Archive by Author

Why the US must do a deal with the Taliban

In the aftermath of Afghanistan’s earthquake last week that killed at least 1,000 and rendered tens of thousands homeless, the Biden administration should take the Taliban up on its request for international assistance and look to find a more general modus vivendi with a government that, like it or not, now runs the country. The very survival of a large share of the Afghan population is at stake. America’s counterterrorism interests also would be well served by such an understanding.

Since last summer’s fall of the previous government, and with it the departure of most foreign assistance, as well as the reimposition of Western sanctions and freezing of most of the country’s modest foreign assets, Afghanistan is in crisis. The situation has partly stabilized in recent months but only at a far lower standard of living than existed before — and Afghanistan was always poor. Over the past year, Afghanistan’s economy has declined by perhaps 30 percent; 22 million of its 41 million inhabitants remain short on food and 8 million acutely so; the health system is in tatters. The dramatic improvements achieved since 2001 in rates of child survival (with death rates reduced about a third), average lifespan (with average longevity increased about six years), and other metrics of human welfare are being lost. 

To be sure, no deal can or should be unconditional. The Taliban remains an extremist organization with harsh proclivities in terms of how they govern their nation.

Thus, if the Biden administration were to lead an international effort to cut a deal with the Taliban, it should insist on at least minimal standards for women and minority rights, as well as some travel and press freedoms, in exchange for diplomatic recognition and some limited degree of economic assistance. The Taliban’s impediments to high school, higher education and numerous government positions for women must be removed, and reports of mistreatment of political opponents investigated when they occur. There must also be dialogue and information sharing on the terrorist threat from Afghanistan, even if the Taliban will not actively collaborate with us against extremists.

The politics of this idea may be unappealing to a Biden administration still reeling from the August troop withdrawal debacle, captured by television for all the world to see, in Kabul and the rest of Afghanistan. But this is a manageable risk. After all, whether rightly or not, most Americans agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out U.S. (and therefore all NATO/foreign) forces before the withdrawal occurred. 

For all the problems, things could be much worse in Afghanistan — suggesting a certain degree of Taliban restraint that perhaps can be built upon. Former leaders such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai still live safely in the country, though at least for a time Karzai was reported to be under house arrest. There have been no reports of mass killings and relatively few reports of extrajudicial killings. Some limited U.N. presence, including notably the World Health Organization, is on the ground. There are restrictions on women’s movements and dress, but such is also the reality in conservative Muslim societies. All this may be damning with faint praise — in fact, it is not praise at all. The Taliban remains hugely problematic as a governing regime. But like it or not, they are now that regime. 

The Taliban needs help, as they have again affirmed in requesting assistance after the recent earthquake. They also do not seem eager to pick a military fight with the United States again, as their imperfect but still considerable collaboration with us in permitting a massive evacuation effort from the country in August attests. This suggests a basis for a certain détente.

As such, the basic outlines of a deal can be imagined:

• Food and health care must be made available to all without prejudice based on gender, religion, or politics;
• Girls and women must have basic educational and legal rights, as must minorities — including access to higher education and to employment opportunities;
• If there is to be some version of Sharia law, it should be instituted only in consultation with other conservative Sunni countries where such legal codes and punishment systems have been moderated over the years;
• There must be no active collaboration between the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the Taliban must accept that if they cannot control ISIS-K on their territory, we may take direct action against it ourselves at time;

• In exchange, the international community will recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, allow access to some fraction of the country’s foreign holdings each year, and provide considerable humanitarian assistance for years to come, as needed (even if substantially less than the aid amounts previously provided). The Biden administration is reportedly already considering a deal on foreign currency assets; it should be expedited and expanded.

To make all this work verifiably, the Taliban must accept an international observation mission to monitor these promises. The mission must be empowered to investigate any acts of violence that could violate the Taliban’s promises of amnesty to former enemies, and to monitor courts and prisons. The operation could operate under U.N. auspices and be composed mainly of troops from Muslim-majority countries (not to include Afghanistan’s neighbors). Such missions are inexpensive and abide by the three doctrinal rules of peacekeeping: consent, impartiality and the use of force only in self-defense. They have a good track record around the world of holding parties to ceasefires or peace agreements accountable through transparency, cajoling and, where necessary, the withholding of financial aid. They help deter fresh rounds of civil war as well.

