US Politics : Breaking News - Senate acquits Trump of incitement charge in impeachment trial

 

Senate acquits Trump of incitement charge in impeachment trial

The final vote was 57 guilty and 43 not guilty

By Jerusalem Post Staff, February 13, 2021

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/senate-acquits-trump-of-incitement-charge-in-impeachment-trial-658878

US President Donald Trump speaks at the Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, US, January 20, 2021.

(photo credit: CARLOS BARRIA / REUTERS ) 

Donald Trump on Saturday was acquitted by the US Senate in his second impeachment trial in 12 months, as his fellow Republicans shielded him from accountability for the deadly assault by his supporters on the US Capitol, a shrine of American democracy.

The Senate vote of 57-43 fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection after a five-day trial in the same building ransacked by his followers on Jan. 6 shortly after they heard him deliver an incendiary speech.

In the vote, seven of the 50 Senate Republicans joined the chamber's unified Democrats in favoring conviction.

Following the vote, Trump released a statement, claiming that the impeachment trial had been another phase of the "greatest witch hunt in the history of our country."

Trump left office on Jan. 20, so impeachment could not be used to remove him from power. But Democrats had hoped to secure a conviction to hold him responsible for a siege that left five people including a police officer dead and to set the stage for a vote to bar him from ever serving in public office again. Given the chance to hold office in the future, they argued, Trump would not hesitate to encourage political violence again.

Republicans also saved Trump in the Feb. 5, 2020, vote in his previous impeachment trial, when only one senator from their ranks - Mitt Romney - voted to convict and remove him from office.

Romney voted for impeachment on Saturday along with fellow Republicans Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, and Lisa Murkowski.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted "not guilty," offered scathing remarks about the former president after the verdict.

The drama on the Senate floor unfolded against a backdrop of gaping divisions in a pandemic-weary United States along political, racial, socioeconomic and regional lines. The trial provided more partisan warfare even as Democratic President Joe Biden, who took office on Jan. 20 after defeating Trump at the ballot box on Nov. 3, called for healing and unity after his predecessor's four turbulent years in power and a caustic election campaign.

Trump, 74, continues to hold a grip on his party with a right-wing populist appeal and "America First" message. The wealthy businessman-turned-politician has considered running for president again in 2024.

Trump is only the third president ever to be impeached by the House of Representatives - a step akin to a criminal indictment - as well as the first to be impeached twice and the first to face an impeachment trial after leaving office. But the Senate still has never convicted an impeached president.

Democrats forged ahead with impeachment despite knowing it could overshadow critical early weeks of Biden's presidency.

The House approved the single article of impeachment against Trump on Jan. 13, with 10 Republicans joining the chamber's Democratic majority. That vote came a week after the pro-Trump mob stormed the neoclassical domed Capitol, interrupted the formal congressional certification of Biden's victory, clashed with an overwhelmed police force, invaded the hallowed House and Senate chambers, and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety.

'FIGHT LIKE HELL'

Shortly before the rampage, Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol, repeated his false claims that the election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud, and told them that "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

During the trial, nine House lawmakers serving as trial managers, or prosecutors, urged senators to convict Trump to hold him accountable for a crime against American democracy and to prevent a repeat in the future. They played searing video of rioters swarming inside the Capitol and making violent threats toward politicians including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence. The House managers said Trump summoned the mob to Washington, gave the crowd its marching orders and then did nothing to stop the ensuing violence.

The defense lawyers accused Democrats not only of trying to silence Trump as a political opponent they feared facing in the future but of attempting to criminalize political speech with which they disagreed and aiming to cancel the voices of the tens of millions of voters who backed him.

Trump's lawyers argued the trial was unconstitutional because he had already left office and that his remarks were protected by the constitutional right to free speech. The words Trump used, they argued, were no different than those regularly employed by Democrats.

In his previous impeachment trial, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on two charges - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That impeachment arose from Trump's 2019 pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden as he sought foreign aid to sully a domestic political rival.

