Defense Spending

The Pronk Pops Show 1213, February 21, 2019, Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos — Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos — Story 3: Under Communist China’s Social Credit System Jussie Smollett Would Be Labeled As Untrustworthy And Unable To Travel Because of A Low Social Credit Score Due To Criminal Behavior and Blacklist Banning — Vast Surveillance Facial Recognition System — Safe, Secure, State Socialism in The Police Surveillance State of Communist China — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, Addiction, Agenda 21, Airlines, American History, Barack H. Obama, Bernie Sander, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Exercise, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, Kamala Harris, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Middle East, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Public Corruption, Railroads, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Security, South America, Spying, Spying on American People, Subversion, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, The 2013 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Transportation, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United Nations, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

See the source imageChicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him 'shameful' and 'despicable' See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos

Chicago Police Chief: Jussie Smollett Faked Attack ‘To Promote His Career’ | NBC News

Chicago PD Labels Jussie Smollett “Despicable”

Jussie Smollett Arrested in Hate Crime Attack | E! News

BAIL SET: Jussie Smollett’s Bail Set At $100,000

Jussie Smollett staged attack because he was ‘dissatisfied’ with his salary, police say

Jussie Smollett denies all allegations in court hearing

Jussie Smollett FULL Interview on alleged attack | ABC News Exclusive

 

PICTURED: Jussie Smollett leaves jail after posting $100k bail after prosecutor details video evidence against him and reveals he’d previously bought DRUGS from the brothers he paid to attack him after texting ‘might need your help on the low’

  • The actor’s siblings, Jazz, Jocqui, Jake, and Jojo were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing on Thursday afternoon 
  • A judge set Smollett’s bond at $100,000, which he will have to pay a portion of, and told him to give up his passport 
  • Prosecutors shared an extremely detailed timeline of the night of the attack and the days beforehand  
  • Smollett sent himself a threatening, racist and homophobic letter on January 22 to get more money from 20th Century Fox, police said Thursday  
  • When that did not work, he hired brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo to attack him on January 25 
  • On January 27, he took them to the exact location where he wanted it to happen and pointed out surveillance cameras nearby   
  • Smollett was in contact with them an hour before the incident, an hour afterwards and when they were in Nigeria, laying low for two weeks 
  • When they returned on February 13, they were picked up by police and later confessed ‘the entire plot’
  • Smollett paid $10,000, ten percent of his bond, and agreed to surrender his passport
  • The 36-year-old will return to court on March 14 to face a felony charge of filing a false police report  

ussie Smollett has been freed after posting $10,000 bond and agreeing to surrender his passport at a court hearing where he was supported by his family and prosecutors shared more details of his relationship with the two Nigerian brothers he allegedly paid to stage an attack on him in the hope that it would boost his profile.

The actor was hurried out of the Cook County Jail shortly before 5pm on Thursday and said nothing as he fought his way through photographers to get into a waiting car. He was flanked by bodyguards and driven away immediately.

Three of the actor’s five famous siblings, Jazz, Jocqui and Jake, were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing wearing sunglasses. They were later joined by their brother Jojo but their other sister Jurnee and mother Janet were not seen.

They left the court before Smollett once the hearing was over, fighting their way through a scrum of photographers to get into a waiting van parked outside without answering any questions.

Scroll down for video 

Jussie Smollett was ushered out of county jail on Thursday by police officers and body guards after posting $10,000, ten percent of his $100,000 bond, and agreeing to surrender his passport. He clung on to his security guard's shoulders as he followed him out to a waiting car 

Jussie Smollett was ushered out of county jail on Thursday by police officers and body guards after posting $10,000, ten percent of his $100,000 bond, and agreeing to surrender his passport. He clung on to his security guard’s shoulders as he followed him out to a waiting car

Smollett said nothing and held on to his security guard who led him through a crowd of photographers outside the jail

Smollett said nothing and held on to his security guard who led him through a crowd of photographers outside the jail

Smollett was sandwiched between security guards as he made his way to the car. He has to return to the court March 14 

Smollett was sandwiched between security guards as he made his way to the car. He has to return to the court March 14

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets
Even before he reached the scrum of photographers, Smollett placed his hands on his security guard's shoulders 

Even before he reached the scrum of photographers, Smollett placed his hands on his security guard’s shoulders

After the hearing, prosecutors gave a detailed description of how he allegedly put the hoax together.

Police say he knew Abel Osundairo, one of the brothers, because he bought ‘designer drugs’ from him. In text messages that predate the hoax attack, he asked Abel for ‘Molly’ – the street name for ecstasy – multiple times.  The pair are believed to have met when Abel was a stand-in on Empire.

On January 25, he convinced Abel and his brother Ola to ‘simulate’ an attack on him, giving them specific instructions about which words to use and how to rough him up but not hurt him too severely, according to police.

His alleged motive was that he did not get enough attention over a letter he is said to have sent himself a week earlier and he thought that painting himself as

Smollett took them to the location where he wanted the attack to happen outside his apartment, according to prosecutors, and even pointed to a surveillance camera he believed would capture it.  

The claims came after a blistering press conference during which furious police bosses alleged that he mailed himself a threatening letter then staged a hoax attack because he was unhappy with his $1.8million Empire salary.   

The actor wore a stony expression as he was seen for the first time publicly since being labeled 'shameful' and 'despicable' by the police department 

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday
A sketch from inside the courtroom shows Smollett appearing before Cook County Judge John Fitzgerald to have his bond set. The judge said that if true, the allegations against him are 'utterly outrageous'. He was particularly disturbed by the use of a noose in the attack, saying it is an image which 'conjures up such evil in this country's history'

A sketch from inside the courtroom shows Smollett appearing before Cook County Judge John Fitzgerald to have his bond set. The judge said that if true, the allegations against him are ‘utterly outrageous’. He was particularly disturbed by the use of a noose in the attack, saying it is an image which ‘conjures up such evil in this country’s history’

Jocqui, Jake and Jazz Smollett arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie's bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor's mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui, Jake and Jazz Smollett arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie's bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor's mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui (in beige coat), Jake (in black, right) and Jazz Smollett (center in fur-trimmed coat) arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie’s bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor’s mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts
Jazz, Jocqui and Jake entered the courthouse without speaking on Thursday. Their other two siblings, Jojo and Jurnee, did not join them

Jazz, Jocqui and Jake entered the courthouse without speaking on Thursday. Their other two siblings, Jojo and Jurnee, did not join them

Surveillance footage emerged on Wednesday showing Ola and Abel Osundairo buying ski masks the day before the attack. Smollett gave them a $100 bill to pay for the bleach, ski masks, red hat and gloves that they used, according to prosecutors 

Surveillance footage emerged on Wednesday showing Ola and Abel Osundairo buying ski masks the day before the attack. Smollett gave them a $100 bill to pay for the bleach, ski masks, red hat and gloves that they used, according to prosecutors

After his bail hearing, the state’s attorney gave a press conference where she described in painstaking detail how the hoax came together.

On January 25, he texted Abel asking him when he was planning to go to Nigeria, a trip that had been prearranged.

Jussie Smollett is shown in his mugshot on Thursday morning. The Empire actor handed himself in at 5am on charges of filing a false police report. Police now say he concocted the fake attack because he wanted a raise 

Jussie Smollett is shown in his mugshot on Thursday morning. The Empire actor handed himself in at 5am on charges of filing a false police report. Police now say he concocted the fake attack because he wanted a raise

They were familiar with one another because Abel had once filled in as a character on Empire who was a love interest of Smollett’s character, Jamal Lyon.

Abel replied that he and his brother were leaving on January 29 to which Smollett replied: ‘Might need your help on the low.

‘You around to meet up and talk face to face?’

That afternoon, they met up at the CineSpace studio and Smollett drove Abel home.

During the car ride, he told him about his ‘displeasure’ over 20th Century Fox’s reaction to the letter he allegedly sent himself days earlier.

He said he wanted to stage an attack and suggested that Ola, Abel’s younger brother, get involved.

Once they got to the brothers’ home, they summoned Ola outside and Smollett asked the pair if he could trust them.

Smollett then allegedly laid out what he wanted them to do and gave them a $100 bill to buy ski masks, a red hat, gloves, rope and bleach to use.

‘He stated that he wanted the brothers to catch his attention by calling him an Empire f****t Empire n****r. He detailed that he wanted Abel to attack him but not to hurt him too badly and give him a chance to fight back.

HOW THE ATTACK WAS PUT TOGETHER

January 22: Jussie Smollett receives a letter at the CineSpace studio which threatens his life and has ‘MAGA’ written on it in red pen. He reports it to police

January 25: Smollett sends a text to Abel Osundairo asking him when he is going to Nigeria and if they can meet up face-to-face

Abel goes to the studio where he is working and Smollett drives him home. During the ride, he said he was ‘displeased’ with the reaction to the letter.

Once at their home, Abel’s brother Ola gets in the car and Smollett tells them what he wants them to do. He gives them a $100 bill to buy the goods they will need to fake the attack

January 27: Smollett picks the brothers up then drives them to the spot where he wants them to fake the attack.

He then goes to New York.

January 28: Smollett is in New York City for a reading of the play Take Me Out.

The brothers are filmed buying ski masks, a red hat and gloves

January 29 – Day of attack

The attack was due to take place at 10pm on January 28 but because Smollett’s flight was delayed, it was pushed back.

12.30am: Smollett arrives back in Chicago

12.49am: He calls Abel Osundairo and they talk for three minutes

Abel orders an Uber minutes later.

1.22am: The brothers arrive in the area of the attack

1.45am: Smollett leaves his building to go to Subway

2.04am: The attack takes place in the arranged location

2.10am: Brothers get a taxi from a hotel nearby

2.25am: The brothers arrive back in their neighborhood in a taxi

2.27am: Smollett’s manager calls the police

2.42am: Police arrive at Smollett’s building and he asks them to turn off their body cameras

7.45pm: Smollett calls Abel. The conversation lasts five seconds.

7.47pm: Abel calls back and they speak for 1 minute 34 seconds.

The brothers then board their flight.

January 30, 10:46am: Smollett calls Abel who is by now in Istanbul, Turkey.

They speak for 8 minutes and eight seconds.

‘He also included that he wanted Ola to place a rope around his neck, pour gasoline on him and yell: “This is MAGA country” and “Make America Great Again,”‘ a proffer that was released by the State’s Attorney’s office said.

Police have found surveillance footage of the ride and have phone records which put Smollett in the area of the brothers home at the time.

On January 27, he picked the brothers up from their home and drove them to where he wanted the attack to happen in the late morning.

He warned them not to bring their cell phones with them and showed them a surveillance camera on the corner which he believed would capture the incident.

Smollett drove the brothers home and provided them with a $3500 personal check made payable to Abel, which was backdated to January 23, 2019.

He then flew to New York City to take part in a reading of a play.

The attack was scheduled to take place at 10pm on January 28 but was set back several hours by Smollett’s delayed flight from New York to Chicago on the day of the incident.

His flight landed at 12.30am, January 29.

At 12.49am, he called Abel and their conversation lasted three minutes. During this call, he instructed him to carry out the attack at 2am.

Abel then ordered an Uber to pick the pair up at their home and take them to the crime scene.

They took the Uber part of the way but then got out and hopped in a taxi to take them the remainder of the distance.

At 1.22am, they arrived within three blocks of it. At 1.45am, Smollett left his apartment building to go to a Subway and the brothers made their way towards the intended spot.

Smollett, however, was late. They did not cross paths until 2.04am which is when they carried out the attack. At the exact moment it was occurring, an NBC News employee was getting out of her car nearby. She told police later that she did not hear anything suspicious, despite Smollett alleging that the attackers yelled racial slurs.

The attack only lasted 45 seconds and was ‘just outside the view of the desired nearby camera that Smollett had pointed out to the brothers approximately 15 hours earlier.’

The brothers then ran away on foot, heading southbound towards the Chicago River. They then got in a taxi at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

Fifteen minutes later, they got out of the cab a few blocks from their house.

Two minutes later, at 2.27am, Smollett’s manager reported it to police and police arrived at Smollett’s apartment at 2.42am, 12 minutes later.

While being interviewed, he not only described the attack but claimed to have received a phone call on January 26 from someone who said ‘hey you little f****’ and hung up. He said the call happened near a camera and that it captured the attack. It was the same camera he pointed out to the brothers in the hope that it would capture their staged ambush.

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson abhorred him as a ‘troubled young man’ who has ‘taken advantage of the pain and anger of racism to further his career’ by allegedly lying that he was attacked by racist and homophobic assailants on January 29.

Smollett makes $100,000 per episode on Empire, according to an associate who spoke to DailyMail.com, and there are 18 episodes in the current season which earns him $1.8million.

He also has a record deal with Columbia Records but, according to police, was ‘dissatisfied’ and wanted to boost his profile.

When police learned that Smollett’s motive was to get more money, it ‘p****d everybody off’, Superintendent Johnson said, adding that Smollett’s repeated ‘lies’ were ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’.

He called for ‘absolute justice’ which he said amounted to Smollett apologizing and offering to pay for the police resources he wasted.

20th Century Fox, which defended the actor on Wednesday, is now ‘considering its options’ in light of his arrest.

President Trump has also called for Smollett to apologize for making it appear as though he was being targeted by one of his supporters.

 

 

This is the state's case against Smollett, as laid out in their bond proffer that was submitted in court on Thursday 

This is the state’s case against Smollett, as laid out in their bond proffer that was submitted in court on Thursday

Police say they have found phone records which prove Smollett spoke with brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo an hour before the attack, an hour afterwards and while they were in Nigeria, keeping their heads down, while the case gained global attention.

Prosecutor Risa Lanier laid bare the allegations in a press conference after the bond hearing 

Prosecutor Risa Lanier laid bare the allegations in a press conference after the bond hearing

They also say they have the check that Smollett used to pay them $3,500.

The brothers ‘confessed’ to the ‘entire plot’ once they were in custody on Thursday.

It began on January 22 when Smollett allegedly mailed himself a threatening letter to the Empire studio in Chicago which had ‘MAGA’ written on it and included racist and homophobic slurs.

It read: ‘Smollett Jussie, you will die’ and included a drawing of a stick figure with a gun pointed towards it.

He reported it to the police along with producer Dennis Hammer.

When that did not win him a pay rise from 20th Century Fox, however, he allegedly hired the brothers to attack him at 2am on January 29 in what he then told police was a random, racist and homophobic attack.

The attack did happen but was not caught on camera. According to the brothers, they punched him after meeting at an arranged spot and time then ran away and got into a taxi.

President Trump tweeted on Thursday after the details of his arrest emerged to demand an apology from the actor who said his attackers shouted 'This is MAGA country!' 

 

President Trump tweeted on Thursday after the details of his arrest emerged to demand an apology from the actor who said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’

Smollett then went home to his friend, 60-year-old Frank Gatson, who was in the apartment and told him that he had been jumped by two masked assailants who shouted: ‘Empire f****t n****r’, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and screamed: ‘This is MAGA country!’

Police say that the actor gave himself the scratches on his face that were visible in a hospital-bed selfie he took after reporting it.

The same day, the brothers went to the airport and boarded a flight to Nigeria.

While Smollett received an outpouring of sympathy from politicians, celebrities and public figures around the world, they laid low but were allegedly in contact with the star.

As the police investigation heated up, officers honed in on them by tracking taxis that were in the area at around the time of the incident.

In particular, a ride-share the brothers took to the location gave police their details.

They were then picked up when they returned to Chicago on February 13.

Once in custody, they told police that Smollett had hired them and said it was because he wanted a higher salary.

Smollett, a vocal Trump critic, said his attackers shouted 'This is MAGA country!' and later suggested he was targeted because he is so critical of the president 

Smollett, a vocal Trump critic, said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’ and later suggested he was targeted because he is so critical of the president 

He paid them a reported $3,500 to carry out the attack, they said, and promised them $500 more when they returned from their trip.

Smollett is in custody awaiting his first court appearance on felony charges of filing a false police report. He will appear before a judge at 1.30pm. 

His lawyers issued a statement on Wednesday to protest his innocence and condemn the police for leaking so many details of the investigation.

During the press conference, Superintendent Johnson revealed Smollett went from being treated as the victim in the case to a suspect when the brothers ‘confessed’ the ‘entire plot’ in the final hour of a 48 hour hold.

That is when they, in their lawyer’s words, ‘manned up’ and revealed that they had been hired to carry out the attack by the actor himself.

Smollett actually furthered the investigation along by going on Good Morning America and confirming that the two people in a grainy surveillance footage still were the men who attacked him.

He was unaware when he made the remark that Chicago PD had identified those men as the Osundairo brothers and that they had them in custody.

‘I come to you today not only as the Superintendent of Chicago Police Department but as a black man who has spent his entire life living in the city of Chicago.

‘I know the racial divide. I know how hard it has been for our city and our nation to come together.

‘Empire actor Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.

‘I’m left hanging my head and asking why? Why would anyone, especially an African American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations?

Chicago PD also shared this map of Smollett's movements on the night of the attack and show where it happened. The cameras in the area where it happened were not facing him, to his dismay

Another map shows where the assailants were dropped off in a ride-share, top right, then walked to the attack and fled to get in another taxi afterwards 

Another map shows where the assailants were dropped off in a ride-share, top right, then walked to the attack and fled to get in another taxi afterwards

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him 'shameful' and 'despicable' 

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’

‘I love the city of Chicago, warts and all, but this publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve.

‘The accusations within this phony attack received national attention for weeks…Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor,’ he went on.

 When we discovered the actual motive, it p****d everybody off
 Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson

He added that he was ‘angry and offended’ and said it was a travesty that other crimes do not garner as much attention.

‘I just wish that the families of the victims of gun violence in this city got as much attention. That is who really deserves this amount of attention.’

He was emphatic, later, about the fact that no other investigations suffered as a result of Smollett’s claims, but said: ‘Bogus police reports cause real harm.

‘They do harm to ever legitimate victim who is in need of support by police.’

Johnson finished his remarks by saying: ‘I’ll continue to pray for this troubled young man who resorted to both drastic and illegal tactics to gain attention.

Police say Smollett cut his own cheek to make it look like he had suffered injuries in the attack. He is shown in a hospital bed selfie FaceTiming Lee Daniels, the show's creator, hours after the attack 

Police say Smollett cut his own cheek to make it look like he had suffered injuries in the attack. He is shown in a hospital bed selfie FaceTiming Lee Daniels, the show’s creator, hours after the attack

‘I’ll also continue to pray for our city asking that we can move forward from this and begin to heal.’

Police examined footage from 55 surveillance cameras, obtained more than 50 search warrants and conducted more than 100 interviews.

If convicted, Smollett may be asked to repay the money that was spent investigating the crime.

Smollett has not made any statements since he was taken into custody.

His lawyers said on Wednesday night that he would fight the charges with an ‘aggressive defense’.

In previous statements, his representatives have angrily hit out at the media and insisted that he is the victim.

Within hours of him being charged, Smollett’s attorneys arranged for him to hand himself in quietly at Chicago’s 1st District afterwards.

He appeared in his mugshot wearing a black puffer jacket, staring blankly at the camera.

After being processed at the station, he was transferred to the Cook County courthouse where he will appear at 1.30pm. He is being held separately from other detainees.

20th Century Fox, which released a statement hours before he was charged to say it was standing by him, is now reportedly suspending the actor.

20th Century Fox said on Thursday that it was now considering its options. It had been standing by the actor 

20th Century Fox said on Thursday that it was now considering its options. It had been standing by the actor

A press conference is scheduled for 9am CT during which detectives will give more details about the arrest. It is not yet known where he was or what time he was taken into custody.

‘Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked,’ the actor’s attorneys Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson said.

‘Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense.’

The Osundairo brothers testified before the grand jury for about two and a half hours on Wednesday.

Addressing reporters outside afterwards, their attorney Gloria Schmidt said they’d ‘manned up’ by speaking out against Smollett.

The rope they put around Smollett's neck was bought in this hardware store 

The rope they put around Smollett’s neck was bought in this hardware store 

They have not been arrested or charged and their lawyer said they had not been offered any form of immunity deal in exchange for testifying against Smollett. 

‘There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said: “We’re gonna correct this.”

‘Plea deal, immunity, all of that — they don’t’ care about that.’

She said that Smollett was lying, and that she didn’t know how his conscience could let him sleep at night.

There was a point where this story needed to be told and they manned up and they said, “we’re going to correct this”
Gloria Schmidt, lawyer for two Nigerian brothers

‘I think Jussie’s conscience is not letting him sleep right now and he should unload that conscience and come out and tell the American people what happened,’ she added.

‘I think the biggest thing for the American people to know. Is that this story, has a lot of complications to it.

‘We’re not trying to hide anything from the press. But we wanted to make sure that everything checked out.

‘When I say that the police spent countless man-hours trying to piece this together, I mean that, I absolutely mean that.

‘When I say that my clients spent countless hours getting their story out there to the police so that they could do their work, I mean that, too,’ she said.

The brothers’ testimony came after footage emerged of them buying ski masks, a red hat and gloves in a store the day before the attack.

The brothers said Smollett also sent himself this letter to the Fox studio where Empire is filmed a week before the attack. If he did, he faces another 5-10 years in prison on a federal mail fraud charge 

The brothers said Smollett also sent himself this letter to the Fox studio where Empire is filmed a week before the attack. If he did, he faces another 5-10 years in prison on a federal mail fraud charge

Abel and Ola Osundairo's lawyers said on Wednesday night that they 'manned up' by telling police that Smollett paid them 

Abel and Ola Osundairo’s lawyers said on Wednesday night that they ‘manned up’ by telling police that Smollett paid them. Ola once appeared on the show as an extra. He is shown with creator Lee Daniels, right

It was taken on January 28 and shows brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo inside what looks like a drug store buying the masks and one hat.

Smollett told police that he was attacked by two masked assailants who punched him, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and called him ‘Empire n****r f****t’.

No footage has ever emerged of the incident itself.

In the video taken inside the store the day earlier, the brothers look calm as they bring the items to the register.

Smollett follows the brothers' joint Instagram account where they post videos and photographs of themselves working out 

Smollett follows the brothers’ joint Instagram account where they post videos and photographs of themselves working out

Abel, whose full name is Abimbola, is dressed in a blue plaid jacket. About 30 seconds into the video, he puts his hood up while standing at the register.

His younger brother Ola, who once appeared on Empire as an extra, is in a green jacket.

The brothers were picked up by police at Chicago O’Hare Airport on Wednesday night as they returned from Nigeria.

Police seized a red hat from the brothers’ home along with ski masks when they raided it last week.  Smollett said his attackers were wearing masks but there was not a description of a red hat in the initial reports.

Police have since shared their belief that at least one of them was wearing a red hat at the time of the attack.

Smollett’s family, many of whom are also actors, have spoken out repeatedly in support of him since the January 29 attack as have many of his co-stars on Empire.

Among them is Gabby Sidibe, his roommate at one time, who said on Instagram on Wednesday: ‘I know him. I believe him.’

Fox also insisted that he was not being written out of the show, as had been claimed, and called him a ‘consummate professional’ in a statement.

Smollett’s lawyers include Mark Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Colin Kaepernick, in the past.

Last Thursday, the actor wept as he said 'who the f*** would make that up' when addressing the skepticism surrounding his version of events during an interview on Good Morning America. He has also called himself the 'gay Tupac' and issued statements via attorneys and representatives condemning coverage of the incident 

When news of the attack first emerged on January 29 and 30, Smollett was inundated with support across the political spectrum.

Among those who tweeted their condemnation of him were Democratic presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.

But as days went by with no suspects on the horizon, details about the case and the police’s investigation into it began to cast doubt on Smollett’s version of events.

One of the earliest sources of speculation was the fact that Smollett waited 42 minutes to call the police then refused to hand over his phone to the police for them to verify his story.

He then handed over redacted files that police described as ‘insufficient’.

Frustrated with the coverage of his case, he hit out at the media for reporting on leaked information coming from within the Chicago police department and insisted he was the victim.

He then went on Good Morning America to protest his innocence.

In an hour-long interview with Robin Roberts, he wept as he recalled the attack and abhorred the reaction to it.

CELEBRITIES REACT TO JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S ARREST

Celebrities have lashed out at Empire actor Jussie Smollett following his arrest after many of them publicly voiced support for him when he first claimed he had been targeted in a racist and homophobic attack.

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth.

Perry added that the evidence seemed to contradict Smollett’s version and that he was ‘lost for words’.

‘I have personally spoken to Jussie, and he is adamant that he’s telling the truth. Also, everyone that I know who knows him says that he is not the kind of person who would make up such a horrible and awful thing,’ he said.

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor's face imposed on the cover of the rapper's album, saying: 'All Liez On Me'

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’

Snoopdog posted a Scooby Doo cartoon with Smollett's face edited in

 

Snoopdog posted a Scooby Doo cartoon with Smollett’s face edited in

 

‘Yet the evidence seems to state otherwise. I’m lost for words. To stoke fears and raise racial tensions is wrong in every situation on ALL SIDES! Yet my prayers are still with him and his family and our Nation.’

Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments.

‘What upsets me about this Jussie situation is that people were genuinely worried about you man. And the things that you said happened could have led to some serious outcomes. People were prepared to fight for you bruh. Things coulda got ugly…… and you made it up.

‘The world has plenty of real monsters. You don’t have to make up any. And what for? Just further dividing people for personal gain? It sucks for the people who actually have to deal with that type of hate.

‘And why did you call yourself the gay Tupac. What does Tupac have to do with anything that happened to you? Did you do this to sell records bro? Did you fake a hate crime, Enrage the Black community. The LBGT community and anti-Trump community just to sell records bruh?

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth but later added that the evidence seemed to tell a different story

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth but later added that the evidence seemed to tell a different story

Straight Outta Compton actor O'Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments

Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments

‘People could’ve gotten hurt. Thinking they’re protesting and standing up for you. This is not a game.’

Smollett had compared himself to Tupac during a performance in West Hollywood earlier this month. He ended his set saying he fought back against his so-called attackers and said he was ‘the gay Tupac’.

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’.

