GLOBALIST  GUNRUNNERS
Saudi gets first major arms deal under Biden with air-to-air missiles

By Mike Stone and Patricia Zengerle

A Saudi security man walks between the display of the debris of ballistic missiles and weapons, which were launched towards Riyadh, according to Saudi Officials, ahead of the news conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia July 2, 2020. REUTERS/Ahmed Yosri/File Photo

WASHINGTON, Nov 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department approved its first major arms sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under U.S. President Joe Biden with the sale of 280 air-to-air missiles valued at up to $650 million, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

While Saudi Arabia is an important partner in the Middle East, U.S. lawmakers have criticized Riyadh for its involvement in the war in Yemen, a conflict considered one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. They have refused to approve many military sales for the kingdom without assurances U.S. equipment would not be used to kill civilians.

The Pentagon notified Congress of the sale on Thursday. If approved, the deal would be the first sale to Saudi Arabia since the Biden administration adopted a policy of selling only defensive weapons to the Gulf ally.

The State Department had approved the sale on Oct. 26, a spokesperson said, adding that the air-to-air missile sale comes after "an increase in cross-border attacks against Saudi Arabia over the past year."

Raytheon Technologies (RTX.N) makes the missiles.

The sale "is fully consistent with the administration's pledge to lead with diplomacy to end the conflict in Yemen," the State Department spokesperson said in a statement. The air-to-air missiles ensure "Saudi Arabia has the means to defend itself from Iranian-backed Houthi air attacks," he said.
After the Trump administration's friendly relationship with Riyadh, the Biden administration recalculated its approach to Saudi Arabia, a country with which it has severe human rights concerns but which is also one of Washington's closest U.S. allies in countering the threat posed by Iran.

The package would include 280 AIM-120C-7/C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 596 LAU-128 Missile Rail Launchers (MRL) along with containers and support equipment, spare parts, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support.

Despite approval by the State Department, the notification did not indicate that a contract has been signed or that negotiations have concluded.

Reporting by Mike Stone and Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Dan Grebler

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Blue Origin loses federal lawsuit over NASA moon lander contract

SpaceX and NASA will now resume their Artemis moon lander project 'as soon as possible.'

NASA picked SpaceX's Starship spacecraft, seen here in an artist's depiction, to land Artemis astronauts on the moon. (Image credit: SpaceX)

By Mike Wall

Blue Origin has lost the lawsuit it filed over the awarding of a lucrative NASA moon lander contract, freeing SpaceX up to resume its work on the project.

In April, NASA announced that it had selected SpaceX to develop the initial Human Landing System (HLS) for its Artemis program, which aims to send astronauts back to the moon in the next few years. SpaceX beat out two other private groups for the $2.9 billion contract: Dynetics and "The National Team," a consortium led by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin.

Both Dynetics and Blue Origin quickly lodged protests with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), citing perceived flaws in the selection process. For example, the companies objected to the selection of a single HLS concept, when NASA had said it wanted to fund the development of at least two private moon landers. (NASA officials have said that the agency's funding situation precluded awarding multiple contracts.)

The GAO denied those protests in late July. Then, on Aug. 16, Blue Origin filed a lawsuit against NASA in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


That didn't go Blue Origin's way, either, we just learned: In a one-page decision released today (Nov. 4), Judge Richard A. Hertling ruled against the company, granting a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. (The full ruling is under seal and will remain so until Nov. 18, Hertling wrote.)

The protests and lawsuit prevented SpaceX and NASA from getting much work done under the HLS deal, which the company intends to fulfill using its huge, fully reusable Starship system. But today's ruling should get the wheels turning again.

"NASA will resume work with SpaceX under the Option A contract as soon as possible," agency officials wrote in a statement that was issued after Judge Hertling's ruling came out.

"In addition to this contract, NASA continues working with multiple American companies to bolster competition and commercial readiness for crewed transportation to the lunar surface," NASA officials added. "There will be forthcoming opportunities for companies to partner with NASA in establishing a long-term human presence at the moon under the agency’s Artemis program, including a call in 2022 to U.S. industry for recurring crewed lunar landing services."

Blue Origin stressed that it aims to be a big part of the larger Artemis picture going forward despite today's decision. But it's not backing down from the objections and arguments that spurred the lawsuit.

"Our lawsuit with the Court of Federal Claims highlighted the important safety issues with the Human Landing System procurement process that must still be addressed," Blue Origin representatives wrote in an emailed statement.

"Returning astronauts safely to the moon through NASA’s public-private partnership model requires an unprejudiced procurement process alongside sound policy that incorporates redundant systems and promotes competition," they added. "Blue Origin remains deeply committed to the success of the Artemis program, and we have a broad base of activity on multiple contracts with NASA to achieve the United States’ goal to return to the moon to stay."

Bezos responded to the ruling as well. "Not the decision we wanted, but we respect the court’s judgment, and wish full success for NASA and SpaceX on the contract," the billionaire wrote via Twitter today.

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk also tweeted out a reaction — a screenshot from the 2012 film "Dredd" along with the text "You have been judged."