This kind of agreement would not turn Afghanistan into a foreign policy success for the United States and broader global community. But it could help preserve the basic safety, sustenance and human rights of 41 million Afghans who have no option of looking away from the plight of their country today — even if many in Washington would like to do just that.

Michael O’Hanlon is the Philip H. Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy at the Brookings Institution, and author of several books, including “The Art of War in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and Resolute Restraint” and “Defense 101: Understanding the Military of Today and Tomorrow.” Follow him on Twitter @MichaelEOHanlon.

Lise Howard is professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University and president of the Academic Council on the United Nations System. She is the author of “Power in Peacekeeping.” Follow her on Twitter @HowardLise.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden, former presidents commemorate Fourth of July

President Biden and a handful of former presidents commemorated the Fourth of July on Monday as the United States celebrated its independence.

“The Fourth of July is a sacred day in our country – it’s a time to celebrate the goodness of our nation, the only nation on Earth founded based on an idea: that all people are created equal. Make no mistake, our best days still lie ahead,” Biden said in a tweet. 

“Happy Fourth of July!!!” former President Trump wrote on his Truth Social account, also noting that “it’s not looking good for our Country right now.” 

The former president pointed to high inflation, the ongoing Russian invasion in Ukraine and stock market turmoil, saying “none of these terrible events would have happened if I were President!!!”

Former President Obama used his July 4 post to urge Americans to “recommit” to fighting for democracy.

“Happy Fourth of July! As we celebrate today, let’s thank our armed forces and their families for their service to our country. And let’s recommit to fighting for our democracy—there’s still so much work to be done to perfect our union,” Obama tweeted.

The Jimmy Carter President Library, meanwhile, tweeted multicolored artwork of the Statue of Liberty.

Former President Clinton retweeted a clip of previous comments he made, in which he said, “Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

Clinton reiterated those sentiments in a tweet including the clip.

“Like the Founders and so many generations before us, now it’s our turn to protect this great American experiment. I still believe there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America Happy Fourth to all,” he said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Black Republicans energized ahead of midterms

2020 saw Black voters and candidates alike turn out in droves. From Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D) successful campaign in Georgia to Jaime Harrison’s unsuccessful Senate campaign in South Carolina, it seemed Black voters and candidates were lining up on the left.

But while the Democratic Party tends to have a lock on Black voters, that bloc is not a monolith. And Black Republicans are confident their ranks will continue growing ahead of the midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

“So many Black Americans have been raised in a conservative way,” said Paris Dennard, national spokesperson and director of Black media affairs for the Republican National Committee. “When you think about Black conservatism, that is being a strong family. That’s having a lot of faith, being able to work hard and have a strong and safe community.”

This year, Black voters’ support for Republican candidates rose to 27 percent, up from 12 percent in November, according to a March Wall Street Journal poll. 

Meanwhile, Dennard said, the RNC tracked more than 160 Black Republicans who filed to run for office; of them, 120 are still running. There were more than 80 who filed to run in the House of Representatives. 

“There’s no doubt that come November, the road to retiring [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi is going to be paved with new Black Republicans coming to Congress,” Dennard said. 

While the RNC remains neutral in primaries, Dennard mentioned there were several where Black Republicans are running that the RNC has been keeping an eye on over the past year, even in blue states such as Illinois and New York. 

One of those candidates was Illinois Republican hopeful Jimmy Lee Tillman. While he only pulled in 5 percent of votes in the June 28 primary, Tillman said he thinks “the future is bright” for Black Republicans. 

Being a Black Republican, Tillman said, is a “badge of honor.”

“The Republican Party was the party that fought to free slaves,” he said. “The gains that Black Americans have gotten in this country have always been under a Republican administration, no matter how you might feel about that Republican president.”

Under former President Regan, Tillman said, Black Americans saw Martin Luther King Jr. Day become a federal holiday. Meanwhile, former President George W. Bush appointed Colin Powell to be secretary of State and former President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas as the second Black Supreme Court justice.

Tillman, an academy fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a firm supporter of former President Trump, ran on an “America First” platform against six other Republican candidates. Two were Black. 

But Tillman said he wants to see more Black candidates running in the future. 

“A lot of Blacks who are concerned about what’s going on in their county board, what’s going on in their school boards, what’s going on in townships should take up that mantle,” he said. 

And that’s exactly what the RNC is focused on too — local elections.

