Tag Archives : Build House

Ukrainians say Russia preparing for next offensive

Russia is gearing up for another offensive in Ukraine after winning key victories and seizing major cities in the eastern region of the country, according to officials.

Vadym Skibitskyi, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, told Reuters that Russian forces have increased the aerial deployments of attack helicopters and tactical aviation units, which suggested preparations were “underway for the next stage of the offensive.”

Ukrainian troops are fighting back against Russia’s deadly offensive in the eastern Donbas, the industrial heartland of the country. Russia has already seized several major cities, including Lyschansk, which gave the army control over the Luhansk region.

In addition to the ground offensives, Russian forces continue to shell cities around the country, including the capitol of Kyiv.

Russia’s next offensive is likely in the city of Sloviansk. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is ordering troops to intensify attacks in that region, according to the Associated Press.

In the southeast of Ukraine, Russian forces are reinforcing positions in the cities of Mariupol, Zaporizhia and Kherson, according to the latest intelligence from the British Defence Ministry.

“Given the pressures on Russian manpower, the reinforcement of the South whilst the fight for the Donbas continues likely indicates the seriousness with which Russian commanders view the threat,” officials said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden disputes Saudi account of accusing crown prince of Khashoggi’s murder

President Biden early on Sunday disputed an account that he did not accuse Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamaal Khashoggi during a private meeting with the nation’s de-facto leader on Friday.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, who was present during the meeting with the crown prince, said Biden did not confront the crown prince about Khashoggi’s murder.

Speaking to reporters after he returned from his trip to the Middle East, Biden responded “No,” when asked if the foreign minister was telling the truth.

Biden on Friday said he raised the 2018 murder and added that he told the crown prince he thought he was responsible for it.

“I indicated I thought he was,” Biden said. “He said he was not personally responsible for it, and he took action against those who were responsible.”  

Weeks ahead of departing on the trip, the president was criticized for appearing to curry favor with a controversial leader in order to possibly ramp up oil production to lower gas prices during an election year and one with a dismal human rights record.

U.S. intelligence has concluded the crown prince was behind the brutal slaying of Khashoggi in a report that Biden agreed to publicize.

Biden was photographed fist-bumping Salman at the royal palace in Jeddah, drawing a round of criticism including from Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan, who said it “projected a level of intimacy” far worse than a handshake.

“The first bump between President Biden and Mohammed bin Salman was worse than a handshake — it was shameful,” Ryan said in a statement.

Biden on Sunday also deflected the accusations over the fist bump.

“Why don’t you guys talk about something that matters?” the president told reporters when asked if he regretted the greeting. “I’m happy to answer a question that matters.”

Biden emerged from the meeting without an immediate deliverable on oil production, but said he was optimistic about developments in the coming weeks.

The White House is eyeing an August meeting with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+), a group that influences global oil supply and of which Saudi Arabia is a de facto leader.

Source: TEST FEED1

It’s time for the Democratic Party’s geriatric leaders to relinquish power

“The world is very different now,” John F. Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural address in 1961. “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue.” After imploring his audience never to forget that “we are the heirs of that first revolution,” Kennedy added, “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”

More than ever before, the Democratic Party needs to heed Kennedy’s advice and transfer power from the gerontocracy in the White House, U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives to a new generation of leaders.

At age 79, President Biden is the oldest president in the history of the United States. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Speaker of the House, is 82. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is 83. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is 81. Pelosi has served in Congress since 1987; Hoyer since 1981 and Clyburn since 1993. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is 71; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is 81. Schumer and Durbin have both served in Congress for over 40 years.

These leaders, to be sure, have had considerable success.

President Biden, who campaigned in 2020 as a healer, has restored democratic norms, honesty, and integrity to the Executive Branch. His pandemic policies have helped reduce hospitalizations and deaths. In a hyper-partisan political climate, and with razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate, he has managed to get Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package and a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that helped produce substantial increases in economic growth and reductions in unemployment. Biden also deserves considerable credit for the robust NATO response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

One of the most effective House Speakers in decades, Pelosi supplied the Democratic votes necessary to pass bills proposed by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations in 2008 and 2009 to avert a depression by rescuing financial institutions and automobile companies. She steered Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act through the House. More recently, Pelosi brought moderate and progressive Democrats together to produce majorities for the legislation proposed by Biden, some of which subsequently died in the 50-50 Senate.