Pandemic coronavirus is widespread in Iowa deer

Researchers don’t yet know whether deer can pass SARS-CoV-2 back to humans

4 NOV 2021

BY RACHEL FRITTS

FISHHAWK/FLICKR/CC BY 2.0

About 80% of Iowa deer tested between late November 2020 and early January were infected with the pandemic coronavirus, The New York Times reports. Scientists tested lymph node tissue samples from 283 wild and captive white-tailed deer across the state for coronavirus RNA between April 2020 and January. The first sign of infection appeared on 28 September 2020, and by December about 80% of samples were positive. The deer picked up mutations and variants in similar patterns to humans across the state, suggesting humans passed infections to deer multiple times. Researchers speculate deer might be catching the virus from humans who feed them in their yard, or by licking chewing tobacco left by infected hunters. The rapid rise in the prevalence of infections indicates that the deer are also spreading SARS-CoV-2 to one another, scientists write in a study posted on the biological sciences preprint repository bioRxiv. Researchers aren’t yet sure whether deer can pass the virus back to humans, or whether other wild animals are also transmitting the virus.

COP26: Indonesia criticises 'unfair' deal to end deforestation

Indonesia has criticised the terms of a global deal to end deforestation by 2030, signalling that the country may not abide by it.

Logging in forest in Nisam Antara, Indonesia's Aceh province, October 2021. 

Photo: AFP

Environment Minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar said the authorities could not "promise what we can't do".

She said forcing Indonesia to commit to zero deforestation by 2030 was "clearly inappropriate and unfair".

Despite President Joko Widodo signing the forest deal, she said development remained Indonesia's top priority.

The deal, agreed between more than 100 world leaders, was announced on Monday at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. It was the event's first major announcement.

It promises to end and reverse deforestation by 2030, and includes about $US19 billion of public and private funds.

In a Facebook post Nurbaya argued that the country's vast natural resources must be used for the benefit of its people.

She cited the need to to cut down forests to make way for new roads.

"The massive development of President Jokowi's era must not stop in the name of carbon emissions or in the name of deforestation," she said, referring to Widodo by his nickname.

"Indonesia's natural wealth, including forests, must be managed for its use according to sustainable principles, besides being fair," she said.

A barge carrying logs is pulled along the Mahakam River, in East Kalimantan, 4 November 2021. Photo: AFP

Experts welcomed the agreement, but they warned a previous deal in 2014 had "failed to slow deforestation at all" and said commitments needed to be delivered on.

Felling trees contributes to climate change because it depletes forests that absorb vast amounts of the warming gas CO2.

Meanwhile, Indonesia's Deputy Foreign Minister Mahendra Siregar said that describing the deal as a zero-deforestation pledge was "false and misleading".

Indonesia's vast forests are still shrinking, despite a marked slow down in the deforestation rate in recent years.

According to the Global Forest Watch monitoring website, in 2001 the country had nearly 94 million hectares of primary forest - defined as tropical forest that has not been completely cleared and regrown in recent history.

That area had decreased by at least 10 percent by 2020.

- BBC

The world has pledged to stop deforestation before. But trees are still disappearing at an 'untenable rate.'


A felled tree is seen in the middle of a deforested area of the Yari plains, in Caqueta, Colombia March 3, 2021. Picture taken March 3, 2021. REUTERS/Luisa Gonzalez

Tik Root and Harry Stevens, (c) 2021, The Washington Post
Wed, November 3, 2021

On Tuesday, more than 100 countries signed on to an ambitious plan to halt deforestation by 2030 and pledged billions of dollars to the effort. Although world leaders lauded the move, climate activists say they've heard that promise before and that past efforts have come up short - the world is still losing massive numbers of trees each year.

"Despite ambitious political commitments to end deforestation over the past decade, we are still losing tropical primary forests at an untenable rate," said Crystal Davis, the director of the Global Forest Watch monitoring initiative. "We are running out of time to solve this problem."

According to Global Forest Watch, the world lost 411 million hectares of forest between 2001 and 2020. That's roughly half the size of the United States and equivalent to 10% of global tree cover. In 2020, the world lost a near-record 25.8 million hectares - almost double the amount in 2001.

Trees play a critical role in absorbing carbon dioxide as they grow, thereby slowing global warming. There are a number of ways trees can disappear - from logging and wildfires to being cleared to make way for crops or livestock. But when they are cut, and are either burned or decay, they release the carbon into the atmosphere. According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, about 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, forestry and other land uses.

"Avoiding deforestation is the best near-term thing we could ever try to do," said Gretchen Daily, a professor at Stanford University and the co-founder of the Natural Capital Project. "That will keep more carbon out of the atmosphere and help us drive the broader transformation we need."

There have been global endeavors to combat deforestation in the past. In 2014, for instance, more than 200 governments, companies and civil society organizations signed the New York Declaration of Forests, which called for halving the rate deforestation by 2020 and halting it by 2030. But, Davis said, the world fell far short - "we blew through the 2020 targets that we set."