The success of candidates like Albany City Commissioner Jalen Johnson, Mike Reichenbach of the South Carolina State Senate and Harriet Holman of South Carolina’s Dorchester City Council have the RNC confident in the party’s ability to build a strong Black coalition. 

“I think we have a tremendous opportunity when you look at some of these new leaders that are emerging,” said Dennard. “The Black conservative movement is helping the entire conservative movement and the Republican Party.”

But Black conservatism and Black Republicanism are not the same, said Tasha Philpot, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. 

Like Dennard, Philpot said there is a big part of Black conservatism that is based on faith. But there’s also no denying the racial tensions that impact U.S. politics and everyday life, she argues.

In many ways, Philpot said, the Republican Party is seen as more racially conservative and “downright hostile” toward African Americans than the Democratic Party — something that worsened during the Trump administration. That hostility often means Black conservatism is not translated into GOP support at the ballot box. 

And having Black candidates like Tillman doesn’t really change that, either. 

That’s partly because Black Republican candidates, Philpot said, tend to embrace deracialized or colorblind platforms and they often reject the idea of systemic racism. 

“Typically in this day and age, Black Republicans are considered race traitors,” Philpot said, “especially the Herschel Walkers, the Tim Scotts, the ones that espouse the same type of racist rhetoric that the rest of the GOP expresses: anti-critical race theory and that we should just ignore the history of the United States because it makes people feel uncomfortable.”

“Those types of candidates tend to repel African Americans, because the vast majority of African Americans feel that systemic racism and see it unfolding on television, on the news and in their everyday lives.”

Both Dennard and Tillman vehemently reject the idea the Republican Party is racist, though Tillman acknowledged words like those of Illinois Rep. Mary Miller (R), who praised Adolf Hitler, as unacceptable.  

Tillman remains confident the party is seeing a demographic shift, with more Black conservatives ready to hit the polls if Republicans can send the right message. 

The only issue? The party may not be ready for that.

“Political parties aren’t altruistic organizations,” Philpot said. “They’re there to gain electoral control.” 

And when it comes to the Republican Party, the last few years, especially, have seen an effort to suppress minority votes. 

Philpot said that while Democrats need the Black vote in order to win in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it’s “been more efficient for [Republicans] to change laws to suppress Black voting.”

“There’s no real incentive for [Republicans] to attract Black voters,” she said. “The way that politics is playing out in this time and space, it would be to their detriment to deviate from that message of us versus them, Black versus white.”

Source: TEST FEED1

State Department: IDF gunfire likely killed Palestinian journalist; bullet analysis inconclusive

Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was likely shot and killed unintentionally by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), but a U.S. investigation could not reach a definitive conclusion, the State Department said on Monday.

Abu Akleh, a widely known Al Jazeera correspondent, was killed on May 11 in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank while covering an Israeli military operation. The Palestinian Authority (PA) provided the bullet that killed Abu Akleh to U.S. forensics experts on Saturday, but the State Department said in a press statement that the bullet was badly damaged, preventing examiners from reaching a clear conclusion about its origin.

“The [U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC)] concluded that gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh,” said State Department spokesman Ned Price. “The USSC found no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances during an IDF-led military operation against factions of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

The announcement comes less than two weeks before President Biden is set to travel to Israel and the West Bank as part of a broader trip to the Middle East. Two dozen Democratic senators had called on Biden last month to get the U.S. “directly involved” in an investigation of Abu Akleh’s death.

Beyond the ballistic analysis, the State Department said on Monday that U.S. investigators reviewed both the Israeli and Palestinian investigations of the incident.

PA Attorney General Akram Al-Khateeb said in May that their investigation concluded an Israeli soldier killed Abu Akleh “directly and deliberately.” Abu Akleh’s colleague, who also was shot during the operation, also accused the Israeli military of shooting them. 

Israeli officials, meanwhile, have criticized the PA for rejecting offers to conduct a joint investigation, and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz called claims that the IDF intentionally harmed Abu Akleh a “blatant lie.”

The IDF said last month their investigation concluded that Abu Akleh was not “intentionally shot” by the Israeli military but it was “not possible” to determine whether she was killed by Palestinian or IDF forces.

“The United States appreciates and continues to encourage cooperation between Israel and the PA in this important case,” Price said on Monday. “We will remain engaged with Israel and the PA on next steps and urge accountability. We again offer our deepest condolences to the Abu Akleh family.”

