SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jim jordan
Students Demanding Protection for Pro-Palestinian Activism Arrested at House Hearing on Campus Speech
"Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families," said one protester as they were led out of the room by police.
Nov 08, 2023
The limits of the Republican-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee's views on freedom of speech were on full display Wednesday shortly after a hearing on "Free Speech on College Campuses" began, when several pro-Palestinian rights demonstrators were removed from the hearing room and arrested for speaking out.
The committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), invited representatives of conservative and pro-Zionist groups including Young Americans for Freedom and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to speak about what Jordan called "hostility towards certain points of view, in particular conservative points of view" amid growing outrage over Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza and the West Bank.
"With 'safe spaces' and 'free speech zones' aiming to protect students from violence," Jordan said in his opening remarks, "one would think Jewish students would have somewhere to turn as violent, pro-Hamas students take to their demonstrations and have harmed students on college campuses. That's not the case, as we will see in today's hearing."
But as the hearing got underway, protesters who were among the majority of Americans who support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war currently raging in Gaza were promptly kicked out of the room for demanding that lawmakers consider how their speech has been suppressed since the war began.
One student demanded to know when speaking out against genocide "became antisemitism" as she reminded the committee that more than 4,200 children in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces so far as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government continues to insist it is targeting Hamas in retaliation for the group's October 7 attack on southern Israel.
"What is your right to speech if all of us are not free?" asked the protester as she was pulled out of the room by Capitol Police.
The Hill reported that 10 demonstrators were arrested after interrupting the hearing to say "Free Palestine," "Free Gaza," and "End the siege and the occupation now."
Journalist Dima Amro reported that police confiscated the protesters' keffiyehs and took them to the Capitol Police headquarters.
Jordan cited a "nearly 400% increase in antisemitic incidents, including harassment, vandalism, and assault" in the two weeks after the Hamas attack, but did not mention that the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reported that anti-Muslim violence and harassment reports tripled in October.
Despite their focus on free speech on college campuses, Republicans on the committee also did not appear disturbed by a call by the ADL and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—both of which were represented at the hearing—for universities to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
The groups accused SJP of "celebrating terrorism" and said it should be investigated for potentially "providing material support to Hamas."
Last week, the ACLU expressed its strong opposition to "any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses, and urged universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights."
"We recognize that colleges and universities are managing heightened threats and anguished tensions on their campuses while trying to keep students safe—and we take those concerns seriously," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "The devastating conflict in Israel and Palestine has embroiled campuses here at home, sometimes resulting in speech that includes terms we vehemently disagree with or even find offensive and repugnant. Yet it's precisely in times of crisis and fear that university leaders must remain firm in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus."
"A blanket call to investigate every chapter of a pro-Palestinian student group for 'material support to terrorists'— without even an attempt to cite evidence—is unwarranted, wrong, and dangerous," Romero added. "It echoes America's mistakes during the McCarthy era and is counterproductive. We urge college and university leaders to hold fast to our nation's best traditions and reject proposals to restrict constitutionally protected speech."
At the hearing Wednesday, one demonstrator told the committee that "Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families" and called for lawmakers and universities to "stop silencing Palestinian students."
Jordan's hearing also follows the spreading of misinformation about pro-Palestinian rights demonstration at the University of California, Los Angeles and other schools where students chanted, "Israel, Israel, you can't hide: We charge you with genocide!" Social media users claimed the protesters were calling for a "Jewish genocide."
On Tuesday, Jordan and nearly all other House Republicans were joined by 22 Democrats in voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of the House, for her defense of the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which is commonly used at Palestinian rights protests.
"You are not offering a plurality of opinion," one protester told Jordan, "you are offering partisanship, and you are offering murder to more Gazans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s GOP Wants to Burn the Country Down and Rule the Ashes
They don’t want to drown the government quietly in a bathtub but to strangle it on live TV, and keep in mind that they have imagined nothing with which to replace it.
Oct 25, 2023
Sometimes the right wing in this country seems like a riddle wrapped in an enigma encased in a conundrum.
Do they want to strengthen the government in line with the once-fringe doctrine of the “unitary executive,” concentrating most official power in the hands of a president who would then rule more or less by fiat? That’s the fascist position.