"It's a mixture of lack of enforcement, lack of political will and the private sector not stepping up," said Nathalie Walker, the director of tropical forest and agriculture at the National Wildlife Federation. "There has not been enough follow-through."

The Amazon is the world's largest rainforest and arguably the most closely watched harbinger of deforestation. The rainforest is 17% deforested, and losses are especially pronounced in Brazil, which lost some 1.7 million hectares of rainforest in 2020 alone.

"If you're looking at the area cleared, Brazil is usually the worst," Walker said. And of that, "cattle is the single biggest driver" of loss.

Walker notes that starting in the mid-2000s, the country saw about a decade of positive momentum on the issue. "There was a suite of public and private measures that was aiming to encourage production away from the forest frontier," she said. But in recent years, that has been reversed.

New research shows that last year, despite an economic recession, Brazil reported a 9% jump in its greenhouse gas emissions. "The principal factor," the authors wrote, "was deforestation."

South America, however, is far from the only region experiencing deforestation. Of the 10 countries that have lost the most tree cover since 2001, only two of them - Brazil and Paraguay - are Amazonian.

One of the places where Walker says trees are most at risk right now is the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country has a large amount of remaining forest but high deforestation rates due to practices such as agricultural clearing, fuelwood harvesting and logging. "The Congo is under threat," she said.

Russia is another area of concern. About half the country is covered in forests, and it has topped Global Forest Watch's list of tree-cover loss since 2001 - with some 69.5 million hectares gone. "A lot of that tends to be for timber," Walker said. While much of that may be managed timber practices, at least a portion of the logging is probably illegal, she said. And with such a large area "it's difficult to police effectively."

China is a primary consumer of Russian timber. Walker said that points to China's broader role as a purchaser of commodities linked to deforestation - whether it's Brazilian cattle hides or palm oil from Southeast Asia.

Yet the news isn't all bad.

Pakistan, for instance, is in the midst of a "Ten Billion Tree Tsunami" reforestation campaign. The project is a combination of tree planting and forest protection initiatives that have previously proved extremely successful.

In Costa Rica, the government has been paying farmers to protect forests near their farms. The project was among the five inaugural winners of Prince William's Earthshot prize, which highlights creative climate solutions and comes with a 1 million euro prize.

The efforts point to Walker's contention that "there doesn't need to be this trade-off" between economics and the environment.

Indonesia is another one of the "bright spots," Davis said. While the country is still losing forests largely to palm oil, Walker said that "they are doing much better than they were."

But addressing the problem in one place often isn't enough.

When only certain countries crack down, Walker said, the problems can just shift to places with "lower enforcement." Papa New Guinea, for instance, has also seen palm oil deforestation. And a recent investigation by the advocacy group Global Witness uncovered palm oil executives in the country disclosing corruption and brutality in secret tapes.

The global nature of deforestation-linked trade is one reason experts see this week's agreement at COP26 as important: More than 100 world leaders representing over 85% of the world's forests again pledged to halt deforestation over the next decade.

"This new set of announcements is largely a reiteration of previous commitments," Davis said. And it comes with similar risks.

Davis questions the roughly $19 billion in funding that governments and the private sector announced. "It's really just an incremental growth in the amount of finance when we need it to be exponential," she said, adding that she'll also be watching how much of the money makes it to actual projects on the ground. "It's one thing to pledge money; it's another thing to spend money."

But Davis also sees some differences this time around. More countries - particularly Brazil and China - are on board, and so is the private sector, which committed $7.2 billion of the funding. That, she said, could play an important role in helping get "deforestation out of the supply chain."

Davis said she also thinks that people - citizens - care more about this issue than in the past and can help propel political change. A recent United Nations survey of public opinion on climate change found that the most popular policy area was conserving forests and land, with over half of respondents supporting the idea.

"I have more hope for that bottom-up public pressure in this decade than the last," she said. "They are the ones that we can [apply] pressure."

COP26: Pikachu protesters gather as climate demonstrations continue
By National newsdesk

Protesters dressed as the Pokemon Pikachu are escorted by police through Glasgow. Photo: PA

PROTESTERS dressed as Pikachu have gathered opposite the COP26 conference as climate protests continue in Glasgow.

The giant Pokemon were demanding an end to Japan’s support for coal power.



It comes after several demonstrations took place in Glasgow on Wednesday, including an Extinction Rebellion march through the city attended by hundreds.

Another Extinction Rebellion protest is expected outside the Home Office building in Cessnock on Thursday, while there will be other large marches through the city on Friday and Saturday.

On Wednesday evening, Police Scotland said five arrests had been made at the demonstration, including two after officers were sprayed with paint.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie said: “We will provide a proportionate policing response to any protest and it is therefore extremely disappointing that officers were assaulted by having paint sprayed in their faces.

“These officers were simply doing their job and trying to protect people and keep them safe.”

READ MORE: COP26 attendee details 'chaos' at Glasgow event in damning thread

Ritchie said a group of protesters were “contained” around St Vincent Street in order to protect public safety, before being allowed to move towards the COP26 site within a police cordon.

Extinction Rebellion’s protest on Wednesday was against “greenwashing” and included demonstrations outside the SSE and JP Morgan offices.