A common theme in the charges at the heart of the two impeachments was Trump's abandonment of accepted democratic norms to advance his own political interests.

The US Constitution sets out impeachment as the instrument with which the Congress can remove and bar from future office presidents who commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment, once a rare occurrence, has become more commonplace during America's era of poisonous political polarization in recent decades. In the 209 years after the first US president, George Washington, took office in 1789, there was only one impeachment.

Since 1998, there have been three, including Trump's two. Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War and Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999 of charges stemming from a sex scandal.

Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impeachment over the Watergate scandal.

Trump's acquittal does not end the possibility of other congressional action against him such as a censure motion. Republicans seemed dead set against an idea floated by Democrats of invoking the Constitution's 14th Amendment provision barring from public office anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the government.

The impeachment proceedings also can be viewed in the context of a battle for the future of the Republican Party. Some Republicans - mostly moderates and establishment figures - have voiced alarm at the direction Trump has taken their party. Detractors have accused Trump - who had never before held public office - of undermining the institutions of democracy, encouraging a cult of personality and pursuing policies built around "white grievance" in a nation with a growing non-white population.

Sputnik One says:  This outcome was highly predictable & it has proved two things:-  1)  The Democrats are vindictive scumbags & do not have the American peoples best interest at heart 2) The Swamp Creatures in the Republican party need to be thrown out of the GOP  ASAP ! 

The American people deserve better than Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Jarrett , Obama Soros, AOC, Sanders & all the other billionaire Marxist and criminal elements that now govern America. I pray that Biden will be a one term president & that either Donald Trump or another Republican is elected POTUS in 2024 because if Biden & Harris are not ousted then America is finished as a free nation under God! 

 

This page was posted by Sputnik One of the Sputniks Orbit blog

https://disqus.com/home/forum/thesputniksorbit-blogspot-com/

Please Recommend this page and follow us at:

https://thecoconutwhisperer.blogspot.com/

US Politics: Jen Psaki can’t answer whether Israel and Saudi Arabia are ‘important allies’

 

Jen Psaki can’t answer whether Israel and Saudi Arabia are ‘important allies’

By Laura Italiano, New York Post, February 12, 2021

https://nypost.com/2021/02/12/jen-psaki-cant-say-if-israel-and-saudi-arabia-are-important-allies/

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claims the Biden administration has "a long and important relationship with Israel." without answering that the nation is an important ally. EPA/KEVIN DIETSCH/POOL

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki gave a vague, rambling answer Friday when asked at a briefing to reporters whether the Biden administration considers Saudi Arabia and Israel to be “important allies.”

“Can you please just give us a broad sense of what the administration is trying to achieve in the Middle East?” a reporter asked — in follow-up to an earlier question asking why President Biden has yet to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“For example,” the reporter asked, “does the administration still consider the Saudis and the Israelis important allies?

Rather than saying simply, “Yes,” Psaki gave this answer, according to a White House transcript of the late-afternoon briefing.

“Well, you know, again, I think we — there are ongoing processes and internal interagency processes — one that we, I think, confirmed an interagency meeting just last week — to discuss a range of issues in the Middle East. 

“We’re — we’ve only been here three and a half weeks, and I think I’m going to let those policy processes see themselves through before we give, kind of, a complete laydown of what our national security approaches will be to a range of issues,” she added.

Earlier in the press briefing, in insisting that Biden’s failure to call Netanyahu is “not an intentional diss,” Psaki said, “Obviously, we have a long and important relationship with Israel, and the president has known him and has been working on a range of issues that there’s a mutual commitment to for some time.

“It is just a reflection of the fact that we have been here three and a half weeks, he’s not called every single global leader yet, and he is eager to do that in the weeks ahead.”

A reporter followed up: “But he has called every other major ally in Europe and Asia,” to which Psaki answered, ‘He’s called many of them.”

“That is true,” she continued, adding, vaguely, “Some would argue they haven’t received calls yet, and they are still eager to receive them.”

“But I can assure you he will be speaking with the prime minister soon, and he’s looking forward to doing that.”