Or would they prefer to destroy the government, to “starve the beast,” something anti-tax activist Grover Norquist used to call for decades ago? “I don’t want to abolish government,” he declared. “I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” That’s the anti-government nihilist position.
Just as we face so many crises globally, the legislative branch of the world’s (theoretically) most powerful country has ceased to function.
You might not think that those two goals could coexist comfortably within a single party. And of course, you’d be right if you were talking about an ordinary American political party. But the Republicans are no longer an ordinary party. In many respects, in fact, they have become the however-fractious sole property of one Donald J. Trump. That former and quite possibly (God forbid) future president has no trouble simultaneously advocating contradictory, not to mention devastating, ideas. That’s because, for him, ideas are an entirely fungible currency that he deploys primarily to maintain the attention and adulation of his—and it is increasingly his alone—GOP “base.” And precisely because Trump has so little invested in actual policy, the right wing believes he’s a weapon they can point and shoot in whatever direction they choose.
You might also wonder why, at a moment when horror is being heaped on horror in Israel/Palestine, when wars continue unabated in Ukraine and Sudan, I find myself focusing on some distinctly in-the-weeds aspects of the American political system. Perhaps it’s partly to distract myself from all the other nightmares around us. But even if I believed (which I don’t) that the right response to the crisis in Israel/Palestine involved sending more weapons and money to Benjamin Netanyahu, Congress isn’t in a position to appropriate anything at the moment.
Just as we face so many crises globally, the legislative branch of the world’s (theoretically) most powerful country has ceased to function. Perhaps by the time you read this, Republicans in the House of Representatives will have stopped squabbling over which right-wing bigot should be speaker. Maybe they will have opted for Jim Jordan, who has accused the Biden administration of planning to replace white voters with immigrants, or perhaps someone else entirely. Remember, too, that whatever joker emerges as speaker from such a chaotic process will be second in line to the presidency, should something happen to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Fearsome Power
Recently, I’ve somehow managed to end up on a few right-wing email lists. The strangest people (Ron DeSantis, for example) are writing to ask me for money. My most recent supplicant was Stephen Miller, former senior adviser to President Trump and co-author, with Steve Bannon, of Trump’s 2017 inaugural address in which the new president inveighed darkly against the “American carnage” he saw defiling the nation’s landscape. These days, Miller is himself a president of something called the America First Legal Foundation, which bills itself as “Fighting Back against lawless executive actions and the Radical Left.”
Miller, it turns out, has written to let me know that “we are living in extremely perilous times and a truly dangerous moment for our Republic.” As it happens, I agree with him, though obviously not for the same reasons. “The federal bureaucracy has turned against the American people,” Miller’s missive continues. “It has been completely corrupted into an ideological monolith of hard-left loathing for America. The fearsome power [his emphasis] of the state is raining down on political dissidents, while violent and vile criminals are released into our communities.” The solution, of course, is to send money to America First Legal, so it can get on with the business of “Fighting Back against lawless executive actions.”
Miller, however, will likely be less concerned about the fearsome power of the state once it’s again in the hands of Donald Trump. Indeed, he’s part of a group of former and present Trump advisers engaged in planning for a potential presidential transition in 2025. These include Russell Vought, who ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, and former Trump White House chief of personnel John McEntee. As The New York Times reported in July,
Mr. Vought and Mr. McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists, and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.
The key thrust of Project 2025 is full implementation of the “unitary executive” principle—the view that the Constitution locates the power of the executive branch in a single individual, the president. In its maximalist version, according to the Times, this theory also contradicts the long-held doctrine of the separation of powers, under which three co-equal branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—provide checks and balances on each other. Under the unitary executive principle, presidential power simply outweighs that of either Congress or the Supreme Court. Project 2025’s backers know that Donald Trump will agree and act accordingly.
By “long-held doctrine” I mean a blueprint for democratic government that goes back to two 17th- and 18th-century political philosophers: Charles Montesquieu, who first wrote about the separation of powers, and John Locke, whose ideas about unalienable rights were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Like Montesquieu, Locke advocated for a separation of governmental powers in which the legislative, not the executive, would be supreme. In that view, the democratically elected legislature makes a nation’s laws and—just as the name suggests—the executive exists to “execute” them.