The group said police action raised “serious questions about civil liberties, right to protest, and human dignity”.

On Thursday morning, a group called No Coal Japan held up a banner saying “Japan, time to end coal” on the opposite bank of the Clyde.

Life-sized 'Pikachu' characters joined activists from the No Coal Japan coalition

They say Japan is continuing to finance coal plants in Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Extinction Rebellion is due to hold a “march for peace” starting in Cessnock at midday on Thursday.

On Friday, thousands are expected to march through Glasgow with the Fridays for Future movement founded by Greta Thunberg.

Saturday will see another large march from the Cop26 Coalition, with organisers saying tens of thousands are expected.

Canada joins pledge to end public fossil fuel finance, shift resources to renewables

Bob Weber
The Canadian Press
Thursday, November 4, 2021


Canada has joined the United States, United Kingdom and 21 other countries in a historic deal to stop new direct public finance for coal, oil and gas development by the end of 2022 and shift investment to renewable energy.

“It's a big deal,” said federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson from Glasgow, Scotland, the site of a United Nations-sponsored meeting on climate change.

“It's a signal that many countries in this world are making this commitment not to use public resources to finance further exploration and development for fossil fuels.”

“It shows that Canada recognizes the harmful social and economic impacts of fossil fuels and the urgent need to end global production and use,” said Alan Andrews of Ecojustice, an environmental law firm.

But industry groups responded warily.

“We believe responsible energy producers such as Canada should be playing a larger role in meeting global energy demand,” said Jay Averill of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Few details were immediately available about the deal. It commits signatories to stop using loans, loan guarantees, grants, share purchases and insurance coverage from any government or government agency to finance new international fossil fuel developments.

Oil Change International, a group that monitors fossil fuel financing, says an average of about $78 billion a year flows to such projects. It estimates Thursday's deal could affect about $22 billion of that.

But in Canada, the issue is complicated by the fact that Export Development Canada, through which most of that financing flows, is involved with both international and domestic deals.

Wilkinson said the new agreement will affect about $1 billion in financing from the agency, roughly what was committed to such projects last year. That money could now be used for renewable energy projects.

“It certainly opens up that potential,” Wilkinson said. “(Export Development Canada's) mandate, increasingly, is very much focused on a net-zero portfolio.”

The deal also allows governments to keep funding projects in which carbon emissions are “abated,” or that are consistent with reduction targets. Canada is still free to finance developments such as carbon capture, Wilkinson said.

“This does not affect financing to support clean technology investments that are about reducing emissions.”

The government still has to figure out how the deal will specifically apply in Canada, said Wilkinson. There are also clauses that allow fossil finance “in limited circumstances” - details that need to be worked out.

“They drafted it in fairly general terms with a number of provisions that do require further detail,” he said. “We are going to define exactly what Canada means by that.”

Bronwen Tucker of Oil Change International said that could be a loophole.

“There's a way to do it in good faith and a way to do it in bad faith.”

Everything depends on how fossil fuel investment is defined, said Tucker.

“I do have some concerns there.”

She said Canada has for years been one of the world's top public financiers of fossil fuels, averaging about $13.6 billion a year.

Wilkinson acknowledged the deal doesn't include China, Japan or Korea - the world's other top fossil fuel funders. He said he hopes those countries will eventually sign on just as they recently signed on to deals to stop financing international coal development.

“We're going to work to expand the coalition and work to put pressure on all actors, including China, to ensure that it moves in this direction as well.”

In Alberta, provincial Energy Minister Sonya Savage said the deals the Liberal government is agreeing to in Glasgow make Canada an “outlier” in a world that's ramping up fossil fuel production, not shutting it down.

“It sends the wrong message to investors,” she said, dismissing COP26 as a “photo op.”

The COP26 deal adds to previous government commitments.

During the recent election campaign, the Liberals said they would eliminate fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Export Development Canada has said by 2023, it will reduce support to the six most carbon-intensive sectors by 40 per cent below 2018 levels and set “sustainable finance targets” by July 2022.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 4, 2021.

In the coming second American Civil War -- which side are you on?

Chauncey Devega, Salon
November 04, 2021

Supporters of President Donald Trump storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

(Tyler Merbler/WikiMedia Commons)

If there is a second American Civil War, which side would you choose? It may be wise to make that decision now, in the spirit of planning for the worst while hoping for the best.

A recent public opinion poll by the University of Virginia Center for Politics finds that a majority of Trump voters want to secede from the Union. Alarmingly, nearly as many Biden voters, 41 percent, also feel it may be "time to split the country." This is part of a larger pattern; other polls and research have come to similar conclusions.

It's important to resist false equivalence and superficial analysis here. It may be true that a large percentage of both Democrats and Republicans are willing to consider seceding from the United States, but their reasons and motivations are very different.

Today's Republican Party has, in practice, largely surrendered to neofascism and white supremacy — currents that were not far below its surface for many years. It has embraced and condoned the violence of the Jan. 6 insurrection, and has come very close to directly endorsing terrorism against its perceived political enemies.