She declined to indicate when the call would happen, even to say if it would be a matter of days or weeks.

“They’ve known each other for some time,” she said. “There are certainly areas of mutual interest.”

“And as soon as he makes that call, we will let you all know.”

Psaki was also non-committal when asked more than a week prior about the lack of call to Netanyahu.

“We have a long and abiding relationship with Israel, an important security relationship, I’m sure they’ll discuss that and a range of issues when they do connect,” she said.

Sputnik One says:  We all know what the corrupt & demented Biden is up to vis a vis Israel & other US allies in the Mid-East - he is obeying to the letter the anti-Israel, anti-Saudi and pro-Iran & pro-Syria policies concocted by his former boss the Muslim POTUS Barack Hussein Obama & his puppet master George Soros and other corrupt & evil pro-Iran / pro-Syria members of  the Obama administrations tyrannical 8 year rule, such as John Kerry, Valerie Jarrett, Hilary Clinton & Susan Rice.  Biden will do his best to harm Americas national interests to ensure that Iran gets to produce nuclear weapons & in doing so not only endanger world peace but Joe will enrich himself & family in kickbacks from the Iranians & other evil regimes in the process ! 

The American people deserve better than Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Jarrett , Obama Soros, AOC, Sanders & all the other billionaire Marxist and criminal elements that now govern America. I pray that Biden will be a one term president & that either Donald Trump or another Republican is elected POTUS in 2024 because if Biden & Harris are not ousted then America is finished as a free nation under God! 

 

This page was posted by Sputnik One of the Sputniks Orbit blog

https://disqus.com/home/forum/thesputniksorbit-blogspot-com/

Please Recommend this page and follow us at:

https://thecoconutwhisperer.blogspot.com/

No, Impeaching Trump Is Not about Feelings. It Is about Actions and Consequences

 By Dan McLaughlin

The National Review

The Leading Republican Editorial Magazine

 

Then-president Donald Trump prior to boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Md., January 12, 2021 (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

 

David Marcus at The Federalist replies further to my case for convicting Donald Trump in the impeachment trial (which won’t happen, but should). He does not, however, take on my full argument set forth in two prior columns (here and here), or even link to them, so his readers are at something of a disadvantage in understanding what he’s arguing with.

Marcus argues that distinguishing Trump’s responsibility for the Capitol riot from Maxine Waters’s responsibility for encouraging people to physically confront Trump officials is impossible by any standard, and cites tweets in which I noted one of the distinctions: Trump is being held responsible for violence that actually happened, and happened in the immediate aftermath of his remarks in a location where he sent the crowd to confront Congress and his vice president:

 His argument here is that since Waters’ call to action did not lead to immediate violence (although it certainly was a call for aggressive protest), she gets a pass for essentially doing exactly what Trump did. Under this rubric, intention becomes irrelevant. . . . Of course intent matters, and there is not a shred of evidence that proves or even suggests that Trump intended a violent storming of the Capitol. . . . McLaughlin’s [argument] falls apart because it is unable to grapple with the idea of intention, that really only leaves feelings and an emotional appeal. In some sense, it is like the old saw about trying to define pornography, that you know it when you see it. That’s not good enough for an impeachment conviction. It leaves wide open the door for future impeachments of disgust, where no crime or misdemeanor is committed or proven, but sufficient outrage is manufactured. That is not the purpose of impeachment. It is rather the purpose of elections, the opposite of impeachment.

First of all, Marcus confuses feelings with judgment, which the Framers of the Constitution saw as indispensable to the process. As I wrote at length during the prior impeachment (see here and here), the impeachment standard was deliberately open-ended, not limited to specified constitutional or statutory crimes, but required political judgment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, emphasized that impeachment was aimed at “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL,” and in Federalist No. 66, he chose as his example “betraying the interests of the nation in a ruinous treaty,” a set of facts which might or might not necessarily involve treason or bribery. Edmund Burke’s argument about the British standard, which the Framers explicitly used as their model, was that impeachments should be “tried before Statesmen and by Statesmen, upon solid principles of State morality.” That should not, of course, be an entirely standardless inquiry, but at the end of the day, in cases where no crime is at issue, it is one of political prudence rather than law. The high two-thirds requirement for conviction, rather than a textual limitation, is the chief barrier to its abuse. The question is not whether outrage is “manufactured” — as it often is in the press — but whether it is genuinely felt by enough of the Senate and the public to end up with two-thirds of senators (thus, the representative of a minimum of 34 states) voting to convict.