Majority Leader of the Senate for only a year and a half, Schumer has won praise for his role in negotiations over the bi-partisan infrastructure bill.

That said, it seems clear to me (even though — or because — I am 72 years old) that it is time for a change. President Biden looks his age. His halting speech and frequent gaffes do not inspire confidence that he has a clear and compelling vision for the country or the ability to implement it. He has trouble remembering names. 

As Mark Leibovich has recently written, the president’s advanced age serves as a “kind of proxy for the tired and hobbled state of his agenda and the state of the Democratic Party.” Nor are Pelosi and Schumer effective communicators on television or social media. With inflation surging and the distinct possibility of a recession, Biden’s approval ratings are tanking, a substantial majority of Americans do not want him to run again, and only 16 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. The 2022 midterm elections could be a debacle for Democrats.

A solid majority of Americans, it’s also worth noting, support mandatory retirement for elected officials — most say at age 70.

This summer President Biden should declare that he will not seek re-election in 2024. Pelosi (who in 2018 supported limiting senior leaders in the House to three terms), Hoyer, Clyburn, Schumer, and Durbin should indicate that they will relinquish their leadership positions in January 2023. Their announcements might well generate goodwill toward them and their party.

The torch can then be passed to, among others, the relatively young, articulate, more aggressive and media-savvy Democrats: Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (Mich.), Pete Buttigieg (Ind.), Julian Castro (Texas), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Gov. Gavin Newsom (Calif.), Gov. Jared Polis (Colo.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Kamala Harris (Calif.).

And Democrats could alter the political conversation.

They should run on a platform prioritizing state and federal legislation protecting reproductive rights; a ban on purchases of assault weapons; reducing greenhouse gases, and requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. They should show how election-deniers, conspiracy theorists, ideological extremists, and their power-over-principle enablers have taken over the Republican Party. 

They should identify the anti-democratic agenda these Republicans have already begun implementing: voter suppression; overturning the will of the people; scapegoating immigrants; undermining respect for facts and scientific expertise, freedom of speech and inquiry, common decency and common sense, by blocking enforcement of pandemic mitigation measures; removing books from libraries, and prohibiting public schools from discussing racism and gender identity.

In the summer and fall, as new and aspiring Democratic leaders reframe the issues, they could energize the traditional constituencies of their party and independents.

And then maybe, just maybe, in November 2022, Democrats will surprise pundits, pollsters, themselves, and lots of other Americans.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”

Source: TEST FEED1

BA.5 spurs new calls to fund next-generation COVID-19 vaccines

The rise of the BA.5 variant is spurring new calls for funding for an Operation Warp Speed 2.0 to accelerate development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines that can better target new variants. 

The BA.5 subvariant of omicron that now makes up the majority of U.S. COVID-19 cases is sparking concern because it has a greater ability to evade the protection of current vaccines than past strains of the virus did.

Pfizer and Moderna are working on updated vaccines that target BA.5 that could be ready this fall, but experts say that by the time they are ready, a new variant very well could have taken hold.  

As alternatives to vaccine makers chasing each variant, experts point to research on “pan-coronavirus” vaccines that are “variant-proof,” targeting multiple variants, as well as nasal vaccines that could drastically cut down on transmission of the virus.

There is ongoing research on these next-generation vaccines, but unlike in 2020, when the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed helped speed the development of the original vaccine, there is less funding and assistance this time around.  

COVID-19 funding that could help develop and manufacture new vaccines more quickly has been stalled in Congress for months.

“There’s no Operation Warp Speed,” said Eric Topol, professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research. “So it’s moving very slowly. But at least it’s moving.” 

Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week that the U.S. needs “urgent investment” in next-generation vaccines and “we need an ‘Operation Warp Speed Part 2.’” 

“It does not work to keep on playing whack-a-mole” by trying to adapt vaccines to each variant, she said in an interview.  

But Topol said the Biden administration is hindered by lack of funding from Congress to step up efforts on the improved vaccines.

“Those who are interested, in the administration, the roadblock for them is they can’t get any funding,” he said.  

Administration health officials pointed to funding when asked about next-generation vaccines at a press briefing on Tuesday.

“We need resources to continue that effort and to accelerate that effort,” said Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert. “So although we’re doing a lot and the field looks promising, in order to continue it, we really do need to have a continual flow of resources to do that.” 