Andy Cohen tweeted that his ‘head is exploding’ following news of Smollett’s arrest before calling the story ‘pathetic’.

Actor Patton Oswalt retweeted a tweet from President Donald Trump, saying: ‘Way to go Jussie. You just handed this racist dips**t a ‘Get Out Of Race-Baiting Free’ card that he’s gonna wave around like a soiled diaper until he’s re-elected.’

Trump had tweeted: ‘.@JussieSmollett – what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA’.

Choking back tears, he explained when asked why it took so long for him to contact the authorities: ‘There is a level of pride there.

‘We live in a society where as a gay man you are considered somehow to be weak and I am not weak. I am not weak and we as a people are not weak.’

Later, he added how desperate he was for them to find footage of the attack.

‘I want that video found so badly because, for probably four reasons.

‘Number one, I want them to find the people that did it.

‘Number two, I want them to stop being able to say ‘alleged’ attack.

‘Number three,  I want them to see that I fought back,’ he continued, welling-up.

‘I want a little gay boy who might watch this to see that I fought the f*** back. They ran off,’ I didn’t,’ he said.

After it emerged that Smollett knew the brothers and may have been involved in the staging of the attack, the celebrities and politicians who rushed to support him walked back their claims.

Nancy Pelosi deleted her tweet about it and Cory Booker said he would now be ‘withholding judgement’ until more information emerged.

Kamala Harris said, when questioned about her tweet that it was a ‘modern day lynching’, that she was ‘very concerned’.

Key moments in reported attack on actor Jussie Smollett

 January 29, 2019

Smollet is seen with a cut cheek on Jan. 29

Smollet is seen with a cut cheek on Jan. 29

Jussie Smollett tells Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while walking home from getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2am.

The black and openly gay actor tells authorities the men used racial and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured an ‘unknown substance’ on him.

Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in ‘MAGA country,’ an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan, which some critics of Trump have claimed is a racist dog whistle.

January 30

Chicago police say they’ve reviewed hundreds of hours of surveillance camera footage, including of Smollett walking downtown, but none of the videos show the attack.

Police obtain and release images of two people they would like to question.

Reports of Smollett’s attack draw outrage and support on social media, including from U.S. Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Both Booker and Harris called the incident a ‘modern day lynching’.

Joe Biden said: ‘We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts.’

Police released this image of 'persons of interest' taken near the reported attack

Police released this image of ‘persons of interest’ taken near the reported attack

January 31

Trump tells reporters at the White House that he saw a story the night before about Smollett and that, ‘It doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.’

Smollett’s family issues a statement calling the attack a racial and homophobic hate crime.

Smollett’s family says he ‘has told the police everything’ and ‘his story has never changed,’ disputing assertions leveled on social media that he has been less than cooperative and changed his story.

February 1

Smollett issues a statement telling people that he is OK and thanking them for their support.

He says he is working with authorities and has been ‘100 percent factual and consistent on every level.’

February 2

Smollett gives sold-out concert in West Hollywood, California, opening with an emotional speech, saying he had to play the show because he couldn’t let his attackers win.

At the end of the set, he announces that he fought back against his attackers, calling himself ‘the gay Tupac’.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters is in attendance at the concert.

Smollet is seen performing on February 2, where he called himself 'the gay Tupac'

Smollet is seen performing on February 2, where he called himself ‘the gay Tupac’

February 5th: Chicago PD releases incident report which reveals Smollett did not want to call police. There is no mention of the MAGA country remark which he gave in a follow-up interview

Brandon Z. Moore, his manager, gives police a screenshot to prove their call.

February 11th: Smollett finally hands over redacted phone records to prove the phone call but police label them ‘insufficient’.

His neighbors say they don’t believe his version of events.

February 12th: Smollett’s rep releases statement to say he is the victim and that he has been telling the truth

February 14th:  Good Morning America airs the full interview with Smollett, in which he blasts speculation that the attack was staged as itself racist and hateful.

Hours later, it emerges that two Nigerian brothers were picked up at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on their return from Nigeria the night before.

Cops identify the two men as the individuals seen in the surveillance images released from the night of January 29 but will not share their names.

Two television stations in Chicago simul report the widespread belief among investigators that Smollett staged the attack as a hate hoax.

Chicago’s police superintendent later said that he had no evidence to prove that the attack was a hoax.

Producers of ‘Empire’ dispute media reports that Smollett’s character was being written off the show.

High-powered criminal defense attorney Michael Monico reveals that he is representing Smollett.

Brothers Olabinjo 'Ola' Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola 'Abel' Osundairo, 25, were detained by police on February 13

Brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25, were detained by police on February 13

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers' Chicago home

 

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers' Chicago home

 

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers’ Chicago home

February 15

DailyMail.com confirms they are brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25. 

Later, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielimi says the two ‘persons of interest’ are now considered suspects. He says the men are in custody but have not been charged with a crime.

Chicago police release two men without charges after arresting them on suspicion of assaulting Smollett and holding them for nearly 48 hours. 

A police spokesman said the two are no longer considered suspects and that investigators have ‘new evidence’ to consider as a result of questioning them.

February 16

A police spokesman said that the investigation had ‘shifted’ after detectives questioned the two brothers about the attack and released them without charges.

Smollett hired Michael Cohen’s high-powered criminal defense attorney, Michael Monico, as the police investigation into the attack he reported last month took a sudden shift amid allegations of a hoax.

Smollett’s lawyers said on Saturday the actor felt ‘victimized by reports he played a role in the assault, and that Smollett would continue cooperating with police.

February 17

A police spokesman said that Chicago police have told Smollett’s attorneys they want to do a follow-up interview with the actor.

A spokesperson for Smollett’s lawyers said she couldn’t comment on whether Smollett had agreed to another interview.

This is the letter Smollett allegedly received at the Fox studio, a week before the January 29 incident. No photographs of it emerged until after the alleged attack. He reported the letter to the police when he received it along with Empire producer Dennis Hammer 

This is the letter Smollett allegedly received at the Fox studio, a week before the January 29 incident. No photographs of it emerged until after the alleged attack. He reported the letter to the police when he received it along with Empire producer Dennis Hammer

February 18 

Stars and politicians who spoke out in support of Smollett walk back their condemnation of the attack amid growing suspicion that it is a hate hoax

February 19 

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx  recused herself from the Smollett case

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx  recused herself from the Smollett case

The Osundairo brothers speak with police and prosecutors in Chicago but are halted at the last minute before going to testify before a grand jury.

Smollett hires Colin Kaepernick’s attorney Mark Geragos and his legal team present a ‘hail Mary’ piece of evidence which stops the brothers’ testimony

State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx recuses herself from the case citing her ‘familiarity with potential witnesses’

Leaked information from the brothers’ meetings with prosecutors and police emerges. They reportedly claimed Smollett was involved in sending himself the letter on January 22

February 20 

Fox says Smollett is not being written out of Empire contrary to reports and Smollett’s co-stars speak out in support of him.

He is named as a suspect later in the afternoon and the brothers are seen entering grand jury offices at the courthouse.

Smollett is criminally charged with filing a false police report, a Class 4 felony which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.

February 21 

Smollett hands himself in to police at 5am.

Prosecutor: Actor Gave Detailed Instructions For Fake Attack

CHICAGO (AP) — “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett gave detailed instructions to two brothers who helped him stage a racist, anti-gay attack on himself, including giving them specific slurs to yell, telling them to shout “MAGA country” and pointing out a surveillance camera that he thought would record the beating, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Police said Smollett planned the hoax because he was unhappy with his salary and wanted to promote his career. Before the attack, he also sent a letter that threatened him to the Chicago studio where “Empire” is shot, police said.

Smollett, who is black and gay, turned himself in to face accusations that he filed a false police report last month when he told authorities he was attacked in downtown Chicago by two masked men who hurled racist and anti-gay slurs and looped a rope around his neck, police said.

The actor “took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career,” police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said.

“This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve,” he added.

As part of the instructions, Smollett also told the brothers to put the rope around his neck, Assistant State’s Attorney Risa Lanier told a news conference.

His plans for the surveillance camera were thwarted. Police say it was pointed another way and did not have a view of the beating.

At Smollett’s first court appearance, a judge set bond at $100,000, meaning that he had to post $10,000 to be released. Smollett’s attorneys asked for him to be freed on his own recognizance, but the judge, who is also black, rejected that idea and said he was particularly bothered by the allegations involving the noose.

Smollett, who was released a couple of hours after the hearing, said little during the proceedings, except to state his name. The actor, his attorneys and supporters left without speaking to reporters.

One of the attorneys, Jack Prior, told the judge that Smollett “maintains these are outrageous allegations” and denies they are true.

The FBI has been investigating the threatening letter. Johnson would not say whether Smollett could face additional charges for that.

The companies that make “Empire,” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television, issued a statement Thursday saying that they were “evaluating the situation” and “considering our options.”

In less than a month, Smollett went from being the seemingly sympathetic victim of a hate crime to being accused of fabricating the entire thing. The 36-year-old was charged Wednesday with felony disorderly conduct, a charge that could bring up to three years in prison and force the actor to pay for the cost of the investigation into his report of a Jan. 29 beating.

Police treated Smollett as a victim until the two brothers , who had been taken into custody for questioning, admitted to helping him stage the attack, Johnson said.

It was the brothers who also explained Smollett’s motive to detectives. Authorities have a check for $3,500 that Smollett paid the brothers, he said.

Smollett, who plays a gay character on the show that follows a black family as they navigate the ups and downs of the recording industry, said he was attacked as he was walking home from a downtown Subway sandwich shop. He said the men yelled “This is MAGA country” — an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” — before fleeing.

In describing what police believe actually happened, Johnson made it sound as if Smollett was casting and directing a short movie.

“He probably knew he needed somebody with bulk,” he said of Smollett’s decision to hire the two muscular brothers. Police have said at least one of the brothers worked on “Empire,” and Smollett’s attorneys said one of the men is the actor’s personal trainer.

The brothers, who are not considered suspects, wore gloves during the staged attack and “punched him a little bit,” Johnson said. The scratches and bruising Smollett had on his face were “most likely self-inflicted,” Johnson said.

Detectives found the two brothers after reviewing hundreds of hours of video. They released images of two people they said they wanted to question and last week picked up the pair at O’Hare Airport as they returned from Nigeria. Police questioned the men and searched their apartment.

The brothers, who were identified by their attorney as Abimbola “Abel” and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, were held for nearly 48 hours on suspicion of assaulting Smollett.

The two appeared before a grand jury on Wednesday to “lock in their testimony,” according to police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi. Smollett was charged by prosecutors, not the grand jury.

Speaking outside the courthouse where the grand jury met, the brothers’ attorney said the two men testified for about two and a half hours.

“There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said we’re going to correct this,” Gloria Schmidt said.

She said her clients did not care about a plea deal or immunity. “You don’t need immunity when you have the truth,” she said.

Smollett has been active in LBGTQ issues, and initial reports of the assault drew outrage and support for him on social media, including from Sen. Kamala Harris of California and TV talk show host Ellen DeGeneres.

Referring to a published account of the attack, Trump said last month that “it doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.” On Thursday, he tweeted to Smollett: “What about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA.”

https://hosted.ap.org/article/7f419a0f017e4f7b933167f2e206de43/empire-actor-goes-victim-accused-felon-3-weeks

Hate crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime[1]) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Examples of such groups can include and are almost exclusively limited to: sexethnicitydisabilitylanguagenationalityphysical appearancereligiongender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called “bias incidents“.

“Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullyingharassmentverbal abuse or insultsmate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]

hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.[6] Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech laws exist in many countries. In the United States, hate crime laws have been upheld by both the Supreme Court [7] and lower courts, especially in the case of ‘fighting’ words and other violent speech, but they are thought by some people to be in conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but hate crimes are only regulated through threats of injury or death.[8]

History

The term “hate crime” came into common usage in the United States during the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively in order to describe events which occurred prior to that era.[9] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by both individuals and governments long before the term was commonly used.[4] A major part of defining a crime as a hate crime is that it is directed toward a historically oppressed group.[10][11]

As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onwards, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence.[citation needed] During the past two centuries, typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, largely in the South, and lynchings of Mexicans and Chinese in the Westcross burnings to intimidate black activists or to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods both during and after Reconstructionassaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods; assaults on lesbiangaybisexual and transgender people; the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues; and xenophobic responses to a variety of minorityethnic groups.[12]

Postcard of the Duluth lynchings of African-American men on June 15, 1920

The verb “to lynch” is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tory sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally, the term referred to extrajudicial organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside “ordinary justice.” It is highly associated with white suppression of African Americans in the South, and periods of weak or nonexistent police authority, as in certain frontier areas of the Old West.[4]

The murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre were not classified as “hate crimes” by U.S. investigative officials or the media. In the early 21st century, conservative commentators David HorowitzMichelle Malkin (Fox News channel and author) and Stuart Taylor Jr. (journalist) did describe these events as “hate crimes against whites by blacks.”[13]

Psychological effects

Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[14] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[15]

Impact on the individual victim
psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim’s identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime’s degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
Effect on the targeted group
generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
Effect on other vulnerable groups
ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Effect on the community as a whole
divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.

Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma.[16]

A review of European and American research indicates that terrorist bombings cause Islamophobia and hate crimes to flare up but, in calmer times, they subside again, although to a relatively high level.[17] Terrorist’s most persuasive message is that of fear and fear, a primary and strong emotion, increases risk estimates and has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary Muslims.[17] Widespread Islamophobic prejudice seems to contribute to anti-Muslim hate crimes, but indirectly: terrorist attacks and intensified Islamophobic prejudice serve as a window of opportunity for extremist groups and networks.[17]

Laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:

  1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
  2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
  3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
  4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[18] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimesgenocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.

Eurasia

European Union

Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.[19]

Andorra

Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person’s dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or gender (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[18]

Armenia

Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[18]

Austria

Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others’ helpless states, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[20]

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[18]

Belarus

Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[18][21]

Belgium

Belgium‘s Act of 25 February 2003 (“aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of gender, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also “provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination.”[18] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 (“on strengthening legislation against racism”), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[18]

Bosnia and Herzegovinavina (enacted 2003) “contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”[22]

Bulgaria

Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions “have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria.”[23]

Croatia

The Croatian Penal Code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as “any crime committed out of hatred for someone’s race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute”.[24] On 1 January 2013, a new Penal Code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on “race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity”.[25]

Czech Republic

The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:

  • circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
  • circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
  • general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)

Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.[26]

Denmark

Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, “section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender’s motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence.”[27] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[18][28]

Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[18]

Estonia

Under section 151 of the Criminal Code of Estonia of 6 June 2001, which entered into force on 1 September 2002, with amendments and supplements and as amended by the Law of 8 December 2011, “activities which publicly incite to hatred, violence or discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, or financial or social status, if this results in danger to the life, health or property of a person, are punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention”.[29]

Finland

Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes “committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group” an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[18][30] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnishkiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnishsotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of

  1. illegal violence directed against a foreign country or its citizens,
  2. systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
  3. public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
  4. public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[31]

Nepal

France

In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[18][32]

Georgia

“There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia.”[18]

Germany

The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that “the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission.”[33] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.[34]

Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU “Report on Racism” finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18,142 incidences for 2006, of which 17,597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.[35] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.[36] Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.[37]

Greece

Article Law 927/1979 “Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds.”[38] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[39]

Hungary

Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim’s actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[18] This article was added to the Code in 1996.[40]

Iceland

Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states “Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years.”[41]

India

In past few years, a number of hate crimes in India against minority communities especially against Muslims and Christians rise tremendously. To monitor this rising trend of hate crime based on religious identity a web portal is launched name DOTO Database to track these incidents.[42]

From the 3035 reported incidents August 2018, 1892 were Muslims. That is 62% of the total violence and 740 were Christians. That is 24% of the total violence.[43]

Ireland

“The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989″ makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group.”[18]

Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[18]

Italy

Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, sex/gender, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[18]

Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[18]

Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan, “the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes.”[44]

Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[18][45]

Russia

Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.[46]

Spain

Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.[18]

Sweden

Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or “other similar circumstance” of the victim.[18][47]

Ukraine

I. “Constitution of Ukraine :

The most important law of the Ukraine country : the “Constitution of Ukraine” guarantees protection against Hate crime :

“Constitution of Ukraine :

Article 10 : “In Ukraine, free development, use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine are guaranteed”.

Article 11 : “The state shall promote the development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine”.

Article 24 :”There can be no privileges or restrictions on the grounds of race, color of the skin, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”.[48]

II. “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :

in Ukraine, all criminal punishments for crimes committed under the law are required to be registered in only one law, it is the only one: “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE”

The crimes committed for Hate crime reinforce the punishment in many articles of the criminal law. There are also separate articles on punishment for Hate crime.

“CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :

Article 161 : “Violations of equality of citizens depending on their race, nationality, religious beliefs, disability and other grounds

1. Intentional acts aimed at incitement to national, racial or religious hatred and violence, to humiliate national honor and dignity, or to repulse citizens’ feelings due to their religious beliefs, as well as direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment of direct or indirect privileges citizens on the grounds of race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, disability, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”(Maximum criminal sentence of up to 8 years in prison)

Article 300 : “Importation, manufacture or distribution of works promoting a cult of violence and cruelty, racial, national or religious intolerance and discrimination” (Maximum criminal sentence of up to 5 years in prison)[49]

United Kingdom

For EnglandWales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[50] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.[51] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[52] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated, and to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or
(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[53][54]

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) reported in 2013 that there are an average of 278,000 hate crimes a year with 40% being reported according to a victims survey, although police records only identified around 43,000 hate crimes a year.[55] It was widely reported that police recorded a 57% increase in hate crime complaints in the four days following the UK’s European Union membership referendum, however a press release from the National Police Chief’s Council stated that “this should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent”.[56][57]

In 2013, Greater Manchester Police began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.[58]

On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field. The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.[59]

Crown Prosecution Service guidance issued on 21 August 2017 stated that online hate crimes should be treated as seriously as offences in person.[60]

Perhaps the most high-profile hate crime in modern Britain occurred in ElthamLondon, on 24 April 1993, when 18-year-old black student Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death in an attack by a gang of white youths. Two white teenagers were later charged with the murder, and at least three other suspects were mentioned in the national media, but the charges against them were dropped within three months after the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. However, a change in the law a decade later allowed a suspect to be charged with a crime twice if new evidence emerged after the original charges were dropped or a “not guilty” verdict was delivered in court. Gary Dobson, who had been charged with the murder in the initial 1993 investigation, was found guilty of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in January 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as was David Norris, who had not been charged in 1993. A third suspect, Luke Knight, had been charged in 1993 but was not charged when the case came to court nearly 20 years later.

Scotland

Under Scottish Common law[citation needed] the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment, prejudice relating to religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.[61] A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[62] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[63] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[64]

Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws[edit]

A photograph of the famous fresco Bathing of the Christ, after being vandalized by a Kosovo Albanian mobduring the 2004 unrest in Kosovo

AlbaniaCyprusSan MarinoSlovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.[18]

North America

Canada

“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. [65]

In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.” [65]

A vast majority (84 per cent) of hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).” [66] “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” [67]

As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and homosexuals (Silver et al., 2004).[67]

During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.[65]

The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”[67]

United States

Shepard (center), Louvon Harris (left), Betty Bryd Boatner (right) with President Barack Obama in 2009 to promote the Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime[68] laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their racecolorreligion, or national origin.” However, “The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.”.[69]

The first state hate-crime statute, California’s Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four “protected status” categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disabilitysexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include agemarital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.[70]

Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assaultassault and batteryvandalismrapethreats and intimidationarsontrespassingstalking, and various “lesser” acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.[71]

Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, “A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.” In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gendergender identitysexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.[72]

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 32% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[73]

However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[74] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[75]

Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop “violence masquerading as political activism”.[76]

The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.[77]

In 2015, the Hate Crimes Statistics report identified 5,818 single-bias incidents involving 6,837 offenses, 7,121 victims, and 5,475 known offenders[78]

Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi’s decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP.[79] This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.[80]

According to a November 2016 report issued by the FBI hate crime statistics are on the rise in the United States.[81] The number of hate crimes increased from 5,850 in 2015, to 6,121 hate crime incidents in 2016, an increase of 4.6 percent.[82][83][84]

Victims in the United States

One of the largest waves of hate crimes took place during the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 1960s, both violence and threats of violence were common against African Americans, and hundreds of lives were lost due to such acts. Members of this social class faced violence from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as well as violence from individuals who were committed to maintaining segregation.[85] At the time, civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and their supporters fought hard for the right of African Americans to vote as well as for equality in their everyday lives. African Americans have been the target of hate crimes since the Civil War,[86] and the humiliation of this social class was also desired by many Anti-black individuals. Other frequently reported bias motivations were bias against a religion, bias against a particular sexual orientation, and bias against a particular ethnicity/national origin.[87] At times, these bias motivations overlapped, because violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.[88]

Analysts have compared groups in terms of the per capita rate of hate crimes committed against them, to allow for differing populations. Overall, the total number of hate crimes committed since the first hate crime bill was passed in 1997 is 86,582.[89] David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Hate Crimes in the US (2008–2012) by Population Group
Population Group Estimated Population Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012)[90][91][92][93][94] Rate (per 100,000 people) Violent Hate Crimes Against[95] Rate (per 100,000 people)
Jewish 5,248,674[96] 4,457 84.9 411 7.8
LGBT 9,000,000[97] 7,231 66.9 3,849 35.6
Muslim 1,852,473[96] 761 41.1 258 13.9
Black 38,929,319[98] 13,411 34.4 4,356 11.2
Aboriginal 2,932,248[98] 364 12.4 161 5.5
Hispanic 50,477,594[98] 3,064 6.1 1,482 2.9
Asian & Pacific Islander 15,214,265[98] 798 5.2 276 1.8
White 223,553,265[98] 3,459 1.5 1,614 0.7
Catholic 67,924,018[99] 338 0.5 32 0.0
Atheist & Agnostic 17,598,496[99] 47 0.3 5 0.0
Protestant 148,197,858[99] 229 0.2 17 0.0

Among the groups currently mentioned in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the largest number of hate crimes are committed against African Americans.[100] During the Civil Rights Movement, some of the most notorious hate crimes included the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the 1964 murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, the 1955 murder of Emmett Till,[86] as well as the burning of crosses, churches, Jewish synagogues and other places of worship of minority religions. Such acts began to take place more frequently after the racial integration of many schools and public facilities.[100]

High-profile murders targeting victims based on their sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy’s murder was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while he advocated such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled, and military personnel and their family members.[101][citation needed] This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]

Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crimes. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre in Quebec, as hate crimes.[102][103][104]

In May 2018, ProPublica reviewed police reports for 58 cases of purported anti-heterosexual hate crimes. ProPublica found that about half of the cases were anti-LGBT hate crimes that had been miscategorized, and that the rest were motivated by hate towards Jews, blacks or women or that there was no element of a hate crime at all. ProPublica found not a single case of a hate crime spurred by anti-heterosexual bias.[105]

South America

Brazil

In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[106] and genocide on the grounds of nationalityethnicity, race or religion.[107] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as “hideous crimes” (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[108]

The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[109] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by “elements referring to race, color, ethnicityreligion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person“.[110] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers “crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin”.[111]

In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a “fundamental goal of the Republic” (Article 3rd, clause IV) “to promote the well-being of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination”.[112]

Chile

In 2012, the Anti-discrimination law amended the Criminal Code adding a new aggravating circumstance of criminal responsibility, as follows: “Committing or participating in a crime motivated by ideology, political opinion, religion or beliefs of the victim; nation, race, ethnic or social group; sex, sexual orientationgender identity, age, affiliation, personal appearance or suffering from illness or disability.”[113][114]

Middle East

Israel is the only country in the middle east who has hate crime laws. Hate crime, as passed by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), is defined as crime for reason of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation

Support for and opposition to hate crime laws

Support[edit]

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.[citation needed] It is said[115] that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.[citation needed] Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[12] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[116] Whilst in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court defined “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”[117]

Opposition

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[118] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[119][120] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crimes criminalize certain dispositions yet do not show why hate is a morally worse disposition for a crime than one motivated by jealousy, greed, sadism or vengeance or why hatred and bias are uniquely responsive to criminal sanction compared to other motivations. Hurd argues that whether or not a disposition is worse than another is case sensitive and thus it is difficult to argue that some motivations are categorically worse than others.[121]

In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity PoliticsJames B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[122] Jacobs and Potter also argued that hate crime legislation can end up only covering the victimization of some groups rather than all, which is a form of discrimination itself and that attempts to remedy this by making all identifiable groups covered by hate crime protection thus make hate crimes co-terminus with generic criminal law. The authors also suggest that arguments which attempt to portray hate crimes as worse than normal crimes because they spread fear in a community are unsatisfactory, as normal criminal acts can also spread fear yet only hate crimes are singled out.[122] Indeed it has been argued that victims have varied reactions to hate crimes, so it is not necessarily true that hate crimes are regarded as more harmful than other crimes.[123][124] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crime represents an effort by the state to encourage a certain moral character in its citizen and thus represents the view that the instillation of virtue and the elimination of vice are legitimate state goals, which she argues is a contradiction of the principles of liberalism. Hurd also argues that increasing punishment for an offence because the perpetrator was motivated by hate compared to some other motivation means that the justice systems is treating the same crime differently, even though treating like cases alike is a cornerstone of criminal justice[125]

Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[126] American forensic psychologist Karen Franklin said that the term hate crime is somewhat misleading since it assumes there is a hateful motivation which is not present in many occasions;[127] in her view, laws to punish people who commit hate crimes may not be the best remedy for preventing them because the threat of future punishment does not usually deter such criminal acts.[128] Some on the political left have been critical of hate crime laws for expanding the criminal justice system and dealing with violence against minority groups through punitive measures.[6]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos

Six illegal immigrants linked to notorious Mexican drug cartel are arrested for trafficking meth and cocaine after police sting

  • Cops arrested Oscar, Regulo, Raul, and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez in a raid
  • They also busted Francisco Garcia-Martinez and Rodolfo Martinez in the bust
  • The gang transported huge amounts of cocaine and meth to Charlotte, NC

Six illegal immigrants linked to one of Mexico‘s most dangerous cartels have been arrested in North Carolina during a drug trafficking operation – it has been revealed. 