Second, as I set forth at much greater length in the prior columns, my argument is not simply that Trump should be responsible for his January 6 speech, but for his entire, unified, six-part course of conduct aimed at a single result: (1) an extended, two-month period of claiming, falsely, that the election was stolen; (2) an extended, two-month election contest that persuaded his supporters that the outcome remained in doubt and subject to being influenced; (3) the use of illegitimate channels and means to extend that contest outside of the legal process; (4) the publicizing and gathering of a crowd to focus pressure specifically on the January 6 elector-counting process, while knowing that there was no legitimate basis to use that process to overturn the election; (5) the specific, unlawful effort to get his vice president, Mike Pence, to thwart the counting of votes; and (6) after all of that stage-setting, the January 6 speech claiming that the nation’s survival as a democracy was in imminent danger requiring the crowd to surge down the street to the Capitol to press Pence and Congress, while knowing that they would discover when they got there that Pence was not playing along. The first five of those stages are the essential backdrop to why the rally and speech had the effect that they did, and why the rioters included people who had come prepared for a riot even before Trump took the stage.

Is this a unique standard? In one sense it is, because Trump’s abuse and violation of  public trust involved a form of misconduct of public men that nobody has ever done before, certainly not from the position of the presidency. That requires judgment of the elements taken together, rather than atomized into discrete pieces as if they were not all committed by the same man in succession towards the same goal, so that one can decry the precedent of each individually rather than the precedent of them collectively. The development of the common law of impeachment, upon which the Framers drew, was likewise by means of individual cases; the Framers chose to give that standard rigor by defining two explicit grounds (treason and bribery) and avoiding the low standard of “maladministration” that would allow presidents to be impeached just for doing their jobs poorly. But they left “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Any reasonable view of all six elements here would lead any reasonable statesman to find that Trump abused his public trust, which is exactly what that phrase was designed to capture.

Marcus argues that the Senate “should make absolutely clear that questioning the outcome of an election . . . must never be considered an offense of any kind” — even if those efforts involve a challenge to an election where the outcome is clear, even if the challenge goes beyond the legal processes for an election contest, even if they involve demanding that constitutional officers violate the law, even if they result in violence. This is a repetition of the Clinton-era argument that if something is about sex, even a felony in its pursuit is immune. Under Marcus’s proposed standard, no president could ever be impeached even for treason or bribery — even for ordering the army against the Congress — so long as he stated that he was doing so to “question the outcome of an election.” If Trump had literally handed Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger a bag of cash to change the outcome in that state, Marcus’s standard would absolutely prohibit the Senate from convicting. This is precisely how democracies die all the time in the Third World. No serious person thinks the Constitution was written to immunize all misconduct in election contests.

Third, I do not think it unreasonable to apply a higher standard to abuses of public trust that end in disastrous consequences — the Capitol sacked, people dead, the constitutional vote-counting process interrupted — than those that do not. It is a basic reality of politics that you are more likely to be held accountable for misconduct that ends badly. That is a known risk.

Fourth, Marcus says that I am ignoring “intention.” But of course, that makes him, not me, the one arguing for a subjective standard based on feelings about what Donald Trump really wanted. My view is based on what facts were reasonably known by the president, what acts he took, and what results those acts produced, not what he subjectively believed in his heart or wanted to happen. A Democrat could just as easily say “Trump has a bad heart, Maxine Waters has a good heart,” and we are back in the realm of feelings rather than verifiable fact.

