has quickly ascended as a national player in Republican politics, helped along the way by the board’s political training and close relationships with high-profile GOP groups and lawmakers. The group’s support for school choice and the “fundamental rights of parents” to direct their children’s education has drawn allies such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a leading GOP presidential contender, and the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The group has been labeled an “extremist” organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center for allegedly harassing community members, advancing anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation and fighting to scrub diverse and inclusive material from lesson plans.

Justice said in an interview that she and her co-founder, Tina Descovich, were two moms who “had faith in American parents to take back the public education system in America” and that they “fully intend on reclaiming and reforming“ that system.

So far, the group has had mixed success at getting its preferred candidates elected. In 2022, slightly more than half of the 500 school board candidates it endorsed across the country won. In the spring of 2023, fewer than one-third of the nearly 30 candidates it endorsed in Wisconsin were elected.

Focusing on state-level candidates could give Moms for Liberty an opportunity to assert its influence on some of the positions that have more control in determining curriculum, said Jon Valant, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has studied education policy.

A close partnership with the conservative training organization the Leadership Institute and added money from a growing donor base also could help the Moms for Liberty run more electable candidates and help them win in 2024.

Monty Floyd, vice chair of the Moms for Liberty chapter in Hernando County, Florida, knows what it’s like to have the group’s support in a political campaign. He ran for school board in 2022 and received the group’s endorsement, as well as $250 from its Florida-based PAC.

Floyd lost that race but plans to run again in 2026, he told The Associated Press at the summit. He looks forward to seeing how the group’s political influence grows and said that even more than the money, the national network of Moms for Liberty provides a “great resource” to a candidate.

“The wealth of knowledge they have and the network of support and just the advocacy tips that we’re learning from the speakers today,” he said. “They have good advice to give. So you kind of learn a lot about what you can improve in your messaging.”

Moms for Liberty may face obstacles, however, as its rising national presence has driven a countermovement of activists who oppose it, Valant said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said she thinks groups such as Moms for Liberty have “created more action and more energy” among teachers unions.

“We have 41 new units that we have organized as the AFT this year. We’ve never had that,” she said. She said the union would “do what we have to do” during elections to show the contrast between its endorsed candidates and Moms for Liberty candidates.

Beyond unions, Moms for Liberty is likely to face opposition from grassroots groups and voters who “just don’t agree with their vision of what public education should be,” Valant said.

Martha Cooney, a Pennsylvania educator who was one of about 100 protesters dancing and holding signs outside the summit Saturday afternoon, agreed. She said that as Moms for Liberty tries to assert more political power, she and others will continue to stand in its way.

“They are a very small minority who are trying to act like they represent this whole nation, and they do not,” Cooney said.

Moms for Liberty did not answer questions on which races it would focus on in 2024, besides making it clear that it would not endorse in legislative races or the presidential election.

But even as the group says it will not get involved in the White House race, Republican candidates have tried to harness Moms for Liberty’s influence and broad network of more than 120,000 members in 45 states to woo its voting bloc and benefit their primary campaigns.

Five GOP candidates gave speeches during the gathering in Philadelphia, which ended Sunday. They included DeSantis and former President Donald Trump. The rivals tried to outflank each other with claims that “woke ideology” had overtaken education and that pronouns and “critical race theory” needed to be struck from classrooms.

“I think moms are the key political force for this 2024 cycle,” DeSantis said in his address to attendees Friday.

Other Republican presidential candidates who appeared at the summit included former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who brought his wife and two children to the stage Saturday. He pledged to prioritize parents’ rights and shutter the U.S. Department of Education if elected.

“The membership of this organization is just a small tip of the iceberg of a broader pro-parent movement, pro-children movement in our country,” Ramaswamy told reporters at the summit. “And so how important is that? You better believe it’s pretty darn important.”
___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content

 
CBC News
Jul 2, 2023
Family and supporters of detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange refuse to give up the fight to stop his extradition to the U.S., despite losing another appeal in a London court recently. Assange is wanted by U.S. authorities on 18 criminal counts.