Police documents revealed by WSOC show that the operation involved the transportation of large amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine to Charlotte, North Carolina.

The suspects were identified as Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez, Regulo Rangel-Gutierrez, Francisco Garcia-Martinez, Rodolfo Martinez, Raul Rangel-Gutierrez and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez. 

Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez (left), Rodolfo Martinez (center), and Regulo Rangel Gutierrez (right)

Federal officials said more than 1,800 grams of meth were delivered from Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez's home in Statesville in August and October last year

Federal officials said more than 1,800 grams of meth were delivered from Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez’s home in Statesville in August and October last year

‘Members of the investigative team believe – based on wire intercepts, surveillance and other facts discovered from the investigation – that Oscar and Regulo transport illicit proceeds, derived from the sales of narcotics, when they travel from Myrtle Beach to Charlotte,’ the court documents read.

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally..

The person who lived there, Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez, is an alleged high-level cartel member.

Francisco Garcia-Martinez (left), Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez (center) and Raul Rangel-Gutierrez (right)

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally

Misty Joyner, who reportedly lived near the home in Charlotte where investigators said Rangel-Gutierrez stored drug money, was in disbelief about her neighbors.

‘Just devastating,’ Joyner told WSOC. ‘They were good people.’

The group were said to have been affiliated with the Jalisco New Generation cartel which has been engaged in a blood feud with ‘El Chapo’s’ infamous Sinaola cartel.

Sinaloa’s leader, Guzman, was convicted last Tuesday in New York, likely meaning he will spend decades behind bars in the United States.

The group were said to have links to El Chapo who was convicted by a New York court last week

The group were said to have links to El Chapo who was convicted by a New York court last week

Story 3: Under Communist China’s Social Credit System Jussie Smollett Would Be Labeled As Untrustworthy And Unable To Travel Because of A Low Social Credit Score Due To Criminal Behavior and Blacklist Banning — Vast Surveillance Facial Recognition System — Safe, Secure, State Socialism in The Police Surveillance State of Communist China — Videos

China: facial recognition and state control | The Economist

Trust and consequences: China’s evolving ‘social credit system’

Everyone In China Is Getting A ‘Social Credit Score’

 China bans millions with low ‘social credit’ from rail, air travel | Al Jazeera English

China Behavior Rating System V/S Sweden Microchip implants | Must watch technology

China rolls out social credit system to spy on population

Inside China’s High-Tech Dystopia

China’s social credit system shows its teeth, banning millions from taking flights, trains

  • Annual report shows the businesses and individuals added to trustworthiness blacklist as use of the government system accelerates
  • System aims to pressure citizens to avoid bad behaviour, although human rights advocates argue it does not take into account individual circumstances

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1213

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1212, February 20, 2019, Story 1: Putin Threatens United States With New Hypersonic Missiles — A New Nuclear Missile Arms Race and Cold War With China and Russia — Restoring Nuclear Parity — Videos — Story 2: Communist China’s Totalitarian Regime’s Social Credit System or Digital Dictatorship — Videos — Story 3: Socialist Sanders Rakes in $6 Million From Over 225,000 Contributors — Videos —

Posted on February 21, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Banking System, Bernie Sander, Bernie Sanders, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, China, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Eating, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Kamala Harris, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Military Spending, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Natural Gas, News, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Russia, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Software, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Technology, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Putin Threatens United States With New Hypersonic Missiles — A New Nuclear Missile Arms Race and Cold War With China and Russia — Restoring Nuclear Parity — Videos —

How Will Trump Respond to Putin’s Threats?

Putin Warns U.S. Not To Discount Russia’s Weapons Capabilities

Trump Admin To Withdraw From Cold War-Era Nuclear Weapons Treaty With Russia | NBC Nightly News

US and Russia Potentially Re-Enter Nuclear Arms Race

US suspends nuclear missile treaty with Russia, may withdraw in six months

INF Treaty walks U.S., Russia back from a Cold War nuclear showdown

Withdrawal From INF Nuclear Treaty Brings us “Closer to Doomsday” Than any Time Since 1950’s

Russia, China on Defense and No Iranian Nuclear Bomb – US Intelligence Report

Putin in trouble over Russia’s economic problems | DW News

Troops prepare for conflict at Polish base

US military build-up on Russia border – days after Putin’s ‘mock invasion’ drills REVEALED

Peter Brookes on INF Treaty Withdrawal: “The President’s Policy Is Right”

Russia reacts to U.S. withdrawal from nuclear arms treaty

Putin Gets Serious: If Europe Accepts US Missiles, Russia Will Rearm and Retaliate!

Vladimir Putin’s missile threat is serious, but nothing we couldn’t handle: Today’s talker

How Deadly Are The New Russian Hypersonic Missiles- Avangard, Kinzhal & Sarmat ICBM?

China & Russia warn President Trump’s Plans to Boost Missile Defense Could Spark an Arms Race

China should think twice before threatening to strike U.S

GLIDE BREAKER – THIS DARPA PROJECT WILL KILL RUSSIAN & CHINESE HYPERSONIC WEAPONS

Unbeatable! Here’s How America’s Quietly Winning the Hypersonic-Missile race over Russia and China

Revealed: How America’s Quietly Winning the Hypersonic-Missile race over Russia, China and N-korea

Putin claims new missile will make defense systems useless

Putin: Russia’s new nuclear missile is invincible

Putin warns U.S. against putting missiles in Europe

Russia, China outpace US in hypersonic missile technology

China Ready For War With U S

 

Putin’s new nuclear threat to Trump: Russian leader promises more missiles targeting the US if America deploys warheads to Europe after tearing up arms treaty

  • Vladimir Putin hit out at America over its withdrawal from key arms control pact
  • Warned Russia will target weapons at US should it deploy new missiles in Europe
  • The 66-year-old also said Russia will deploy a new hypersonic missile for its navy
  • Putin made remarks during his annual state of the nation address this morning

Vladimir Putin has promised to target more missiles at the US if America deploys new weapons to Europe in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from a key arms pact.

In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, Putin said Russia would deploy more missiles if the Trump administration put short or intermediate range missiles in Europe  – after the President’s decision this month to quit a treaty banning nuclear missiles with a range of less than 3,415 miles.

Putin said U.S. policy-makers, some of whom he said were obsessed with U.S. exceptionalism, should calculate the risks before taking any steps and said any new Russian missiles would target US ‘decision-making centres’.

He said: ‘It’s their right to think how they want. But can they count? I’m sure they can. Let them count the speed and the range of the weapons systems we are developing,’ Putin told Russia’s political elite to strong applause this morning.

Putin also boasted about Russia’s expanding array of new weapons and said it will deploy a new hypersonic missile for its navy as part of efforts to counter what he described as hostile U.S. moves.

Vladimir Putin (pictured this morning) says Russia will target weapons at the US should it deploy new intermediate-range missiles in Europe following America's withdrawal from a key arms control pact

Vladimir Putin (pictured this morning) says Russia will target weapons at the US should it deploy new intermediate-range missiles in Europe following America’s withdrawal from a key arms control pact

The US repeatedly accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by developing banned weapons and earlier this month Donald Trump (pictured) said Washington was starting a process to withdraw from the deal

The US repeatedly accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by developing banned weapons and earlier this month Donald Trump (pictured) said Washington was starting a process to withdraw from the deal

America's withdrawal from the Cold War-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has sparked fears of a new arms race (file picture)

America’s withdrawal from the Cold War-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has sparked fears of a new arms race (file picture)

Vladimir Putin criticises America for ‘neglecting’ the INF treaty

The 1987 International Nuclear Forces Treaty signed the U.S. and the then-USSR up to a ban on mobile ground-based nuclear missiles with ranges from 310 to 3,415 miles.

The immediate effect was to eliminate the U.S.’s Pershing II missiles – which had a range of 1,100 miles – and the Soviet Union’s SS-20s, which had a range of 2,700 miles.

Both were deployed in Europe and their removal under the pact – signed by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – was a key part in ending the Cold War.

However, no restrictions were placed on other major military actors such as China.

During the 2014 crisis in Ukraine, the US accused Russia of violating the pact by deploying banned tactical nuclear weapons designed to intimidate Europe and Western-aligned former Soviet states.

US officials say the Kremlin is deploying a prohibited ‘SSC-8’ land-based cruise missile.

Alleging Russian violations, Washington said earlier this month it was suspending its obligations under the pact and starting the process of quitting it, untying its hands to develop new missiles.

With the deal having banned either side from stationing short and intermediate-range, land-based missiles in Europe, its demise raises the prospect of a new arms race between Washington and Moscow.

Russia denies violating the treaty and Putin responded to the U.S. move by saying Russia would mirror the U.S. by suspending its own obligations and quitting the pact.

The new Zircon missile will fly at nine times of the speed of sound and have a range of 620 miles, he warned, adding that the missile is designed to equip existing surface ships and submarines.

Other new weapons announced last year, including the nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater drone, have been undergoing tests successfully, he said.

Putin, facing an unprecedented fall in his approval ratings, made the remarks during his first address to both houses of parliament since he was elected to a fourth presidential term a year ago, extending his long rule until 2024.

In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, the Kremlin strongman warned the US against further missile deployments in Europe.

‘Russia does not intend to be the first to deploy such missiles in Europe,’ he said.

‘If (the US) develops and deploys them in Europe… this will dramatically exacerbate the international security situation, creating serious threats to Russia.

‘I’m saying this clearly and openly, Russia will be forced to deploy weapons that can be used… against the decision-making centres that are behind the missiles systems which threaten us.’

Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation ‘particularly with such a global power as the U.S’.

But he added that Russia’s reaction to any deployment would be resolute and that U.S. policy-makers, some of whom he said were obsessed with U.S. exceptionalism, should calculate the risks before taking any steps.

‘It’s their right to think how they want. But can they count? I’m sure they can. Let them count the speed and the range of the weapons systems we are developing,’ Putin told Russia’s political elite to strong applause.

Signed in 1987 towards the end of the Cold War by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty bans ground-launched missiles with a range of between 315 miles to 3,415 miles.

The deal resolved a crisis over Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.

The 66-year-old, facing an unprecedented fall in his approval ratings, is making his first address to both houses of parliament since he was elected to a fourth presidential term a year ago, extending his long rule until 2024

The 66-year-old, facing an unprecedented fall in his approval ratings, is making his first address to both houses of parliament since he was elected to a fourth presidential term a year ago, extending his long rule until 2024

Zircon: Russia’s feared hypersonic weapon

Vladimir Putin used his speech today to give an update on Russia’s new hypersonic missile – dubbed Zircon.

The Russian leader said the weapon will be capable of flying at nine times the speed of sound and have a range of 620 miles.

He said it would be designed to equip existing ships and submarines.

In 2017, reports claimed Zircon’s capabilities put Russia half a decade’ ahead of the US’.

One expert said that the missile could enter Russia’s arsenal between 2018 and 2020′.

Putin said he understood concerns about the INF agreement, namely that other countries could continue to develop weapons that are banned for the US and Russia.

‘The current state of affairs of course raises questions,’ he said during his annual state of the nation address.

‘Our American partners should have been honest… and not use far-fetched accusations against Russia to justify their unilateral withdrawal from the treaty,’ he said of the deal, during his annual state of the nation address.

Last year, Putin used the address to unveil a new arsenal of weapons in a nearly two-hour speech that stunned the West and many in Russia. 

Speaking two weeks before his re-election, Putin promised Russians higher standards of living and hailed Moscow’s military might as relations with the West reached post-Cold War lows.

In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation and would not take the first step to deploy missiles in response to Washington's decision this month to quit the INF treaty

 

In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation and would not take the first step to deploy missiles in response to Washington’s decision this month to quit the INF treaty

The missile that can ‘fly forever’ and a nuclear-powered underwater drone

Vladimir Putin warned today that successful tests have been carried out on a new nuclear-powered cruise missile and underwater drone as he talked up Russia’s military capabilities.

Putin, updating members of Russia’s elite this morning, made reference to the Burevestnik cruise missile which is supposedly capable of flying for days on end.

Russia’s state news agency released a video just days ago claiming to show a test of the missile, which the Kremlin says is designed to strike over ‘unlimited’ range and with with unprecedented ability to manoeuvre.

The Russian state news agency on Friday released a video claiming to show a test of the Burevestnik missile which the Kremlin says is designed to strike over 'unlimited' range and with with unprecedented ability to manoeuv

The Russian state news agency released a video claiming to show a test of the Burevestnik missile which the Kremlin says is designed to strike over ‘unlimited’ range and with with unprecedented ability to manoeuvre

In theory, the Burevestnik could fly forever because it has a nuclear power source, potentially circling the globe until remotely ordered to approach a target and hit it with a nuclear warhead.

Scientists claim to have developed a nuclear power plant small enough to fit inside the missile and power a turbojet engine – but these claims have been met with scepticism in the West.

The missile is designed to use a conventional engine for takeoff, switching to a nuclear powered power source for flight – hence its theoretical ability to be in the air for days.

If the Burevestnik actually works, the heat from the nuclear reaction inside the small reactor would be used to heat the air inside a jet engine, replacing the need for fuel.

In March last year, Vladimir Putin spoke about the weapon. He said: ‘One of them is a small-scale, heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile—a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens—basically an unlimited range.

Russia unveils nuclear-powered and armed underwater drone

‘It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.’

A source in the missile program told the agency: ‘A major stage of trials of the cruise missile of the Burevestnik complex – tests of the nuclear power unit – have been successfully completed at one of facilities in January.’

The trials ‘sustained stated specifications of the reactor ensuring the missile’s unlimited range’, claimed the source. No further details were given about the top secret trials.

 Last month, state media claimed Moscow was set to deploy more than 30 underwater drones capable of carrying a two megaton nuclear warhead.

Four submarines fitted with the torpedo drones, named Poseidon, will join the Northern and Pacific Russian fleets, state news agency Tass reported.

Each submarine can fit eight Poseidons, designed specifically to destroy ‘enemy navy bases’ and able to travel at up to 70 knots.

After the speech he enjoyed his highest approval rating since he came to power in 1999.

But a year on, Putin has seen his popularity slide against a backdrop of economic problems.

A hugely unpopular reform raising the retirement age that Putin signed into law in October led to a major dip in his support.

A survey by Russia’s independent Levada Center released in January found his approval rating at 64 per cent, the lowest since before Moscow’s annexation of Crimea five years ago.

Another Levada poll in October found only 40 percent of Russians would vote for Putin if an election were held.

HOW U.S. MISSILES LED TO PROTEST IN  EUROPE IN THE 1980s – AND TOOK THE WORLD CLOSE TO THE NUCLEAR BRINK

Both the U.S. and the Soviets expected that if they went to war, Europe would be their battleground.

By the early 1980s, the U.S. under Ronald Reagan was outspending the Soviets and introducing dramatically improved new weapons in the air and on the ground.

In particular, the Soviet SS-20 medium-range nuclear missiles, launched from mobile carriers, were seen as the biggest threat to NATO forces if there were to be an exchange of weapons. 

Nuclear missiles which could match their destructive power were a priority and the Pershing II was developed which could destroy underground bunkers and silos and reach Soviet territory in just six minutes – making them both undetectable and capable of largely killing off the Soviet ability to respond. 

But moving the missiles into the places where they would be used in battle created a whole new dimension of conflict for the U.S. and its NATO allies – this time with peace protesters who made their deployment the focus of their rage. 

Target: The land-based nuclear cruise missiles brought to the UK sparked public protests when they were deployed to the USAF base at Greenham Common west of London in 1983

Target: The land-based nuclear cruise missiles brought to the UK sparked public protests when they were deployed to the USAF base at Greenham Common west of London in 1983

Women's protests: Women formed a peace camp at Greenham Common from the time it was identified as the host for the cruise and Pershing missiles and remained there long afterwards. In December 1982 one of their protests was a human chain around its perimeter

 

Women’s protests: Women formed a peace camp at Greenham Common from the time it was identified as the host for the cruise and Pershing missiles and remained there long afterwards. In December 1982 one of their protests was a human chain around its perimeter

Blocking tactic: Anti nuclear protesters from the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp tried to stop cruise missiles arriving by stopping access to its main gates

Blocking tactic: Anti nuclear protesters from the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp tried to stop cruise missiles arriving by stopping access to its main gates

Beginning in 1983, two deployments  in particular were to become infamous flashpoints.

In the UK, the U.S. Air Force base at Greenham Common, Berkshire, to the west of London, would be used for 160 medium-range nuclear cruise missiles, and a smaller number of Pershing II rockets. RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire would receive 64 cruise missiles.

In Germany, three bases – Neu-Ulm, Mutlangen and Neckarsulm – would receive a total of 108 Pershing IIs.

But in both countries the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament launched huge and widespread protests.

Focus: The Perishing II missile was deployed in 1983 to German bases in the face of huge public anger, with demonstrations of hundreds of thousands who saw it as a threat to West Germany's existence

Focus: The Perishing II missile was deployed in 1983 to German bases in the face of huge public anger, with demonstrations of hundreds of thousands who saw it as a threat to West Germany’s existence

Cold war welcome: In West Germany there were protests regularly against the missiles and their deployment. They entered active duty in 1983 and by 1987 a deal for their destruction was done

Cold war welcome: In West Germany there were protests regularly against the missiles and their deployment. They entered active duty in 1983 and by 1987 a deal for their destruction was done

Cold war welcome: In West Germany there were protests regularly against the missiles and their deployment. They entered active duty in 1983 and by 1987 a deal for their destruction was done

In Germany, Mutlangen became the focal point, while in Greenham Common, a peace camp of women against nuclear weapons sprang up at the perimeter. Attempts to move munitions were met with sit-down protests on roads outside.

In Bonn, then the capital of West Germany, as many as 400,000 people took part in one anti-Pershing protest, part of a day of demonstrations across Europe, while other protests saw a human chain from U.S. headquarters in Stuttgart to the gates of Mutlangen.

1983 also saw one of the most dangerous moments of the Cold War when NATO’s Able Archer war games, which involved activating troops and giving dummy instructions to fire nuclear weapons, were misunderstood by the Soviets.

Soviet threat: An SS-20 preserved in Russia shows the weapon which the Pershing II and cruise missiles were designed to counter. The SS-20 rocket launched multiple warheads and could reach all of Western Europe from Soviet-controlled territory including East Germany

Soviet threat: An SS-20 preserved in Russia shows the weapon which the Pershing II and cruise missiles were designed to counter. The SS-20 rocket launched multiple warheads and could reach all of Western Europe from Soviet-controlled territory including East Germany

They thought the exercise was really preparations for a first strike with the new Pershing arsenal part of the plan. 

The Soviets ordered its nuclear arsenal to be prepared for action and placed bombers on high alert.  

If NATO forces under U.S. command had moved to an increased state of readiness, the Soviets could well have launched their own nuclear weapons. 

Spy Oleg Gordiesky later wrote an account of the tense moments, which ended when Able Archer concluded on November 11 1983.

What peace protesters had not realized was that behind the scenes, the U.S. had made an offer in the late 1970s to the Soviets, that if it agreed to get rid of its SS-20s, the U.S, would withdraw the Pershings and the cruise missiles.

By 1986, the Soviet Union was lead by Mikhail Gorbachev, and a deal began to take shape.

By September 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Washington D.C. 

It eliminated all the weapons being protested against in the space of four years, leaving just a handful of mementos in museums.

Now however, its future appears doomed. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6724533/Putin-promises-reciprocal-measures-America-tore-arms-treaty.html

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles
Gorbachev and Reagan sign the INF Treaty.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan sign the INF Treaty.
Type Nuclear disarmament
Signed 8 December 1987, 1:45 p.m.[1]
Location White HouseWashington, D.C.
Effective 1 June 1988
Condition Ratification by the Soviet Union and United States
Expiration 1 February 2019 (United States)
2 February 2019 (Russia)
Signatories  Soviet UnionMikhail Gorbachev
 United StatesRonald Reagan
Languages English and Russian
Text of the INF Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty, formally Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range MissilesRussianДоговор о ликвидации ракет средней и меньшей дальности / ДРСМД, Dogovor o likvidatsiy raket sredney i menshey dalnosti / DRSMD) was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union (and its successor state, the Russian Federation). U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty on 8 December 1987.[1][2]The United States Senate approved the treaty on 27 May 1988, and Reagan and Gorbachev ratified it on 1 June 1988.[2][3]

The INF Treaty eliminated all of two nations’ land-based ballistic missilescruise missiles, and missile launchers with ranges of 500–1,000 kilometers (310–620 mi) (short medium-range) and 1,000–5,500 km (620–3,420 mi) (intermediate-range). The treaty did not apply to air- or sea-launched missiles.[4][5] By May 1991, the nations had eliminated 2,692 missiles, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections.[6]

President Donald Trump announced on 20 October 2018 that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing Russian non-compliance.[7] The Western press has been dismissive of Russian claims that U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe, ostensibly meant to intercept missiles from Iran, presents a formidable offensive force near Russian borders. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a report in February 2019, using publicly available documents, on how the Aegis-based missile defense installations in Poland and Romania are not capable of providing missile defense against Iran due to the limited range of the Aegis radar, but retain offensive capabilities that are in violation of the INF.[8]

The U.S. formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019,[9] and Russia did so the following day.[10]

 

Background

In March 1976, the Soviet Union first deployed the RSD-10 Pioneer (called SS-20 Saber in the West) in its European territories, a mobile, concealable intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) containing three nuclear 150-kiloton warheads.[11] The SS-20’s range of 4,700–5,000 kilometers (2,900–3,100 mi) was great enough to reach Western Europe from well within Soviet territory; the range was just below the SALT II minimum range for an intercontinental ballistic missile, 5,500 km (3,400 mi).[12][13][14] The SS-20 replaced aging Soviet systems of the SS-4 Sandal and SS-5 Skean, which were seen to pose a limited threat to Western Europe due to their poor accuracy, limited payload (one warhead), lengthy preparation time, difficulty in being concealed, and immobility (thus exposing them to pre-emptive NATO strikes ahead of a planned attack).[15] Whereas the SS-4 and SS-5 were seen as defensive weapons, the SS-20 was seen as a potential offensive system.[16]

The US, then under President Jimmy Carter, initially considered its strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft to be adequate counters to the SS-20 and a sufficient deterrent against possible Soviet aggression. In 1977, however, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany argued in a speech that a Western response to the SS-20 deployment should be explored, a call which was echoed by NATO, given a perceived Western disadvantage in European nuclear forces.[14] Leslie H. Gelb, the US Assistant Secretary of State, later recounted that Schmidt’s speech pressured the US into developing a response.[17]

SS-20 launchers

On 12 December 1979, following European pressure for a response to the SS-20, Western foreign and defense ministers meeting in Brussels made the NATO Double-Track Decision.[14] The ministers argued that the Warsaw Pacthad “developed a large and growing capability in nuclear systems that directly threaten Western Europe”: “theater” nuclear systems (i.e., tactical nuclear weapons[18]). In describing this “aggravated” situation, the ministers made direct reference to the SS-20 featuring “significant improvements over previous systems in providing greater accuracy, more mobility, and greater range, as well as having multiple warheads”. The ministers also attributed the altered situation to the deployment of the Soviet Tupolev Tu-22M strategic bomber, which they believed to display “much greater performance” than its predecessors. Furthermore, the ministers expressed concern that the Soviet Union had gained an advantage over NATO in “Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces” (LRTNF), and also significantly increased short-range theater nuclear capacity.[19]

To address these developments, the ministers adopted two policy “tracks”. One thousand theater nuclear warheads, out of 7,400 such warheads, would be removed from Europe and the US would pursue bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union intended to limit theater nuclear forces. Should these negotiations fail, NATO would modernize its own LRTNF, or intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF), by replacing US Pershing 1a missiles with 108 Pershing IIlaunchers in West Germany and deploying 464 BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCMs) to BelgiumItaly, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom beginning in December 1983.[13][20][21][22]

Negotiations

Early negotiations: 1981–1983

The Soviet Union and United States agreed to open negotiations and preliminary discussions, named the Preliminary Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Talks,[13] which began in Geneva in October 1980. On 20 January 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn into office as President after defeating Jimmy Carter in an election. Formal talks began on 30 November 1981, with the US then led by Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union by Leonid Brezhnev. The core of the US negotiating position reflected the principles put forth under Carter: any limits placed on US INF capabilities, both in terms of “ceilings” and “rights”, must be reciprocated with limits on Soviet systems. Additionally, the US insisted that a sufficient verification regime be in place.[23]

Paul Nitze, a longtime hand at defense policy who had participated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), led the US delegation after being recruited by Secretary of State Alexander Haig. Though Nitze had backed the first SALT treaty, he opposed SALT II and had resigned from the US delegation during its negotiation. Nitze was also then a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a firmly anti-Soviet group composed of neoconservatives and conservative Republicans.[17][24] Yuli Kvitsinsky, the well-respected second-ranking official at the Soviet embassy in West Germany, headed the Soviet delegation.[16][25][26][27]

Paul Nitze, 1983

On 18 November 1981, shortly before the beginning of formal talks, Reagan made the Zero Option proposal (or the “zero-zero” proposal).[28] The plan called for a hold on US deployment of GLCM and Pershing II systems, reciprocated by Soviet elimination of its SS-4, SS-5, and SS-20 missiles. There appeared to be little chance of the Zero Option being adopted, but the gesture was well received in the European public. In February 1982, US negotiators put forth a draft treaty containing the Zero Option and a global prohibition on intermediate- and short-range missiles, with compliance ensured via a stringent, though unspecific, verification program.[25]