Fifth, I do not argue that Waters should be let entirely off the hook. The Democrats have voted to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene from House committee assignments based entirely on the majority party having the votes to disapprove of her, solely on the grounds of things she said before entering Congress. (I favored Greene being punished by the Republican caucus, on grounds that she should not represent the party; the House as an institution punishing her is a very different and more ominous precedent.) Waters can, and should, face precisely the same treatment the minute Republicans regain the House majority, for her 2018 comments and a long list of others dating back to the L.A. riots in the early 1990s and including as well her baseless objections to counting George W. Bush electors in 2005 and Trump electors in 2017. But while Waters is a fair comparison to Greene, she is not a fair comparison to the full six-part scope of Trump’s misconduct, committed while serving in the highest office of public trust in the land.

The great danger of this impeachment trial is not that it will set too low a bar, but too high. Having acquitted Bill Clinton for committing actual, statutory felonies, and Trump for abuse of office to pressure a foreign leader (unsuccessfully) to do favors for his personal attorney, and now Trump again for a sustained assault on the democratic transfer of power that ended in violence inside the Capitol, it is hard to see what will remain of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” for any future Senate to convict any future president. We will be told that impeaching a sitting president is a coup that deprives the people of their chosen leader, and impeaching one who has left office is too late; that you can’t impeach for crimes, and you can’t impeach without crimes; that you can’t impeach for attempts that failed, and you can’t impeach for things that actually delivered terrible results. This is not the state of things the Framers intended. And given how Trump’s extended course of conduct directly threatened the process for transferring power, it will deprive us of an important means to protect the republic they bequeathed us.

 

US Politics: The Impeachment Trap

 

The Impeachment Trap

In trying to destroy Trump, his enemies could destroy themselves.

Fri Feb 12, 2021, Joseph Hippolito, Front Page Magazine 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/impeachment-trap-joseph-hippolito/

Democrat Congressional leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and  Rep. Nancy Pelosi 

President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, which began Tuesday, could provide the turning point for his and his opponents' legacies -- though not in the way many might think

 Trump and his lawyers could use the trial to prove conclusively the existence of nationwide fraud in last year's Presidential election. Trump thus not only would ensure acquittal in the Senate and begin his second term. He would disgrace and destroy his enemies for all time.

Ironically and unwittingly, the House of Representatives put itself in such an untenable position. The impeachment resolutionstated that for two months, Trump "repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials."

The resolution also stated that on Jan. 6, during a rally while Congress met to certify Joe Biden's ostensible election, Trump "reiterated false claims that 'we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.' "

In demanding impeachment, the resolution claimed Trump incited protesters to breach Capitol security -- despite evidence to the contrary, as FrontPage Magazine reported in "The Ultimate Betrayal" and "Capturing the False Flag." 

Then on Feb. 4, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, alluded to Trump's accusations of voter fraud in a letter asking the president to testify. Raskin wrote that the president, in his lawyers' response to the impeachment resolution, "attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense."

Since those "critical facts" concern election fraud, Trump's lawyers have the chance to make their case. But how can those lawyers succeed if meticulous research from Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, Peter Navarro and Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, among others, apparently failed to get national traction?

Simple. The military would have to collect irrefutable evidence of tampering, especially from foreign parties. As commander-in-chief, Trump would have the ultimate military clearance -- and Trump was commander-in-chief during the election.

So how would the military collect such evidence? One way would be through the United States Space Force, which Trump made a separate military branch in December 2019.

Ten months earlier, in a policy directive for the proposed branch, Trump delineated the Space Force's responsibilities. Duties included "deterring aggression and defending the Nation ... from hostile acts in and from space."

Fulfilling that mandate would mean engaging in cyber security. As a report from the Modern War Institute at West Point statedin July:

"The Space Force has an opportunity to pioneer safeguarding the infrastructure security of the United States, and it resides in fusing its responsibility for the hardware component with a consolidated cyber capability. Specifically, it is time to transition the national security cyber domain architecture from a combatant command into the operational mechanism of space warfighting."  

If other countries manipulated vote totals in Biden's favor, those nations would do so by using internet connections to hack into voting machines or data repositories in the cloud. In his report, Pulitzer wrote that adjudicated ballots "can be sent off site, downloaded to Excel spreadsheets, manipulated and then re-introduced into the system" electronically.