Source: TEST FEED1

America’s audacious independence

It was an audacious and brave statement. On July 4, 1776, 56 men adopted what we now know as the Declaration of Independence, officially separating and divorcing themselves from Great Britain.

Their patience was exhausted. They were done with the mistreatment by the tyrannical rule of the despotic King George III who ruthlessly lorded over the 13 colonies and imposed economic sanctions on them, all without representation in the halls of power.

The members of the Second Continental Congress declared in the soaring and searing words of the Declaration that they were free and independent states and were no longer a political appendage to the most powerful nation on Earth.

The chief author of the Declaration of Independence was 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson, a shy man who preferred his pen to public speaking. He was assigned the task of drafting the statement that would be debated and eventually adopted by Congress. His draft minced no words about the grievances that led the colonies to declare their separation from the mother country.

On the drafting committee was Jefferson’s friend and collaborator, John Adams. Adams was bombastic and brilliant, but unpolished. The man from Massachusetts ardently argued for independence.

While Jefferson consulted the members of the committee, it was Jefferson’s words that formed the basis of this groundbreaking document.

Like any writer, Jefferson was troubled when Congress debated and edited his masterpiece while he silently watched the proceedings.

It was an audacious thing for this band of politicians to do. The signers knew their lives were on the line. Declaring independence was one thing, but first the ragtag army held together by the imposing and magisterial George Washington had to win the war with Great Britain. If they lost the war, the signers and others who dared question the authoritarian monarch would be quickly executed.

At the stroke of a pen, the men who signed the document put themselves at great personal and economic risk. When Jefferson penned the Declaration, he included words that reflected the stark reality of what was on the line noting, “and for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Much was at stake.

The wise and elderly Benjamin Franklin was there. Upon adoption of the Declaration, it is reputed that he soberly quipped that “We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.” Whether he actually said this, it was nevertheless true.

July 4, 1776 was just the beginning of the great American experiment in self-government. It was still an unformed nation with much work to be done to institutionalize and make a reality of the words of the Declaration’s preamble “that all men are created equal.”

On July 2, 1776, Congress provisionally adopted a resolution approving the Declaration of Independence. Adams was elated and proclaimed to his wife that July 2 would henceforth for generations to come be celebrated with great fanfare and fireworks. He was wrong by two days. It wasn’t until July 4 that Congress formally adopted the Declaration, and the Fourth of July became known as Independence Day.

In early 1781, almost five years after declaring independence from Great Britain, a loose constitution was put into operation for the embryonic nation. As it turned out, the Articles of Confederation were ineffective, and were replaced with a new Constitution adopted in 1788. The actual beginning of the new government we know today didn’t start until April 30, 1789, when George Washington was inaugurated as the nation’s first president in New York City.

Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration was one of his proudest moments. “Author of the Declaration of Independence” is what he had inscribed on his tombstone, not even mentioning his two terms as president.

In an ironic twist of fate and history, Jefferson and his onetime good friend, later bitter political rival, and finally reconciled friend, John Adams, both died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after the momentous adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Little did the 56 signers know or even imagine what they were birthing 246 years ago. They were making it up as they went along, as we all do in life and politics. These clear-headed men stood for principles. They were committed to truth that is in rare supply in some corners of our political world today.

These brave men made a bold statement against authoritarianism. I wonder how they would respond to the dangerous drift in our nation today toward embracing autocratic leadership rather than loyalty to the principles of self-government and truth.

Our founding fathers were flawed giants. The Declaration of Independence was written by a white male slaveholder who nevertheless declared that “all men are created equal.” There are no perfect leaders. Jefferson’s soaring words still stand as an inspiration for what this nation has always aspired to embody: the equality of all people under the law.

We’ve come a long way as a nation but still have a long way to go to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. May we stand firm in resisting the impulses that would allow us to sink into the oppression of totalitarianism and may we embrace equality and the rich diversity of all stripes of Americans as we celebrate the truth of the Declaration of Independence on this Fourth of July.  

Mike Purdy is a presidential historian, the author of the “Presidential Friendships: How They Changed History,” and the founder of PresidentialHistory.com.

Source: TEST FEED1

Scandinavian airline estimates pilots’ unions striking will lead to cancelation of half its flights

Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) said on Monday that members of its pilots’ unions were going on strike as the airline saw dozens of flights canceled by that morning.