But COVID-19 funding has been stuck in Congress for months. Republicans have long said they do not see any urgency in approving the money. Democrats, while generally calling for the funding, have been caught up in their own internal divisions, like when a group of House Democrats objected to a way to pay for the new funding in March.

“Of course more funding would accelerate some parts of the development,” Karin Bok, acting deputy director of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Vaccine Research Center, said in an interview.  

She also cautioned that development of next-generation vaccines like nasal vaccines would take longer than the original vaccines, because less groundwork has been laid over the preceding years.  

Experts stress that even for BA.5, the current vaccines still provide important protection against severe disease and hospitalization, and are urging people to get their booster shots now. But there is potential for further improvement in the vaccines as well.

Aside from funding, another obstacle is obtaining copies of the existing COVID-19 vaccines for use in research, said Pamela Bjorkman, a California Institute of Technology professor working on a next-generation vaccine. 

“I would say we’ve wasted at least six months,” with various procedural hurdles on that front, she said. “It’s just ridiculous.” 

For example, she said at one point when her team was able to get access to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, it then took two or three months to get an import permit to send it from the United Kingdom.

“This is a hot topic,” Bok, of the NIH, said of access to existing vaccine doses for researchers. “The government is working very hard on an agreement with the companies to provide it to us and to all the investigators…that are funded by NIH.” 

Asked about providing vaccine doses for researchers and any talks with the administration on that front, a Moderna spokesperson said: “We do provide vaccine in certain investigator-initiated studies where physicians and scientists propose research they have designed and want to conduct with our support,” pointing to a South African study as an example.  

More broadly, the White House says it is working on accelerating next-generation vaccine research and will have more announcements soon.  

“Let me be very clear: We clearly need a true next-generation vaccine,” White House COVID-19 response coordinator Ashish Jha told reporters on Tuesday. 

“You’ll hear more from us in the days and weeks ahead,” he added. “This is something that we have been working quite assiduously on.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

The neglected common ground on abortion

Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, made even more toxic by the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t need to be. Pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree on policies that would actually reduce the abortion rate. To accomplish that, though, opponents of abortion would have to bring themselves to vote for, and even run for office as, Democrats.

Republican-controlled state legislatures are racing to criminalize abortion, which may soon be largely illegal in most states. That won’t stop most abortions. We learned a lot about the effect of such restrictions from the Texas law that banned the procedure after six weeks –— a time when many women don’t even know that they are pregnant. The law reduced the state’s official abortion rate by 50 percent, but so many women managed to get abortions in other ways, with abortifacient pills or by traveling out of state, that the actual rate of abortion declined by only 10 percent. (The nationwide effect of the new state bans will likely be similarly small.)

With the end of Roe, the network of activists who help women evade these restrictions will become bigger and more sophisticated. Worldwide data show that the rate of abortion is not much different in countries that ban abortion than in those that permit it.  Women who want to end pregnancies usually find a way.

As I’ve said for a long time, the right to abortion is properly understood as protected by the 13th Amendment’s abolition of involuntary servitude. Since the court overruled Roe, there have been creepy new parallels with antebellum slavery. The phrase “underground railroad” is already a common label for the resistance. Some legislators are considering restrictions on free speech to prevent the subjected population from learning its options, and (unconstitutional) bans on interstate travel for abortion. 

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made it a crime to help a slave escape; legislators are now proposing to criminalize firms that help their employees travel out of state for abortions. A few states already authorize private bounty hunters to help with the new, daunting enterprise of preventing huge numbers of women from escaping forced pregnancy and repressing an immense number of would-be rescuers. Pro-lifers, of course, reject this legal argument, but even they should be given pause by the similarities to America’s ugly past.

The enormous new police apparatus will reach even further. Abortion bans endanger women who want to have babies. Life-threatening complications sometimes develop in the second trimester. The amniotic sac can rupture, leading to infection. The placenta may begin bleeding. The woman may develop pre-eclampsia, which raises her blood pressure to dangerous levels. Sometimes the doctor decides, long before the patient becomes gravely ill, that the only way to save her life is to end the pregnancy.

Fear of criminal prosecution has led doctors to hesitate to end life-endangering pregnancies. In Poland, at least three women have died because their doctors waited too long. Texas obstetricians may delay intervening until the woman’s condition deteriorates to the point where her life is demonstrably in danger. Some hospitals already are afraid to terminate ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition in which the embryo has no chance of being born alive. Some state laws prohibit abortions even when the fetus is so disabled that it cannot survive.