Opinion within the Reagan administration on the Zero Option was mixed. Richard Perle, then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, was the architect of the plan. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who supported a continued US nuclear presence in Europe, was skeptical of the plan, though eventually accepted it for its value in putting the Soviet Union “on the defensive in the European propaganda war”. Reagan later recounted that the “zero option sprang out of the realities of nuclear politics in Western Europe”.[28] The Soviet Union rejected the plan shortly after the US tabled it in February 1982, arguing that both the US and Soviet Union should be able to retain intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Specifically, Soviet negotiators proposed that the number of INF missiles and aircraft deployed in Europe by one side be capped at 600 by 1985 and 300 by 1990. Concerned that this proposal would force the US to withdraw aircraft from Europe and not deploy INF missiles, given US cooperation with existing British and French deployments, the US proposed “equal rights and limits”—the US would be permitted to match Soviet SS-20 deployments.[25]

Between 1981 and 1983, US and Soviet negotiators gathered for six rounds of talks, each two months in length—a system based on the earlier SALT talks.[25] The US delegation was composed of Nitze, General William F. Burns of the Joint Chiefs of StaffThomas Graham of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), and officials from the US Department of StateOffice of the Secretary of Defense, and US National Security Council. Colonel Norman Clyne, a SALT participant, served as Nitze’s chief of staff.[16][29]

There was little convergence between the two sides over these two years. A U.S. effort to separate the question of nuclear-capable aircraft from that of intermediate-range missiles successfully focused attention on the latter, but little clear progress on the subject was made. In the summer of 1982, Nitze and Kvitsinsky took a “walk in the woods” in the Jura Mountains, away from formal negotiations in Geneva, in an independent attempt to bypass bureaucratic procedures and break the negotiating deadlock.[30][16][31] Nitze later said that his and Kvitsinsky’s goal was to agree to certain concessions that would allow for a summit meeting between Brezhnev and Reagan later in 1982.[32]

Nitze’s offer to Kvitsinsky was that the US would forego deployment of the Pershing II and continue deployment of GLCMs, but limited to 75 missile launchers. The Soviet Union, in return, would also have to limit itself to 75 intermediate-range missile launchers in Europe and 90 in Asia. Due to each GLCM launcher containing four GLCMs and each SS-20 launcher containing three warheads, such an agreement would have resulted in the US having 75 more intermediate-range warheads in Europe than the Soviet Union, though SS-20s were seen as more advanced and maneuverable than GLCMs. While Kvitsinsky was skeptical that the plan would be well received in Moscow, Nitze was optimistic about its chances in Washington.[32] The deal ultimately found little traction in either capital. In the US, the Office of the Secretary of Defense opposed Nitze’s proposal, as it opposed any proposal that would allow the Soviet Union to deploy missiles to Europe while blocking US deployments. Nitze’s proposal was relayed by Kvitsinsky to Moscow, where it was also rejected. The plan accordingly was never introduced into formal negotiations.[30][16]

Thomas Graham, a US negotiator, later recalled that Nitze’s “walk in the woods” proposal was primarily of Nitze’s own design and known beforehand only to William F. Burns, another arms control negotiator and representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and Eugene V. Rostow, the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In a National Security Council following the Nitze-Kvitsinsky walk, the proposal was received positively by the JCS and Reagan. Following protests by Richard Perle, working within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Reagan informed Nitze that he would not back the plan. The State Department, then led by Alexander Haig, also indicated that it would not support Nitze’s plan and preferred a return to the Zero Option proposal.[16][31][32] Nitze argued that one positive consequence of the walk in the woods was that the European public, which had doubted US interest in arms control, became convinced that the US was participating in the INF negotiations in good faith.[32]

In early 1983, US negotiators indicated that they would support a plan beyond the Zero Option if the plan established equal rights and limits for the US and Soviet Union, with such limits valid worldwide, and excluded British and French missile systems (as well as those of any other third party). As a temporary measure, the US negotiators also proposed a cap of 450 deployed INF warheads around the world for both the US and Soviet Union. In response, Soviet negotiators expressed that a plan would have to block all US INF deployments in Europe, cover both missiles and aircraft, include third parties, and focus primarily on Europe for it to gain Soviet backing. In the fall of 1983, just ahead of the scheduled deployment of US Pershing IIs and GLCMs, the US lowered its proposed limit on global INF deployments to 420 missiles, while the Soviet Union proposed “equal reductions”: if the US cancelled the planned deployment of Pershing II and GLCM systems, the Soviet Union would reduce its own INF deployment by 572 warheads. In November 1983, after the first Pershing IIs arrived in West Germany, the Soviet Union walked out of negotiations, as it had warned it would do should the US missile deployments occur.[33]

Restarted negotiations: 1985–1987

Reagan and Gorbachev shake hands after signing the INF Treaty ratification during the Moscow Summiton 1 June 1988.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher played a key role in brokering the negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1986–1987.[34]

In March 1986, negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union resumed, covering not only the INF issue, but also separate discussions on strategic weapons (START I) and space issues (Nuclear and Space Talks). In late 1985, both sides were moving towards limiting INF systems in Europe and Asia. On 15 January 1986, Gorbachev announced a Soviet proposal for a ban on all nuclear weapons by 2000, which included INF missiles in Europe. This was dismissed by the US and countered with a phased reduction of INF launchers in Europe and Asia to none by 1989. There would be no constraints on British and French nuclear forces.[35]

A series of meetings in August and September 1986 culminated in the Reykjavík Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev on 11 October 1986. Both agreed in principle to remove INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads. Gorbachev also proposed deeper and more fundamental changes in the strategic relationship. More detailed negotiations extended throughout 1987, aided by the decision of West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in August to unilaterally remove the joint US-West German Pershing 1a systems. Initially, Kohl had opposed the total elimination of the Pershing Missiles, claiming that such a move would increase his nation’s vulnerability to an attack by Warsaw Pact Forces.[36] The treaty text was finally agreed in September 1987. On 8 December 1987, the Treaty was officially signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at a summit in Washington and ratified the following May in a 93-5 vote by the United States Senate.[37][38]

Contents

The treaty[39] prohibits both parties from possessing, producing or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500km. Possessing or producing ground-based launchers of those missiles is also prohibited. The ban extends to weapons with both nuclear and conventional warheads, but does not cover air-delivered or sea-based missiles.

Existing weapons had to be destroyed, and a protocol for mutual inspection was agreed upon.

Each party has the right to withdraw from the treaty with six months’ notice, “if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests”.

(1988) A Soviet train with SS-12 Scaleboard medium-range ballistic missiles ready to leave for the Soviet Union from Czechoslovakia’s Hranice na Morave railroad station

By the treaty’s deadline of 1 June 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the US and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.[40]

As provided by the treaty, onsite inspections ended in 2001. After that time, compliance was checked primarily by satellites.[41]

 

Russian criticism

In February 2007, the Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he said the INF Treaty should be revisited to ensure security, as it only restricted Russia and the U.S. but not other countries.[43]

Dan Blumenthal of the American Enterprise Institute wrote that the actual Russian problem with the INF was that China is not bound by it and continued to build up their own intermediate-range forces.[44]

Alleged violations

In 2007, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Yuri Baluyevsky said that Russia was planning to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty in response to deployment of adaptable defensive NATO missile system and because other countries were not bound to the treaty.[45]

In 2013, the United States launched test launches from the ground of the AGM-158B aviation cruise missile with a range of a thousand kilometers and in December 2017, President Trump signed a bill on defense, which, among others, provided for the allocation of $ 25 million to develop a new cruise missile of this type. According to Russian diplomats this was a violation of the INF Treaty.[46]

According to US officials, Russia violated the treaty by testing the SSC-8 cruise missile in 2008.[47] The US representatives briefed NATO on a Russian nuclear treaty breach again in 2014[48][49] and 2017.[47][50] In 2013, reports came out that Russia had tested and planned to continue testing two missiles in ways that could violate the terms of the treaty: the SS-25 road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and the newer RS-26 ICBM, although neither missile is considered intermediate range.[51]

Russian officials argued that the American decision to deploy the missile defense system in Europe was a violation of the treaty.[52][53][54] Russian experts also stated that the US usage of target missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-4, violated the INF Treaty.[55]

Withdrawal

The United States declared its intention to withdraw from the treaty on 20 October 2018.[56][57][58] Donald Trump mentioned at a campaign rally that the reason for the pullout was because “they’ve [Russia has] been violating it for many years”.[57] This prompted Putin to state that Russia would not launch first in a nuclear conflict but would “annihilate” any adversary, essentially re-stating the policy of “Mutually Assured Destruction“. Putin claimed Russians killed in such a conflict “will go to heaven as martyrs”.[59]

It was also reported that the United States’ need to counter a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific was another reason for their move to withdraw, because China is not a signatory to the treaty.[56][57][58] US officials extending back to the Obama period have noted this. For example, Kelly Magsamen, who helped craft the Pentagon’s Asian policy under the Obama administration, said China’s ability to work outside of the INF treaty had vexed policymakers in Washington, long before Trump came into office.[60] A Politico article noted the different responses U.S. officials gave to this issue: “either find ways to bring China into the treaty or develop new American weapons to counter it” or “negotiating a new treaty with that country”.[61] Bringing an ascendant China into the treaty, or into a new comprehensive treaty including other nuclear powers, was further complicated by relationships between China, India and Pakistan.[62]

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would have a negative impact and urged the United States to “think thrice before acting”. John R. BoltonUS National Security Advisor, said on Echo of Moscow that recent Chinese statements indicate that it wants Washington to stay in the treaty, while China itself is not bound in a treaty.[60]

On 26 October 2018, Russia called but lost a vote to get the U.N. General Assembly to consider calling on Washington and Moscow to preserve and strengthen the treaty.[63] Russia had proposed a draft resolution in the 193-member General Assembly’s disarmament committee, but missed the 18 October submission deadline[63] so it instead called for a vote on whether the committee should be allowed to consider the draft.[63] On the same day, John R. Bolton said in an interview with Reuters that the INF Treaty was a cold war relic and he wanted to hold strategic talks with Russia about Chinese missile capabilities.[64]

Four days later, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia to comply with the treaty at a news conference in Norway saying “The problem is the deployment of new Russian missiles”.[65]

Russian president Vladimir Putin announced on 20 November 2018 that the Kremlin was prepared to discuss INF with Washington but would “retaliate” if the United States withdrew.[66]

Starting on 4 December 2018, the United States said Russia had 60 days to comply with the treaty.[67] On 5 December 2018, Russia responded by revealing their Peresvet combat laser, stating they had been deployed to Russia armed forces as early as 2017 “as part of the state procurement program”.[68]

Russia presented the 9M729 (SSC-8) missile and its technical parameters to foreign military attachés at a military briefing on 23 January 2019, held in what it said was an exercise in transparency it hoped would persuade Washington to stay in the treaty.[69] The Russian Defence Ministry said diplomats from the United States, Britain, France and Germany had been invited to attend the static display of the missile, but they declined to attend.[69] The United States had previously rejected a Russian offer to do so because it said such an exercise would not allow it to verify the true range of its warheads.[69]

The summit between U.S. and Russia on 30 January 2019 failed to find a way to preserve the treaty.[70]

The United States withdrew from the INF Treaty on 2 February 2019 following an announcement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo the day prior. In addition the US said there was a six-month timeline for full withdrawal and INF Treaty termination if the Russian Federation did not come back into compliance within those six months given.[71][62] The same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had also suspended the INF Treaty in a ‘mirror response’ to President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend the treaty, effective that day.[10] The next day, Russia started work on new intermediate range (ballistic) hypersonic missiles along with land based (club kalibr – biryuza) systems (both nuclear armed) in response to the USA announcing it would start to conduct research and development of weapons prohibited under the treaty.[72]

Reactions to the withdrawal

Numerous prominent nuclear arms control experts, including George ShultzRichard Lugar and Sam Nunn, urged Trump to preserve the treaty.[73] Mikhail Gorbachev commented that Trump’s nuclear treaty withdrawal is “not the work of a great mind” and that “a new arms race has been announced.”[74][75]

The decision was criticized by chairmen of the United States House of Representatives Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services who said that instead of crafting a plan to hold Russia accountable and pressure it into compliance, the Trump administration has offered Putin an easy way out of the treaty and has played right into his hands.[76] Similar arguments were brought previously, on 25 October 2018 by European members of NATO who urged the United States “to try to bring Russia back into compliance with the treaty rather than quit it, seeking to avoid a split in the alliance that Moscow could exploit.”[63]

Stoltenberg has suggested the INF Treaty could be expanded to include countries such as China and India, whose non-inclusion, Stoltenberg said, Russia had previously admonished.[77]

According to military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, USA and NATO currently do not have a significant number of ballistic high-precision medium-range missiles, and it will take at least five years for them to create such missiles. Therefore, the withdrawal from the treaty will provide Russia with a total nuclear superiority, and this superiority should be enough to guarantee the West from any interference if Russia decides to take over any former Soviet republics.[78]

On 15 February 2019, Tulsi Gabbard introduced the proposed INF Treaty Compliance Act (H.R. 1249), designed to stop the United States from withdrawing from the treaty.[79][80][81]

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

 

Avangard (hypersonic glide vehicle)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Avangard
Hypersonic rocket complex Avangard.jpg

The UR-100UTTKh ICBM launched from the Dombarovsky Air Base.
Type Boost-glide vehicle
Place of origin Russia
Service history
In service In production[1]
Used by Russian Strategic Missile Troops
Production history
Designer Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology
Manufacturer Votkinsk Machine Building Plant
Produced 2018
Specifications
Mass ~ 40–50 tons[2]
Length 5.4 m

Engine Scramjet
Propellant Solid-fuel
Operational
range
Unlimited
Speed M=27[3]

The Avangard (also known as Objekt 4202Yu-71 and Yu-74) is a hypersonic glider, developed by Russia, that can be carried as a MIRV payload by the UR-100UTTKh,[4][5] R-36M2 and RS-28 Sarmat heavy ICBMs. It can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads.[6][7][8][9] The system entered service in March 2018, and was unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin as one of the six new Russian strategic weapons.[8]

 

Development

The Avangard (then called Yu-71 and Yu-74) was reportedly tested during a series of flight tests between February 2015 and June 2016 on board the UR-100UTTKh ICBMs launched from the Dombarovsky ICBM siteduring which the glider reached a speed of 11,200 kilometres per hour (7,000 mph; 3,100 m/s) and successfully hit its targets at the Kura Missile Test Range.[10][11]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces Vladimir Putin watching the launch of the Avangard missile complex carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle at the National Centre for State Defence Control in Moscow. December 26, 2018.

Another flight test was carried out in October 2016 with use of the R-36M2 heavy ICBM launched from Dombarovsky ICBM site, hitting a target at the Kura Missile Test Range. This was reportedly the first fully successful test of the glide vehicle.[12][13]

On 1 March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin in his presidential address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow announced that testing of the weapon is now complete and that the missile has entered serial production.[14][15][16][17][8] This was also confirmed by the commander of the Russian Strategic Missile ForcesColonel General Sergei Karakayev.[18][19]

The latest flight test occurred on 26 December 2018 when the glider was launched on board a UR-100UTTKh ICBM from the Dombarovsky missile base in the Ural Mountainsand subsequently hit a target at the Kura Missile Test Range.[20] The Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Yury Borisov stated a day later on a Russian TV channel that the missile flew at 27 times the speed of sound, thus making it invulnerable to interception.[20]

Design

The Avangard has been demonstrated to operate at up to Mach 27 during the latest flight test.[3] When approaching a target, the glider is capable of sharp high speed horizontal and vertical evasive maneuvers in flight, making it “absolutely invulnerable for any missile defence system,” according to Russian officials.[21][22][23][24][25] According to Russian President Putin, Avangard strikes “like a meteorite, like a fireball”.[26] The blast yield of a nuclear warhead carried by the Avangard is reportedly more than 2 megatons TNT.[27]

Operators

Russia

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)

Putin confirms development of Russia’s hypersonic cruise missile called Tsirkon

  • Russia has successfully tested a ship-based hypersonic missile the United States is currently unable to defend against, according to people with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence reports.
  • The Russian president said the new missile will travel at Mach 9, almost 2 miles per second.

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives to deliver his annual state of the nation address in Moscow on February 20, 2019.

ALEXANDER NEMENOV | AFP | Getty Images
Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives to deliver his annual state of the nation address in Moscow on February 20, 2019.

Russia has confirmed it is building a new hypersonic missile that can be launched from ships or submarines and travel at almost 2 miles per second.

Russian President Vladimir Putin used his state of the nation address on Wednesday to publicly confirm that the cruise missile was well under development.

“This is a hypersonic missile called Tsirkon. It will have the speed of mach 9, it has a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and can hit navy or land targets.”

The Russian leader added the missile could be launched from a ship or submarine and costs would be kept low by its compatibility with the existing Kalibr missile system.

In December, CNBC learned that a U.S. Intelligence report had highlighted testing of the Tsirkon hypersonic system, noting that five tests had been carried out by the Russian military since 2015.

Putin has previously described Russia’s hypersonic prowess as “invincible” and accused “those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years” of failing to contain Russia.

Publicly confirming the project on Wednesday, the Russian president again took a pot-shot at the West and specifically the United States.

“The U.S. once sought global domination through its missiles program. They should abandon illusions, we will always respond with a reciprocal response,” said Putin.

US doesn’t see ‘changing world’

In February this year, the U.S. and Russia both confirmed they would suspend participation in the decades-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF treaty, which bans ground-launched medium-range missiles with a range of 310-3,400 miles.

The U.S. administration, who withdrew first, said it had taken the measure following Russia’s refusal to accept that its SSC-8 missile directly contravenes the Cold War-era agreement.

NATO calls on Russia to comply with denuclearization treaty

NATO calls on Russia to comply with missile treaty  

Addressing the topic Wednesday, Putin said Russia “doesn’t threaten anyone” and its military build-up was a defensive measure.

“We do not want confrontation with a global power, especially like the U.S., but it seems like the U.S. doesn’t see how the world is changing,” he said, before adding that he was ready for further talks on arms control but “we are not going to keep knocking on a locked door.”

Now that both countries have suspended the INF treaty, it will expire in August if Washington and the Kremlin don’t find agreement.

The White House and the U.S. Department of Defense didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

CNBC’s Amanda Maciascontributed to this report.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/20/putin-confirms-tsirkon-russian-hypersonic-cruise-missile.html

Story 2: Communist China’s Totalitarian Regime’s Social Credit System or Digital Dictatorship — Videos

Social Credit: Almost There, a Warning to Every American! (2018)

Exposing China’s Digital Dystopian Dictatorship | Foreign Correspondent

Life Inside China’s Total Surveillance State

China’s Secret File on Everyone

Big Brother is watching you: How China is ranking its citizens

China’s “Social Credit System” Has Caused More Than Just Public Shaming (HBO)

5 Things China DOESN’T Want You To See

China’s Dystopian Social Credit system

Exporting dystopia: China’s social credit system | The Weekly

China Behavior Rating System V/S Sweden Microchip implants | Must watch technology

What Is China’s Social Credit System? | NowThis World

The end of the Chinese miracle | FT Features

China’s Golden Age is OVER!

Why are Asians so Skinny?

Why Wear a Suit?

5 Things foreigners CAN’T STAND about Chinese people!

5 Things CHINESE people CAN’T STAND about Foreigners!

Has China been duping the US for nearly half a century?

Does China have a secret plan to take America’s place?

 

About 17.46 million “discredited” people were restricted from buying plane tickets and 5.47 million were restricted from purchasing high-speed train tickets, the report said. Photo: Handout

China’s social credit system shows its teeth, banning millions from taking flights, trains

  • Annual report shows the businesses and individuals added to trustworthiness blacklist as use of the government system accelerates
  • System aims to pressure citizens to avoid bad behaviour, although human rights advocates argue it does not take into account individual circumstances

Story 3: Socialist Sanders Rakes in $6 Million From Over 225,000 Contributors — Videos

Bernie Sanders Raises $6 Million After Announcing Presidential Bid

Bernie Sanders Raises $3.3 Million Hours After 2020 Announcement | Hardball | MSNBC

Bernie Sanders Joins Democratic Presidential Race

 

Bernie Sanders Raises $6 Million After Announcing Presidential Bid

Senator Bernie Sanders at a rally in April before the start of a march honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis. CreditTamir Kalifa for The New York Times
Senator Bernie Sanders at a rally in April before the start of a march honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis.CreditCreditTamir Kalifa for The New York Times

 Just over 24 hours after announcing his presidential bid, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has already raised $6 million from more than 225,000 donors, his campaign said Wednesday morning.

That amount far surpasses what any of his rivals have disclosed raising after their own announcements this year.

Previously, Senator Kamala Harris of California had claimed the biggest early fund-raising haul that had been made public, with $1.5 million in 24 hours. In comparison, Mr. Sanders’s campaign said its fund-raising in the first 24 hours came to $5.9 million.

Later Wednesday, President Trump’s campaign cited Mr. Sanders’s windfall in its own fund-raising pitch, sending a text message to supporters telling them about the $6 million that “Socialist Bernie” had raised. “Now I’m calling on you to CRUSH that number,” the message said.

Mr. Sanders’s early fund-raising success is not unexpected: After all, he raised well over $200 million when he ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 election, and his list of online donors dwarfs those of his Democratic rivals.

[Where does Bernie Sanders stand on key issues? Here’s a refresher.]

But in a crowded presidential field, where candidates are eager to demonstrate the enthusiasm behind their campaigns, early fund-raising hauls offer bragging rights, at least for a moment.

A recent New York Times analysis found that Mr. Sanders began his 2020 candidacy with about 2.1 million online donors who had given him money over the last six years, an enormous lead among proven contributors that is roughly equivalent to the donor base of all the other Democratic hopefuls combined.

Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas congressman who ran unsuccessfully for Senate last year, has twice as many online donors as anyone running or considering running besides Mr. Sanders. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Ms. Harris each had drawn money from at least 230,000 online donors ahead of their candidacies.

A more complete view of the candidates’ fund-raising will eventually be available through the Federal Election Commission. Several well-known Democratic candidates have not released early fund-raising totals, including Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising.html

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1212

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 1211, February 19, 2019, Story 1: Mass Suicide of Radical Extremist Democratic (RED) Party — Socialist Ship of Fools and Communists — Videos — Story 2: Bernie Sanders Running Again For President — Transforming America Into A Socialist State — Bernie Sanders/Kamala Harris 2020 Presidential Ticket? — No Sale — Videos —

Posted on February 20, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, American History, Amy Klobuchar, Banking System, Bernie Sander, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Corey Booker, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Drugs, Eating, Economics, Education, Elections, Elizabeth Warren, Employment, Environment, Eugenics, Exercise, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Kamala Harris, Killing, Kirsten Gillibrand, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Obesity, Overweight, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Social Security, Subversion, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Treason, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Mass Suicide of Radical Extremist Democratic Party — Socialist Ship of Fools and Communists — Videos —

The Socialist left runs the Democratic Party: Varney

Stossel: Sweden is Not a Socialist Success

Sweden: Lessons for America? – Full Video

Three reasons why Green New Deal won’t work: Hubbard

DESTROY THE ECONOMY! Ben Shapiro DISMANTLES AOC’S Green New Deal *2019*

EXPOSED: Top 4 Takeaways of the Green New Deal | Louder With Crowder

Rep. Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and Her Globalist Green New Deal Should Scare the Hell Out of Dems

Bill O’Reilly on Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’

John Stossel – Recycling Stupidity

Critics mock Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal rollout

Tucker The Democratic Party is Blowing Up

Democrats’ hard left turn to socialism

Is the Democratic Party going too far left?

Has the Democratic Party moved to the extreme left?

How Did ‘Socialism’ Become a Dirty Word in America? | History

Mulvaney: ‘Stunning’ to Watch Democrats Refuse to Applaud Trump for Denouncing Socialism

Meet the rising socialists challenging the Trump presidency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Green New Deal (GND)[1][2] is a set of proposed economic stimulus programs in the United States that aim to address climate change and economic inequality.[3][4] The name refers to the New Deal, a set of social and economic reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.[5] The Green New Deal combines Roosevelt’s economic approach with modern ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency.[6] A previous policy similar to the Green New Deal was the 2008 tax incentive for solar panels.[7]

 

History

Fertilizer used to improve crop yields during the Great Depression

Sustainable agriculture combined with renewable energy generation

An early use of the term “Green New Deal” was by journalist Thomas Friedman.[8] He argued in favor of the idea in two pieces that appeared in The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine.[9][10] In January 2007, Friedman wrote:

If you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof, bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the very nature of the electricity grid – moving it away from dirty coal or oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project – much bigger than anyone has told you. Finally, like the New Deal, if we undertake the green version, it has the potential to create a whole new clean power industry to spur our economy into the 21st century.[11]

This approach was subsequently taken up by the Green New Deal Group,[12] which published its eponymous report on July 21, 2008.[13] The concept was further popularized and put on a wider footing when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) began to promote it. On October 22, 2008 UNEP’s Executive Director Achim Steiner unveiled the Global Green New Deal initiative that aims to create jobs in “green” industries, thus boosting the world economy and curbing climate change at the same time.[14] It was then turned into an extensive plan by the Green Party of the United States. It was a key part of the platform of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016, as well as Howie Hawkins, who helped to write it, in his campaign for governor of New York.[15]

Notable proponents

Individuals

Organizations

  • The Climate Mobilization, which advocates a “World War II-scale economic mobilization to restore a safe climate.”
  • The think tank Data for Progress laid out a progressive vision in their policy report “A Green New Deal” in September 2018.[45]
  • The Democracy in Europa Movement 2025 ( DieM25), a pan-european political activist group of over 100.000 members for progressive EU and global economics policy, founded by Yanis Varoufakis [46]

In the United States

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (center) speaks on the Green New Deal with Senator Ed Markey (right) in front of the Capitol Building in February 2019.