For Republicans, America's multiracial democracy is anathema to their values and must be destroyed. Public opinion research has shown that tens of millions of white Republicans, especially Trump supporters, view Joe Biden as an illegitimate president who should be removed from power by whatever means necessary.

For decades the right-wing propaganda machine has used stochastic terrorism to radicalize its public toward ever more extreme views. In the Age of Trump, that has devolved into overt and direct appeals to violence in defense of an imagined "real" America. In practice, this has led to hate crimes and other acts of violence against nonwhite people, immigrants and other targeted groups.

This was to be expected: History shows that fascism in its various forms is inherently violent and destructive, both toward its opponents and members of its own movement.

When Democrats or progressives report a desire to secede from the country, they are seeking refuge and self-preservation. To suggest any equivalence between that desire and the overtly violent yearnings of the Republican-fascist movement is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

The prospect of a second American Civil War may seem wildly unlikely, or not even logistically feasible. But if it were to happen, such an outcome would not be based on empirical facts, reality or the complexities and nuances of public opinion polls.

A large percentage of Republicans and the larger white right actually believe that they are in an existential struggle for survival against Black and brown people and "illegal aliens" who want to "replace them," sinister "secularists" who want to outlaw Christianity, "critical race theory" aimed at brainwashing their children, a "liberal media" that deliberately lies to them, and a cabal of "elites" and "socialists" who are treasonous and determined to destroy the "real" America.

These right-wing white-identity fever dreams show no signs of breaking; if anything, the collective pathology is getting worse. Law enforcement and terrorism experts continue to warn that the country is at great risk of a violent right-wing insurgency inspired by the events of Jan. 6 and the Trump-Republican "Big Lie" about the 2020 election.

Wars begin for a wide range of reasons — often because of some miscalculation by one or more of the leaders and groups involved. Wars and other violent conflicts also happen because political leaders and other elites have talked themselves into a corner, leaving bloodshed as the only way out. Very often, civil war and sectarian violence have seemed impossible — until circumstances radically changed.

In an essay for Foreign Policy, Monica Toft explains how civil wars tend to happen, explaining that various factors are involved, including a history of previous internal conflict, "deepening cleavages" in society and a third element, "a shift from tribalism to sectarianism":
With tribalism, people begin to seriously doubt whether other groups in their country have the larger community's best interests at heart. In sectarian environments though, economic, social, and political elites and those they represent come to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and actively working to destroy the community. Enemies of the state come to displace the loyal opposition, with those having been inside another tribe seen as the most disloyal. It's akin to how some religions treat apostates and infidels. Often, it is apostates, the former adherents of the faith, that are targeted more readily over infidels, those who had always been on the outside. It is hard not to see echoes of this dynamic at play as Republicans condemn other Republicans over their loyalty (or lack thereof) to former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Indeed, the United States now displays all three core elements that can lead to civil breakdown. If one described them — fractured elites with competing narratives, deep-seated identity cleavages, and a politically polarized citizenry — without identifying the United States by name, most scholars of civil war would say, "Hey, that country is on the brink of a civil war."

In a powerful essay published on Substack, Salon columnist Lucian K. Truscott IV offers a scenario for America's second Civil War, observing that the opposing forces "will not be conveniently costumed in blue and gray as they were in the 19th Century ... making it difficult to tell who is actually on which side":
There also won't be a discernible front line or front lines, making it hard to tell which side is holding what territory. This, along with the absence of uniforms, means that a whole lot of people will be killed by mistake. It's probably likely that the MAGA side will dress itself in various camo costumes as many of them did when the mob assaulted the Capitol in January, but Trump followers aren't the only people in this country with camouflage hunting clothing. So if you shoot someone wearing camo assuming he or she is on the MAGA side, you just might be shooting someone on your side. Combatants won't be wearing "dog tags" marking them as on one side or the other, making the identification of dead bodies difficult. Is this guy one of ours, or one of theirs?

Truscott concludes with a series of terrifying possibilities:

Perhaps the grimmest prospect of all will be the sub-wars that break out within the bigger Civil War. Every prejudice will be indulged. Racist whites will target Black people. Fundamentalist Christians might target "heathens" like Muslims and Jews and non-fundamentalist Christians. Ethnic divisions will exist within the greater sides that face-off. ...

A 21st Century American Civil War would make the struggles we are currently suffering over elections and distribution of wealth and between races and ethnicities seem like the good old days when we all got along. An American Civil War will mean that we don't merely disagree with one another or dislike each other. It will mean we kill each other.
None of us, and I mean none of us, has an inkling about how horrible it would be. But if we are to have a future of any kind whatsoever, we'd better get more of a clue than the woman in the MAGA hat in Iowa who seemed to so casually look forward to a Civil War between her side and the side she was told to hate. Who you hated and why will be hard to remember when death comes to your door.

What role would Donald Trump play in such a conflagration? In a recent essay for TomDispatch, historian Alfred McCoy offers these observations:

Whether it's a poor country like the Philippines or a superpower like the United States, democracy is a surprisingly fragile construct. Its worst enemy is often an ousted ex-president, angry over his humiliation and perfectly willing to destroy the constitutional order to regain power.