There have already been prosecutions of women for miscarriages, which are medically indistinguishable from chemically induced abortions. That has made some women reluctant to seek medical help. After a miscarriage, the uterus may not completely empty, requiring the same dilation and evacuation techniques that are used in abortion.  Obstetricians routinely learn to do this by performing abortions, but that training will now become unavailable in many places. One hospital in Texas now teaches residents with a watermelon in lieu of a uterus. 

All this helps explain why abortion bans are associated with higher death rates among pregnant women.

There is a better way. With adequate financial support, some women would willingly continue their pregnancies — perhaps more than the criminal law would prevent.

Over 70 percent of women seeking abortions cite financial pressure as a reason for their decision, and about a quarter say it is the primary reason. Most women who abort are already mothers. Many fear that they would not be able to provide adequate support to the children they already have. They are right to worry: Women who are denied abortion are more likely to go into debt, declare bankruptcy and be evicted from their homes, and those effects persist for at least six years after the birth. Many women at first respond positively when they discover they are pregnant, but reconsider when they assess their finances.

Pro-lifers ought to be demanding a restoration of the child tax credit, which pulled millions of children out of poverty. (Some of them are — but, as a general matter, not the ones in Congress.) Evidence from several countries indicates that better financial support for families reduces the abortion rate. In Spain, for example, an increased child allowance reduced the abortion rate by about 6 percent. That is concededly less than the 10 percent drop in Texas, but the difference isn’t huge, and might not be durable.  Women won’t fight a child allowance. There will be increasing (and mostly successful) efforts to escape state abortion restrictions. 

Today’s American political landscape offers a stark choice. You can have better financial support for people with children (which the Democrats would give you), or you can have laws criminalizing abortions (which Republicans are enacting now). You can’t have both. Even Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) stingy child tax credit proposal has only two Republican cosponsors. Solidly Republican Texas parades its concern for life, but it has some of the nation’s worst prenatal and maternal health care, has the lowest percentage of women of childbearing age with health insurance and a primary care doctor, and offers no maternity leave. It has one of the highest rates of pregnancy-related mortality.

In short, if you want to minimize the number of abortions, you had best vote for Democrats. Pro-lifers focus on the fact that most Democrats won’t support abortion restrictions, while most Republicans will. But the question is which abortions you are in fact going to prevent. The Republicans would block abortions by terrified, isolated, low-income women, some of them very young, some of them incest victims, who desperately want to stop being pregnant, and who are so socially isolated that they do not know about the underground railroads that exist in their states.

The Democrats would prevent abortions by women who want another child but reluctantly end their pregnancies out of financial necessity. (Many pro-lifers are less concerned with the numbers than with intrinsic wrong of tolerating what they regard as baby-killing, but even they ought to look past symbolism and consider the actual effect of the law.)

America is moving toward an abortion regime that ought to disgust both the pro-choice and pro-life factions, a regime that brutalizes and sometimes kills pregnant women while ignoring the most promising opportunities to prevent abortions. Those factions will probably never agree about whether personhood begins at the moment of conception. But we ought to be allies on the question of what to do about it.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of “Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed” (St. Martin’s Press, forthcoming). Follow him on Twitter @AndrewKoppelman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky challenges world to help end Russia’s war by December

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has thrown down the gauntlet for the U.S. and allies to help Kyiv bring an end to Russia’s war by December.  

The imperative is to stop the bloodshed – Ukrainian forces are suffering as many as 200 casualties per day and Russian artillery has killed dozens of civilians in recent attacks, with hundreds more injured.  

But Zelensky is also under pressure to keep the focus and support of the U.S. and Europe — allies that are being pulled away by domestic crises including worsening inflation, exorbitant energy prices and fears of a global recession. 

Shifting political dynamics are also playing into Zelensky’s calculus. 

Boris Johnson has promised the strong support of the United Kingdom despite his recent resignation as prime minister. In Italy, pro-European Prime Minister Mario Draghi is under attack over a debt crisis in the country.  

And in the U.S., Republicans are set to make gains in the November midterms, potentially strengthening a small but provocative group of GOP lawmakers that criticize America’s support for Ukraine.  

Under these pressures, Zelensky is setting a six-month timeline to get as many heavy weapons to the country as possible and push back Russian forces battling low morale and exhausted manpower. 

“We can achieve a lot of things before the end of the year and we can stop this war,”  Zelensky said in an interview with CNN last week. 