Despite their occasional homages to Montesquieu and Locke, the Heritage Foundation and its followers have flipped that thinking upside down by insisting that the Constitution considers the executive branch superior to the other two. If that were the case, wouldn’t the executive branch be described in that document’s first article? In fact, Articles I, II, and III describe the legislative, executive, and judicial functions in that order, suggesting that if any of these is superior, it is (as Locke argued) the legislative.
Heritage, however, points to Article II, which begins: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows…” What “follows” is a lengthy description of the very electoral process that Trump and company tried so hard to suborn on January 6, 2021.
While Trump was president, he delighted in explaining to anyone who’d listen that he had “an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” At the time, that suggestion of ultimate power was met with widespread derision.
However, were Trump to be re-elected, the folks at the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and the America First Policy Institute have plans to, as the starship Enterprise captain Jean-Luc Picard would say, make it so. As the Times reported in July, their goal is “to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.” Consider what follows a first step in exactly that direction.
A (Schedule) F in Government
Okay, now let’s truly dive into the weeds: In his final year as president, Trump issued an executive order amending the regulations governing the federal civil service. That service was instituted by law in 1871 in response to what was then seen as rampant favoritism throughout the federal government. Patronage jobs—positions granted, often to the friends and family of powerful politicians or in return for money or favors—were officially eliminated. Competitive processes designed to select qualified candidates for specific positions replaced the old system.
Today, the Office of Personnel Management oversees the hiring and firing of roughly 2.2 million civilian federal employees, the people who keep the wheels of government turning. They administer Social Security, Medicare, and the Internal Revenue Service, among many other things. They make sure that your meat isn’t rotten and the alcohol content of your vodka bottle is what it says on the label.
The vast majority of those employees are chosen through competitive examinations, but about 4,000 key positions are directly appointed by the president or other senior officials, including the leadership of many agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other government executives. It’s not unreasonable for presidents to want to put their own policy stamp on various branches of government through such appointments.
It’s estimated that implementing Schedule F would have sent the number of exempt civil service employees soaring from 4,000 to roughly 50,000.
Those 4,000 positions exempted from competitive hiring fall into five categories, delineated in five “schedules” (lists) described in a subsection of Title 5 of the United States Code. To be exact, Rule VI of Subsection A of Title 5—I told you we were going to get into the weeds!—lists in Schedules A through E the employees exempt from civil service exams.
Or at least those were all the exempt categories until October 2020. That’s when Donald Trump issued an executive order creating Schedule F, which exempted from competitive hiring all “career positions in the Federal service of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”
Such a broad, ill-defined category could, in fact, have come to include any junior employee in any federal department who might in the course of his or her employment have cause to send a memo to a superior advocating any action. It’s estimated that implementing Schedule F would have sent the number of exempt civil service employees soaring from 4,000 to roughly 50,000.
On taking office, however, President Joe Biden immediately rescinded that executive order so, at the moment at least, Schedule F no longer exists.
In fact, the feckless President Trump we knew wasn’t even vaguely prepared to replace 50,000 civil servants with his own people during his last few months in office or, likely as not, over the following four years had he been re-elected. That’s where the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 comes in. They are now spending millions of dollars to recruit and vet political appointees who would toe the Trump line (a line they hope to draw in a future Trump presidency).
Jokers to the Right of Me…
The rock band Stealers Wheel caught our current situation perfectly back in 1972 when they sang about “Clowns to the left of me/Jokers to the right.” The jokers to the right of me (and to the right of the majority of the people in this country) are the members of the House Freedom Caucus, their allies, and other MAGA followers. They are the ones (de)constructing the house of cards that Congress is becoming at this very moment. To call them anarchists would be an insult to conscientious anarchists everywhere. They are, in fact, anti-government nihilists who believe in little beyond a kind of gun-slinging performative violence. They don’t want to drown the government quietly in a bathtub but to strangle it on live TV. And keep in mind that they have imagined nothing with which to replace it.