Data from the flight tracking website FlightAware showed that SAS was the airline with the second-highest number of canceled flights on Monday morning, with more than 120 nixed so far for the day. More than 20 flights from SAS have also been delayed. Several of the canceled flights were scheduled to fly into U.S. cities, as well as other locations around the world.

“A strike at this point is devastating for SAS and puts the company’s future together with the jobs of thousands of colleagues at stake. The decision to go on strike now demonstrates reckless behavior from the pilots’ unions and a shockingly low understanding of the critical situation that SAS is in,” Anko van der Werff, president and CEO of SAS, said in a statement. 

The strike came in the wake of failed negotiations between the pilots’ unions and SAS that began after a conflict notice was given on June 9, SAS noted in a press release. 

The Scandinavian airline estimated about 30,000 passengers will be impacted each day by the striking and about half of its scheduled flights will be canceled. 

The development comes as the airline industry struggles to keep up with consumer travel demand amid the COVID-19 pandemic after the earlier stages of the coronavirus saw bookings plunge. A number of pilots had retired or been furloughed during that time period.

Hundreds of flights within, into or out of the United States had been canceled by noon Saturday, with many more delayed. As of Monday morning, more than 150 such flights scheduled for the day had been canceled. 

Source: TEST FEED1

City of Orlando apologizes for Fourth of July message following backlash

The City of Orlando, Fla., apologized on Saturday for its Independence Day message that declared the nation was in “strife” and questioned why people would want to celebrate the holiday in the city’s weekly newsletter.

“A lot of people probably don’t want to celebrate our nation right now, and we can’t blame them,” the Friday edition of Orlando’s “City News” read. “When there is so much division, hate and unrest, why on earth would you want to have a party celebrating any of it?”

The city apologized the next day, saying it “sincerely regrets” the message’s “negative impact.”

“We understand these words offended some of our residents, which was not our intent,” the city wrote in its apology. “We value the freedoms we have in this country and are thankful to the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for those. We take pride in celebrating the 4th of July to express our gratitude to those men and women and honor the country we live in.”

The statement had sparked widespread criticism online, with many users calling the city’s newsletter “un-American.” The message also caught the attention of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) office.

“Oh, here we go,” Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’s spokeswoman, tweeted on Sunday. 

“The City of Orlando apologizes if you were offended by their attack on 4th of July,” she wrote. “This is what happens when you elect Democrats, you guys… they do not have the same view of America as we do.”

Despite the backlash, some have cheered the city’s July 4 message.

“Y’all do not need to apologize — your first email captured the tone of how many Americans (and Orlandoans) are feeling right now,” Florida state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D), who represents parts of Orlando, tweeted on Saturday. “It’s ok not to be ok.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Independence Day, freedom and the ‘Ministry of Fun’

Celebrating Independence Day 2022 conveys a lot of emotional burden for many Americans on all sides of the political spectrum, as they feel their freedom and independent agency eroding at an accelerating pace. Many Americans felt their freedoms taken away by overreaching government during COVID-19. Other Americans felt freedoms of life choices suddenly wrenched away by the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Everyone feels the enormous restrictions on their lives this year brought on by energy restrictions, inflation and a collapsing economy.

Oddly, an apt but unexpected metaphor has surfaced at Stanford University. The tremendous success and popularity of the school emboldened the governing bureaucracy to launch major social re-engineering of the campus over the past couple of decades, using various formulas to “design housing,” mix students and control campus life. The result seems to have killed what was traditionally an extremely vibrant and exciting campus life that successfully self-organized for over a century. An engaging essay documents the disaster. Most poignant in the essay is that, for a campus that was once vibrant, alive and exciting on weekend evenings, the current campus is defined by … dead silence. As the university became aware of this problem, it turned to the progressive reformers’ best friend — a committee, in this case a Campus Life Committee, or Ministry of Fun, if you will.

Now, for anyone who has gone to Stanford, or any other center of higher learning, or who has taken courses in psychology, philosophy, sociology, politics, management or literature (read “1984”), or who has simply taken 10 minutes to think about what makes real humans tick, you’ll quickly see the thousand problems in this approach. You don’t tell people how to have fun, or create, or get excited about things, or invent, or lead, or do any of the other million things that make people happy, succeed and enjoy life. Given sufficient freedom and opportunity, they simply do it! And, apparently against all odds, they do it very well and responsibly, for the most part. Of course, this misperception is not limited to Stanford. It is growing in all of our educational institutions, the private sector, and in government.