Ocasio-Cortez’s first piece of sponsored legislation: H.Res.109 – 116th Congress (2019–2020) Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

During the 2012 presidential election, the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein proposed a Green New Deal as part of her campaign priorities.[57] The Green Party continued to suggest a Green New Deal in their rebuttal to the 2018 State of the Union speech.[58] The Green New Deal is officially part of the platform of the Green Party of the United States.[59][60]

A “Green New Deal” wing began to emerge in the Democratic Party after the November 2018 elections.[61][62]

A possible program in 2018 for a “Green New Deal” assembled by the think tank Data for Progress was described as “pairing labor programs with measures to combat the climate crisis.”[63][64]

A November 2018 article in Vogue stated, “There isn’t just one Green New Deal yet. For now, it’s a platform position that some candidates are taking to indicate that they want the American government to devote the country to preparing for climate change as fully as Franklin Delano Roosevelt once did to reinvigorating the economy after the Great Depression.”[40]

A week after the 2018 midterm elections, climate justice group Sunrise Movement organized a protest in Nancy Pelosi‘s office calling on Nancy Pelosi to support a Green New Deal. On the same day, freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez launched a resolution to create a committee on the Green New Deal.[65] Following this, several candidates came out supporting a “Green New Deal”, including Deb HaalandRashida TlaibIlhan Omar, and Antonio Delgado.[66] They were joined in the following weeks by Reps. John LewisEarl BlumenauerCarolyn Maloney, and José Serrano.[67]

By the end of November, eighteen Democratic members of Congress were co-sponsoring a proposed House Select Committee on a Green New Deal, and incoming representatives Ayanna Pressley and Joe Neguse had announced their support.[68][69] Draft text would task this committee with a “’detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan’ capable of making the U.S. economy ‘carbon neutral’ while promoting ‘economic and environmental justice and equality,'” to be released in early 2020, with draft legislation for implementation within 90 days.[70][71]

Organizations supporting a Green New Deal initiative included 350.orgGreenpeaceSierra Club, and Friends of the Earth.[72][54]

Opponents noted that the costs of a Green New Deal had not been fully determined, and that achieving 100% renewable energy might not be possible.[72]

Paul Bledsoe of the Progressive Policy Institute expressed concern that setting unrealistic “aspirational” goals of 100% renewable energy, as in the Ocasio-Cortez proposal, “does a disservice to the real seriousness of climate change“, and could undermine “the credibility of the effort.”[72]

Sunrise Movement protest on behalf of a Green New Deal at the Capitol Hill offices of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer on December 10, 2018 featured Lennox Yearwood and speakers as young as age 7, resulting in 143 arrests.[43] Euronews, the pan-European news organization, displayed video of youth with signs saying “Green New Deal,” “No excuses”, and “Do your job” in its “No Comment” section.[73]

On December 14, 2018, a group of over 300 local elected officials from 40 states issued a letter endorsing a Green New Deal approach.[74][75]

That same day, a poll released by Yale Program on Climate Change Communication indicated that although 82% of registered voters had not heard of the “Green New Deal,” it had strong bi-partisan support among voters. A non-partisan description of the general concepts behind a Green New Deal resulted in 40% of respondents saying they “strongly support”, and 41% saying they “somewhat support” the idea.[76]

On January 10, 2019 over 600 organizations submitted a letter to Congress declaring support for policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes ending fossil fuel extraction and subsidies, transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2035, expanding public transportation, and strict emission reductions rather than reliance on carbon emission trading.[77]

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey released a fourteen-page resolution for their Green New Deal on February 7, 2019. The approach pushes for transitioning the United States to use 100% renewable, zero-emission energy sources, including investment into electric cars and high-speed rail systems, and implementing the “social cost of carbon” that has been part of Obama administration’s plans for addressing climate change. Besides providing new jobs, this Green New Deal is also aimed to address poverty by aiming much of the improvements in the “frontline and vulnerable communities” which include the poor and disadvantaged people. To gain additional support, the resolution includes calls for universal health care, fair minimum wages, and preventing monopolies. While this resolution did not identify where the funding for this would come from, the conservative American Action Forum estimated that a similar proposal would cost US$1 trillion without taking into account new investments to achieve the resolution’s goals.[78][79][80]

House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Various perspectives emerged in late 2018 as to whether to form a committee dedicated to climate, what powers such a committee might be granted, and whether the committee would be specifically tasked with developing a Green New Deal.

Incoming House committee chairs Frank Pallone and Peter DeFazio indicated a preference for handling these matters in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.[72][81] (Writing in Gentleman’s Quarterly, Jay Willis responded that despite the best efforts of Pallone and De Fazio over many years, “the planet’s prognosis has failed to improve,” providing “pretty compelling evidence that it is time for legislators to consider taking a different approach.”[71])

In contrast, Representative Ro Khanna thought that creating a Select Committee specifically dedicated to a Green New Deal would be a “very commonsense idea”, based on the recent example of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming(2007-2011), which had proven effective in developing a 2009 bill for cap-and-trade legislation.[72][81]

Proposals for the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis did not contain “Green New Deal” language and lacked the powers desired by Green New Deal proponents, such as the ability to subpoena documents or depose witnesses.[82][83][84]

Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida was appointed to chair the committee.[84][85]

January 2019 letter to Congress from environmental groups

On January 10, 2019, a letter signed by 626 organizations in support of a Green New Deal was sent to all members of Congress. It called for measures such as “an expansion of the Clean Air Act; a ban on crude oil exports; an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing; and a phase-out of all gas-powered vehicles by 2040.”[86][87]

The letter also indicated that signatories would “vigorously oppose” … “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsetscarbon capture and storagenuclear powerwaste-to-energy and biomass energy.”[86]

Six major environmental groups did not sign on to the letter: the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, Mom’s Clean Air Force, Environment America, and the Audubon Society.[88]

An article in The Atlantic quoted Greg Carlock, who prepared “a different Green New Deal plan for the left-wing think tank Data for Progress” as responding, “There is no scenario produced by the IPCC or the UN where we hit mid-century decarbonization without some kind of carbon capture.”[86]

The MIT Technology Review responded to the letter with an article titled, “Let’s Keep the Green New Deal Grounded in Science.” The MIT article states that, although the letter refers to the “rapid and aggressive action” needed to prevent the 1.5 ˚C of warming specified in the UN climate panel’s latest report, simply acknowledging the report’s recommendation is not sufficient. If the letter’s signatories start from a position where the options of carbon pricing, carbon capture for fossil plants, hydropower, and nuclear power, are not even on the table for consideration, there may be no feasible technical means to reach the necessary 1.5 ˚C climate goal.[89]

A report in Axios suggested that the letter’s omission of a carbon tax, which has been supported by moderate Republicans, did not mean that signatories would oppose carbon pricing.[90][87]

The Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy at George Mason University was quoted as saying, “As long as organizations hold onto a rigid set of ideas about what the solution is, it’s going to be hard to make progress … And that’s what worries me.”[89]

Models for implementation

As of January 2019, models for structuring a Green New Deal remain in the initial stages of discussion.

Although Chuck Schumer has indicated that measures to address climate change and renewable energy must be included in a 2019 infrastructure package, as of December 2018, articles describing his position referred to it as “green infrastructure” rather than as a Green New Deal.[91][92]

On January 17, 2019, prospective presidential candidate Jay Inslee called for Green New Deal goals of “net-zero carbon pollution by midcentury” and creating “good-paying jobs building a future run on clean energy” in a Washington Post op-ed. However, he framed these efforts in terms of national mobilization, saying “Confronting climate change will require a full-scale mobilization — a national mission that must be led from the White House.”[93]

Economic policy and planning for environment and climate

An article in The Intercept characterizes a Green New Deal more broadly, as economic planning and industrial policy measures which would enable mobilization for the environment, similar to the economic mobilization for World War II, and similar to the internal planning of large corporations. The article quotes an expert who states that imposing jail terms for failure to meet emissions targets “may sound aggressive by today’s standards, but [it] has been par for the course at other points in American history when the country has faced existential threats.”[94]

Economist Stephanie Kelton (a proponent of Modern Monetary Policy) and others [95] argue that natural resources, including a stable, livable climate, are limited resources, whereas money -following the abandonment of the gold standard- is really just a legal and social tool that should be marshalled to provide for sustainable public policies. To this end, a mix of policies and programs could be adopted, including tax incentives and targeted taxes, reformed construction and zoning standards, transportation fleet electrification, coastal shoreline hardening, Farm Bill subsidies linked to carbon capture and renewables generation, and much more. Practically, Kelton argues that the key to implementation is garnering enough political support, rather than becoming fixated on specific “pay-fors.” Many proposed Green New Deal programs would generate significant numbers of new jobs.[96]

One proposed model for funding says that “funding would come primarily from certain public agencies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and ‘a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks.'” This model, which has been endorsed by over 40 House members, has been compared to the work of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW, or “Reconstruction Credit Institute,” a large German public sector development bank), the China Development Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.[97]

Employment programs coupled with business investment for environment and climate[edit]

New Deal improvisation as a model

Although the non-specific nature of current GND proposals has become a concern for some Greens,[98] one writer from the Columbia University Earth Institute views the lack of specificity as a strength, noting that: “FDR’s New Deal was a series of improvisations in response to specific problems that were stalling economic development. There was no master plan, many ideas failed, and some were ended after a period of experimentation. But some, like social security and the Security and Exchange Commission’s regulation of the stock market, became permanent American institutions …”[99]

Green skills worker training programs

Existing programs training workers in green skills include a program called Roots of Success, founded in 2008 to bring low-income people into living wage professions. Funding for Roots of Success came from the $90 billion in green initiatives incorporated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[100]

Green stimulus under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

About 12% of ARRA funding went to green investment,[101] and some of these initiatives were successful. A Jan. 2019 article in Politico stated that, “U.S. wind capacity has more than tripled since 2008, while solar capacity is up more than sixfold. LEDs were 1 percent of the lighting market in 2008; now they’re more than half the market. There were almost no plug-in electric vehicles in 2008; now there are more than 1 million on U.S. roads.”[102]

Although ARRA’s green stimulus projects are of interest for developing proposals for a Green New Deal, its mixed results included both “boosting innovative firms” such as Tesla, and the $535 million failure of the Solyndra solar company.”[102][103] These initial efforts at green stimulus are described as a “cautionary tale.” It remains necessary to develop mechanisms for promoting large-scale green business development, as it is unclear whether focusing on job creation programs alone will result in optimizing the climate impact of new jobs.[102]

Criticism

Economist Edward Barbier, who developed the “Global Green New Deal” proposal for the United Nations Environment Programme in 2009, opposes “a massive federal jobs program,” saying “The government would end up doing more and more of what the private sector and industry should be doing.” Barbier prefers carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, in order to “address distortions in the economy that are holding back private sector innovation and investments in clean energy.”[101]

In the US, Robert Pollin characterized the concept of a “Green New Deal” as “egalitarian green growth,” indicating that the seriousness of concerns about climate is also giving rise to alternative Degrowth proposals to contract economies.[104]

On February 9, 2019, US President, Donald Trump voiced his opposition using political sarcasm via Twitter as follows: “I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!” [105]

Other Republican politicians have pointed to language found in a “Frequently Asked Questions” draft summary document originally posted to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s website, now only viewable on the Wayback Machine.[106] Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has entered the document into congressional record.[107] Specifically, Republicans have focused on two points in the document, which call for “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work” and “fully [getting] rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel.”

On February 13, 2019, Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) released a parody video on his verified Twitter account comparing the Green New Deal to the failed Fyre Festival, using the hashtag #GNDisFyre.[108][109][110]

In a February 2019 interview with Politico, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi openly mocked Ocasio-Cortez’s and Markley’s recent resolution for a Green New Deal, saying “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”[17] The following day, speaking at a news conference, Pelosi said that while she hasn’t yet seen the details of the proposal, she said “I do know that it’s enthusiastic, and we welcome all the enthusiasm that’s out there…I’m very excited about it all, and I welcome the Green New Deal and any other proposals.” [111]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

 

The 10 Dems most likely to win the 2020 presidential nomination

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination is already heating up, even though there is almost a year to go before the Iowa caucuses.

Here are The Hill’s rankings of where the contenders stand right now.

1. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)

Harris has had by far the best launch of any candidate.

Her speech declaring her candidacy was delivered powerfully before a large and appreciative crowd in Oakland. Her appearances in early states have been well-received, as have her initial round of media interview. More generally, she has effectively presented herself as a fresh and charismatic presence.

Harris has also rolled out some early endorsements including Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and, on Friday alone, both California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Hispanic civil rights icon Dolores Huerta.

There are still plenty of questions that Harris will have to answer — including how her long record as a prosecutor will be scrutinized by a Democratic base focused on questions of police misconduct and racial inequities.

Early front-runners can easily come unstuck, but for now Harris is the most formidable candidate in the race.

Previous ranking on Jan. 1: 4

2. Former Vice President Joe Biden

For all the excitement around Harris, it is the former vice president who still heads every significant nationwide poll of Democratic voters.

In an Emerson poll released on Saturday, he was 10 points ahead of his closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), with Harris third, a further 2 points behind. A Morning Consult poll earlier last week put Biden 7 points clear of Sanders and 16 points ahead of Harris.

In 2016, Biden mulled a run for a long time before deciding against it. His son Beau had died from brain cancer in May 2015, and Biden ultimately chose not to force himself thorough the rigors of a presidential campaign.

This time around, The Hill has reported that he is almost certain to declare a candidacy soon.

Biden has weaknesses in the race, including his age — he would be 78 on Inauguration Day 2021 — and past votes that sit uneasily with the current Democratic base on everything from the Iraq War to a 1994 crime bill.

But his skills as retail politician, his experience and the loyal service he rendered for eight years to President Obama would all stand in his favor.

Previous ranking: 3

3. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sanders entered the race early Tuesday, following weekend reports that he had recorded a video announcing his candidacy.

Sanders will clearly be a top-flight contender. Polls generally put him second, behind Biden.

He could end up being a victim of his own relative success in one sense, however. His stronger than expected challenge to eventual Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 showed there was an appetite in the party for more left-wing policies. Now, several other declared or likely candidates are running on progressive platforms that could blunt Sanders’s formerly unique appeal.

He has other problems as well, including the enmity he earned among Clinton supporters in 2016.

In January, he apologized to women who say they were harassed or mistreated by male staff during his 2016 campaign.

His decision to give his own rebuttal to President Trump’s State of the Union speech aggravated some activists who believed he was taking the spotlight from the Democrats’ official speaker of the night, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.

Age is an issue for Sanders, too. He is 77.

Previous ranking: 2

4. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas)

Will he or won’t he?

That’s the key question around O’Rourke, who ignited enormous Democratic enthusiasm in his ultimately unsuccessful challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last year.

O’Rourke’s intentions are far from clear. He embarked on a road trip in January, earning some mockery from detractors for his introspective musings in an online diary.

On the other hand, when Trump held a rally in O’Rourke’s home base of El Paso recently, the former Texas congressman headlined his own event nearby, which drew a crowd several thousand strong.

The longer O’Rourke stays out of the race, the greater the danger that someone like Harris could really catch fire. On the other hand, his prodigious fundraising ability — he raised an eye-popping $38 million in 2018’s third quarter during his Senate bid — ensures he would be a serious candidate.

Previous ranking: 1

5. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

It’s been a largely uninspiring start to the campaign for Warren, who had been considered one of the leading candidates in the early running.

Part of the problem is the issue that won’t quit — her prior self-identification as a Native American and her decision last year to take a DNA test to prove that she was telling the truth.

The test affirmed that she had a Native American ancestor six to 10 generations ago. But even some Democrats believe the whole episode played into the hands of Trump, who continues to deride Warren, whom he has long mocked as “Pocahontas.”

Warren is betting that there is a strong electoral market for someone who can combine her professorial in-depth knowledge, especially of financial regulation, with a style that savors confrontation with Trump.

But her initial poll ratings are average at best, fueling suspicions that she is being overtaken by other figures, particularly Harris, who may have a stronger personal magnetism.

Previous ranking: 5

6. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Booker is one of the most recent entrants into the race — he announced on Feb. 1.

The New Jersey senator divides opinion, especially inside the Beltway. To his supporters, he is a likable, energetic candidate who speaks passionately and has the capacity to fire up young and nonwhite voters with particular vigor.

His detractors, however, assail him as an inauthentic lightweight, who has long been more interested in promoting himself than anything else. That critique stretches from his time as the Twitter-friendly mayor of Newark to his self-proclaimed “Spartacus moment” during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Booker will likely need to show he can get traction fairly soon, before the expected arrival of other big stars on the stage — including Biden — threatens to push him toward the margins of the race.

Previous ranking: 7

7. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Klobuchar certainly had an eye-catching campaign launch — she gave a speech declaring her candidacy in the midst of a heavy snowstorm.

The visuals were memorable and underlined Klobuchar’s core message that she is a down-to-earth contender from the heartlands.

But that in itself won’t assuage the doubts about Klobuchar’s ultimate chances of success: Do Democrats really want someone who leans toward centrism as their standard-bearer against Trump?

Recent allegations that she mistreated staff have further complicated Klobuchar’s chances.

Some of the milder accusations against her carry more than a whiff of sexism, but it is harder to make that case when it comes to the most dramatic allegations, including one instance where she purportedly threw a binder that struck a staff member.

Previous ranking: 8

8. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Brown has long been a political curiosity: a progressive Democrat who continues to win reelection in the increasingly red state of Ohio by wide margins.

Brown has been building up some momentum with a tour of early-voting states. But it is not clear he is getting into the race, and the likely entrance of Biden — who has a similar blue-collar appeal — would greatly complicate the Ohioan’s possible path to the nomination.

Previous ranking: 6

9. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Gillibrand launched her campaign in mid-January with an appearance on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” on CBS. Sadly for the New York senator, that’s the most memorable thing she has done so far.

Gillibrand always faced an uphill climb toward the nomination. There is nothing to suggest the gradient has become any less steep.

Previous ranking: 10

10. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Bloomberg continues to toy with a bid, but it is enormously difficult to see a credible route for the former New York City mayor, despite his vast fortune.

Bloomberg’s business-friendly centrism seems a poor fit for today’s Democratic Party, and he is far from a natural politician on the stump, which would hinder him in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Previous ranking: 9

Updated at 7:18 a.m. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430461-the-10-dems-most-likely-to-win-the-2020-presidential-nomination

Democratic Socialists of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Democratic Socialists of America
Abbreviation DSA
National Director Maria Svart
Founder Michael Harrington
Founded May 1982; 36 years ago
Merger of Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee
New American Movement
Headquarters 75 Maiden Lane, Ste 702
New York CityNew YorkUnited States
Newspaper Democratic Left
Student wing Young Democratic
Socialists of America
Membership (2018) Increase 55,000[1]
Ideology Democratic socialism
Eco-socialism
Socialist feminism
Anti-capitalism
Anti-imperialism
Anti-racism
Anti-fascism
Political position Left-wing
Colors      Red
Website
dsausa.org

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is an organization of democratic socialistsocial democratic and labor-oriented members in the United States.

The DSA has its roots in the Socialist Party of America (SPA), whose most prominent leaders included Eugene V. DebsNorman Thomas and Michael Harrington.[2] In 1973, Harrington, the leader of a minority faction that had opposed the SPA’s rightward shift and transformation into the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) during the party’s 1972 national convention, formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). The other faction that split following that convention was the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA), which remains an independent democratic socialist political party. The DSOC, in Harrington’s words “the remnant of a remnant”, soon became the largest democratic socialist group in the United States. In 1982, it merged with the New American Movement (NAM), a coalition of intellectuals with roots in the New Left movements of the 1960s and former members of socialist and communist parties of the Old Left, to form the DSA.[3]

Initially, the organization consisted of approximately 5,000 ex-DSOC members and 1,000 ex-NAM members. Upon the founding of the DSA, Harrington and the socialist feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich were elected as co-chairs of the organization. The DSA does not run candidates on its own ballot line in elections, but instead “fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people”. These reforms include decreasing the influence of money in politics, empowering ordinary people in workplaces and within the economy and restructuring gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable.[4] The organization has at times endorsed Democratic electoral candidates—notably Walter MondaleJesse JacksonJohn KerryBarack Obama and Bernie Sanders—and the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.[citation needed]

map of DSA chapters

Map of DSA chapters as of January 2019

The DSA is not only by far the largest socialist organization in the United States in the 21st century, it is also the largest socialist organization in the United States in over a century.[5][6] By the end of 2017, membership in the organization had risen to 32,000, primarily because of the influx of youth in reaction to the presidency of Donald Trump. As of September 2, 2018, membership stood at 50,000[7] and the number of local chapters had increased from 40 to 181.[8] As of December 2017, the median age of its membership was 33, compared to 68 in 2013.[9] In the 2017 election, fifteen candidates who were members of the DSA were elected to office in thirteen states, most notably Lee Carter in the Virginia House of Delegates, adding to the twenty members already holding elected office nationwide.[10] In November 2018, two DSA members, namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, were elected to the House of Representatives while eleven were elected to state legislatures.[11]

A member of the Socialist International (SI) from its founding in 1982, the DSA voted to leave the SI in August 2017 over its acceptance of what the DSA perceived as neoliberal economic policies.[12]

 

History

Formed in 1982 after a merger between the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM),[13][14] the DSA is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization.[15] At the time of the merger of these two organizations, the DSA was said to consist of approximately 5,000 former members of the DSOC, along with 1,000 from the NAM.[16] The combined Old Left and New Left heritage of the DSA was created from this merger. The DSOC was founded in 1973 from a minority anti-Vietnam War caucus in the Socialist Party of America (SPA)—which had been renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) while the NAM was created as a successor organization to the disintegrated Students for a Democratic Society. At its start, the DSOC had 840 members, of whom 2% had served on its national board—approximately 200 of whom previously held membership in the SDUSA or its predecessors (the Socialist Party–Social Democratic Federation, formerly part of the SPA) in 1973, when the SDUSA stated its membership at 1,800 according to a 1973 profile of Harrington.[17]

Earlier iteration of the DSA logo

The red rose is part of the official logo of the DSA,[18] having traditionally been a symbol of socialism[19] since the 1886 Haymarket Affair and the resulting May Day marches from the 19th century to the current day.[20] It was drawn from the logo of the DSOC, its precursor organization, and previously of the Socialist International, which shows a stylized fist clenching a red rose, the fist being substituted with a bi-racial handshake pertaining to the DSA’s staunch anti-racism.[21][22] The fist and rose logo had been originally designed by Didier Motchane and others for the new French Socialist Party founded in 1971[23] and was later shared by socialist and labor political organizations worldwide.

In electoral politics, the DSA was very strongly associated with Michael Harrington‘s position that “the left wing of realism is found today in the Democratic Party”. In its early years, the DSA opposed Republican presidential candidates by giving critical support to Democratic Party nominees like Walter Mondale in 1984.[24] In 1988, the DSA enthusiastically supported Jesse Jackson‘s second presidential campaign.[25] Since 1995, the DSA’s position on American electoral politics has been that “democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on a new party or on realignment within the Democratic Party”.[26] During the 1990s, the DSA gave the Clinton administration an overall rating of C-, “less than satisfactory”.[27]

The DSA’s elected leadership has often seen working within the Democratic Party as necessary rather than forming or support third parties. That said, the DSA is very critical of the corporate-funded Democratic Party leadership.[28] The organization has stated:[29]

Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.

Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end.

Electoral positions

In 2000, the DSA took no official position on the presidential election, with several prominent DSA members backing Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader while others supported Socialist Party USA candidate David McReynolds and others voting for Democratic nominee Al Gore.[30] In 2004, the organization backed John Kerry after he won the Democratic nomination. In its official magazine, the DSA’s Political Action Committee declared:[31]

While we have no illusions about how a Kerry administration would govern — absent mass pressure from below — and are not impressed with his delayed criticism of the war and his earlier commitments in favor of ‘free trade,’ we also realize that the Bush administration is as reactionary as Reagan’s. A Kerry defeat would be taken not as a defeat of the US political center, which Kerry represents, but of the mainstream Left. As a result, it would embolden the Right and demoralize the Left (as well as trade unionists and people of color) as much as Reagan‘s 1984 defeat of Mondale did. On the other hand, a Kerry victory will let us press onward, with progressives aggressively pressuring an administration that owed its victory to democratic mobilization from below.