FrontPage Magazine explored that likelihood in "The Serbian Connection." Serbian tech specialists working for Dominion Voting Systems wrote the software for Dominion's voting machines. The software included an algorithm that could reduce Trump's votes, which could be manipulated from Serbia's capital, Belgrade, where Dominion has an office.

Powell also asserted foreign interference Nov. 20 when she said on Howie Carr's radio show in Boston that Serbia, China, Iran and Liechtenstein played key roles.  

So the Space Force's satellites and tech specialists would be able to explore the cloud and various servers, find suspicious activity, decipher the accurate vote totals and determine who acted when, where and how. 

Moreover, as a separate military branch, the Space Force could work with other federal agencies without interference from other branches. As the Space Force's proposed policy directive stated:

"The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall create and enhance mechanisms for collaboration between the Department of Defense and the United States Intelligence Community in order to increase unity of effort and the effectiveness of space operations."

Trump then could view the cyber evidence in real time in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, as FrontPage Magazine suggested in "Beijing Is Called For Biden," which also reported how Trump tried to repel foreign interference.

Trump made federal election tampering a national security issue, and gave oversight authority to the Department of Homeland Security, which would work with the Department of Justice. In November 2018, Trump created the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the DHS to keep civilian networks from being hacked.

Two months earlier, Trump declared a national emergency because "the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference," stated his executive order. That order amplified his ability to gather information through the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, among other officers in the executive branch. 

Last Nov. 2, the DOJ announced it would monitor voting and tabulating in 44 counties in 18 states with the National Guard's help. The announcement included jurisdictions in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, sites of the biggest disputes.

But if malevolent parties hacked voting machines and software, that means all the safeguards failed, right? Not necessarily.

What if Trump allowed the hacking to take place so he could trap the responsible parties and their benefactors, foreign and domestic?

Why would he do that? To deal the ultimate death blow to the "deep state," the collection of entrenched politicians and bureaucrats who sacrifice the nation's founding principles on the altar of personal ambition. Trump has based his entire approach to politics on that goal.

So if cyber evidence shows that Biden or any other American colluded with foreign governments to rig the election, they risk being charged with treason and sedition.

If such an idea sounds like it came from a bad spy novel or crime drama, consider the following.

First, neither of Trump's impeachment lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, are experts in Constitutional law. Castorspecializes in civil cases while Schoen deals in violations of civil rights and voting rights. Schoen even consulted with former Vice President Al Gore's legal team in the controversy over Florida's votes in the 2000 Presidential election.

Second, Trump expressed an unreserved resolve to punish theft in his 1987 book, "The Art of the Deal":

"My philosophy has always been that if you ever catch someone stealing, you have to go after him very hard, even if it costs you 10 times more than he stole. Stealing is the worst."

If the Space Force has irrefutable evidence of electoral fraud, and if Trump's lawyers present it during his trial, he not only would have survived impeachment for a second time. He not only would have started his second term and devastated his political enemies.

Trump would have directed the most extraordinary and vital sting operation in American history.

Sputnik One says:  The very idea of impeaching a president who has already left office is something that only the sick minds of the leaders of the Democrat party could have come up with, an exercise in futility, time wasting, money wasting, Soviet style disinformation & propaganda with the cooperation of the hard left US Globalist media and is obviously based on the Stalinst "Show Trial" concept that a party that has been hijacked by the Marxists will attempt to get away just because they control Congress by fraudulent votes. 

The American people deserve better than Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Jarrett , Obama Soros, AOC, Sanders & all the other billionaire Marxist and criminal elements that now govern America. I pray that Biden will be a one term president & that either Donald Trump or another Republican is elected POTUS in 2024 because if Biden & Harris are not ousted then America is finished as a free nation under God! 