“We are going to fight for every inch of our territory. It’s clear that we can’t get it all back.” 

Ukrainian forces have launched an offensive against Russian-occupied Kherson, a strategic city west of the Dnipro river that, if retaken by Kyiv, would shore up defenses around the southern port of Odesa and weaken Russia’s land bridge from the occupied Crimean peninsula.  

In the northeast, Ukrainians continue to defend Kharkiv from Russian shelling, depriving Moscow from taking over the country’s second-largest city.  

“The Ukrainians basically have stopped the Russian advances for now,” said Kurt Volker, who served as U.S. envoy for Ukraine negotiations between 2017 and 2019 and is a distinguished fellow for the Center for European Policy Analysis. 

“They feel that they need more of the assistance, more quickly, because they need to build momentum and push the Russians back more quickly and not give the Russians time to recover.” 

The U.S. has provided Ukraine with $2.2 billion in military assistance over the past three weeks.  

This includes 12 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) – the heavy weapons most prized in taking out Russian artillery depots and command centers. 

But only four HIMARS have made it in country and are operational, and Ukrainians are frustrated at the pace of delivery. 

“[The Ukrainians are] frustrated we’re putting things out in dribs and drabs,” Volker said, but added that bureaucracy and the need to keep U.S. stockpiles full are slowing down distribution.  

“Then there’s also these policy issues that come up,” he added, referring to the Biden administration decision to handicap weapons systems from shooting their full range. 

“We keep telling Ukrainians we’re not going to give the longest-range artillery, saying ‘we don’t want you firing into Russian territory,’… which is insulting,” he said.  

“The Russians are firing at Ukraine from Russian territory, they’re supplying the effort from Russian territory… Russians don’t have any problem crossing the border, why are we telling the Ukrainian’s not to?” 

Zelensky, in speeches on the global stage and with international media is pounding a repetitive drumbeat: send more weapons, send them faster, increase sanctions against Moscow and label Russia a terrorist state. 

“This day once again proved that Russia must be officially recognized as a terrorist state,” Zelensky said in a speech Friday, directing his address to the “Democratic world.”  

The Ukrainian president was speaking one day after a Russian missile attack against the western Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia killed 23 people, including three children, and wounded hundreds more.  

Ukrainian officials pushing for the U.S. to designate Russia a State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) say that it will send an unequivocal message that Moscow is a pariah on the world stage. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who met with Zelensky in Kyiv last week, said the Ukrainian president described the SST designation as a “game changer, and he thinks it would get other countries more involved, it would be a momentum builder.” 

Graham has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation to designate Russia a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

But the Biden administration is rebuffing those demands, arguing the sanctions already in place go farther than an SST designation demands, according to Ukrainian officials.  

Experts say the SST designation could be more hurtful than helpful. One concern is that victims of Russian atrocities could sue the Russian government under the terrorism designation and freeze assets in courts, handcuffing the U.S. and other governments from using those assets as bargaining chips in a negotiation for peace.  

Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said it’s unlikely that either the Ukrainians or the Russians are “going to be willing to negotiate by Christmas,” but added that both sides are facing challenges.  

“To my mind, the question is which side burns out faster? And we honestly don’t know the answer to that question,” she said. “It’s really a war of attrition and a race to resupply at this point.” 

For Ukraine, this includes the heavy losses they are suffering on the battlefield, but also the cost of keeping the country running. Haring said Ukraine needs an estimated $5 to $6 billion a month to pay government salaries, maintain the banking system, keep hospitals open, and provide for trains and buses to run, among other challenges such as reviving their economy. 

“At a certain point, if it doesn’t have the budgetary support, and it can’t keep getting the arms that it needs, Zelensky’s going to be forced to sit down and try to come up with an agreement,” she continued. 

“But I think we’re pretty far away from that point. I think the world’s empathy is still on his side.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

When it comes to intolerance, South Africa must not let Nelson Mandela down

On Monday, July 18, we will pause to remember the birthday of Nelson Mandela, a fitting moment to take stock of how far South Africa has come — and how much work there remains to do — in securing the true legacy of our first, post-apartheid president. Universally associated with tolerance, Mandela tested himself and our nation before becoming the transformational figure we know him to be today. So how do we measure up today to Mandela’s expectations?