The only resolution on upcoming elections at the DSA’s 2005 convention focused on Bernie Sanders‘s independent campaign for the Senate in Vermont.[32] The organization’s 2007 convention in Atlanta featured record-breaking attendance and more participation by the organization’s youth wing. Sanders gave the keynote address.[33]

In 2008, the DSA critically supported Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his race against Republican candidate John McCain. In an article written in the March 24 edition of The Nation, senior DSA strategists Barbara Ehrenreich and Bill Fletcher Jr., along with Tom Hayden and Danny Glover, announced the formation of Progressives for Obama.[34] In the article, the four issued a joint statement arguing that Obama was the most progressive viable Democratic presidential candidate since Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.[34]

Lee Carter, member of the Virginia House of Delegatesfrom the 50th district

Following Obama’s election, many on the political right[35] began to allege that his administration’s policies were “socialistic”, a claim rejected by the DSA and the Obama administration alike. The widespread use of the word “socialism” as a political epithet against the Obama administration by its opponents caused National Director Frank Llewellyn to declare that “over the past 12 months, the Democratic Socialists of America has received more media attention than it has over the past 12 years”.[36]

For the 2016 presidential election, the DSA endorsed Sanders as the favored presidential candidate. While making it clear that Sanders’ New Deal-inspired program did not fulfill the socialist aim of establishing social ownership of the economy, the DSA considered his campaign as a positive development in the context of contemporary American politics.[37] The DSA noted the importance of his candidacy as a self-identified democratic socialist candidate as well as “a lifelong champion of the public programs and democratic rights that empower working class people”.[38] The DSA managed the #WeNeedBernie campaign, an internally focused initiative directed towards mobilizing DSA supporters for Sanders.[38] After Sanders’ defeat in the 2016 Democratic primaries, the DSA called for the defeat of Donald Trump, but it did not officially endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.[39]

2017 off-year election gains

In the United States elections of 2017, the DSA endorsed fifteen candidates for office, with the highest position gained being that of Lee Carter in the Virginia House of Delegates.[40] DSA members won 15 electoral offices in thirteen states, bringing the total to thirty-five (the DSA, having changed its electoral strategy at its national convention, had anticipated picking up approximately five seats): city council seats in Pleasant Hill, Iowa (Ross Grooters), Billings, Montana(Denise Joy), Knoxville, Tennessee (Seema Singh Perez), Duluth, Minnesota (Joel Sipress) and Somerville, Massachusetts (JT Scott and Ben Ewen-Campen); and the seat in the Virginia House of Delegates contested by Carter, among other offices.[41][42] 56% of the DSA members who ran in this election cycle won compared to the 20% previously in 2016.[42] These results encouraged dozens more DSA members to run for office in the 2018 midterm elections.[8]

2018 elections

In the 2018 midterm elections, the DSA had anticipated seeing the first DSA member in Congress and reaching 100 elected officials nationwide from its strategic down-ballot campaigns.[5] 42 formally endorsed people were running for offices at the federal, state and local levels in 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas and Michigan; Maine’s Zak Ringelstein, a Democrat, was its sole senatorial candidate.[43] Local chapters have endorsed 110 candidates.[44] Four female DSA members (Sara InnamoratoSummer LeeElizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale) won Democratic primary contests for seats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, two of them defeating conservative male Democratic incumbents.[45][46][47][48] Additionally, Jade Bahr and Amelia Marquez won their primaries in Montana for the State House[49] and Jeremy Mele won his primary for the Maine House of Representatives.[50][51] In California, Jovanka Beckleswon one of the top two spots in the primary and advanced to the general election for a State Assembly seat in the East Bay.[52]

On June 26, DSA member and endorsee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic primary against incumbent Representative Joseph Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district in a surprise upset, virtually guaranteeing her the congressional seat in the heavily Democratic district which spans parts of the Bronx and Queens.[53][54] However, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed the win as “not to be viewed as something that stands for anything else”[55] and argued that it only represented change in one progressive district.[56] Conversely, head of the Democratic National Committee Tom Perez proclaimed her to be “the future of our party”[57] whereas the Trotskyist International Committee of the Fourth International critiqued her and the DSA as being a “left” cover for the “right-wing Democratic Party”, particularly in regard to foreign policy.[58] Six weeks after Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory, DSA member and endorsee Rashida Tlaib won the Democratic primary in Michigan’s 13th congressional district.[59] Both Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib went on to win their respective general elections to become members of Congress. Ultimately, about a dozen members (or non-members who were endorsed) won office in their state legislatures.[60] In the aggregate, the DSA had backed 40 winning candidates at the state, county and municipal levels.[11][61]

Ocasio-Cortez’s victory and the subsequent publicity for the DSA led to more than 1,000 new members joining the organization the next day, approximately 35 times the daily average[62] and their largest ever one-day increase in membership.[63] These signups helped boost the organization to 42,000 members nationally in June 2018.[64] That number increased to 50,000 by September 1, 2018.[65]

Membership

Members march at the Occupy Wall Street protest on September 17, 2011

Membership in the DSA can be obtained through the payment of annual dues, but no one is turned away for lack of funds.[66] Every member receives a paid subscription to the organization’s quarterly newsletter, Democratic Left.[67] The organization also offers “family memberships” at the rate of $80 which includes only one subscription to Democratic Left[68] and sells subscriptions to the publication to non-members for $10 per year.[69]

In the early 1980s, the estimated membership of the DSOC was 5,000, but after its merger with the NAM[70] the membership of the organization grew to an estimated 7,000 in 1987.[71] In 2002, Fox News said there were 8,000 members in the DSA[72] and three years later the organization announced on its website that its membership had increased by some 13% since July 2003 as the result of a direct mail campaign.[73]

The DSA does not release annual membership numbers, nor do officials of the organization state them with precision in the press. However, it does publish annually its sworn declaration of “Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation” in its official magazine so as to qualify for subsidized postage rates from the United States Postal Service. As this publication is sent out to paid members, with few copies sold through other channels, this provides an excellent proxy for paid membership. The total paid distribution numbers of Democratic Left over recent years are as follows:

Year Average total paid circulation Issue where statement appears
2001 5,846 Vol. 29, no. 3, p. 15
2002 Not published
2003 4,890 Vol. 31, no. 3, p. 2
2004 4,535 Vol. 32, no. 3, p. 2
2005 4,622 Vol. 33, no. 3, p. 15
2006 4,883 Vol. 34, no. 3, p. 3
2007 5,443 Vol. 35, no. 3, p. 3
2008 5,710 Vol. 36, no. 3, p. 3
2009 5,707 Vol. 37, no. 3, p. 3
2010 5,874 Vol. 38, no. 4, p. 15
2011 5,707 Vol. 39, no. 3, p. 12
2012 6,204 Vol. 40, no. 3, p. 3
2013 Not published
2014 6,445 Vol. 42, no. 3, p. 13
2015 6,216 Vol. 43, no. 3, p. 10
2016 6,745 Vol. 44, no. 3, p. 11
2017 28,811 Vol. 45, no. 3, p. 8
2018 46,261 Vol. 46, no. 3, p. 7
2019 30,484 Vol. 47, no. 3, p. 7

Two founding Idahoan DSA members at a big tent event in late September 2018

Following the election of Donald Trump as President, the DSA experienced a rapid expansion of its paid membership. In 2017, the organization passed a resolution calling for the national office to provide the group’s paid members with a copy of a financial report in non-convention years. A first such report covering the whole of 2017 and the first half of 2018 was published in August 2018.[74]

According to this August 2018 report, DSA membership was “consistently about 6,000” for the 2011 to 2015 period[74] before experiencing the following growth pattern:

Date Event Membership
June 1, 2016 Just before Democratic National Convention 6,500
November 1, 2016 Just before 2016 general election 7,600
November 17, 2016 Just after 2016 general election 10,000
January 30, 2017 Just after inauguration of Donald Trump 15,000
April 4, 2017 Date membership milestone reached 20,000
July 31, 2017 Date membership milestone reached 25,000
October 16, 2017 Date membership milestone reached 30,000
June 29, 2018 Date membership milestone reached 40,000
July 12, 2018 Date membership milestone reached 45,000
August 16, 2018 Closing date of National Office report 49,000
Source: Theresa Alt; Sasha Hammad (August 2018). 2017 Democratic Socialists of America financial report. Democratic Socialists of America.

This rise comes mainly from supporters of Bernie Sanders (the Senator from Vermont who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 as a self-described “democratic socialist”) as well as a growth in interest in left-wing politics amongst American youth, spurred on by social media organizing on Twitter,[19] publications such as The Baffler and Jacobin and the popular podcast Chapo Trap House.[75] Independent of the Sanders effect, polling indicates that Americans under age thirty have been warming up to the idea of socialism since the Obama administration and the Occupy movement.[76][77]

Given its burgeoning membership, the DSA faces several tactical and strategic issues, such as its relationship to the Democratic Party (particularly electoral politics vis-à-vis base building),[44] the administrative and ideological role of the national leadership in a bottom-up, deeply democratic organization, and its own demographic representation in an increasingly diverse country.[78][79]

As a big tent on the left with an emphasis on inclusivity,[80] the DSA is not politically monolithic and its decisions are often made by topic-specific committees.[81] Furthermore, chapters may organize themselves as horizontally or vertically as they see fit,[82] a matter of some contention.[83] While DSA chapters may choose to follow national initiatives, they sometimes focus on local, on-the-ground concerns such as brake light clinics to reduce interactions with the police,[84] disaster relief[85] or Medicaid expansion.[86] In late March 2018, for example, as a matter of policy the Denver Democratic Party adopted an anti-capitalist plank thanks to fifteen DSA members who had been elected at their caucus earlier that month. Issues ranging from municipal Wi-Fi to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctionsmovement against Israel had been discussed, but ultimately “something along the lines of the original Clause IV of the British Labour Party’s constitution, which explicitly advocated for common ownership of the means of production” was decided upon.[87]

Structure

The DSA is organized at the local level and works with labor unions, community organizations and campus activists on issues of common interest. Nationwide campaigns are coordinated by the organization’s national office in New York City. As of 2017, the DSA website listed 85 local chapters, two statewide chapters, 29 Young Democratic Socialist chapters and 63 organizing committees.[88] As of April 2018, 181 chapters were extant.[8]

Governance of the DSA is by the group’s National Political Committee (NPC), which since 2001 has been a 16-person body.[89] The DSA’s constitution states that at least eight of the NPC’s members shall be women and at least four members of “racial or national” minority groups.[90] A 17th vote is cast by the representative of the DSA’s youth affiliate who elect one male and one female delegate who split the vote. The NPC meets four times a year.[91]

The NPC elects an inner committee of six, including five of its own members and one representative of the youth section, called the Steering Committee. At least two of these are constitutionally required to be women and at least one a “person of color”, with the National Director and the Youth Section Organizer also participating as ex officio members. This Steering Committee meets bimonthly, either in person or by conference call.[92] The DSA has a Religion and Socialism Commission in which Cornel West has played a leading role. John Cort was a founding editor of the Commission’s magazine Religious Socialism.

The DSA publishes Democratic Left, a quarterly newsletter of news and analysis. This publication continues in an uninterrupted run from the original Newsletter of the Democratic Left published by the DSOC (the DSA forerunner) since its establishment in 1973. In 2008, DSA members active in the American labor movement founded Talking Union, a blog that focuses on labor politics, working class struggles and strategies.[93]

Student section

The Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) is the official student section of the DSA. The YDSA chapters and members are encouraged to pursue and promote a democratic socialist political education and participate in social justice activism, often taking part in anti-war, labor and student-issue marches and rallies. The YDSA publishes a newsletter called The Red Letter[94] and until recently also a blog titled The Activist.[95] The organization’s national activities revolve around supporting the DSA campaigns and initiatives and organizing various student conferences, usually held in New York City.

National conferences have taken place in February 2016 in Brooklyn[96] and August 2015 in Atlanta.[97]

The DSA received an unexpected boost in membership the very day National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre excoriated socialism in general and the YDSA in particular at the Conservative Political Action Conference session of February 22, 2018, whereupon more than 100 people signed up, three times the daily average.[98]

National conventions

The highest decision-making authority of the organization is the organization’s national conventions which are held biennially. These gatherings of the organization are as follows:

Year Dates of convention Location
1999 November 12–14 San Diego, CA
2001 November 9–11 Philadelphia, PA
2003 November 14–16 Detroit, MI
2005 November 11–13 Los Angeles, CA
2007 November 9–11 Atlanta, GA
2009 November 13–15 Evanston, IL
2011 November 11–13 Vienna, VA
2013 October 25–27 Emeryville, CA
2015 November 13–15 Bolivar, PA
2017 August 3–6 Chicago, IL

A student and young adult outreach conference hosted by the YDSA took place on February 13–15, 2015 in Manhattan.[99]

Political ideas of Michael Harrington

Throughout his life, Harrington embraced a democratic interpretation of the writings of Karl Marx while rejecting the “actually existing” systems of the Soviet UnionChina and the Eastern Bloc. In the 1980s, Harrington said:[14]

Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small “d”. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning […] and racial equality. I share an immediate program with liberals in this country because the best liberalism leads toward socialism. […] I want to be on the left wing of the possible.

Harrington made it clear that even if the traditional Marxist vision of a marketless, stateless society was not possible, he did not understand why this needed to “result in the social consequence of some people eating while others starve”.[100]

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the DSA voiced opposition to that nation’s bureaucratically managed economy and control over its satellite states.[101] The DSA welcomed Mikhail Gorbachev‘s reforms in the Soviet Union. Sociologist Bogdan Denitch wrote in the DSA’s Democratic Left (quoted in 1989):[102]

The aim of democrats and socialists should be […] to help the chances of successful reform in the Soviet bloc. […] While supporting liberalization and economic reforms from above, socialists should be particularly active in contacting and encouraging the tender shoots of democracy from below.

Harrington voiced admiration for German Social Democratic Chancellor Willy Brandt‘s Ostpolitik, which sought to reduce antagonism between Western Europe and Soviet states.[103] As co-chairman of the DSA, Michael Harrington wrote:

[Willy Brandt] launched his famous ostpolitik (Eastern policy), and moved toward detente with the Soviets and Eastern Europeans–a strategy that was to win him the Nobel Peace Prize. Disaster came in 1974. There was a spy scandal–a member of Brandt’s inner circle turned out to be an East German agent–and the chancellor resigned his office.[104]

Social democracy and welfare

One older leaflet detailing the group’s official ideas, “What is Democratic Socialism? Questions and Answers from the Democratic Socialists of America”, states that “no country has fully instituted democratic socialism”. Nonetheless, according to the DSA there are lessons to be learned from “the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national healthcare system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs“.[105] The “tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality” established by the social democratic parties of the countries of Scandinavia and parts of Western Europe are lauded.[105]

Policy and ideology

The DSA’s ideas are somewhat influenced by those of its first chairman Michael Harrington, Chairman of the League for Industrial Democracy (1964) and member of the National Executive Board of the Socialist Party of America (1960–1968). Opposed to capitalism and then-existing versions of socialism alike as cruel and anti-libertarian social systems, Harrington advocated working for a realignment of the Democratic Party, transforming it from an amorphous amalgam of conservativecentrist and left-liberal politicians into something like a Western European social democratic party, within which the DSA would be the anti-capitalist left-wing. The DSA Constitution outlines the basic notion behind its ideology as follows:[106]

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.

The DSA sees itself as a big tent and multi-tendency organization with members expressing a wide range of socialist and anti-capitalist views.[107][108] DSA members have views ranging from eco-socialism,[109] democratic socialism,[110] revolutionary socialism,[111]libertarian socialism[112] and communism[113] to Bernie Sanders-style social democracy. Some of these views are represented in different working groups and caucuses within the DSA including the Communist Caucus, the Refoundation Caucus and the Libertarian Socialist Caucus.

The DSA regards the end of capitalism and the realization of socialism as a gradual long-term goal, therefore the organization focuses its immediate political energies on reforms within capitalism that empower working people while decreasing the power of corporations:[114]

As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people.

Socialism

On its website page “What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A”, the DSA characterizes its vision of socialism as an economic system based on maximum decentralization that can be supportive of a range of models for social ownership, including publicly owned enterprisesand worker-owned cooperatives. The DSA rejects centralized economic planning in favor of a combination of democratic planning and market mechanisms:[115]

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives. Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Because the DSA does not believe capitalism and private corporations can be immediately replaced with socialism, it is favorable to using government regulations and organized labor to make private businesses more accountable to the public interest:[116]

In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.

Internationalism

The DSA uses both its former and current logo on its stationery in sending out its membership cards, with the latter on its letterhead being illustrated below

At the 2017 DSA Convention, the group announced its withdrawal from the Socialist International (SI). The resolution passed states that the DSA will “[build] direct relationships with socialist and left parties and social movements around the world that we can learn from and which share our values. […] Our affiliation with the Socialist International hinders our ability to develop stronger relationships with parties and social movements that share our values and which, in many cases, are bitterly opposed to their country’s SI affiliate(s)”.[117][118] It also passed a resolution which solidified the DSA’s solidarity with the cause of the Palestinian people and with the movement of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: “Democratic Socialists of America condemns all efforts to deny the right of Palestinians in the United States and their allies to free speech, assembly, and academic freedom”.[117] The resolution further condemned Israeli actions, comparing those actions to apartheid.[118]

The DSA has shown its solidarity with Ahed Tamimi. The organization called for immediate release from detention. The statement also reiterated the DSA’s support for the liberation of the Palestinian people.[119]

In 2016, the DSA issued a statement of solidarity with Venezuela. The statement called the sanctions placed on Venezuela by the Obama administration unjust and illegal. It called for the United States to cease its interference in Venezuelan affairs, saying: “We call on the President and Congress to reverse these actions and stop seeking to undermine the Venezuelan people and their legitimate, democratically elected government”.[120]

The DSA opposes United States intervention in the Syrian Civil War. A statement issued in April 2017 called the intervention by the Trump administration both a violation of domestic and international law. In the same statement, the DSA called for protests of Trump’s actions and for the lobbying of Congress to halt any further intervention.[121]

Anti-fascism

The DSA maintains itself as an anti-racist and anti-fascist organization.[122] Members have been present at various anti-fascist marches and protests, including counterprotests against the Unite the Right rally in CharlottesvilleVirginia, the Boston Free Speech Rally and many other right-wing rallies surrounding the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. The DSA positions itself with other left-wing groups who fight fascism in the United States, including the Industrial Workers of the World, the International Socialist Organization and groups involved in the antifa movement.[123] The organization also criticizes the police in the United States for their handling of anti-fascist activities and activities of such groups as Black Lives Matter.[123]

The DSA connects this fight with fascist groups to its broader struggle against capitalism, saying on its website: “We believe that the terror unleashed on our comrades can be defeated. We also believe that the wider system of racist oppression can be defeated, but only with the ending of the capitalist system which birthed it”.[123] The organization believes in defending communities from neofascist violence and building a multi-racial working class movement.[124] This involves deplatforming reactionary and racist groups and events, believing that a united front of left-wing organizations need to confront these forces wherever they appear.[125]

Labor movement and worker’s rights

The DSA has long been a supporter and defender of the labor movement in the United States and has also argued for the increase of international worker solidarity.[126] The DSA believes in a livable minimum wage for all workers, but it notes that this fight only goes so far and is only the first step in building a more humane economic system: “Ultimately the minimum wage only works for those lucky enough to find a job – even a low paying one – and it doesn’t really “work” for them, because it doesn’t come with health benefits, adequate schools, or enough money to set aside for retirement”.[127] The DSA members have been supporters and active participants in fights to increase the minimum wage across the country, including the Fight for $15 protests,[128][129] stating:

As socialists we believe there is no strong socialist movement without a militant and powerful labor movement.

— Democratic Socialist Labor Commission[130]

The DSA opposes right to work laws, which are seen as an attack on the rights of workers and the historic advances or the labor movement.[131] It is argued that the enactment of these laws reduces the efficacy of collective bargaining agreements, putting workers at a disadvantage.[131] In a statement released in 2014, the organization said: “Such “right to work” laws consciously aim to weaken union strength; they are the main reason why the “right to work” is, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, “the right to work for less”.[131]

The DSA argues that financial elites have consciously fought to destroy union power in an effort to solidify the hegemony of markets and corporate power.[126] The organization believes that for an equitable and sustainable economic system that the production of wealth should be under the democratic control of those who produce it.[126] The DSA also emphasizes the role played by immigrants, women, disabled workers, LGBTQIA+ and workers of color in the broader labor movement, believing that all barriers between working people must be broken in order to help create and maintain a broad and unified labor movement.[130]

LGBT rights

The DSA is committed to the rights of the LGBT community, connecting anti-gay prejudice to capitalist exploitation. This includes pushes for equal rights and protections for all those who identify as LGBTQIA+ as well as rights to housing, jobs, education, public accommodations and healthcare. The DSA recognizes that those who are most discriminated against based on identity are disproportionately women and people of color. The organization also seeks to ensure public schools are safe places for LGBTQIA+ students and that students should have total access to facilities which reflect their gender. The DSA supports protection of same-sex marriages, but it “views marriage as only a first step in recognizing the diversity of human relationships”.[132]

Socialist feminism

The DSA aligns itself with the socialist-feminist movement. The organization holds that capitalism is built on white supremacy as well as male supremacy. The DSA maintains that reproductive rights are central to the feminist movement. Connecting democratic socialism and socialist feminism, the DSA says “that birth control and safe abortion should be provided as part of a comprehensive single-payer healthcare program”. Believing that electoral politics can only take socialist feminism so far, the organization also says that the emphasis must be on community based grass roots movements. The DSA further says that socialist feminism must include the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.[133]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

The DSA is opposed to Zionism and the current form of the State of Israel. Members view them as imperialism and a form of ethnostate.[134][135] The DSA formerly supported Israel throughout much of its history, including socialist and progressive individuals and movements inside the state. As late as 2012, one former DSA leader described the group as “the place to go on the left if you were a socialist and you were pro-Israel”.[135] Alternet noted that this has been a dividing issue, with older members “tried to reconcile socialism with Zionism” while younger members recognizes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as a “time-tested means of nonviolent protest” and “the most powerful force to combat Israeli apartheid in the 21st century”.[134] On August 5, 2017, members of the organization voted almost unanimously to pass a motion to formally endorse the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.[134][135] Jewish Solidarity Caucus, a subgroup formed by Jewish DSA members prior to the motion, stated in their founding declaration that “Zionism cannot vanquish antisemitism” and “as socialists we detest all exclusivist nationalisms”.[135]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America

 

Story 2: Bernie Sanders Running Again For President — Transforming America Into A Socialist State — Bernie Sanders/Kamala Harris 2020 Presidential Ticket? — No Sale — Videos —

See the source imageSee the source image

Bernie Sanders announces 2020 presidential run

Bernie Sanders announces 2020 run: Extended interview

Bernie Sanders launches 2020 presidential campaign, joining growing list of Democratic candidates

Bernie Sanders reportedly gears up for 2020 run for president

Bernie To Announce 2020 Presidential Run

Sen. Kamala Harris announces 2020 presidential run

Who Is Kamala Harris? | 2020 Presidential Candidate | NYT News

Democrats debate Sanders vs. Harris in 2020

Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism

Socialism Makes People Selfish

Myths, Lies and Capitalism

Why Capitalism Works

What Creates Wealth?

The War on Work

The War On Cars

The Least Free Place in America

Bernie Sanders enters 2020 presidential race: ‘Complete the revolution’

The Vermont senator, 77, enters a very different Democratic primary contest than the one he faced in 2016 versus Hillary Clinton.
 / Updated 
By Alex Seitz-Wald

WASHINGTON — Bernie Sanders is campaigning for president again, officially entering the crowded 2020 Democratic presidential field on Tuesday with a vow to finish what he started in his last race for the White House.

“Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for,” Sanders said in an email to supporters and a video announcing his candidacy.

The 77-year-old independent senator from Vermont, who started his political career as a gadfly perennial candidate, remains a pacesetter of progressive politics in America, helping to craft a liberal agenda that includes everything from Medicare for All to a $15 minimum wage to free college tuition.

He broke the news confirming another presidential bid early Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio, saying in an interview that he promises to “take the values that all of us in Vermont are proud of — a belief in justice, in community, in grassroots politics, in town meetings — that’s what I’m going to carry all over this country.”

Early polls show him far ahead of the rest of the pack and trailing only former Vice President Joe Biden in the nascent 2020 field.

“Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were ‘radical,’ and ‘extreme,'” Sanders said in the email. “These policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.”

But with greater expectations comes less room for error, and given the size of the still-growing 2020 field, potentially less room to grow.

Sanders will come under more scrutiny than ever before from both the press and political rivals, including questions about sexual harassment allegations against 2016 campaign staffers that have roiled his campaign-in-waiting in recent months.

And instead of being the main alternative to a prohibitive front-runner, as he was against Hillary Clinton, Sanders now faces stiff competition from a wide array of candidates for his core supporters of progressives and young people.

Even some of Sanders’ former staffers have already signed on with other candidates, though many have remained loyal.

And some Democrats remain bitter about 2016, accusing Sanders and his followers of damaging Clinton in ways that contributed to her defeat to Donald Trump.

But at the same time, Sanders will be much less lonely in the Democratic Party of 2019 than the one that existed in 2015 when he entered the presidential race.

A small but vocal political ecosystem sympathetic to Sanders has sprung up since his first run, including political groups, left-leaning media organizations, such as the Intercept, and elected officials, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Meanwhile, the so-called establishment of the party that Sanders rails against is now fractured among several competing candidates.

Thanks in large part to pressure from him, the Democratic National Committee has greatly diminished the power of superdelegates in the nominating process, after they almost uniformly opposed Sanders in 2016.

And in a crowded field, a candidate who can hang onto a loyal base of supporters can win the nomination, even without a majority, as Trump proved in the GOP primary.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany labeled Sanders’ past policy proposals as socialism in a statement Tuesday.

“Bernie Sanders has already won the debate in the Democrat primary, because every candidate is embracing his brand of socialism,” McEnany said. “But the American people will reject an agenda of sky-high tax rates, government-run health care and coddling dictators like those in Venezuela.”

Sanders 2020 will likely focus more on racial and gender inequality than did Sanders 2016, as he suggested in his announcement email and on Vermont Public Radio.

“I think the current occupant of the White House is an embarrassment to our country,” he said. “I think he is a pathological liar. … I also think he is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, somebody who is gaining cheap political points by trying to pick on minorities, often undocumented immigrants.”

Jeff Weaver has said he will not return as campaign manager, though he is expected to play a different senior role, to make way for a more diverse team of senior aides.

And Sanders is also expected to focus more on his personal history, something he chafed at doing last time around, highlighting his Brooklyn roots and activism in the Civil Rights Movement as a student at the University of Chicago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-enters-2020-presidential-race-complete-revolution-n972906

Bernie Sanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders.jpg
United States Senator
from Vermont
Assumed office
January 3, 2007

Serving with Patrick Leahy
Preceded by Jim Jeffords
Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee
Assumed office
January 3, 2015
Preceded by Jeff Sessions
Chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee
In office
January 3, 2013 – January 3, 2015
Preceded by Patty Murray
Succeeded by Johnny Isakson
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Vermont‘s at-large district
In office
January 3, 1991 – January 3, 2007
Preceded by Peter Plympton Smith
Succeeded by Peter Welch
37th Mayor of Burlington
In office
April 6, 1981 – April 4, 1989
Preceded by Gordon Paquette
Succeeded by Peter Clavelle
Personal details
Born
Bernard Sanders

September 8, 1941 (age 77)
BrooklynNew York City, U.S.

Political party Democratic (2015–2016; 2019-present)[1]
Other political
affiliations
Spouse(s)
Children Levi Sanders
Relatives Larry Sanders (brother)
Education Brooklyn College
University of Chicago (BA)
Signature Official signature of Bernie Sanders
Website Senate website

Bernard Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician serving as the junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. The longest-serving Independent in congressional history, he was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 and caucuses with the Democratic Party, enabling his appointment to congressional committees and at times giving Democrats a majority.