And that brings us to the real, fundamental division in American politics, public policy and governance today. The most important difference of opinion is between those who trust people and those who don’t — or at least those who accumulate power by arguing that people can’t be trusted. It is a most fundamental disagreement on the true nature of people; the engine of fun, creativity, and social progress; and, in this case, American citizens.

And that brings us to the subjects of freedom and independence and the future of the country. Do we want to be a country that is so distrustful of people doing the right thing and so risk-averse that all activity must be designed for zero-risk and controlling behavior, or do we want to be a society that trusts the inherent nature of people to generally make good and thoughtful decisions that creatively move us forward? At this point we seem to be moving toward the zero-risk, controlled society — a model that more often than not becomes stagnant and fails.

Increased government programs, increased regulation, growing deficits, and higher taxes take money and power and agency away from all American citizens and give it to government bureaucrats and politicians to make key decisions on investments, social direction and the lives we each live. It’s little wonder that the massive increase in government spending and regulation over the past two years, combined with the ham-fisted use of government power over the energy sector, has collapsed the American engine of growth and led to economic collapse. It is a classic example of taking freedom and agency away from private citizens and investors and putting it in the hands of government bureaucrats. It is an obvious train wreck that cannot be fixed until we again trust people and put the money and agency back in their hands, i.e., give them freedom and independence.

Social engineering and welfare programs, while initially bringing many out of deep poverty, also regulated and destroyed minority families, were highly paternalistic, and created an eternal cycle of dependence that kept many in perpetual, generational poverty. When Martin Luther King Jr. said “free at last,” he meant that Black Americans would have the freedom and agency to succeed in America. He did not envision the deadly equity trap that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and the household scold, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), promote — where everything on earth is “free at last.” Black scholars such as Shelby Steele have made it clear that the increased size of government promoted by such progressives takes all freedom and agency away from the poor and minorities.

Of course, there is a classic Faustian Bargain here. As is clear, higher government spending and taxes — including the huge tax of inflation — collapse the economy and make everyone poorer and unhappy. That is the definition of “equity.” Lower taxes, on the other hand, increase investment, increase tax revenues, and make everyone better off and happier. Unemployment drops, wages increase, the economy grows. But, the rich do get much richer. It is not “equity.” It is prosperity, where everyone has a chance, has agency, and has real freedom and independence. It’s a complicated choice, but the answer is pretty clear — except to progressives or those who seek power through division.

In short, 2022 will see one of our most important Independence Days and be one of our most important independence years. Do we want to celebrate a country distinguished by deep trust in its citizens, where everyone feels a strong sense of freedom and agency, or do we want visitors arriving in our country saying, “Wow, it sure is quiet here”?

Grady Means is a writer (GradyMeans.com) and former corporate strategy consultant. He served in the White House as a policy assistant to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. Follow him on Twitter @gradymeans1.

Source: TEST FEED1

Newsom pardons woman who killed man who abused, trafficked her

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pardoned a woman on Friday who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole after she killed a man when she was a teenager after he had trafficked her for sex and abused her. 

Sara Kruzan received that sentence in 1995 for fatally shooting the man responsible for trafficking and abusing her, according to a signed gubernatorial clemency certificate. She was 16 at the time of the shooting.

Her sentence was commuted to 25 years to life in 2010 by former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and was later resentenced to 15 years to life with a four-year firearm enhancement in 2013. After 18 years in prison, she was released.

“She has provided evidence that she is living an upright life and has demonstrated her fitness for restoration of civic rights and responsibilities,” the signed gubernatorial clemency certificate states. 

“Ms. Kruzan committed a crime that took the life of the victim. Since then, Ms. Kruzan has transformed her life and dedicated herself to community service. This act of clemency for Ms. Kruzan does not minimize or· forgive her conduct or the harm it caused. It does recognize the work she has done since to transform herself,” it adds. 

The pardon for Kruzan was one of 17 Newsom granted on Friday, in addition to one medical reprieve and 15 commutations, according to a press release from Newsom’s office.

Kruzan told the Los Angeles Times that the pardon was “releasing these invisible chains that I didn’t realize were still taloned in (me)” and that she was relieved by the announcement when asked to comment on the matter. 

Source: TEST FEED1