Our report card regarding tolerance today is mixed. The “Rainbow Nation” has a problem with intolerance. The seeds sown by colonial rule were cultivated by decades of legislated segregation under the Afrikaner Nationalist regime. Now, the brave new world bequeathed to us by Mandela is reaping the toxic harvest of a new nationalism, defined by those who are or aren’t deemed to be South African.

Discrimination today is directed not by those with white skin against those with Black skin, but all too often by South African citizens against immigrants. Our new challenge is to eradicate a cancer that has metastasized into a country harboring hatred against the same countries that once supported South Africa’s liberation struggle. It is the saddest, most bitter irony: A country that was the polecat of the world for its insistence on stratifying its society according to how people looked is showing signs of moving towards the same once more. 

But no one uses the “R word” — racism. Instead, the euphemism is “xenophobia,” the fear of foreigners. But how can an African be a foreigner in Africa? How can an immigrant be discriminated against in a country that was founded by and developed through the efforts of continuing waves of immigrants from around the world, including Europe, India and the vast hinterland of Africa itself?

A recent survey of African youths in 15 nations by the Ichikowitz Family Foundation, which I chair, found that many are overwhelmingly tolerant — something we can and should celebrate on Mandela Day. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64 percent) said their country has a moral obligation to help refugees. Overwhelming majorities also agreed that the rights of women, immigrants and minority groups need more protection. However, the data for South Africa offers much less to celebrate, as its youths reveal disappointing levels of intolerance towards refugees and immigrants. More than 4 in 10 South African youths are strongly against helping refugees from other countries.

In recent local elections, new political parties have even run on anti-immigrant platforms and found support among some voters for their divisive rhetoric. As we prepare for the international day of celebration in the name of modern South Africa’s founding father, we must ask ourselves how Mandela would view such developments.

“We must work for the day when we, as South Africans, see one another and interact with one another as equal human beings and as part of one nation united, rather than torn asunder, by its diversity,” he told the United Nations in 1990. When he spoke then, it was personal knowledge of the fact that many of the brave opponents of the apartheid regime were themselves made refugees by its injustice. 

With more than 2.9 million immigrants, South Africa hosts more migrants than any other African country. The vast majority of these come from other African nations. South Africa is fortunate in many ways, and it makes sense we are the most attractive destination on the continent for migrants. 

According to the African Youth Survey, more than 50 percent of Africa’s youths indicated that they want to emigrate in the next three years. Most are considering Europe and America, and on the continent, South Africa is the top destination, despite the unacceptable levels of xenophobia.

But that is not to say that there aren’t real problems in South Africa — systemic, institutional ones. South Africa occupies the same place in the hearts of Africans that the United States does to the people of North and South America — and indeed much of the rest of the world. We are Africa’s “land of the free,” a place of fantastic wealth in fable and reality, a place where people will try to make a better life for themselves if they can’t do so in the land of their birth.

Though hit with the same post-COVID global slowdown that all countries face, South Africa’s economy has been relatively strong in comparison with our neighbors. So, it is not only our freedom, but also our opportunity that naturally attracts migrants. But how are we treating our guests? When it comes to xenophobia and nationalism, recent events show substantial room for improvement. 

For Mandela’s sake, South Africa must work harder to not be a bellwether of the rising tides of anti-immigrant grievance that has disrupted even the world’s most established democracies in recent years. Politicians in the Americas, Asia and Europe all have fallen prey to the temptation of scapegoating “the other” in their efforts to channel public anger toward their own ends.

Nelson Mandela most certainly would say that we in South Africa must rise above this trend. We ought to show the same courage of our convictions as he did. Our research bears out the fact that young Africans are looking to the generation in power today to set an example worthy of their expectations.

In the past 10 years, the memory of Mandela’s work has faded somewhat, leaving the question why we treat our fellow Africans so badly. As President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Africa Day: “Our brothers and sisters from elsewhere in Africa are not our enemies. Our common enemies are the scourges of poverty, crime, unemployment and social exclusion.” It is the foulest fruit of all, that this is a problem framed and fueled by popular nationalism, since nationalism itself in Africa is a colonial construct.

But if people will not heed pleas for common decency, then we must eradicate it the same way we do with any hint of apartheid-era racism, whatever and however it appears. South Africa must become intolerant of intolerance — not just because our constitution demands it, but because we are fast losing whatever respect we once held because of our equivocation and hypocrisy. When that happens, we will have failed Mandela and his generation of freedom fighters who gave their all. We must cauterize this tumor of intolerance now, before it irrevocably poisons the generations who come after us.