No matter how angry such an ex-president might be, however, his urge for a political coup can't succeed without the help of raw force, whether from a mob, a disgruntled military, or some combination of the two….
So, in 2024, as the continuing erosion of America's global power creates a crisis of confidence among ordinary Americans, expect Donald Trump to be back, not as the slightly outrageous candidate of 2016 or even as the former president eager to occupy the White House again, but as a militant demagogue with thundering racialist rhetoric, backed by a revanchist Republican Party ready, with absolute moral certainty, to bar voters from the polls, toss ballots out, and litigate any loss until hell freezes over.
And if all that fails, the muscle will be ready for another violent march on Washington. Be prepared, the America we know is worsening by the month.

There are many expert voices who are sounding the alarm about the potential of a second American Civil War, and marshaling reasonably evidence why it likely will not happen.

But even the fact that so many public voices, and so many ordinary Americans, find themselves in a moment where such an eventuality must be seriously considered indicates how dire the country's democracy crisis really is.

At its core, these discussions of a possible second American Civil War reveal that the rise of Trumpism, and the full-on embrace of fascism by the "conservative" movement reflect a nation in existential crisis.

The distinction between "nation" and "country" is critical here. A country is an agreed-upon set of laws and governing institutions, but a nation is the symbols, ideas, stories, shared values and beliefs and other intangibles that give a people a sense of community and shared destiny that is distinct and different from other people in other places.

Trump World and the MAGAverse, and those fellow travelers who have pledged loyalty to the Republican-fascist movement, have a fundamentally different conception of the nation than do other Americans. Who "owns" the country? Who are its rightful heirs? Do some Americans have a special and privileged birthright status as compared to other Americans?

If America succumbs to a second civil war or other widespread political violence, the answers to those questions will become the dividing line. As the truism goes, no one hates like family. The American people — that is, our American family, which has endured, with considerable difficulty, for close to 250 years — may soon be reminded of that truth on a brutal massive scale.

Dems told to kill filibuster after all Senate Republicans but one block John Lewis Voting Rights Bill

Common Dreams
November 04, 2021

President Barack Obama awards the 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom to Congressman John Lewis in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Calls mounted Wednesday for U.S. Senate Democrats to reform or abolish the filibuster after all but one of the chamber's Republicans blocked yet another voting rights bill.

"We can protect our democracy, or we can preserve the filibuster."

Only Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) joined Democrats to support a full floor debate on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named for the late Georgia congressman and civil rights icon, the House-approved bill would restore key protections from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that were gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.

"John Lewis dedicated his life to being a fierce and resilient champion for democracy in the face of impossible odds. He quite literally put his life on the line to protect our democracy from sometimes violent attacks by conservatives and right-wing extremists seeking to undermine the right to vote," said Meagan Hatcher-Mays, director of democracy policy at Indivisible.

"The bill that bears his name, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, joined a slew of critical democracy reforms that have been blocked this year because of the outdated, racist filibuster—even with the last-minute appearance of a single Republican, Lisa Murkowski, willing to vote in favor," she said. "If Senate Democrats truly want to honor the legacy of Congressman Lewis and pass meaningful democracy reform, they must go beyond naming a bill after him and bringing it to the floor for a performative vote."

"We've had enough of these theatrics," Hatcher-Mays declared. "We all know that what comes next is what needs to come first: Senate Democrats must fix the Senate rules and remove the filibuster from the Senate Republicans' obstructionist toolbox."

The procedural vote follows Republicans in the evenly split Senate blocking a bold voting rights package called the For the People Act—twice—as well as a comprise bill, the Freedom to Vote Act. Progressives have responded to the GOP obstruction with growing demands that Democrats change or kill the filibuster to protect and expand ballot access nationwide.

"What has happened to our country?" Democracy Initiative executive director Charly Carter asked Wednesday, pointing out that "in 2006, the Voting Rights Act passed with a unanimous vote in the Senate and was signed into law by a Republican president."

In fact, as Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn noted, Murkowski was "one of 10 current Senate Republicans who voted for the Voting Rights Act reauthorization when it passed the Senate 98-0 in 2006. Today, the other nine turned their backs on the freedom to vote."

While "the right to vote is not and should never be a partisan issue," Republican's latest refusal to recognize that "presents a stark choice" for President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and the rest of the chamber's Democrats, Carter concluded, warning that "we can protect our democracy, or we can preserve the filibuster."

Tefere Gebre, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO and a co-chair of the Democracy Initiative board of directors, agreed that "the path forward is clear: We must fix or nix the filibuster so that bills with majority support can be debated and come to a vote on the Senate floor."

Hobert Flynn, another co-chair of the Democracy Initiative board, highlighted the filibuster's history as well as recent attacks on voting rights, arguing that "the Senate loophole long used to stymie civil rights legislation in the 1960s must not be abused again to defend the new Jim Crow laws being passed across the country."

"Lewis fought his entire life for the protection of fair, democratic principles, and the House and Senate must act now to honor his legacy."