 

This page was posted by Sputnik One of the Sputniks Orbit blog

https://disqus.com/home/forum/thesputniksorbit-blogspot-com/

Please Recommend this page and follow us at:

https://thecoconutwhisperer.blogspot.com/

Oregon promotes teacher program that seeks to undo 'racism in mathematics'

A toolkit includes a list of ways 'white supremacy culture' allegedly 'infiltrates math classrooms'

The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) recently encouraged teachers to register for training that encourages "ethnomathematics" and argues, among other things, that White supremacy manifests itself in the focus on finding the right answer.

An ODE newsletter sent last week advertises a Feb. 21 "Pathway to Math Equity Micro-Course," which is designed for middle school teachers to make use of a toolkit for "dismantling racism in mathematics." The event website identifies the event as a partnership between California's San Mateo County Office of Education, The Education Trust-West and others. 

Part of the toolkit includes a list of ways "white supremacy culture" allegedly "infiltrates math classrooms." Those include "the focus is on getting the 'right' answer," students being "required to 'show their work,'" and other alleged manifestations.

"The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so," the document for the "Equitable Math" toolkit reads. "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict."

ODE Communications Director Marc Siegel confirmed the newsletter to Fox News. He also defended the "Equitable Math" educational program, saying it "helps educators learn key tools for engagement, develop strategies to improve equitable outcomes for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, and join communities of practice."

UNIVERSITY CANCELS EVENT FOR WHITES TO 'PROCESS' THEIR 'COMPLICITY IN UNJUST SYSTEMS' AFTER BACKLASH

An associated "Dismantling Racism" workbook, linked within the toolkit, similarly identifies "objectivity" -- described as "the belief that there is such a thing as being objective or ‘neutral'" -- as a characteristic of White supremacy.

Instead of focusing on one right answer, the toolkit encourages teachers to "come up with at least two answers that might solve this problem." 

It adds: "Challenge standardized test questions by getting the 'right' answer, but justify other answers by unpacking the assumptions that are made in the problem."

It also encourages teachers to "center ethnomathematics," which includes a variety of guidelines. One of them instructs educators to "identify and challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views."

TEACHERS AT POSH NYC SCHOOL RELEASE 8-PAGE ANTI-RACISM MANIFESTO, SPARK UPROAR: REPORT

The newsletter surfaced amid a broader uproar over critical race theory and diversity training sessions in government entities. For example, a media frenzy erupted last year after a controversial graphic on "whiteness" surfaced from National Museum for African American History and Culture.

The museum's graphic broke the "aspects and assumptions of whiteness" into categories such as "rugged individualism" and "history." For example, under "future orientation," the graphic listed "delayed gratification" and planning for the future as ideas spread by White culture.

The training promoted by Oregon references a 2016 workbook titled "Dismantling Racism." 

POLITICAL SCIENTIST SAYS BLM CURRICULUM IS 'DESTRUCTIVE' TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY

"We do not claim to have ‘discovered’ or to ‘own’ the ideas in this workbook any more than Columbus can claim to have discovered or own America," the workbook reads in one section. 

It's unclear to what extent, if at all, teachers would be involved with this particular workbook, created by the group DismantlingRacism.org, but it appeared to form part of the foundation for the course's material.

"The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visualizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture," the toolkit reads before linking to both the workbook and a paper on "white supremacy culture."

The toolkit adds that "building on the framework, teachers engage with critical praxis in order to shift their instructional beliefs and practices toward antiracist math education. By centering antiracism, we model how to be antiracist math educators with accountability."

In one section of the "Dismantling Racism" workbook, the argument is made that "only white people can be racist in our society, because only white people as a group have that power." Another section seems to justify anti-cop sentiments. 

"In some cases, the prejudices of oppressed people ('you can’t trust the police') are necessary for survival," it reads.

That particular workbook seems to take a decidedly anti-capitalist tone as well. 

"We cannot dismantle racism in a system that exploits people for private profit," it reads. "If we want to dismantle racism, then we must build a movement for economic justice." One of the graphics includes protesters calling for taxes on corporations. Quotes are also featured from Howard Zinn, a self-described socialist, and Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara, although the quotes are more generally about activism rather than economics.