Ivor Ichikowitz is an African industrialist and philanthropist and the founder of the Ichikowitz Family Foundation, a charitable foundation focusing on youth empowerment, conservation and active citizenship. He commissioned “Jewish Memories of Mandela,” a historical publication chronicling the role that South African Jewish men and women played in Nelson Mandela’s life.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden’s best hope for 2024 might be Donald Trump

President Biden sees himself as the Democrat with the best chance of beating Donald Trump. 

The president is suffering from anemic approval ratings, with a recent poll showing a majority of Democrats don’t want him to be the party’s nominee in 2024.

He’s facing record-high inflation, a turbulent political and media environment and deep frustration within his party over their inability to protect abortion rights and take action on climate change.

It’s no wonder many are beginning to look for alternatives in two years as Democrats face the prospect of a tough midterm election where they could lose the House and Senate majorities.

Yet the same New York Times/Siena College poll that had terrible news for Biden also showed he would still beat Trump in a head-to-head match-up 44 percent to 40 percent if the next presidential election were held today.

“It’s pretty clear that the strongest argument for Biden 2024 is a Biden vs. Trump rematch,” said Democratic strategist Joel Payne. 

In the Times poll, Biden’s approval rating hit a low of 33 percent, and it showed a majority of Democrats want someone other than him to run in 2024.   

Yet one top Democratic donor said the poll showing Biden beating Trump, who could announce a new run for the White House any day, is giving the president “some life at a time when he really needs it.” 

“So many people are counting him out but when you put it in those terms…when you see he’s the only one who could win, we’d be crazy not to rally behind him. Because who else is there at the moment?”

Biden ran in the 2020 contest to end Trump’s presidency, saying no other Democrat could take him on and win after the Republican’s shocking win over Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2020. Biden, the vice president for the previous eight years, didn’t run in 2020 with Clinton sitting as the party favorite.

Given Biden’s political problems, the 2024 scenario is setting itself up as quite the conundrum for Democrats.

Many in the party hold doubts about Biden, who would be 81 in 2024. Young people are crying for a different candidate, and the president has been severely weakened politically.

Yet there are also doubts about all of the would-be replacements for Biden in a 2024 race. And while there is no guarantee that Trump will win the 2024 GOP nomination if he does run for a second term – though polls suggest it is likely — there are Democrats who see Biden as a strong candidate to run against Trump in such a scenario.  

“I thought the only relevant number in that was that Joe Biden beats Donald Trump,” Zac Petkanas, a former aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, said of The New York Times poll. 

A Biden-Trump rematch would be a historical abnormality: A president running against a former president he defeated.

“As frustrated as Democrats might be with the administration, the fear of a second Trump term looks larger than anything else,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

The Times survey couldn’t have landed at a better moment, in some ways, for Biden as Trump appears to be inching closer to announcing another presidential bid.

In an interview with New York Magazine, Trump all but said he planned to announce another presidential run, saying the only remaining question was whether he would do so before or after the November midterm elections. 

While Trump may be weakened by the bombshell findings of the Jan. 6 committee and competing investigations into his conduct, polls still suggest he maintains dominance among GOP voters.  

Democrats would be thrilled to see Trump announce his candidacy pre-midterms, which could help energize their base at a critical moment. 

“Trump is like a steroid boost for Democrats,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “He’s the most hated politician in America, particularly among Democratic voters.”

Kessler acknowledged that the November midterms are likely to be difficult for Democrats, but said that a Trump reelection announcement could help boost turnout among the base. 

Biden at times his intimated he would relish another matchup against Trump. He did so again this past week, telling Israel’s Channel 12 in an interview that he would “not be disappointed” by another Trump-Biden matchup.

“Biden very much benefits from a Trump run,” one Democratic strategist said who has worked on recent presidential campaigns. “We know what that looks like. We know what the arguments are. We know that even if Biden runs, Trump energizes the base. It’s the best-case scenario for Biden.”

Still, the strategist said Biden risks boxing himself in by playing the I’m-the-only-one-who-can-beat-Trump card. 

“They’re setting up an interesting box for themselves if for some reason Trump decides not to run or he can’t run,” the strategist said. “It’s a dangerous argument because it deemphasizes his strength with other Republican candidates including someone like [Florida governor] Ron DeSantis.” 