Where to begin? Those Freedom Caucusers in the House are now walking weapons in search of a target. Yes, they threatened to shut down the government unless their demands were met, but then they couldn’t even decide what those demands were. Did they want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and other social service programs? Impeach President Biden? Stop the prosecutions of Donald Trump? Increase border security? Stop funding Ukraine’s war effort?
When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to cooperate with the Democrats to prevent just such a shutdown, they threw him out. Then they couldn’t agree on a new speaker, even though the House of Representatives can’t conduct business without one. Yet not a day passes without a bomb-thrower like Matt Gaetz strutting around saying things like:
My goal is to get the most conservative Speaker of the House with broad trust across the conference. The Swamp of Washington D.C. is going crazy right now because they are not in complete and total control—this gives us a great opportunity to put the interests of our fellow Americans first.
All Together Now
Much of this would be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious. However, recent polls suggest that a 2024 contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden remains a toss-up. As historian Heather Cox Richardson recently toldThe Guardian, “Democracies die more often through the ballot box than at gunpoint.” The re-election of Trump. she believes, will signal
an end of American democracy. I have absolutely no doubt about that, and he’s made it very clear. You look at Project 2025, which is a thousand pages on how you dismantle the federal government that has protected civil rights, provided a basic social safety net, regulated business, and promoted infrastructure since 1933. The theme of his 2024 campaign is retribution.
I don’t think people understand now that, if Donald Trump wins again, what we’re going to put in power is those people who want to burn it all down.
I can’t say it any better than she has. They want to burn it all down so that they can rule over the smoldering ashes. That would put us on a true Schedule F—for Failed State—a condition this country now seems hellbent on achieving.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tom Emmer, Third GOP Speaker Nominee, Drops Out After a Few Hours
As former President Donald Trump attacked him, some progressives argued that "Democrats should only support a speaker that would disempower the Freedom Caucus through a power-sharing agreement."
Oct 24, 2023
Just hours after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives selected Majority Whip Tom Emmer as their third speaker nominee in as many weeks, the Minnesota congressman dropped out of the race Tuesday afternoon.
Congressman Lance Gooden (R-Texas) toldCNN that Emmer "wanted to do what's best for the conference and he didn't have the votes so he pulled his name down and got a standing ovation, and so now we're moving onto the next phase," which is a Tuesday night candidate forum.
Emmer's short-lived campaign followed failed bids by Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in the weeks since a few far-right Republicans joined with Democrats to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), whose January election required 15 rounds of voting.
Over two dozen House Republicans opposed Emmer's bid, leaving him short of the 217 votes necessary for election to the leadership role, and former President Donald Trump—the GOP's 2024 presidential front-runner, despite his legal trouble—spoke out against him on Tuesday.
Trump said on social media that Emmer "never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA," his campaign slogan Make American Great Again, and "voting for a Globalist RINO," or Republican in name only, like him "would be a tragic mistake!"
While some GOP opponents of Emmer tried to paint him as too "moderate," progressives on Tuesday stressed that the Minnesota Republican is anything but, given his record on the 2020 election, reproductive healthcare, the climate emergency, and more.
"So Republicans have picked Tom Emmer as their next speaker nominee. I hear some people alleging he's 'not as bad' as some options," DemCast's Nick Knudsen said on social media Tuesday before the congressman withdrew.
Emmer voted against "the Violence Against Women Act, ensuring our right to contraception, improved red flag laws and banning of high capacity magazines, establishment of a January 6th commission, capping insulin costs at $35, bipartisan infrastructure, and the banning of wage discrimination based on gender (to name a few)," he highlighted. "Sounds pretty bad to me."
Indivisible on Tuesday reiterated a message the progressive group sent last week to every single House Democrat, which says in part that "while House Republicans remain in disarray and are unable to elect a speaker, Democrats have been united around their shared values—prioritizing people over politics and governing effectively."
The message notably went out before Republicans made clear that they won't support temporarily empowering Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to pass spending bills before a potential government shutdown in mid-November.
"Indivisible encourages all House Democrats to stay united and only consider plans that also include a strong power-sharing agreement," the group added. "An agreement would disempower the Freedom Caucus and empower Democrats to meaningfully govern, mitigating Republican disarray. Any agreement would also need to be codified in the rules of the House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular