Political Admin – Milwaukee County First http://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 06:03:51 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/icon-7-1.png Political Admin – Milwaukee County First http://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/ 32 32 US “concerned” about Russia prepares for invasion in Ukraine – as it happened | American News https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/us-concerned-about-russia-prepares-for-invasion-in-ukraine-as-it-happened-american-news/ Sat, 15 Jan 2022 01:05:19 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/us-concerned-about-russia-prepares-for-invasion-in-ukraine-as-it-happened-american-news/ An Indiana group whose anti-abortion campaign was endorsed in an ad signed by Amy Coney Barrett before she became a Supreme Court justice, keeps a published list of abortion providers and where they work on its website, in what some experts say is an invitation to harass and intimidate doctors and their staff. In one […]]]>

An Indiana group whose anti-abortion campaign was endorsed in an ad signed by Amy Coney Barrett before she became a Supreme Court justice, keeps a published list of abortion providers and where they work on its website, in what some experts say is an invitation to harass and intimidate doctors and their staff.

In one case, according to court records, a doctor whose name was released by the group, who goes by the name Right to Life Michiana, was tipped off by the FBI about a kidnapping threat that had been made online against her daughter.

The threat prompted the doctor to temporarily stop providing abortion services at the Whole Woman’s Health Care clinic in South Bend, also named on the Michiana Group’s website. The doctor said in the court document that the clinic regularly attracted large gatherings of protesters, who she feared might identify her.

Barrett signed a two-page ad in 2006, while working as a teacher at Notre Dame, which stated that those who signed “oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life, fertilization to natural death”. The second page of the ad titled Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, ‘barbaric’.

The advertisement, which was published in the South Bend Tribune and signed by hundreds of people, was sponsored by a group called St Joseph County Right to Life, which merged with another anti-abortion group in 2020 and is called now Right to Life Michiana.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year on the Roe v. Wade challenges that many court experts say will deny American women the right to obtain legal abortions. In arguments in court, Barrett – who said his personal opinions did not affect his legal judgment – ​​argued that the adoption of shelter laws, which allow parents to abandon their newborns in hospitals or other designated centers without the risk of legal consequences, had in effect given women options other than abortion for those who did not want to become parents.

While she Confirmation hearing 2020, Barrett said she signed the announcement as a private citizen, as she was leaving the church, and did not remember signing it until she becomes public following an article in the Guardian.

“It was consistent with the views of my church,” she said, in response to questions from senators about the statement. She later added, “I consider my personal, moral and religious views distinct from my duty to enforce the law as a judge.”

]]>
The Beijing Olympics demolish the IOC’s oldest myth: sport is apolitical | 2022 Winter Olympics https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/the-beijing-olympics-demolish-the-iocs-oldest-myth-sport-is-apolitical-2022-winter-olympics/ Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:47:32 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/the-beijing-olympics-demolish-the-iocs-oldest-myth-sport-is-apolitical-2022-winter-olympics/ LLess than a month before the start of the Beijing Winter Olympics, the Games are a huge political thicket. China deserves global condemnation for its human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Turkish Muslims in Xinjiang province, which Human Rights Watch said calls “crimes against humanity”. The Chinese cities of Xi’an and Yuzhou are on […]]]>

LLess than a month before the start of the Beijing Winter Olympics, the Games are a huge political thicket. China deserves global condemnation for its human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Turkish Muslims in Xinjiang province, which Human Rights Watch said calls “crimes against humanity”. The Chinese cities of Xi’an and Yuzhou are on lockdown after experiencing the largest Covid-19 outbreak the country has seen since the early days of the pandemic. The National Hockey League has withdrawn its players from the Games in light of coronavirus concerns. The Olympic qualifying events are in disarray, ravaged by positive cases for Covid. A diplomatic boycott by the United States, Australia, Britain and Canada only added to the chaos.

When the Biden administration announcement His diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Games, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry replied that the Olympics were “not a scene of political posture and manipulation”, adding that the boycott was “a serious parody of the ‘spirit of the Olympic charter’ and ‘a flagrant political provocation’.

Hypocrisy abounds in all directions. The Chinese official was right: a diplomatic boycott is a political act, just like boycott of China from the 1980 Moscow Olympics on the host nation’s invasion of Afghanistan was political. While Guantánamo remains open under the Biden administration and houses the “prisoner forever” Abu Zubaydah – who resisted CIA waterboarding more than 60 times – the finger waving the president seems misleading. But when it comes to the hypocrisy of the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee wins gold. The group that oversees the Games was the real author of a “grave parody of the spirit of the Olympic Charter” when, in 2015, it chose Beijing to host even though it knew full well at the time that China engaged in extreme human activities. – violations of rights which have come up against the olympic charter commitment to “the preservation of human dignity”.

The hypocrisy of the IOC is legendary. Behind the public relations desk, the group avoids politics while take credit for convincing the political leaders of North and South Korea to create “unified” hockey teams competing under one flag at the Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Games. The IOC trumpets its high-level political negotiations with the Taliban to ensure safe passage for Afghan athletes. In 2001, when Beijing was in contention for the 2008 Summer Olympics, the city’s bid team promised that hosting the Games would revive political and human rights in China, a claim the IOC used to justify its selection. This dreamlike landscape of human rights never happened. It is telling that today neither China nor the IOC promises that the Olympics will boost democracy.

The IOC’s willful gullibility reappeared when it obediently intervened in the case of Peng Shuai, the three-time tennis Olympian who accused a high-profile Chinese politician of sexual coercion. IOC President Thomas Bach held a 30-minute video call with the athlete, then broadcast A declaration that she was “safe and sound”. It was more of a blatant publicity stunt designed to ensure the smooth running of the Beijing Games than a sincere effort to assess the well-being of the athlete. Peng then withdrew his allegations under suspicious conditions.

The Beijing Olympics are more than sport. The US diplomatic boycott comes amid escalating tensions between China and many Western countries. In the United States, China has become a bipartisan punching bag, with politicians on both sides of the aisle making unproven claims that would make McCarthy blush. It fuels overly simple narratives that juxtapose a freedom-loving United States with an evil Chinese state. This moralistic perspective, in turn, fuels the American war machine; when the congress pass The massive $ 770 billion defense bill, which included $ 24 billion more than Biden had requested, analysts rationalized the hike by citing China as a growing geopolitical threat. This saber noise ignores the fact that the United States has about 750 military bases around the world while China has only one, and this comes at a time when US-China cooperation is vital on climate change and other security issues.

Additionally, US politicians are quick to criticize China while ignoring the human rights abuses for which they are responsible, from caged children on the Mexican border to unconditional support for Israel (a country Human Rights Watch recently reported on. describe as having committed “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution” against Palestinians) to the homeless situation in the United States, a humanitarian crisis in sight (in Los Angeles, host of the 2028 Olympics , around 1,500 homeless residents have died since the start of the coronavirus pandemic). The demonization campaign works: in 2021, the Pew Research Center find that 67% in the United States had negative feelings towards China, a 21% increase since 2018.

In a sense, the IOC is complicit in escalating tensions between China and the United States, and it has put the athletes in the middle of the mess. On the one hand you have an obvious human rights violator as the host and on the other you have the CIO twiddling his thumbs as he prepares to count his money. In this ethical vacuum, pressure is mounting on athletes to step up and lead – some academics and activists even call on the athletes to boycott the Games. The Olympic athletes are in a difficult position, but it was the International Olympic Committee that put them there. Athletes have no say in where the Olympic Games go, and when the IOC hands the Games to a repressive host, Olympians too often bear the brunt. The IOC has a slogan: “Prioritize athletes”. But when the IOC postponed the Olympics to Beijing, it actually put the athletes in the bottom.

The IOC continues to hide behind its thin canvas of apolitanism despite much evidence to the contrary. At the very least, the 2022 Beijing Games should spell the end of the laughable myth that the Olympics are not political. Sport is never just sport. Let’s see the Beijing Games for what they are: a stage for growing global hegemony with serious human rights issues and democracy on a fan.

]]>
The AAP did not publish or distribute brochures with the slogan “Take money from anyone, but vote for the Aam Aadmi party”: Raghav Chadha https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/the-aap-did-not-publish-or-distribute-brochures-with-the-slogan-take-money-from-anyone-but-vote-for-the-aam-aadmi-party-raghav-chadha/ Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:18:06 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/the-aap-did-not-publish-or-distribute-brochures-with-the-slogan-take-money-from-anyone-but-vote-for-the-aam-aadmi-party-raghav-chadha/ Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Punjab Co-Head of Punjab Affairs Raghav Chadha said that the SAD, BJP and Congress have plundered the Punjab for the past 50 years and for their personal benefit they have it. even sold. The leaders of these political parties have 5-star and 7-star hotels, farms, large mansions and expensive cars, and […]]]>

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Punjab Co-Head of Punjab Affairs Raghav Chadha said that the SAD, BJP and Congress have plundered the Punjab for the past 50 years and for their personal benefit they have it. even sold. The leaders of these political parties have 5-star and 7-star hotels, farms, large mansions and expensive cars, and they have purchased these expensive goods and properties by abusing public money. Pamphlets are circulating in Punjab stating that people in Punjab should receive money from any political party or leader, but vote for the Aam Aadmi party. Raghav Chadha said that the Aam Aadmi party is an honest party and the people of Punjab know it. Our party does not distribute money, gifts or alcohol to attract voters. This is why the people of Punjab printed these brochures because the money that other political parties distribute during the elections is the very money that they looted from the same people. The gifts and alcoholic beverages that traditional political parties and their leaders give in the aftermath of elections are bought with taxpayer money they defrauded while in power.

Raghav Chadha said, “We have neither published nor distributed said brochures. The people of Punjab are carrying this message door to door because they think about the well being of Punjab and they (the people) want everyone to vote for the Aam Aadmi party for a better and brighter future for their children. But the question arises as to why Shiromani Akali Dal is so upset by these brochures. He said that this brochure is the voice of the people of Punjab. The Punjabi are proud people, they will not sell their vote. They will vote for a worthy party that will give their children a bright future, good schools and hospitals. But it is these brochures that worries Akali Dal the most, and they are worried about it. Chada asked why Akali Dal is so upset with these brochures. Maybe they were planning to buy the votes and now after hearing people’s voices, they are worried that people will take money from SAD but still vote for Aam Aadmi party. This is the very reason Akali Dal is raising the issue of this pamphlet in EC and everywhere else, because it is going to hurt their plans to lure the voters of Punjab with their corrupt money piled up. Raghav Chadha authorized that the Aam Aadmi party did not publish or distribute these brochures.

]]>
Assembly election 2022 live announcement, Election Commission press conference live updates, Goa, Punjab, Uttarakhand (UK), Manipur, UP Election dates, times here https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/assembly-election-2022-live-announcement-election-commission-press-conference-live-updates-goa-punjab-uttarakhand-uk-manipur-up-election-dates-times-here/ Sun, 09 Jan 2022 16:32:25 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/assembly-election-2022-live-announcement-election-commission-press-conference-live-updates-goa-punjab-uttarakhand-uk-manipur-up-election-dates-times-here/ Live updates from the 2022 elections: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vehicle remained stationary for 15 to 20 minutes during a flyby between Bathinda and the Hussainiwala Martyrs National Memorial in Ferozepur on Wednesday January 5 afternoon, after which his cavalcade returned to the airport in Bathinda. (Photo PTI) Citing the latest increase in Covid-19 cases, […]]]>

Live updates from the 2022 elections:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vehicle remained stationary for 15 to 20 minutes during a flyby between Bathinda and the Hussainiwala Martyrs National Memorial in Ferozepur on Wednesday January 5 afternoon, after which his cavalcade returned to the airport in Bathinda. (Photo PTI)

Citing the latest increase in Covid-19 cases, Congress said it will not hold any rallies in Uttar Pradesh and urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to refrain from organizing major public events in the state.

Meanwhile, all public meetings and gatherings in Goa will now be limited to 50% of the capacity of indoor venues and up to 100 people in outdoor venues, Chief Minister Pramod Sawant said on Friday as the coastal state – who will go to the elections soon – has recorded a sharp increase in Covid-19 cases.

A dominant section of the party still believes that the prime minister cannot be allowed to create and dominate the narrative and he must be aggressively thwarted at every step.

Sources said that Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s directive to the chief minister to mount an investigation while leaving the party to aggressively counter the BJP, describing the ruling party’s shooting as an attack on ” the Punjab and the Punjabiyat ”, was perhaps part of this calibrated approach.

Neither Sonia nor former Congress President Rahul Gandhi has spoken on the issue so far.

“Any other prime minister would focus on serious breaches of national security in Pangong Tso and Arunachal Pradesh. But for the first time in 70 years, a prime minister is worried about the security threat from members of his own party? the opposition leader tweeted at Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge.


Source link

]]>
Conservative majority in Supreme Court appear skeptical of Biden’s vaccination plan https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/conservative-majority-in-supreme-court-appear-skeptical-of-bidens-vaccination-plan/ Sat, 08 Jan 2022 01:42:51 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/conservative-majority-in-supreme-court-appear-skeptical-of-bidens-vaccination-plan/ WASHINGTON – The Conservative Supreme Court majority appeared to lean on Friday to block one of the White House’s key pandemic strategies, expressing skepticism that the Biden administration has the legal power to demand that large employers require workers to be vaccinated or undergo frequent testing. The plea for that mandate, which exploded in urgent […]]]>

WASHINGTON – The Conservative Supreme Court majority appeared to lean on Friday to block one of the White House’s key pandemic strategies, expressing skepticism that the Biden administration has the legal power to demand that large employers require workers to be vaccinated or undergo frequent testing.

The plea for that mandate, which exploded in urgent court after a flurry of legal challenges across the country from Republican-led states, business groups and others, raised the possibility that the court deals a severe blow to the Biden. the administration’s efforts to combat the coronavirus as the highly transmissible variant of Omicron continues to spread.

The court seemed more likely to authorize a separate mandate requiring health care workers in facilities receiving federal money to be vaccinated. The settlement, which was the subject of a second case, was consistent with other types of federal oversight of medical facilities and was supported by almost the entire medical facility, some judges said.

But the questioning concerning the employer’s mandate was more biased. The regulation, one of the most ambitious policies imposed by President Biden in an attempt to control the pandemic, would affect 84 million American workers employed by companies with more than 100 workers. Several Tory judges said it was doubtful that a federal workplace safety law would give the administration the legal power to enforce it.

The court can act quickly in the case, which has been argued on an unusually rapid schedule.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said states and Congress, rather than a federal agency, were better suited to tackle the pandemic in the country’s workplaces. “This is something the federal government has never done before,” he said, adding the administration’s several virus-related warrants were “a workaround” in response to inaction of Congress.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett said the contested regulations appeared to be too broad in scope by covering all large employers. Meat processing plants and dental offices could be subject to regulation, she said, while landscapers should not.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that the existing law had not authorized the agency to impose the mandate in a sufficiently clear manner, given the political and economic issues.

The hearing came as the Omicron variant led to a surge in coronavirus cases, preventing people from returning to the office and increasing hospitalizations. Economists fear that the increase in the number of cases will halt job growth in the coming months.

The court’s three more liberal judges said the warrant was a necessary response to the public health crisis.

“This is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died,” Judge Elena Kagan said. “This is by far the greatest public health hazard this country has faced in the past century.”

“We know the best way to prevent the spread is for people to get vaccinated,” she said.

Judge Stephen G. Breyer said he would find it “unbelievable that it might be in the public interest to suddenly stop these vaccinations”.

Some of the participants in the arguments were absent from the courtroom, possibly due to the pandemic. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who suffers from diabetes and was the only member of the court to wear a mask since the judges returned to the courtroom in October, participated remotely from her cabinet.

Friday, seven of the judges wore masks on the bench for the first time. The exception was Judge Gorsuch, who sits next to Judge Sotomayor.

Two of the attorneys – Benjamin M. Flowers, the Solicitor General of Ohio, and Elizabeth Murrill, the Solicitor General of Louisiana – participated by telephone. Courts Covid-19 protocols demand that avocados be tested for the virus.

All judges are fully vaccinated and have received a booster, a court spokeswoman said.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state vaccine mandates in various contexts against constitutional challenges. The cases in court are different, as they primarily ask whether Congress has authorized the executive branch to institute the requirements.

The answer will mainly depend on the language of the relevant laws and whether the administration followed the proper procedures to issue the requirements.

Perhaps the most critical issue for the Biden administration was how the court would react to the employer’s vaccine or testing mandate. The administration estimated that the rule would vaccinate 22 million people and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations.

It was released in November by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, of the Department of Labor.

Employers are allowed to give their workers the option of getting tested every week instead of getting vaccinated, although they are not required to pay for the test. The rule makes an exception for employees with religious objections and those who do not come into close contact with others at their work, such as those who work from home or exclusively outdoors.

Under a 1970 statute, OSHA has the power to make emergency rules for workplace safety, provided it can demonstrate that workers are exposed to serious danger and that the rule is necessary.

Judge Kagan said the pandemic surely qualifies. “Do you know of any workplaces that have not fundamentally changed over the past two years? She asked Mr. Flowers.

He replied that the coronavirus was a general risk like terrorism and not a danger in the workplace.

“Why not?” Justice Kagan asked, noting that working side-by-side with other employees for eight hours or more is what happens in the workplace.

But Judge Gorsuch said the agency’s power was limited to specific workplace hazards. “Traditionally,” he said, “OSHA has rules that affect workplace hazards that are unique to the workplace and do not involve hazards that affect individuals around the clock. “

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether the court should briefly suspend consideration of the case, National Federation of Independent Businesses c. Department of Labor, No. 21A244. He noted that OSHA said it could start citing companies for non-compliance on Monday.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the federal government, said she would defer to the court’s judgment, but noted that Monday’s deadline was only for record keeping and masks and that the agency would not enforce the testing requirement until Feb. 9.

Scott A. Keller, a lawyer for a group of companies challenging the demands, said “we need a stay now before enforcement begins.”

“Our members are to publicly submit their plans on how to comply with this regulatory giant on Monday,” he said. “The vaccines should be done by February 9. You would need two vaccines to comply. These vaccines should start immediately. Tracking and record keeping cannot happen overnight.

The second case involved a measure requiring workers in hospitals and other health care facilities who participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The requirement at issue in this case, Biden v. Missouri, n ° 21A240, would affect more than 17 million workers, the administration said, and “would save hundreds, if not thousands of lives every month.”

States led by Republican officials challenged the settlement, obtaining injunctions against it covering about half of the country.

Brian H. Fletcher, a federal government lawyer, argued that a federal statute gave him broad power to impose regulations regarding patient health and safety in facilities that receive federal funds. The law gives the secretary of health and human services general authority to issue regulations to ensure the “efficient administration” of Medicare and Medicaid programs, and parts of the law relating to various types of facilities generally allow the secretary to impose requirements to protect patient health and safety.

Judge Barrett said the patchwork of statutory authorities complicates the case and may require different responses for different types of facilities.

Judge Kavanaugh said the case was unusual because “people who are regulated don’t complain about regulation here.” On the contrary, he said, hospitals and health care groups “seem overwhelmingly backing him.”

Jesus A. Osete, a lawyer from Missouri, said the vaccination requirement would lead to the departure of healthcare workers, leading to a crisis in rural hospitals. “This will effectively deprive our citizens of health care,” he said.

Justice Kagan responded that infected workers were dissuading patients from getting the care they needed. “People don’t show up at hospitals because they are afraid of getting Covid from staff,” she said.

She added that regulating healthcare workers comes down to a simple command. “Basically the only thing you can’t do is kill your patients,” she said. “So you need to get vaccinated so you don’t pass on the disease that can kill elderly Medicare patients, which can kill sick Medicaid patients.”


Source link

]]>
Biden disapproval high, voters blame him on economy: CNBC poll https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/biden-disapproval-high-voters-blame-him-on-economy-cnbc-poll/ Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:42:20 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/biden-disapproval-high-voters-blame-him-on-economy-cnbc-poll/ U.S. President Joe Biden arrives aboard Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, United States, January 3, 2022. Jonathan Ernst | Reuters President Joe Biden’s disapproval rating reached a new high in December as more voters signaled their dissatisfaction with his administration’s oversight of the economy and the Covid-19 pandemic. Fifty-six percent of voters […]]]>

U.S. President Joe Biden arrives aboard Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, United States, January 3, 2022.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

President Joe Biden’s disapproval rating reached a new high in December as more voters signaled their dissatisfaction with his administration’s oversight of the economy and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Fifty-six percent of voters now say they disapprove of the job Biden is doing, his presidency’s worst reading as he nears the end of his first year in office, according to new CNBC / Change Research polls. Previous polls in the series have shown Biden’s disapproval rate to be 54% in early September and 49% in April.

Biden’s approval rating is now 44%, down from 46% in September and 51% in April.

The latest sign of trouble for Biden comes as his administration seeks to tackle a wide range of economic and political issues ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, which will decide the balance of power in Congress.

The White House scrambles to allay fears over accelerating prices and inflation, resurrect President Build Back Better climate and family legislation, and rejuvenate the nation’s public health response as the omicron variant leads to a new peak in Covid cases.

Frustrations with the economy are the main culprit behind Biden’s declining popularity, as nearly every demographic has declared him their No.1 problem.

The economy was the top priority for men and women, all age groups, Latino and white voters, and those with and without a college education. Black respondents, who named racism their top priority, said the economy came in second.

Sixty percent of 1,895 survey respondents said they disapproved of Biden’s handling of the economy, marking a six-point drop in approval from September.

On personal economic issues, voters are even more likely to criticize the president. Some 72% disapprove of his handling of everyday property prices, while 66% disapprove of his efforts to help their wallets.

Disconnection from markets, economy

Biden also scored poorly on issues that voters are likely to say are doing well.

For example, most people who said they plan to vote midway through 2022 say the US stock market is doing “excellent” or “good”, while only 46% say it is doing “well”. not so good “or” less good “.

But when asked whether they approve or disapprove of Biden’s handling of the market, only 44% said they strongly or somewhat approved, compared with 56% who disapproved somewhat or strongly.

In fact, a larger percentage of respondents said they thought the U.S. stock market was doing worse than the year before than those who said it was doing better.

These opinions, collected from December 17-20, run counter to what has been one of the best years on the market in decades. The three major US stock indexes posted massive double-digit gains in 2021 from their historical annual average of around 7% or 8%.

The S&P 500 ended the year up 26.89% and posted a record close at least once a month. The broad market index hit 70 closing records in 2021, the second-highest annual total behind the 77 closing highs in 1995.

All 11 sectors ended 2021 higher, with energy and real estate posting the best returns. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 18.73% and the Nasdaq Composite climbed 21.4%.

Biden’s inability to take credit for one of the best stock market years in living memory is symptomatic of a bigger problem for Democrats in 2022: The party is failing to convince voters that the things are better than 12 months ago.

CNBC Politics

Learn more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The unemployment rate is down to 4.2% from 6.3%, the average hourly wage is up 4.8%, and 243 million people (or 73% of the US population) have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine against 6 million who had received one in early January 2021.

This failure to turn improving economic statistics into popular support adds pressure for any Democrat facing a mid-term challenge from Republicans who will decide whether Democrats retain their slim majority in the House and Senate.

While the president’s party typically loses seats in Congress in the first-term election, current polls on Biden and the Democrats suggest they could face a rout in November.

Perhaps this is because members of both parties are increasingly frustrated with inflation.

Some 84% of those polled said the prices they saw for everyday consumer goods were higher than a year ago, while only 19% said they earned more income during the same period. And only 23% say they think inflation is starting to go down or will start to go down soon.

Respondents tend to blame Biden (38%) for price increases from the global pandemic (26%) or businesses (23%). For their part, Democrats say the global pandemic has caused the current inflationary surge and will subside once the supply chain disruptions are resolved.

Covid and healthcare

But voter dissatisfaction is starting to spread outside the economic arena.

Asked to give the Biden administration an alphabetical note on both how it manages health care costs and rising wages, Democrats gave the president two C’s, but a B’s on the economy in his outfit.

The Independents gave Biden a D on each question, while the Republicans gave the president a failing rating on all levels minus the stock market, where they gave him a D.

Moreover, a majority of 55% of those polled said they disapproved of the president’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, a sign that Biden is struggling in an area where he previously excelled.

A separate survey conducted by CNBC in December showed only 46% approve of his work on the virus compared to 48% who disapprove. This April version of that survey showed that 62% of Americans polled approved of Biden’s handling of the pandemic.

Change Research has noted that the worsening of the president’s approval ratings on Covid is likely due to an increase in voters who believe the White House has not gone far enough on vaccination mandates.

When it comes to how the Biden administration is handling the virus, 50% of those polled say the White House has gone too far, 24% say it hasn’t gone far enough, and 26% think it has gone too far. did a good job.

Biden’s drop in Covid-related approval numbers comes as the number of new coronavirus cases skyrockets across the country and tests the president’s campaign commitment to do a better job of managing the disease.


Source link

]]>
Iran’s flexibility must be returned by the West if it is serious in the Vienna talks (ex-diplomat) https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/irans-flexibility-must-be-returned-by-the-west-if-it-is-serious-in-the-vienna-talks-ex-diplomat/ Sun, 02 Jan 2022 11:34:14 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/irans-flexibility-must-be-returned-by-the-west-if-it-is-serious-in-the-vienna-talks-ex-diplomat/ TEHRAN – A former Iranian diplomat says that if the West is serious about revitalizing the 2015 nuclear deal, like Iran, it must also show flexibility in the Vienna talks. “There are indications that the Iranian delegation has been constructive in showing flexibility, in particular in avoiding insisting on all the amendments it had proposed […]]]>

TEHRAN – A former Iranian diplomat says that if the West is serious about revitalizing the 2015 nuclear deal, like Iran, it must also show flexibility in the Vienna talks.

“There are indications that the Iranian delegation has been constructive in showing flexibility, in particular in avoiding insisting on all the amendments it had proposed at the beginning. This flexibility needs to be reciprocated by the other party, if it is serious to reach an agreement, ”Kourosh Ahmadi told The Tehran Times in an exclusive interview.

Ahmadi also believes the United States is accusing Iran of buying time as a tactic because it might have “an eye on the blame game in case the talks fail.”

Here is the text of the interview:

Q: Even some in the United States say Joe Biden is not serious about revitalizing the JCPOA as he promised during his presidential campaigns. Do you think that this lack of seriousness is intended to avoid exasperating the Republics?

A: I don’t see any serious sign that Mr. Biden is not serious about reviving the JCPOA. It seems that it is serious to do so under certain conditions which are not realistic. For example, in his editorial, published by CNN on September 13, 2020, he talked about reviving the deal and making it “longer and stronger” and then focusing on other issues such as the missile program. Iranian and regional issues. If his administration intends to insist on such unrealistic conditions, then the current efforts in Vienna should prove frustrating. This is exactly where Republicans step in and insist that Mr. Biden keep his promises. In other words, he might now be trapped by his rhetoric.

Q: How do you assess the process of the Vienna talks?

A: I believe that both parties are looking for and are ready for a compromise. True, the talks have been slow so far, but I think they are still on the right track. The parties of the seventh round got to know each other, which was necessary due to the change of administration in Iran. They also agreed on the way to proceed as well as on the texts which would be the basis of the negotiations. During the current round, they should be able to focus on the content. There are indications that the Iranian delegation has been constructive in showing flexibility, in particular in avoiding insisting on all the amendments it originally proposed. It is necessary that this flexibility be reciprocated by the other party, if it is serious to reach an agreement.

The issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear program “cannot be manifestly legal or technical”.

Q: How do you analyze the insistence of the West, especially the Americans, for the Vienna talks to be concluded as quickly as possible? For example, Secretary Blinken said, “I’m not going to put a time limit or give you the number of meters left on the track except to say, yes, it’s getting very, very, very short. Don’t you think that such artificial delays are meant to put psychological pressure on Iran?

A: This is a tactic the United States has employed from the start. They started by accusing Iran of trying to buy time and procrastinate. Iran’s delay of about five months in starting talks has been an excuse to try to push this argument forward. In doing so, they can also keep an eye on the blame game in case the talks fail. Now they’re trying to put pressure on Iran through hawkish talks and some kind of unofficial, implied deadline. No doubt this would degrade the mood and hurt the prospect of a compromise.

Q: There are reports that France, as a member of the European troika, is hampering the progress of the talks. Of course, France played such a role in the previous round of talks that led to the JCPOA. Don’t you think that France is trying to please certain sheikhs in the Persian Gulf by such behavior?

A: It is possible that French behavior from time to time has been and continues to be motivated by France’s relations with and pressure from certain Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf. They have also started since August 2017 to talk about integrating issues relating to the Iranian missile program and regional issues in the negotiations; something Iran has always rejected. It should also be taken into account that Iran has not done enough to create the necessary leverage effect with France and other European states. While Iran’s regional rivals have lost no opportunity to move in this and any other direction.

Q: In your December 27 article in the Etemad newspaper, you wrote that the experience of previous talks shows that the P5 + 1 group has always acted unanimously, and therefore an extremist approach from one member can affect the whole group. Can you clarify this point?

“If the administrator of Biden. insists on unrealistic conditions, the talks in Vienna could prove to be frustrating ” A: Yes, it has always been important for the United States under the Obama and Biden administrations to form a coalition to deal with Iran and many other international issues. This was obviously not the case with the Trump administration. Now the United States believes it will be stronger if the 5 + 1 can maintain a unified approach and position. John Kerry, the former US secretary of state and chief negotiator, refers in his memoirs to France’s more hawkish stance at one point in the previous negotiations and stresses that they had to be attentive to what France asked for. He also said that, based on President Obama’s instructions, the highest priority for the US delegation was to preserve the 5 + 1 unity and unified position as it was necessary to reach an agreement with Iran and the United States. protect thereafter. Kerry adds, so we sided with France. This time, too, we can conclude that once again the hawkish approach of a 5 + 1 member can affect the position of the whole group.

Q: In a recent interview, former nuclear negotiator Seyyed Hossein Mousavian somehow suggested a direct negotiation between Iran and the United States, arguing that if the United States gives concessions to Iran, they want it directly and not through intermediaries. What is your opinion?

A: There should be no doubt about it. While I understand Iran’s anger as one of the reasons Iran avoids speaking directly to the United States, I doubt that there can be an agreement between Iran and the United States without that the two parties speak to each other directly. Furthermore, I

“I think at later stages of the negotiations it would be essentially impossible for these two main parties to make much progress without sitting down face to face and focusing on formulations, phrases, alternatives, formulations of substitution.” I think at later stages of the negotiations it would be practically impossible for these two main parties to make much progress without sitting down face to face and focusing on wordings, sentences, alternatives, substitute wordings. , etc. In addition, indirect talks would take too long and require a great deal of trust in messengers who may be non-existent. Needless to say, one of the messengers has his own interest.

Q: The United States and Europe would like to hold Iran responsible for the current crisis, ignoring the fact that the United States’ exit from the JCPOA and the inaction of the Europeans to compensate Iran for the sanctions has led Tehran’s retaliatory measures. What is the reason for such a blame game?

A: There is no doubt that the failure of the United States to fulfill its commitments is primarily responsible for the current situation. Other countries, including Europeans and others, are also responsible for their inaction and inability to push their banks and businesses to continue working with Iran. Some countries that continue to work with Iran on a limited basis do so informally and through intermediaries without showing it in their official statistics and customs records. This type of activity is also very costly for Iran and cannot go on indefinitely.

Q: It is completely understandable that Iran is seeking guarantees that the United States will not leave the JCPOA again. However, experts and diplomats believe that the only way Iran can be sure the sanctions are permanently lifted is to resolve Tehran’s fundamental differences and disputes with the United States and establish normal relations. . What’s your suggestion?

A: In view of the United States’ breach of engagement, I agree that Iran is right to be cautious and cautious before taking the same path again. Some sort of guarantee binding the United States on the deal going forward is a solution if there can be one. To my knowledge, there is still no feasible and practical suggestion for this purpose. On the other hand, it is often said that the main shortcoming of the JCPOA is the fact that it is a single agreement. While there are so many issues straining Iranian-American relations. So, I understand the logic of the proposition. At least, since the 1990s, there has been talk of a so-called large market in which the two countries settle everything between themselves. But at least for now, I don’t see any prospect for such a probability. Under the current circumstances, I can think of nothing but all the parties going back to their commitments under the JCPOA and trying in good faith to stay in compliance with its terms. We must also be careful not to open the market, because that would be like opening a Pandora’s box.

Q: Do you agree with this view that the issue surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is primarily political?

A: Of course, it is essentially political. This obviously cannot be legal or technical. The political will of the parties is the most decisive factor in deciding the outcome of any effort to find a solution. And by policy, I also take into account the internal politics of the parties. As the saying goes: foreign policy is the continuation of domestic policy. The domestic politics of the United States under Obama resulted in the JCPOA, and the domestic politics of the United States under Trump destroyed it.


Source link

]]>
Two Iowa teens indicted as adults in death of Spanish teacher https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/two-iowa-teens-indicted-as-adults-in-death-of-spanish-teacher/ Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:32:20 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/two-iowa-teens-indicted-as-adults-in-death-of-spanish-teacher/ Content of the article Two Iowa teenagers have been indicted as adults in the murder of their 66-year-old Spanish teacher, according to the New York Daily News. Content of the article Willard Noble Chaiden Miller and Jeremy Everett Goodale, both 16, face first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the November […]]]>

Content of the article

Two Iowa teenagers have been indicted as adults in the murder of their 66-year-old Spanish teacher, according to the New York Daily News.

Content of the article

Willard Noble Chaiden Miller and Jeremy Everett Goodale, both 16, face first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the November 2 death of Nohema Graber, who worked at Fairfield High School in Iowa.

Graber was found dead in Chautauqua Park shortly after her disappearance.

No official cause of death was disclosed, but police said the victim suffered “head trauma”.

Prosecutors described the murder as ruthless and premeditated.

It is alleged that the two students watched Graber’s whereabouts before grabbing the teacher on her daily walk and dragging her into the woods where they later returned to hide her body under a tarp and wheelbarrow.

“The nature and circumstances of the alleged criminal act are as serious as they exist in the Iowa Penal Code,” Jefferson County District Attorney Chauncy Molding said in Goodale’s file obtained by The Daily News.

We apologize, but this video failed to load.

“This prosecutor cannot imagine any combination of programs at an Iowa juvenile facility that could appropriately treat or rehabilitate the accused if he is tried as a juvenile.”

The prosecution also argued that if Goodale had been charged as a minor he would have been released after two years, even if he was convicted of murder, whereas if he was found guilty as an adult, the two teenagers could be sentenced to life in prison.

The defendants have pleaded not guilty and are in juvenile custody on cash bond of CAN $ 1,274,750.00 (or US $ 1 million) each.

Source link

Disclaimer! NewsConcerns is an automatic aggregator of all media in the world. In each content, the hyperlink to the main source is specified. All trademarks are the property of their rightful owners, all documents are the property of their authors. If you are the content owner and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. Content will be removed within 24 hours.


Source link

]]>
China warns of “drastic measures” if Taiwan moves towards independence – National https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/china-warns-of-drastic-measures-if-taiwan-moves-towards-independence-national/ Thu, 30 Dec 2021 05:28:20 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/china-warns-of-drastic-measures-if-taiwan-moves-towards-independence-national/ China will take “drastic measures” if Taiwan moves towards formal independence, a Beijing official warned on Wednesday, adding that provocations and outside interference from Taiwan could intensify next year. China claims democratically ruled Taiwan as its own territory and over the past two years has stepped up military and diplomatic pressure to assert its claim […]]]>

China will take “drastic measures” if Taiwan moves towards formal independence, a Beijing official warned on Wednesday, adding that provocations and outside interference from Taiwan could intensify next year.

China claims democratically ruled Taiwan as its own territory and over the past two years has stepped up military and diplomatic pressure to assert its claim to sovereignty, fueling anger in Taipei and concern in Washington.

China was ready to do everything possible to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan, but would act if independence red lines were crossed, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Bureau, said at a briefing. Press.

Read more:

Beijing says Canada-China relations are “at crossroads” after Trudeau comment on “coercive diplomacy”

“If Taiwan’s separatist forces seeking independence provoke, exert force or even cross a red line, we will have to take drastic action,” Ma said.

The story continues under the ad

In a statement Wednesday evening, the Taiwan Mainland Council urged Beijing to “seriously think about its work towards Taiwan and make a correct judgment on the situation.”

The Council reiterated its call for dialogue on an equal footing and declared that it maintained a policy of “non-provocation” to safeguard peace across the Taiwan Strait and in the region.

Taiwan has become a key factor in the strained relations between Taiwan and the United States, the island’s largest international donor and arms supplier despite the lack of formal diplomatic ties.

Taiwan claims to be an independent country and is committed to defending its freedom and democracy.

China regularly describes the island as the most sensitive issue in its relations with the United States.


Click to play the video:







Xi Jinping says ‘reunification’ with Taiwan must and will be achieved


Chinese Xi Says ‘Reunification’ With Taiwan Must and Will Be Achieved – October 9, 2021

Ma said the provocation by pro-independence forces and “outside intervention” may become “more vivid and more intense” in the coming months.

The story continues under the ad

“Next year, the situation in the Taiwan Strait will become more complex and more serious,” he said.

Beijing has sent repeated air missions over the Taiwan Strait in recent months to put pressure on Taiwan. He said he would not give in to threats.

While the United States recognizes only one China, it is required by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, and has long followed a policy of “strategic ambiguity” as to whether it would intervene militarily to protect itself. protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. .

The defeated government of the Republic of China fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with the Communists, who established the People’s Republic of China.

Disclaimer! NewsConcerns is an automatic aggregator of all media in the world. In each content, the hyperlink to the main source is specified. All trademarks are the property of their rightful owners, all documents are the property of their authors. If you are the content owner and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. Content will be removed within 24 hours.


Source link

]]>
Jan. 6 panel signals interest in whether Trump committed a crime https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/jan-6-panel-signals-interest-in-whether-trump-committed-a-crime/ Sun, 26 Dec 2021 15:56:56 +0000 https://milwaukeecountyfirst.com/jan-6-panel-signals-interest-in-whether-trump-committed-a-crime/ (The hillThe Jan.6 select committee said it intended to explore possible wrongdoing by former President Trump, marking a significant escalation in the investigation that could put pressure on the Biden administration. The panel said it could send Trump to the Justice Department for prosecution if he finds overwhelming evidence, in what would be seen as […]]]>

(The hillThe Jan.6 select committee said it intended to explore possible wrongdoing by former President Trump, marking a significant escalation in the investigation that could put pressure on the Biden administration.

The panel said it could send Trump to the Justice Department for prosecution if he finds overwhelming evidence, in what would be seen as an open invitation to Attorney General Merrick Garland to be more aggressive towards the former president than it was not during his tenure. far.

representing Liz cheney (R-Wyo.), The vice-chairman of the select committee, gave the first indication during a hearing earlier this month that the panel is examining whether Trump has committed a crime.

Citing the statutory text for an offense of obstructing justice, Cheney said a key question for the select committee’s investigation is: “Donald Trump, by action or by inaction,” he sought by corruption to obstruct or hinder the official procedures of Congress for counting electoral votes? “

Obstructing formal proceedings is a charge punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Federal prosecutors used it against hundreds of rioters who allegedly participated in the attack on the Capitol.

But bringing the same charge against a president who has never set foot in the building would require far more complex legal and political calculations.

“The challenge is… this indefinite territory of circumstances in which an executive official crosses the line between the exercise of executive power and actual obstruction of justice,” said Daniel Hemel, professor of law at the University of Chicago.

The comments about Trump’s potential wrongdoing come after months of growing frustration among Democrats and criticism from Trump that Garland and the DOJ are not doing enough to tackle potential illegal activity at the highest levels of the previous administration.

Any criminal referral to the select committee alleging that Trump violated the law would be a clear escalation in lawmakers’ efforts to pressure the Biden DOJ to be more aggressive towards the former president.

But criminal referrals to Congressional investigators carry no legal weight to compel federal prosecutors to lay charges, unlike the criminal contempt of referrals to Congress which must be approved by a floor vote in the House and have already given rise to charges against Steve bannon, Trump’s former White House strategist who pleaded not guilty last month to a pair of misdemeanors for defying select committee subpoenas.

Jeff Robbins, a former federal prosecutor who has also served as an investigative advisor on two Senate committees, said for such a referral to be compelling for federal prosecutors, it must be backed up by strong evidence that would not only support the laying charges. but show evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“A committee that wishes to make a compelling referral will be as specific and as detailed and as evidence-based as possible, providing something as close to a basis of accusation on a silver platter as possible,” a- he declared.

Robbins said any referral involving a former president would be subject to an even higher standard, but added that the committee’s credibility would support its findings in the eyes of the Justice Department.

“There will be a tendency to look very, very, very carefully at any criminal referral involving Donald Trump, to kick the tires over and over,” Robbins said. “But on the other hand, they will treat a criminal referral to this committee – given its leadership and the quality of the lawyers – as a serious document if that is what happens to it.”

Throughout the first year of the Biden administration, Garland sought to keep politics at bay as he inherited a department that had been used repeatedly to advance Trump’s political goals and protect his personal interests. during the previous four years.

In some high-profile cases, Garland’s DOJ has backed the legal positions defended by the department during the Trump administration, including defending the former president in a libel lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raped in the ’90s, and arguing that an internal DOJ memo exonerating him of wrongdoing in connection with the Mueller investigation should remain secret.

The department has shown few signs that it is pursuing a criminal investigation into Trump.

“It’s going to be very difficult to condemn him here in part because I don’t think we have a Nixon Watergate smoking gun,” Hemel said, noting that although a jury is made up of people who “hate Trump by all bones in our body ”, they might be reluctant to convict him of obstructing formal proceedings.

And pursuing the charges against Trump could be a heavy undertaking beyond the political implications. Such a prosecution would be unprecedented and could be jeopardized by legal uncertainties as to whether a president could be charged with a felony for actions he took during his tenure.

The obstruction charge that federal prosecutors have leveled against many rioters in what is seen as a new interpretation of the law has so far survived a series of legal challenges by the defendants, but it remains to be seen whether the juries will find obstruction cases. persuasive.

“The courts have made it clear in at least three different decisions that rioters on the ground can be prosecuted for conspiracy; there is no reason to believe, if the evidence permits, that the former president cannot be indicted in the same way, ”Bradley Moss, a national security law expert, told The Hill by email.

“If the DOJ is to take this politically explosive step, they undoubtedly identified admissible evidence that Trump intended to obstruct the certification process, that his actions in recommending the mob march on Capitol Hill were more than ‘a simple throwaway line, and that he was aware of his “war room” efforts to intervene if the mob actually prevented Congress from completing its certification process. “

But Hemel sees the downside of losing the case as a much worse outcome, arguing that an unsuccessful prosecution against Trump would only strengthen the former president and increase the threat he poses to American democracy.

“There was a lot of criminal activity on January 6. Are they making a case against President Trump? I do not think so. And, my god, I think I’m glad the DOJ isn’t putting resources into a mindless racing effort to tear the country apart further and further raise the political profile and demagogic myth of Trump, ”Hemel said.

It is not known what evidence, if any, the committee gathered to support a criminal referral against the former president. But while lawmakers are able to convincingly present to the public that Trump broke the law, some believe it would be important for the Justice Department to follow through in order to send the message that no one is above the law. laws.

Katherine Hawkins, senior legal analyst at the Nonpartisan Project on Government Watch, says it’s important for the select committee to draw its own conclusions about whether Trump broke the law and, whether he finds he did so, to clearly articulate the case against him.

Hawkins said the DOJ’s tendency to defend the legality of executive branch actions makes the congressional investigation even more crucial. She pointed to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the CIA’s torture practices, part of which was made public in 2014, which found the agency had overstepped legal justification for the practices and committed in a cover-up. Despite the Senate panel’s findings, the DOJ has never prosecuted anyone for their role in the torture of terrorist suspects.

“I think the committee should seriously consider making a well-substantiated referral, because otherwise we just get silence from the DOJ, which could be [doing a] diligent investigation, theoretically, but given how the torture investigation unfolded, how the Department of Justice approaches violation of executive law in general, and what we’ve seen from Garland, I doubt it ” , said Hawkins.

She added that the committee’s findings will be valuable even if they make a referral that DOJ chooses not to act on.

“The simple act of revealing the truth is valuable in itself,” said Hawkins. “It’s really important to know how close we’ve come together and what mechanisms could be in place to prevent this from happening again. But also if there is any evidence of unsolved crimes that we do not know if the Justice Department will investigate, I think it is entirely appropriate that the committee put this at the feet of the Department of Justice and say, “What are you doing with this?” What is happening here?'”

Recent news

  • Federal program offers money to cover COVID-19 funeral costs
  • Oregon dad who told Biden ‘Come on Brandon’ said it was ‘kidding’
  • Jan. 6 panel signals interest in whether Trump committed a crime
  • Hundreds of parakeets dropped off at Michigan animal shelter
  • “I am not silent”: memorable quotes from Desmond Tutu

Read the original article here

Disclaimer! Verve Times is an automatic aggregator of all the world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the main source is specified. All trademarks are the property of their rightful owners, all documents are the property of their authors. If you are the content owner and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. Content will be removed within 24 hours.


Source link

]]>