Sanders was born and raised in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, and attended Brooklyn College before graduating from the University of Chicago in 1964. While a student he was an active protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the civil rights movement. After settling in Vermont in 1968, Sanders ran unsuccessful third-party political campaigns in the early to mid-1970s. As an independent, he was elected mayor of Burlington—the state’s most populous city—in 1981, by a margin of ten votes. He was reelected three times. He won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990, representing Vermont’s at-large congressional district; he later co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Sanders served as a U.S. Representative for 16 years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. He has been reelected to the Senate twice: in 2012 and 2018.

On April 30, 2015, Sanders announced his campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Initially considered a long shot, he went on to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates, to Hillary Clinton‘s 55%. His campaign was noted for its supporters’ enthusiasm, as well as for his rejection of large donations from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated Super PAC. On July 12, 2016, he formally endorsed Clinton in her general election campaign against Republican Donald Trump, while urging his supporters to continue the “political revolution” his campaign began.

A self-described democratic socialist and progressive, Sanders is pro-labor rights and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.[3] He advocates for universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, as well as tuition-free tertiary education. On foreign policy, Sanders broadly supports reducing military spending, pursuing more diplomacy and international cooperation, and putting greater emphasis on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements. On February 19, 2019, Sanders announced a second presidential campaign against incumbent President Donald Trump. He joined multiple other Democratic candidates for the presidency, including Elizabeth WarrenKamala Harris and Cory Booker.[4]

Early life

Sanders as a senior in high school, 1959

Sanders was born on September 8, 1941, in BrooklynNew York City.[5][6][7][8] His father, Elias Ben Yehuda Sanders,[9] was born in SłopniceGalicia in Austria-Hungary (now part of Poland),[10][11] to a Jewish family; in 1921, Elias immigrated to the United States, where he became a paint salesman.[10][12][13] His mother, Dorothy “Dora” Sanders (née Glassberg), was born in New York City[14][15] to Jewish immigrant parents from Poland and Russia.[16][17]

Sanders became interested in politics at an early age: “A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”[a][20][21][22] In the 1940s, many of Sanders’ relatives in German-occupied Poland were killed in the Holocaust, including Bernie’s uncle Abraham Schnützer, who was killed in 1942.[9][15][23][24][25]

Sanders lived on East 26th Street in Midwood, Brooklyn.[26] He attended elementary school at P.S. 197 in Brooklyn, where he won a borough championship on the basketball team.[27][28] He attended Hebrew school in the afternoons, and celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954.[24] Sanders’s older brother, Larry, said that during their childhood, the family never lacked for food or clothing, but major purchases, “like curtains or a rug,” were difficult to afford.[29]

Sanders attended James Madison High School, also in Brooklyn, where he was captain of the track team and took third place in the New York City indoor one-mile race.[27] In high school, Sanders lost his first election, finishing last out of three candidates for the student body presidency. Not long after his high school graduation, his mother died at the age of 46;[15][24] his father died a few years later on August 4, 1962, at the age of 57.[11]

Sanders studied at Brooklyn College for a year in 1959–60[30] before transferring to the University of Chicago and graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in political science in 1964.[30] He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was “boring and irrelevant,” while the community provided his most significant learning.[31]

Early career

Political activism

While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America),[32] and was active in the Civil Rights Movement as a student for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).[23][33] Under Sanders’s chairmanship, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC.[34] In January 1962, Sanders went to a rally at the University of Chicago administration building to protest university president George Wells Beadle‘s segregated campus housing policy. “We feel it is an intolerable situation when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university-owned apartments,” Sanders said at the protest. Sanders and 32 other students then entered the building and camped outside the president’s office.[35][36] After weeks of sit-ins, Beadle and the university formed a commission to investigate discrimination.[37] Joan Mahoney, a member of the University of Chicago CORE chapter at the time and a fellow participant in the sit-ins, described Sanders in a 2016 interview as “… a swell guy, a nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn, but he wasn’t terribly charismatic. One of his strengths, though, was his ability to work with a wide group of people, even those he didn’t agree with”.[38] Sanders once spent a day putting up fliers protesting against police brutality, only to eventually notice that a Chicago police car was shadowing him and taking them all down.[39]

Sanders attended the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.[23][39][40] That summer, he was fined $25 for resisting arrest during a demonstration against segregation in Chicago’s public schools.[41][42]

In addition to his civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s,[43] Sanders was active in several peace and antiwar movements. He was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union while attending the University of Chicago. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted. Although he opposed the war, Sanders never criticized those who fought and has been a strong supporter of veterans’ benefits.[44][45] Sanders also worked on the reelection campaign of Leon Despres, a prominent Chicago alderman who was opposed to mayor Richard J. Daley‘s Democratic Party machine. During his student years he also read a variety of American and European political authors, from Thomas JeffersonAbraham Lincoln, and John Dewey to Karl Marx and Erich Fromm.[46]

Professional history

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.[31] In 1968, Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been “captivated by rural life.” After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter,[32] filmmaker, and writer[47] who created and sold “radical film strips” and other educational materials to schools.[48] He also wrote several articles for the alternative publication The Vermont Freeman.[49]

Liberty Union campaigns

Sanders began his electoral political career in 1971 as a member of the Liberty Union Party, which originated in the anti-war movement and the People’s Party. He ran as the Liberty Union candidate for governor of Vermont in 1972 and 1976 and as a candidate for U.S. senator in 1972 and 1974.[50] In the 1974 senatorial race, Sanders finished third (5,901 votes; 4%), behind 33-year-old Chittenden County State’s Attorney Patrick Leahy (D, VI; 70,629 votes; 49%) and two-term incumbent U.S. Representative Dick Mallary (R; 66,223 votes; 46%).[51][52]

The 1976 campaign proved to be the zenith of Liberty Union’s influence, with Sanders collecting 11,000 votes for governor and the party. This forced the races for lieutenant governor and secretary of state to be decided by the state legislature when its vote total prevented either the Republican or Democratic candidates for those offices from garnering a majority of votes.[53] The campaign drained the finances and energy of the Liberty Union, however, and in October 1977, less than a year after the conclusion of the 1976 campaign, Sanders and the Liberty Union candidate for attorney general, Nancy Kaufman, announced their retirement from the party.[53]

Following his resignation from the Liberty Union Party in 1977, Sanders worked as a writer and the director of the nonprofit American People’s Historical Society (APHS).[54] While with the APHS, he made a 30-minute documentary about American Socialist leader and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs.[32][55]

Mayor of Burlington

Burlington, Vermont City Hall, where Sanders was mayor for eight years

In 1980, Sanders ran for mayor of Burlington, Vermont (pop. 38,000), at the suggestion of his close friend and political confidante Richard Sugarman, a professor of religion at the University of Vermont. He was mayor for eight years, from April 6, 1981, to April 4, 1989.[56]

Campaigns

The 39-year-old Sanders ran against incumbent Democratic mayor Gordon “Gordie” Paquette, a five-term mayor who had served as a member of the Burlington City Council for 13 years before that, building extensive community ties and a willingness to cooperate with Republican leaders in controlling appointments to various commissions. Republicans had found Paquette so unobjectionable that they failed to field a candidate in the March 1981 race against him, leaving Sanders as his principal opponent. Sanders’s effort was further aided by the decision of the candidate of the Citizens Party, Greg Guma, to exit the race so as not to split the progressive vote. Two other candidates in the race, independents Richard Bove and Joe McGrath, proved to be essentially non-factors in the campaign, with the battle coming down to Paquette and Sanders.[53]

Sanders castigated the pro-development incumbent as an ally of prominent shopping center developer Antonio Pomerleau, while Paquette warned of ruin for Burlington if Sanders was elected. The Sanders campaign was bolstered by a wave of optimistic volunteers as well as by a series of endorsements from university professors, social welfare agencies, and the police union. The final result came as a shock to the local political establishment, with the maverick Sanders winning by just 10 votes.[53]

Sanders was reelected three times, defeating both Democratic and Republican candidates. He received 53% of the vote in 1983 and 55% in 1985.[57] In his final run for mayor in 1987, Sanders defeated Paul Lafayette, a Democrat endorsed by both major parties.[58] In 1986, Sanders unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Governor Madeleine Kunin (D) in her run for reelection. Running as an independent, Sanders finished third with 14% of the vote. Kunin won with 47%, followed by Lt. Governor Peter P. Smith (R) with 38%.

After serving four two-year terms, Sanders chose not to seek reelection in 1989. He lectured in political science at Harvard University‘s Kennedy School of Government that year and at Hamilton College in 1991.[59]

Administration

During his mayoralty, Sanders called himself a socialist and was so described in the press.[60][61] During his first term, his supporters, including the first Citizens Party City Councilor Terry Bouricius, formed the Progressive Coalition, the forerunner of the Vermont Progressive Party.[62] The Progressives never held more than six seats on the 13-member city council, but they had enough to keep the council from overriding Sanders’s vetoes. Under Sanders, Burlington became the first city in the country to fund community-trust housing.[63]

During the 1980s, Sanders was a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.[64] In 1985, Burlington City Hall hosted a foreign policy speech by Noam Chomsky. In his introduction, Sanders praised Chomsky as “a very vocal and important voice in the wilderness of intellectual life in America” and said he was “delighted to welcome a person who I think we’re all very proud of.”[65][66]

Sanders’s administration balanced the city budget and drew a minor league baseball team, the Vermont Reds, then the Double-A affiliate of the Cincinnati Reds, to Burlington.[15] Under his leadership, Burlington sued the local television cable franchise, winning reduced rates for customers.[15]

As mayor, Sanders led extensive downtown revitalization projects. One of his primary achievements was the improvement of Burlington’s Lake Champlain waterfront.[15] In 1981, Sanders campaigned against the unpopular plans by Burlington developer Tony Pomerleau to convert the then-industrial[67] waterfront property owned by the Central Vermont Railway into expensive condominiums, hotels, and offices.[68] Sanders ran under the slogan “Burlington is not for sale” and successfully supported a plan that redeveloped the waterfront area into a mixed-use district featuring housing, parks, and public space.[68] Today, the waterfront area includes many parks and miles of public beach and bike paths, a boathouse, and a science center.[68]

Sanders hosted and produced a public-access television program, Bernie Speaks with the Community, from 1986 to 1988.[69][70] He collaborated with 30 Vermont musicians to record a folk album, We Shall Overcome, in 1987.[71][72]

In 1987, U.S. News & World Report ranked Sanders as one of America’s best mayors.[73] As of 2013, Burlington was regarded as one of the most livable cities in the nation.[74][75]

U.S. House of Representatives

Representative Sanders in 1991

Sanders meeting in 1993 with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton (his future rival in the 2016 Democratic primaries) to discuss her plan to reform the healthcare system

Sanders’s 1990 victory made him the first independent candidate to be elected to Congress since Frazier Reams in 1950. It was noted by The Washington Post and others as the first election of a socialist to the United States House of Representatives in decades.[76][77] Sanders served in the House from 1991 until he became a senator in 2007.

Elections

In 1988, incumbent Republican Congressman Jim Jeffords decided to run for the U.S. Senate, vacating the House seat representing Vermont’s at-large congressional district. Former Lieutenant Governor Peter P. Smith (R) won the House election with a plurality, securing 41% of the vote. Sanders, who ran as an independent, placed second with 38% of the vote, while Democratic State Representative Paul N. Poirier placed third with 19% of the vote.[78] Two years later, Sanders ran for the seat again and defeated the incumbent Smith by a margin of 56% to 39%.[79]

Sanders was the first independent elected to the U.S. House of Representatives since Frazier Reams‘s election to represent Ohio 40 years earlier.[77] He served as a representative for 16 years, winning reelection by large margins except during the 1994 Republican Revolution, when he won by 3%, with 50% of the vote.[80]

Legislation

Sanders meeting with students at Milton High School in Milton, Vermont, 2004

During his first year in the House, Sanders often alienated allies and colleagues with his criticism of both political parties as working primarily on behalf of the wealthy. In 1991, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of mostly liberal Democrats that Sanders chaired for its first eight years,[15] while still refusing to join the Democratic Party or caucus.[81]

Banking reform

In 1999, Sanders voted and advocated against rolling back the Glass–Steagall Legislation provisions that kept investment banks and commercial banks separate entities.[82] He was a vocal critic of Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan; in June 2003, during a question-and-answer discussion with the then-Chairman, Sanders told him that he was concerned that Greenspan was “way out of touch” and “that you see your major function in your position as the need to represent the wealthy and large corporations”.[83][84] In October 2008, after Sanders had been elected to the Senate, Greenspan admitted to Congress that his economic ideology regarding risky mortgage loans was flawed.[85][86]

Gun-related

In 1993, Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, which mandated federal background checks when buying guns and imposed a waiting period on firearm purchasers in the United States; the bill passed by a vote of 238–187.[87][88]

In 1994, Sanders voted in favor of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Sanders said he voted for the bill “because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons”. He was nevertheless extremely critical of the other parts of the bill.[89][90] Although he acknowledged that “clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them”, he maintained in his intervention before the House that the government’s ill-thought policies played a large part in “dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence”. In this same intervention, he argued that the repressive policies introduced by the bill were not addressing the causes of violence, stating that “we can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails”.[91]

In 1998, Sanders voted for a bill that would have increased minimum sentencing for possession of a gun while committing a federal crime to 10 years in prison, including nonviolent crimes such as marijuana possession.[92][93][94]

In 2005, he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[95] The act’s purpose was to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.[96] As of 2016 Sanders has said that he has changed his position and would vote for legislation to defeat this bill.[97]

Patriot Act

Sanders was a consistent critic of the Patriot Act.[98] As a member of Congress, he voted against the original Patriot Act legislation.[99] After its 357-to-66 passage in the House, Sanders sponsored and voted for several subsequent amendments and acts attempting to curtail its effects,[100] and voted against each re-authorization.[101] In June 2005, Sanders proposed an amendment to limit Patriot Act provisions that allow the government to obtain individuals’ library and book-buying records. The amendment passed the House by a bipartisan majority, but was removed on November 4 of that year in House–Senate negotiations and never became law.[102]

War in Iraq

Sanders voted against the resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[103] that has been cited as the legal justification for controversial military actions since the September 11 attacks.[104] Sanders voted for a non-binding resolution expressing support for troops at the outset of the invasion of Iraq, but gave a floor speech criticizing the partisan nature of the vote and the George W. Bush administration’s actions in the run-up to the war. Regarding the investigation of what turned out to be a leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame‘s identity by a State Department official, Sanders stated: “The revelation that the President authorized the release of classified information in order to discredit an Iraq war critic should tell every member of Congress that the time is now for a serious investigation of how we got into the war in Iraq and why Congress can no longer act as a rubber stamp for the President.”[105]

Other

In 1996, Sanders voted against a bill that would have prohibited police purchasing of tanks and armored carriers.[92][106]

On November 2, 2005, Sanders voted against the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which would have exempted the Internet from the campaign finance restrictions of the McCain–Feingold Bill.[107]

U.S. Senate

Elections

Sanders being sworn in as a U.S. senator by then Vice President Dick Cheney in the Old Senate Chamber, January 2007

Sanders entered the race for the U.S. Senate on April 21, 2005, after Senator Jim Jeffords announced that he would not seek a fourth term. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, a critical move as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who “votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.”[108] Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont in March 2006.[109] Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.[110][111]

In the most expensive political campaign in Vermont’s history,[112] Sanders defeated businessman Rich Tarrant by an approximately 2-to-1 margin. Many national media outlets projected Sanders as the winner just after the polls closed, before any returns came in. He was reelected in 2012 with 71% of the vote,[113] and again in 2018 with 67% of the vote.[114]

Legislation

Prior to his 2016 presidential run, Sanders was known as a legislator who advocated for progressive causes, but “rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it.”[115] According to The New York Times, “Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate … Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.”[116] During his time in the Senate, Sanders had lower “legislative effectiveness” than the average Senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[117]

Banking reform

Sanders has advocated greater democratic participation by citizens, campaign finance reform, and a constitutional amendment or judicial decision that would overturn Citizens United v. FEC.[118][119][120] He calls for comprehensive financial reforms,[121] such as breaking up “too big to fail” financial institutions, restoring Glass–Steagall legislation, reforming the Federal Reserve Bank and allowing the Post Office to offer basic financial services in economically marginalized communities.[126]

File:Bernie Sanders - full 2010-12-10 filibuster.webm

Sanders spoke for more than eight hours in his December 2010 filibuster.

On September 24, 2008, Sanders posted an open letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decrying the initial bank bailout proposal; it drew more than 8,000 citizen cosigners in 24 hours.[127] On January 26, 2009, Sanders and Democrats Robert ByrdRuss Feingold, and Tom Harkin were the sole majority members to vote against confirming Timothy Geithner as United States Secretary of the Treasury.[128]

In 2008 and 2009, Sanders voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (also referred to as the Wall Street bailout) which was a program to purchase toxic banking assets and provide loans to banks which were in free fall at the time.[129][130] Among Sanders’ proposed financial reforms is the auditing of the Federal Reserve, which would reduce the independence of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy deliberations; Federal Reserve officials say that ‘Audit the Fed’ legislation would expose the Federal Reserve to undue political pressure from lawmakers who do not like its decisions.[131][132][133]

In 2016, Sanders voted for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which included proposals for a reformed audit of the Federal Reserve System.[131][132][133]

Supreme Court nominees

On March 17, 2016, Sanders said he would support Merrick Garland‘s nomination to the Supreme Court, though he added, “there are some more progressive judges out there.”[134]

Sanders opposed Neil Gorsuch‘s nomination to the Court, saying that Gorsuch had “refused to answer legitimate questions.”[135] Sanders also objected to the possibility of Senate Republicans using the nuclear option to “choke off debate and ram the nomination through the Senate.”[135] Sanders voted against confirmation of Gorsuch as Associate Supreme Court Justice.[136]

Taxes

On December 10, 2010, Sanders delivered an ​8 12–hour speech against the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the proposed extension of the Bush-era tax rates that eventually became law, arguing that the legislation would favor the wealthiest Americans. “Enough is enough!  … How many homes can you own?” he asked.[137][138][139] A long speech such as this is commonly known as a filibuster, but because it did not block action, it was not technically a filibuster under Senate rules.[140]

In response to the speech, hundreds of people signed online petitions urging Sanders to run in the 2012 presidential election, and pollsters began measuring his support in key primary states.[141] Progressive activists such as Rabbi Michael Lerner and economist David Korten publicly voiced their support for a prospective Sanders run against President Barack Obama.[141] Sanders’s speech was published in February 2011 by Nation Books as The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class, with authorial proceeds going to Vermont nonprofit charitable organizations.[142]

Labor

Sanders introduced legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, April 2017

In April 2017, Sanders introduced a bill that would raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $15 an hour – an increase over an earlier Democratic $12 an hour proposal – which was co-sponsored by two other progressive Democrats.[143]

On May 9, 2018, Sanders introduced the Workplace Democracy Act, a bill that would expand labor rights by making it easier for workers to join a union, ban right-to-work laws and some anti-union provisions of the Taft Hartley Act, and outlaw some union-busting tactics. It was endorsed by several Democratic senators, including Elizabeth WarrenKirsten GillibrandTammy Baldwin and Sherrod Brown. Announcing the legislation, Sanders said, “If we are serious about reducing income and wealth inequality and rebuilding the middle class, we have got to substantially increase the number of union jobs in this country.”[144]

On September 5, 2018, Sanders partnered with Ro Khanna to introduce the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (Stop BEZOS) Act, which would require large corporations to pay for food stamps and Medicaid benefits their employees receive, rather than shifting the burden onto taxpayers.[145] Khanna said, “if you bag groceries, you should be able to buy groceries.” Sanders said, “Taxpayers in this country should not be subsidizing a guy who’s worth $150 billion, whose wealth is increasing by $260 million every single day,” referring to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.[146][147] The bill has received some support from conservatives; Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson endorsed the proposal on air.[148] On October 2, 2018, Bezos raised the minimum wage at Amazon to $15, effective November 1; Sanders commended him.[149]

Committees and caucuses

Senators participate in committees that are responsible for certain types of legislation and in caucuses that build a legislative constituency for shaping legislation of interest to its members.

Committee assignments

As an independent, Sanders worked out a deal with the Senate Democratic leadership in which he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless the Democratic whipDick Durbin, agreed that he need not (a request rarely made or granted). In return, he was allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat; in 2013–14, he was chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (during the Veterans Health Administration scandal).[150][151]

Sanders became the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee in January 2015; he had previously been chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee for two years. Since January 2017, he has been Chair of the Senate Democratic Outreach Committee.[151] He appointed economics professor Stephanie Kelton, a modern monetary theory scholar and self-described “deficit owl”, as the chief economic adviser for the committee’s Democratic minority[152] and presented a report aimed at helping “rebuild the disappearing middle class”, which included proposals to raise the minimum wage, boost infrastructure spending, and increase Social Security payments.[153]

According to his senate website, Sanders’s other committee assignments during 2016 were as follows:[154]

Caucus memberships

Sanders was only the third senator from Vermont to caucus with the Democrats, after Jeffords and Leahy. His caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51–49 majority in the Senate during the 110th Congress in 2007–08. The Democrats needed 51 seats to control the Senate because Vice President Dick Cheney would have broken any tie in favor of the Republicans.[155] He is a member of the following caucuses:

Approval ratings

Polling conducted in August 2011 by Public Policy Polling found that Sanders’s approval rating was 67% and his disapproval rating 28%, making him then the third-most popular senator in the country.[157] Both the NAACP and the NHLA have given Sanders 100% voting scores during his tenure in the Senate.[158] In 2015, Sanders was named one of the Top 5 of The Forward 50.[159] In a November 2015 Morning Consult poll, Sanders had an approval rating of 83% among his constituents, making him the most popular senator in the country.[160] Fox News found Sanders to have the highest net favorability at +28 points of any prominent politician included in its March 2017 poll.[161] He ranked third in 2014 and first in both 2015 and 2016.[160][157][162]

In April 2017, a nationwide Harvard-Harris Poll found Sanders had the highest favorability rating of the leading political figures included in the poll,[163] a standing confirmed by subsequent polling.[164][165] Several 2018 national polls have shown that former Vice President Joe Biden is Democrats’ top choice for the party’s 2020 nomination, with Sanders second.[166] In a June 2018 poll, Sanders was third, behind Clinton in second and Biden in first.[167]

2016 presidential campaign

Sanders speaking in Conway, New Hampshire, August 2015

Sanders supporters lined up to hear him speak in Seattle, Washington, March 2016

Sanders speaking at Rutgers University in May 2016

Sanders announced his intention to seek the Democratic Party‘s nomination for President of the United States on April 30, 2015,[168][169][170] and his campaign was officially launched on May 26, 2015, in Burlington.[169] In his announcement, Sanders said, “I don’t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process,” and made this a central idea throughout his campaign.[168][169] Senator Elizabeth Warren welcomed Sanders’s entry into the race, saying, “I’m glad to see him get out there and give his version of what leadership in this country should be,” but never endorsed him.[171][172]Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 46% of pledged delegates to Clinton’s 54%. His campaign was noted for its supporters’ enthusiasm, as well as for his rejection of large donations from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated Super PAC. On July 12, 2016, Sanders formally endorsed Clinton in her unsuccessful general election campaign against Republican Donald Trump, while urging his supporters to continue the “political revolution” his campaign had begun.[173]

Campaign methods

Unlike the other major candidates, Sanders did not pursue funding through a Super PAC or by wealthy donors, instead focusing on small individual donations.[174] His presidential campaign raised $1.5 million within 24 hours of his official announcement.[175] At year’s end the campaign had raised a total of $73 million from more than one million people making 2.5 million donations, with an average donation of $27.16.[176] The campaign reached 3.25 million donations by the end of January 2016, raising $20 million in that month alone.[177]

Sanders used social media to help his campaign gain momentum,[178] posting content to online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook and answering questions on Reddit. He gained a large grassroots organizational following online. A July 29, 2015 meetup organized online brought 100,000 supporters to more than 3,500 simultaneous events nationwide.[179]

Sanders’s campaign events in June 2015 drew overflow crowds around the country, to his surprise.[180][181][182] When Hillary Clinton and Sanders made public appearances within days of each other in Des Moines, Iowa, Sanders drew larger crowds, even though he had already made numerous stops around the state and Clinton’s visit was her first in 2015.[183] On July 1, 2015, Sanders’s campaign stop in Madison, Wisconsin, drew the largest crowd of any 2016 presidential candidate to that date, with an estimated turnout of 10,000.[184][185] Over the following weeks he gained even larger crowds: 11,000 in Arizona,[186] 15,000 in Seattle,[187] and 28,000 in Portland.[188]

Party presidential debates

The 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates occurred among candidates in the campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for the President of the United States. The DNC announced in May 2015 that there would be six debates. Critics alleged that the small number of debates and the schedule, with half of the debates on Saturday or Sunday nights, were part of the DNC’s deliberate attempt to protect the front-runner, Hillary Clinton.[189] In February 2016, Clinton’s and Sanders’s campaigns agreed in principle to holding four more debates for a total of ten.[190] Clinton dropped out of the tenth debate, scheduled to take place just before the California primary, citing a need to devote her time to making direct contact with California voters and preparing for the general election.[191] Sanders expressed disappointment that Clinton canceled the debate “before the largest and most important primary in the presidential nominating process”.[192]

Polls and news coverage

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted in May found Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in a “dead heat”, but the same poll found that if Sanders were the Democratic nominee, 53% of voters would support him to 39% for Trump.[193] Clinton and Trump were the least popular likely candidates in the poll’s history, while Sanders received a 43% positive, 36% negative rating.[194] Polls showed that Democratic voters older than 50 preferred Clinton by a large margin but those under 50 overwhelmingly favored Sanders.[195]

Some supporters raised concerns that publications such as The New York Times minimized coverage of the Sanders campaign in favor of other candidates’, especially Trump’s and Clinton’s. The Times’s own “public editor” or ombudsman reviewed her paper’s coverage of Sanders and found that as of September 2015 her paper “hasn’t always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say.” She also found that the Times’s coverage of Sanders’s campaign was much scanter than its coverage of that of Trump, the Republican candidate also initially considered a long shot, with 63 articles covering the Trump campaign and 14 covering the Sanders campaign.[196][197] A December 2015 report found that the three major networks – CBSNBC, and ABC – had spent 234 minutes reporting on Trump and 10 minutes on Sanders, despite their similar polling results. The report noted that ABC World News Tonight had spent 81 minutes on Trump and less than one minute on Sanders during 2015.[198]