"It is unconscionable that there are no longer even 10 Senate Republicans today who will vote to have a debate on protecting our freedom to vote," she said. "Senate Democrats must reform the filibuster to pass these critically important bills to protect every American's freedom to vote."

Supporters of the bill have long argued that its passage is essential to not only serve American voters and democracy but also honor the legacy of Lewis, who was brutally beaten by police on "Bloody Sunday" in 1965 for leading civil rights marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

"This is not the end for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or Freedom to Vote Act. Now, the Senate must do whatever it takes to pass these bills," said Greenpeace USA democracy campaign director Folabi Olagbaju. "Lewis fought his entire life for the protection of fair, democratic principles, and the House and Senate must act now to honor his legacy."

Underscoring why "failure is not an option," Olagbaju explained that "19 states have already enacted 33 laws that erect barriers to the ballot box for millions of Americans" and "together, this widely popular, commonsense legislation would stop racist anti-voter bills dead in their tracks."

As Wade Henderson, interim president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, put it: "The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would help identify barriers that could silence Black, Latino, Indigenous, young, and new Americans and ensure we all have an equal say in the decisions that impact our lives."

While calling out the "anti-voter" Republicans who "have yet again attacked the most basic principle of our democracy," Henderson suggested that "the bipartisan vote shows that we can find common ground."

However, some Senate Democrats framed the vote as evidence that change is needed now.



The New York Times reported on some top Democrats' remarks:

"At some point, our democracy has to move along," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the Rules Committee. "And that's the discussion we'll be having."

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, was more blunt.
"If it means an exemption to the filibuster, then I believe we should do it," she said. "We cannot let a Senate procedure stop us from protecting the right to vote in the United States of America."

Speaking on the Senate floor after the vote, Schumer thanked Murkowski for "working with us in good faith on this bill," while noting that "down to the last member, the rest of the Republican conference has refused to engage, refused to debate, even refused to acknowledge that our country faces a serious threat to democracy."

"Just because Republicans will not join us doesn't mean Democrats will stop fighting," he vowed. "This is too important. We will continue to fight for voting rights and find an alternative path forward, even if it means going at it alone to defend the most fundamental liberty we have as citizens."

Why are medieval weapons laws at the center of a US Supreme Court case?

November 4, 2021

In the opening scene of “The Last Duel,” the new film set in 14th-century France, a herald announces the rules for conduct at a tournament to the death. He declares that no members of the public – whatever their social background – are allowed to bring weapons to the event.

This scene might seem far removed from 21st-century America. But medieval weapons laws – including a 1328 English statute prohibiting the public carry of edged weapons without royal permission – are at the center of dueling legal opinions in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The plaintiffs are challenging New York’s “proper cause” gun law, which tightly restricts public carry of firearms. If they win, similar laws in several other states will be called into question. That means that concealed carry licensing laws could be broadly liberalized for millions of Americans currently living in those more restrictive jurisdictions.

Few people realize how big a role history has played in the battle over gun rights – the topic of a 2019 collection of essays, “A Right to Bear Arms? The Contested Role of History in Contemporary Debates on the Second Amendment,” that I co-edited with Smithsonian Museum of American History curators Barton Hacker and Margaret Vining.

The book explores how courts in the United States have turned to history for instruction in how guns should be treated – decrees, laws and interpretations of the past that are at the forefront of the case before the Supreme Court today.
Scalia points to the English Bill of Rights

The United States legal system grew out of the English legal tradition. This connection – which is often referenced by originalists – is crucial to making sense of the arguments around gun rights in America today.

Originalism is a legal philosophy that attempts to interpret legal texts, including the Constitution, based on what lawyers think is their original meaning.

An important victory for gun rights advocates took place in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that 2008 decision, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for personal self-defense in the home.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is the most significant gun rights case before the Supreme Court since 2008.

Ron Watts/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the 5-4 majority Heller opinion, claimed that there was a long tradition of the English state’s granting freedom to possess weapons dating back to the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which includes a clause that reads “the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

Scalia’s argument relied heavily on the work of historian Joyce Malcolm, the author of “To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right” and a Second Amendment scholar at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Malcolm and lawyers who support the expansion of gun rights argue that this clause created the legal basis for having weapons for personal self-defense in Colonial America.

Having prevailed in Heller, gun rights activists are seeking the liberalization of restrictions on public carrying of guns outside the home. In the New York case, some lawyers and other parties are now arguing that medieval statutes restricted only public carry that “terrified” the public, and that such statutes were never actually enforced to prevent “normal” public carry.

Historians object

However, most scholars of English and American history vigorously dispute the accuracy of this claim. In fact, since the Heller decision, the history of firearms regulation in England and the U.S. has been the focus of what Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell has called an “explosion of empirical research.”

Many of these findings appear in an amicus brief presented to the Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Signed by 17 professors of law, English history and American history – including me – the brief demonstrates through a review of historical evidence that “neither English nor American history supports a broad Second Amendment right to carry firearms or other dangerous weapons in public based on a generic interest in self-defense.”