WEBSITE LAUNCHED TO TRACK CRITICAL RACE THEORY TRAINING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Anti-racism curricula have received an array of criticism and support.

For example, political scientist Carol M. Swain told Fox News' Laura Ingraham last week that certain curricula "put forth by Black Lives Matter and being embraced in too many places is really destructive of the Black community and the Black family and racial justice."

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, an expert on critical race theory at Boston University School of Law, told the Boston Globe that critical race theory helped people understand the complexity of race – beyond "simple" narratives that they may have been taught.

"Racism is not extraordinary," she continued. "Race and racism are basically baked into everything we do in our society. It’s embedded in our institutions. It’s embedded in our minds and hearts."

Attorney M.E. Hart, who has conducted these types of training sessions, told The Washington Post that the training helped people live up to "this nation’s promise – ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-education-math-white-supremacy

Chinese embassy in Pretoria to usher in Year of the Ox

 

South Africa: Chinese embassy in Pretoria to usher in Year of the Ox

Pretoria - The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Chinese Spring Festival will this year be felt in South Africa as the lunar new year is celebrated with a virtual event in Pretoria set for Sunday.

The Spring Festival marks the beginning of a new lunar year according to the Chinese lunar calendar.

The Spring Festival events have in previous years featured pomp and ceremony in Pretoria and a cultural explosion, particularly among the enthusiasts of Chinese cultures and tradition.

In an advisory issued in Pretoria on Thursday, the embassy of China in South Africa said the virtual gathering on Sunday will explore the “touching moments of the China-South Africa anti-pandemic co-operation”.

“Chinese Ambassador to South Africa, His Excellency Chen Xiaodong, and South African Minister of Tourism Honourable Kubayi-Ngubane, will deliver addresses,” said the embassy.

“We will review the touching moments of China-South Africa anti-pandemic co-operation, enjoy the fascinating natural and cultural landscapes of the two countries and the spectacular cultural performances of Chinese and South African artists, and experience the customs of the Chinese New Year.”

Unlike previous years, attendees of this year’s event have been promised a virtual treat featuring Chinese diplomats based in Pretoria.

“We will present you with the Chinese classical dance show of the African Champion for the Chinese bridge competition, the highlights of South Africa’s first online international ballet competition, the footage of the animated film co-produced by China and South Africa “Panda and Springbok” and the Chinese-style drum performance of South Africa’s female drummers,” said the embassy.

“You will also enjoy the songs and dances performed by the diplomats and children of the Chinese embassy in South Africa.”

A group of Chinese performers.

A previous Spring Festival celebration at the Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC). Dancers from China were flown in to perform for Chinese citizens based in Cape Town. File picture: Phando Jikelo/African News Agency (ANA)

Chinese New Year, also called the Lunar New Year or just referred to as “chunjie” in China, is marked by a seven-day holiday, punctuated with massive celebrations. Chinese cities during this period are dominated by iconic red lanterns, loud fireworks, massive banquets and parades. The event is also celebrated in different parts of the world.

Last year, the festivities in South Africa were attended by more than 1,400 people, including government ministers and ANC leaders. Ushering in 2020 – the Year of the Rat – the South African attendees were enthralled by traditional cultural performances of acrobatics, martial arts, fast mask-changing, and a puppet show performed by the Sichuan Art Troupe, which made a special trip from China for the occasion.

The flamboyant event was hosted by former Chinese ambassador to South Africa Lin Songtian.

In 2021, the Chinese New Year festival falls on February 12. The year 2021 has been marked as the Year of the Ox, according to the Chinese zodiac, which features a 12-year cycle, with each year represented by a specific animal.

Unlike the universal New Year observed on January 1, the Chinese New Year date varies according to the Chinese lunar calendar, but it generally falls on a day between January 21 and February 20 on the Gregorian calendar.

African News Agency (ANA)

https://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/news/chinese-embassy-in-pretoria-to-usher-in-year-of-the-ox-c1056d6d-69f8-49cf-97f4-b7ad2a8e03e1