In November 2016, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! noted that on March 15, Super Tuesday III, the speeches of Trump, Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz were broadcast in full. Sanders was in Phoenix, Arizona, on that date, speaking to a rally larger than any of the others, but his speech was not mentioned, let alone broadcast.[199] Other analysts disputed that the media was biased against Sanders. According to Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, the media was biased in his favor, as it had a “systematic self-interested bias toward exaggerating how close the race is.”[200] In September 2015, George Washington University political scientist John Sides failed to find evidence that there was less coverage of Sanders than would be expected for a candidate who was considered unlikely to win,[201]saying, “if anything, you could make the case for the opposite: that Sanders is getting more coverage than he ‘should’ based on his chances of winning, perhaps because the media’s framing the Democratic race as competitive makes it more interesting to readers.”[201]The media coverage that Sanders did get was far less negative than Clinton’s, according to Sides.[201] Jonathan Stray of Harvard University’s Nieman Lab found in January 2016 that media coverage of Sanders was proportional to his standing in the polls.[202]

A 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that Sanders did not get much media coverage in early 2015 due to initial low poll numbers, but as he “began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic”,[203] while Clinton received “by far the most negative coverage of any candidate.”[203] A second 2016 Shorenstein Center report found that “Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage”[204] and that the ratio of Clinton-Sanders coverage in 2016 was 54–46% in weeks 5–11 and 61–39% in weeks 12–19, while the ratio of Trump-Clinton-Sanders coverage was 43–37–20% in weeks 20–24.[204] As the primary progressed, coverage of Sanders was increasingly dominated by his electoral defeats and increasingly smaller chance to win the Democratic nomination.[204]

An analysis in Newsweek found that 12% of those who voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary voted for Trump in the general election, enough to swing the election in his favor. However, by comparison, 25% of those who voted for Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary voted for Republican nominee John McCain in the general election.[205]

Conclusion

Sanders campaigning for Hillary Clinton at Nashua Community Collegein October 2016

After the final primary election, Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee.[206] On July 12, Sanders formally endorsed Clinton[207] but he continued to work with the Democratic National Convention organizers to implement the progressive positions he had been campaigning for. Sanders spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention on July 25, giving Clinton his full support. Some of Sanders’s supporters attempted to protest Clinton’s nomination and booed when Sanders called for party unity. Sanders responded, “Our job is to do two things: to defeat Donald Trump and to elect Hillary Clinton … It is easy to boo, but it is harder to look your kids in the face if we are living under a Trump presidency.”[208]

On November 8, in the general election, Sanders received almost 6% of the vote in Vermont, though no longer a candidate. This was the highest share of a statewide presidential vote for a write-in draft campaign in American history.[209] He also received more votes in Vermont than Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, and Jill Stein, the Green candidate, combined.[210]

Elsewhere, it was possible to vote for Sanders as a write-in candidate in twelve states,[211] and exact totals of write-in votes for Sanders were published in three states: California,[212] New Hampshire,[213] and Vermont.[210] In those three states, Sanders received 111,850 write-in votes, which was approximately 15% of the write-in votes nationwide, and <1% of the nationwide number of votes overall.[211]

In November 2016, Sanders’s book Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In was released; upon its release, it was number 3 on The New York Times Best Seller list. The audiobook received a Grammy nomination for Best Spoken Word Album.[214] In 2016, Sanders formed Our Revolution, a political organization dedicated to educating voters about issues, getting people involved in the political process, and electing progressive candidates. In February 2017, Sanders began webcasting The Bernie Sanders Show on Facebook. Polls taken in 2017 have found Sanders to be the most popular politician in the United States.[163][164][165]

As of May 2018 Sanders was considering a run in the 2020 United States presidential election.[215]

Post-election commentary

In February 2018, Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election revealed that Russians communicated false information during the primary campaigns to benefit Sanders and Stein and to harm Clinton.[216] Sanders rejected the Mueller investigation’s conclusion, saying that he had seen no evidence that Russians helped his campaign.[217] Sanders furthermore blamed the Clinton campaign for not doing more to prevent Russian interference.[217] Sanders later said his campaign had taken action to prevent Russian meddling in the election, and that a campaign staffer had alerted the Clinton campaign.[218] Politico noted that a Sanders campaign volunteer contacted a political action committee (PAC) that supported the Clinton campaign to report suspicious activities but that the Sanders campaign did not contact the Clinton campaign as such.[218]

Effect of the Sanders campaign on the Democratic party

A variety of analysts have suggested that Sanders’ campaign shifted both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party politically leftward. Speaking on the PBS Newshour about the upcoming 2018 elections and discussing the main principles of the two major parties, Susan Page described the Republican party as “Trump’s party” and the Democratic party as “Bernie Sanders’ party”, saying that “Sanders and his more progressive stance has really taken hold.”[219] Noting the increasing acceptance of Sanders’ national single-payer health-care program, his $15-an-hour minimum wage stance, free college tuition and many of the other campaign platform issues he introduced, an April 2018 opinion article in The Week suggested, “Quietly but steadily, the Democratic Party is admitting that Sanders was right.”[220] In July 2016, a Slate article called the Democratic platform draft “a monument to his campaign”, noting not only Sanders’ call for a $15 per hour minimum wage, but other Sanders campaign issues, including Social Security expansion, a carbon tax, Wall Street reform, opposition to the death penalty, and a “reasoned pathway for future legalization” of marijuana.[221]

Political activities: 2016-2019

Sanders’s book Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In was released in November 2016. Upon its release, it was on The New York Times Best Seller list at number 3.[222]

To build on momentum gained during the 2016 election campaign, Sanders and supporters founded a political action committee and a political education organization:

  • Brand New Congress – In April 2016, former Sanders presidential campaign staffers formed a political organizationBrand New Congress, to elect Congressional representatives in line with the campaign’s political platform.[223]
  • Our Revolution – In August 2016, Sanders founded Our Revolution, an organization dedicated to educating voters about political issues, getting people involved in the political process, and recruiting and supporting candidates for local, state, and national office.[224][225]

On February 16, 2017, Sanders began webcasting The Bernie Sanders Show using Facebook live streaming. As of April 2, 2017, guests have included William BarberJosh FoxJane Mayer, and Bill Nye. Nye’s episode has 4.6 million views and 25,000 shares.[226][227]

As of May 2018, Sanders was considering a run in the 2020 United States presidential election.[215]

In September 2018, The Guardian published two op-ed pieces on the need for international progressive cooperation to challenge the rising threat of globalism, threat of authoritarianism and wealth inequality, one by Sanders[228] and another by European progressive Yanis Varoufakis.[229] In late October, Varoufakis announced the upcoming launch of Progressives International on November 30 in Vermont.[230]

In 2018, Sanders sponsored a bill with Senators Chris Murphy (DCT) and Mike Lee (RUT) to invoke the 1973 War Powers Resolution to end U.S. support for the Saudi–led military intervention in Yemen,[231] which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties[232] and “millions more suffering from starvation and disease”.[233] Sanders first introduced the bill in February 2018 but the Senate voted to table the motion the next month;[234] after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018 (which, according to multiple intelligence agencies, was ordered by Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman),[235] Sanders’s bill attracted bipartisan co-sponsors and support, and the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 56–41 on December 13.[231][232][233][235]

In a statement after the Senate’s passage of the bill, Sanders said the following about his rationale for leading the bipartisan effort to pass it:[236]

“I want to stress the bipartisan nature of this legislation. We have brought Republicans and Democrats together in a very historic moment. And what that moment is about is that the Senate this afternoon stated that we will not continue participation in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which has resulted in the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth.

And that crisis is about 85,000 children starving to death; 10,000 new cases of cholera every single week; and the United Nations telling us that Yemen is on the verge of imminent famine, with the possibility of millions of people dying, all because of Saudi activities in that civil war.

And today what the United States Senate said in a very loud way is that we will not continue to have our military posture dictated by a despotic, murderous regime in Saudi Arabia – a regime which does not respect democracy, which does not respect human rights, a regime whose leader nobody doubts was involved in the horrific murder of a dissident journalist in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, Jamal Khashoggi.”[236]

The bill must also be passed by the House and signed by President Trump before it becomes law;[231] if it does, it will be the first-ever invocation of the War Powers Resolution.[231]

2020 presidential campaign

On February 19, 2019, Sanders announced on Vermont Public Radio that he would seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States in the 2020 election.[237]

Political positions

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,[242] and progressive who admires the Nordic model of social democracy and has been a proponent of workplace democracy.[243][239][244] In November 2015, Sanders gave a speech at Georgetown University about his view of democratic socialism, including its place in the policies of presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.[245][246] In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: “I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad.”[245] Based on Sanders’s positions and votes throughout his political career, Noam Chomsky and Thomas Frank have described Sanders as “a New Dealer“.[b][247]

Evaluations of his ideology

Commentators have noted the consistency of Sanders’s views throughout his political career.[248][249] Many have examined his political platform and variety of democratic socialism and found it to be based on tax-funded social benefits rather than social ownership of the means of production.

Academics have variously described Sanders’s political philosophy as “welfarism[250] or “social democracy[251] but not democratic socialism as defined as “an attempt to create a property-free, socialist society”.[252]

Members of various US socialist parties have said that Sanders is a reformer of capitalism, not a socialist.[253][254][255]

Others distinguish among socialismsocial democracy, and democratic socialism, and describe his philosophy as an extension of such existing social democratic programs in the US as Social Security and Medicare[256][257][247] and more consistent with the social democracy found in much of Europe, especially the Nordic countries.[258][259]

Bush Administration

In March 2006, after a series of resolutions passed in various Vermont towns calling for him to bring articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, Sanders stated that it would be “impractical to talk about impeachment” with Republicans in control of the House and Senate.[260] Still, Sanders made no secret of his opposition to the Bush Administration, which he regularly criticized for its cuts to social programs.[261][262][263]

Climate change

Sanders advocates bold action to reverse global warming and substantial investment in infrastructure, with “energy efficiency and sustainability” and job creation as prominent goals.[264][265] He considers climate change the greatest threat to national security.[266][267] Sanders opposes the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on the grounds that, like the Keystone XL Pipeline, it “will have a significant impact on our climate.”[268]

Democratic Party

Born into a Democratic-voting family, Sanders was first introduced to political activism when his brother Larry joined the Young Democrats of America and campaigned for Adlai Stevenson II in 1956.[269] Although elected Mayor of Burlington as an independent, Sanders endorsed Democratic presidential candidates Walter Mondale in 1984 and Jesse Jackson in 1988. His endorsement of Mondale was lukewarm (telling reporters that “if you go around saying that Mondale would be a great president, you would be a liar and a hypocrite”), but he supported Jackson enthusiastically.[270] The Washington Post reported that the Jackson campaign helped inspire Sanders to work more closely with the Democratic Party.[270][46]

Once elected to the House of Representatives, Sanders joined the Democratic caucus, though some conservative southern Democrats initially barred him from the caucus as they believed that allowing a self-described socialist to join it would harm their electoral prospects.[46] He soon came to work constructively with Democrats, voting with the party more than 90 percent of the time during his tenure in the House and Senate.[46]

Starting in November 2015, in connection with his presidential campaign, Sanders’s announcements suggested that not only was he running as a Democrat, but that he would run as a Democrat in future elections.[271][272][273] When challenged by Clinton about his party commitment, he said, “Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination.”[274] During the campaign, news sources often referred to him as a Democrat.[275][276][277] Since he remained a senator, elected as an independent, the United States Senate website continued to refer to Sanders as an independent during the campaign and upon his return to the Senate.[278] He confirmed at the end of the campaign that he remained an independent in the senate for the balance of his term, since that was how he was elected.[279]

Sanders advocated that, following Trump’s victory in the 2016 elections, the Democratic Party undergo a “series of reforms” and that it had to “break loose from its corporate establishment ties and, once again, become a grass-roots party of working people, the elderly and the poor.”[280]

Sanders drew parallels between his campaign and that of the Labour Party in the 2017 UK general election.[281][282] He wrote in The New York Times that “the British elections should be a lesson for the Democratic Party” and urged the Democrats to stop holding on to an “overly cautious, centrist ideology”, arguing that “momentum shifted to Labour after it released a very progressive manifesto that generated much enthusiasm among young people and workers”.[283][284] He had earlier praised Jeremy Corbyn‘s stance on class issues.[285]

In October 2017, Sanders stated that he would run for reelection as an independent in 2018 though pressured to run as a Democrat.[286]

Distribution of wealth

Sanders opposed the 2017 Trump/Republican federal budget plan, calling it “a budget for the billionaire class, for Wall Street, for corporate CEOs, and for the wealthiest people in this country … nothing less than a massive transfer of wealth from working families, the elderly, children, the sick and the poor to the top 1%”.[287]

Following the November 2017 revelations from the Paradise Papers and a recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies which says just three people, Jeff BezosBill Gates and Warren Buffett, own more wealth than the bottom half of the U.S. population, Sanders stated that “we must end global oligarchy” and that “we need, in the United States and throughout the world, a tax system which is fair, progressive and transparent.”[288]

Foreign policy

On June 12, 2017, U.S. senators reached an agreement on legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia and Iran. The bill was opposed only by Sanders and Republican Rand Paul.[289]

Addressing Westminster College in a September 2017 speech, Sanders laid out a “progressive foreign policy” that pushes for greater international collaboration, an adherence to U.S.-led international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal framework, and the promotion of human rights and democratic ideals. He emphasized the evils associated with “outrageous” global economic inequality and climate change, and urged reining in the use of U.S. military power, saying it “must always be a last resort”. Sanders also heavily criticized U.S. support for “murderous regimes” during the Cold War, such as those in IranChile and El Salvador, and said that those actions continue to make the U.S. less safe.[290][291] He also spoke critically of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and the way President Trump has handled the crisis.[292]

In September 2017, Sanders said that Saudi Arabia is “an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world, it has funded terrorism. … They are not an ally of the United States.”[293] In an October 2018 column for The New York Times, Sanders called on the United States to end its backing of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, saying that US support for this war makes it complicit in crimes against humanity and is unconstitutional because its participation has not been authorized by Congress.[294]

Gun laws

Sanders supports banning assault weaponsuniversal federal background checks, and closing the gun show loophole.[295][296][297] In 1990, Sanders was supported by the NRA in his bid to become a U.S. Representative in exchange for opposing both the competing campaign of Peter Smith, who had reversed his stance on firearm restrictions, and waiting periods for handgun purchases.[298] In 1993, while a U.S. Representative, he voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (which established background checks and wait periods), and in 2005 he voted for legislation that gave gun manufacturers legal immunity against claims of negligence, but as of 2016 he has said that he would support repealing that law.[97] In 1996, he voted against additional funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for research on issues related to firearms, but in 2016 he called for an increase in CDC funding for the study of gun violence.[97]

Health care

Don’t Take Our Health Care rally in Columbus, Ohio, June 2017

Sanders is a staunch supporter of a universal health care system, and has said, “If you are serious about real healthcare reform, the only way to go is single-payer.”[299] He advocates lowering the cost of drugs that are expensive because they remain under patent for years; some drugs that cost thousands of dollars per year in the U.S. are available for hundreds, or less, in countries where they can be obtained as generics.[300] As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders has introduced legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the Older Americans Act, which supports Meals on Wheels and other programs for seniors.[301] He supported the Affordable Care Act, though he said it didn’t go far enough.[302]

On May 4, 2017, in response to the House vote to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, Sanders predicted “thousands of Americans would die” from no longer having access to health care.[303] Politifact rated Sanders’s statement “mostly true”.[304]

In September 2017, Sanders and 15 Senate co-sponsors submitted the “Medicare for All” bill, a single-payer health care plan. The bill also covers vision and dental care, unlike Medicare. Some Republicans have called the bill “Berniecare” and “the latest Democratic push for socialized medicine and higher taxes.” Sanders responded that the Republican party has no credibility on the issue of health care after voting for legislation that would take health insurance away from 32 million people under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).[305]

Immigration

In 2007, Sanders helped kill a bill introducing comprehensive immigration reform, arguing that its guest-worker program would depress wages for American workers.[306] In 2010, he supported the DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as minors.[306] In 2013, he supported the Gang of Eight‘s comprehensive immigration reform bill after advocating for the provision of a $1.5 billion youth jobs program, which he argued would offset the harms of labor market competition with immigrants.[306]

Social benefits

Sanders focuses on economic issues such as income and wealth inequality,[238][307] poverty,[308] raising the minimum wage,[143] universal healthcare,[299] reducing the burden of student debt,[309] making public colleges and universities tuition-free by taxing financial transactions,[310] and expanding Social Security benefits by eliminating the cap on the payroll tax on all incomes above $250,000.[311][312] He has become a prominent supporter of laws requiring companies to give their workers parental leavesick leave, and vacation time, noting that such laws have been adopted by nearly all other developed countries.[313] He also supports legislation that would make it easier for workers to join or form a trade union.[314][315]

Social issues

Sanders has liberal stances on social issues. He advocated for LGBT rights as Mayor of Burlington in 1983 and voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In 2006, Sanders indicated that the time was not right for legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont, describing the issue as properly handled at the state, not the national, level, but in 2009 he supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont, which was enacted that year.[316] He considers himself a feminist,[317] is pro-choice on abortion, and opposes the de-funding of Planned Parenthood.[318] Sanders has denounced institutional racism and called for criminal justice reform to reduce the number of people in prison,[319] advocates a crackdown on police brutality, and supports abolishing private, for-profit prisons[320][321][322]and the death penalty.[323] Sanders supports Black Lives Matter.[324] He supports legalizing marijuana at the federal level.[325]

Trade

Calling international trade agreements a “disaster for the American worker”, Sanders voted against and has spoken for years against NAFTACAFTA, and PNTR with China, saying that they have resulted in American corporations moving abroad. He also strongly opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he says was “written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street.”[326][327]

Trump Administration

Sanders criticized President Trump for appointing multiple billionaires to his cabinet.[328] He criticized Trump’s rolling back the Clean Power Plan of former President Barack Obama, noting the scientifically reported effect on climate change of human activity and citing Trump’s calling those reports a hoax.[329] He called for caution on the Syrian Civil War, noting that “it’s easier to get into a war than out of one.”[330] Sanders has promised to defeat “Trump and Trumpism and the Republican right-wing ideology”.[331]

Sanders gave an online reply to Trump’s January 2018 State of the Union address in which he called Trump “compulsively dishonest” and criticized him for initiating “a looming immigration crisis” by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He voiced concern about Trump’s failure to mention the finding that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election and “will likely interfere in the 2018 midterms we will be holding … Unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin.”[332]

War and peace

Sanders strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and has criticized a number of policies instituted during the War on Terror, particularly mass surveillance and the USA Patriot Act.[333][334][335] Sanders criticized Israel‘s actions during the 2014 Gaza war[336] and U.S. involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[337] On November 15, 2015, in response to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)’s attacks in Paris, Sanders cautioned against “Islamophobia” and said, “We gotta be tough, not stupid” in the war against ISIL, adding that the U.S. should continue to welcome Syrian refugees.[338]

Personal life

Sanders with his wife Jane O’Mearain Des Moines, Iowa, January 2016

In 1963, Sanders and Deborah Shiling Messing, whom he met in college, volunteered for several months on the Israeli kibbutz Sha’ar HaAmakim. They married in 1964 and bought a summer home in Vermont; they had no children and divorced in 1966.[32][339][340][341] Sanders’s son, Levi Sanders, was born in 1969 to girlfriend Susan Campbell Mott.[31] In 1988, Sanders married Jane O’Meara Driscoll (née Mary Jane O’Meara), who later became president of Burlington College, in Burlington, Vermont.[342] The day after their wedding, the couple visited the Soviet Union as part of an official delegation in his capacity as mayor.[343][344] Sanders considers Jane’s three children—Dave Driscoll (born 1975), Carina Driscoll (born 1974), and Heather Titus (née Driscoll; 1971)—to be his own.[32][345] He also has seven grandchildren.[346]

In December 1987, during his tenure as mayor of Burlington, Sanders recorded a folk album, We Shall Overcome, with 30 Vermont musicians. As he was not a skilled singer, he performed his vocals in a talking blues style.[347][348]Sanders appeared in a cameo role in the 1988 comedy-drama film Sweet Hearts Dance, playing a man who distributes candy to young trick-or-treaters.[349] In 1999, he acted in the film My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception, playing Rabbi Manny Shevitz. In this role he mourned the Brooklyn Dodgers‘ move to Los Angeles, reflecting Sanders’s own upbringing in Brooklyn.[350] On February 6, 2016, Sanders was a guest star alongside Larry David on Saturday Night Live, playing a Polish immigrant on a steamship that was sinking near the Statue of Liberty.[351]

On December 4, 2015, Sanders won Times 2015 Person of the Year readers’ poll with 10.2% of the vote[352][353] but did not receive the editorial board’s award. On March 20, 2016, he was given an honorary Coast Salish name, dxʷshudičup,[c] by Deborah Parker in Seattle to honor his focus on Native American issues during his presidential campaign.[354]

Sanders’s elder brother, Larry, lives in England.[355] He was a Green Party county councillor, representing the East Oxford division on Oxfordshire County Council, until he retired from the Council in 2013.[356][357] Larry ran as a Green Party candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon in the 2015 British general election and came in fifth.[358][359] Sanders told CNN, “I owe my brother an enormous amount. It was my brother who actually introduced me to a lot of my ideas.”[359]

On May 30, 2017, Sanders received an Honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters from Brooklyn College.[360]

After complaints made in 2016 by Donald Trump’s Vermont campaign chairman, the FBI launched an investigation into Sanders’s wife Jane’s involvement in a bank loan for Burlington College when she was its president.[361][362][363][364] The Washington Post reported on June 25, 2017, that Sanders himself was not under FBI investigation.[365] Both Sanders and his wife have retained prominent counsel during the investigation.[363][364]

After receiving nearly $900,000 in royalty advances for his recently published books, Sanders reported earnings of just over $1 million in 2016.[366] He and his wife own three homes, two in Vermont and one in Washington.[367][368][369]

Religion, heritage, and values

As Sanders described his upbringing as an American Jew in a 2016 speech: his father generally attended synagogue only on Yom Kippur; he attended public schools while his mother “chafed” at his yeshiva Sunday schooling at a Hebrew school; and their religious observances were mostly limited to Passover seders with their neighbors. Larry Sanders said, “They were very pleased to be Jews, but didn’t have a strong belief in God.”[370] Bernie had a bar mitzvah[371] at the historic Kingsway Jewish Center in Midwood, Brooklyn, where he grew up.[370]

In 1963, in cooperation with the Labor Zionist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair, Sanders and his first wife volunteered at Sha’ar HaAmakim, a kibbutz in northern Israel.[372][373][374][375] His motivation for the trip was as much socialistic as it was Zionistic.[370]

As Mayor of Burlington, Sanders allowed a Chabad public menorah to be placed at city hall, an action contested by the local ACLU chapter. He publicly inaugurated the Hanukkah menorah and performed the Jewish religious ritual of blessing Hanukkah candles.[370] His early and strong support played a significant role in the now widespread public menorah celebrations around the globe.[376][377][378][379] When asked about his Jewish heritage, Sanders has said he is “proud to be Jewish”.[375][21]

Sanders rarely speaks about religion.[371] He describes himself as “not particularly religious”[21] and “not actively involved” with organized religion.[371] A press package issued by his office states “Religion: Jewish”.[380] He has said he believes in God, though not necessarily in a traditional manner: “I think everyone believes in God in their own ways,” he said. “To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”[371][381] In October 2015, on the late-night talk showJimmy Kimmel Live!, Kimmel asked Bernie, “You say you are culturally Jewish and you don’t feel religious; do you believe in God and do you think that’s important to the people of the United States?” Sanders replied:[382]

I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together. That I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people … and this is not Judaism, this is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we can’t just worship billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.

In 2016, he stated he had “very strong religious and spiritual feelings” and explained, “My spirituality is that we are all in this together and that when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me.”[383]

Sanders does not regularly attend synagogue, and he works on Rosh Hashanah, a day when Jews typically take a holiday from work. He has attended yahrzeit observances in memory of the deceased, for the father of a friend, and he attended a Tashlikh, an atonement ceremony, with the mayor of Lynchburg on the afternoon of Rosh Hashanah in 2015.[370] According to Sanders’s close friend Richard Sugarman, a professor of religious studies at the University of Vermont, Sanders’s Jewish identity is “certainly more ethnic and cultural than religious”.[384] Deborah Dash Moore, a Judaic scholar at the University of Michigan, has said that Sanders has a particular type of “ethnic Jewishness” that is somewhat old-fashioned.[385] Sanders’s wife is Roman Catholic, and he has frequently expressed admiration for Pope Francis, saying that “the leader of the Catholic Church is raising profound issues. It is important that we listen to what he has said.” Sanders has said he feels “very close” to Francis’s economic teachings, describing him as “incredibly smart and brave”.[14][386][387]In April 2016, Sanders accepted an invitation from Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, an aide close to the pope, to speak at a Vatican conference on economic and environmental issues. While at the Vatican, Sanders met briefly with the pontiff.[388][389]

Publications

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Hitler lost the election for the presidency of Germany on March 13, 1932, when Hindenburg received 49.6 percent of the vote to Hitler’s 30.1 percent.[18] But the Nazi Party, led by Hitler, won a plurality in the Reichstag, Germany’s lower house of parliament, in July 1932, and retained its status as the largest party thereafter.[19]
  2. ^ Thomas Frank‘s comments are mentioned in the following book review: Lozada, Carlos (March 11, 2016). “The liberal war over the Obama legacy has already begun”The Washington Post. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  3. ^ IPA: [ˌduːh.s.ˈhwuː.diː.ˌtʃuːp]lit. ‘the one lighting the fires for change and unity’ in Lushootseed

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1211

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065