It highlights 700 years of trans-Atlantic weapons regulations, from the English tradition of restricting public carry through the American tradition of doing the same.

The brief makes clear that limitations on the public carry of dangerous weapons, including firearms, are a centuries-old legal and cultural norm.

Early royal proclamations dating as far back as the 13th century regularly prohibited going armed in public without special permission. In 1328, the Statute of Northampton banned the public carry of swords and daggers, open or concealed – this was before the invention of firearms – without express permission from the authorities.

As legal scholar and historian Geoffrey Robertson, an expert on the English Bill of Rights, put it: “There was never any absolute ‘right’ to carry guns. As the Bill of Rights (1689) made clear, this was only ‘as allowed by law.’”

A pair of flintlock pistols that were common in 17th-century England. Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

An American tradition of limiting public carry

The English tradition of broad public carry restrictions continued across the Atlantic into the Colonies.

During periods of heightened risk of attack, some Colonies required certain individuals to carry guns to church or when working in fields away from fortified or populated areas. However, this obligation was not understood as establishing a right to carry firearms in public.

After the American Revolution, states continued to adopt regulations echoing the Statute of Northampton. Recent scholarship has uncovered that early-to-mid-19th-century firearms regulations varied considerably by jurisdiction and geography, but 19 states had restrictions for public carry on the books.

After the Civil War, as the lethality of firearms increased exponentially through technological advances, municipalities and states like Texas imposed even broader public carry prohibitions.

By 1900, there was a legal consensus that states and localities generally had the authority to limit public carry. While the American approach to public carry restriction was fluid – varying across time and jurisdiction based on social and political changes – there is a consistent history and tradition of many American Colonies, states, territories and municipalities imposing broad prohibitions on carrying dangerous weapons in public, particularly without a specific need for self-defense.
An invented tradition?

So how did a 1689 English Bill of Rights that never gave any absolute right to carry guns turn into a key justification for that very right in the U.S.?

Patrick Charles, the author of the 2019 book “Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry,” argues that pro-gun advocates have selectively interpreted the historical record to justify a personal right to possess and carry weapons in public.

Essentially, they invented a tradition.

“Invented traditions,” a concept highlighted in the 1983 book “The Invention of Tradition,” which was edited by historians Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, are cultural practices that are thought to have emerged from long ago but actually are grounded in a much more recent past. A classic example is the Scottish tartan kilt, once believed to derive from the ancient garb of the Scottish Highlanders but actually invented in the 18th century by an Englishman.

The “individual right” to carry firearms in public seems to be another.

Author

Jennifer Tucker
Associate Professor of History and Science in Society, Wesleyan University
Disclosure statement
Jennifer Tucker is a signatory to the Historians Brief for the respondent in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

University of Florida tries to douse political firestorm | Political News

 by William

 

 November 2, 2021

 

Presented by Florida Education Champions

Hello and welcome to Tuesday.

Free fallin’ — Leaders at the University of Florida — the state’s “flagship” university that has been touting its recent rise in national rankings — tried last night to quell the backlash over the school’s decision to block three professors from providing expert testimony to the long line of groups challenging the state’s contentious new voting law.

Don’t do me like that — The conflict spilled out in the open after UF’s decision was revealed in a court filing where the groups challenging the law want to know more about why the university contends it would pose a conflict and be “adverse to UF’s interest” to have the professors testify. Worth noting: The professors were allowed to participate in past lawsuits, including a challenge to the 2019 state law that placed restrictions on voting rights for felons.

Jammin’ me — In a statement to the “campus community” sent out on Monday evening, UF President Kent Fuchs and Provost Joe Glover asserted that they remain committed to academic freedom and free speech rights. They also maintained that “if the professors wish to testify pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they are free to do so.” This caveat was not included in the initial notices that barred the professors from participating.

The Waiting — Lastly, Fuchs and Glover said they were “immediately appointing a task force to review the university’s conflict of interest policy and examine it for consistency and fidelity.” This statement came out a few hours after lawyers for the three UF professors sent a letter to top university officials asking for clarity about what they called the “university’s unlawful attempt to prevent them from providing truthful testimony on a matter of extraordinary public importance.”

Breakdown — This is just the latest brushfire at UF that, as POLITICO’s Matt Dixon and Andrew Atterbury report, is raising questions about whether the university is becoming a political tool for Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republicans. This follows — as cataloged by stories by reporters with the USA Today Network-Florida — UF’s fast-tracking of DeSantis’ pick for surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo. The decision to bar the UF professors from participating in the voting rights trial is being probed by an accreditation panel.

Into the Great Wide Open — The DeSantis administration said it did not tell UF — directly or indirectly — how to enforce its conflict of interest policies. But the governor does appoint six of UF’s trustees. Those six appointments have collectively given him or the Republican Party of Florida he controls nearly $900,000 in political contributions. The chair of the board — Mori Hosseini — is a major contributor and records showed he played a role in helping Ladapo get a job at UF that is providing him a salary on top of his pay as surgeon general.

— WHERE’S RON? — Nothing official announced for Gov. DeSantis.