There is sparse 2024 public polling at this stage, but a Marquette Law School poll released at the end of March showed Biden beating three hypothetical challengers — Trump, DeSantis, and former vice president Mike Pence — by four or five points each. At the time, however, Biden’s approval rating was about 10 points higher than it is now. 

Biden also faces a significant challenge in improving his standing among voters, who have soured on his presidency amid high inflation. FiveThirtyEight earlier this week placed his current average approval rating – 39 percent – as the worst of any president since World War II’s end at this point in their term. 

Still, Biden started his presidency on a high note, and his supporters argue that Biden, unlike Trump, has a chance to rebound as the economic situation in the U.S. improves. 

“At a certain point we’re going to start to see inflation ease and, hopefully, a soft landing, and he’s got room to grow,” said Kessler.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jill Biden talks frustrations at DNC fundraiser: 'I had to be the first lady of the moment'

First lady Jill Biden spoke at a private Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser on Saturday, discussing some of the challenges and frustrations she and husband, President Joe Biden, have faced as the administration has sought to address a range of issues.

She said the president had to grapple with a range of issues as president, hindering his ability to focus on other plans and goals, according to CNN.

“He’s just had so many things thrown his way,” Jill Biden said while in Nantucket, Mass., the network reported. “Who would have ever thought about what happened [with the Supreme Court overturning] Roe v Wade? Well, maybe we saw it coming, but still we didn’t believe it. The gun violence in this country is absolutely appalling. We didn’t see the war in Ukraine coming.”

“[The President] had so many hopes and plans for things he wanted to do, but every time you turned around, he had to address the problems of the moment,” CNN reported.

President Biden has suffered decreasing approval ratings and has been caught up in an abundance of domestic and international issues since he took office. These include backlash against the military evacuation from Afghanistan, persistently high inflation and the Russian invasion in Ukraine. He’s also faced infighting among his party that has, at times, hindered the ability to pass legislation on topics that are a priority for him.

Recent polling has also revealed that voters, including Democrats, are not very enthusiastic about a 2024 Biden presidential bid, even though the White House has maintained that he will be running in the next election cycle.

That polling has complicated an already challenging midterm environment for Democrats who are bracing for losses in November. But Jill Biden sounded undeterred while speaking at the DNC fundraiser about a pessimistic outcome in the midterms. 

“I know there are so many nay-sayers who say we’ll get slammed in the midterms. Okay. The Republicans are working hard, they stick together, for good or evil. So, we just have to work harder,” she said, according to CNN.

Still, Jill Biden revealed that she, too, had experienced her own challenges as first lady.

“I was saying to myself, ‘Okay, I was second lady. I worked on community colleges. I worked on military families. I’ve worked on cancer.’ They were supposed to be my areas of focus. But then when we got [in the White House,] I had to be, with all that was happening, the first lady of the moment,” Jill Biden said, CNN reported. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from Q2 fundraising this year

A growing number of candidates and PACs have announced their second quarter fundraising for this year, with Friday marking the deadline to file their fundraising reports. 

Though not all candidates and PACs have formally announced their numbers, a few interesting dynamics have emerged. 

For one, a number of Senate Democrats and Democratic challengers seeking Senate seats posted better hauls than their Republican counterparts — a possible dose of optimism for the party amid what is anticipated to be a challenging midterm environment. 

In two contests, GOP incumbents have reported better fundraising numbers than challengers backed by former President Trump, raising questions over whether his endorsement will be enough to push candidates past the finish line in November.

Plus, gubernatorial races in Texas and Georgia are seeing eye-popping fundraising numbers. 

Here are five takeaways so far from this latest round of fundraising: 

In a handful of Senate races, Democrats fared better than their Republican challengers

A number of Senate Democrats and Democratic challengers posted impressive fundraising hauls for the second quarter that outpaced those of their Republican counterparts.

In Colorado, incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet (D) raised $3.3 million compared to Republican candidate Joe O’Dea’s close to $2 million. 

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), running for Senate in Ohio, raked in $9.1 million while “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance (R) got over $2.3 million for the quarter. Vance’s campaign noted that the total included money he received from JD Vance for Senate Inc., Ohioans for JD and Vance Victory.

Over in Pennsylvania, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D), who is running for retiring Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) Senate seat, recorded $11 million. His Republican challenger, Mehmet Oz, raised $3.8 million, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. 

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), who is vying for Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) seat, raked in more than $12.2 million. Rubio’s campaign has not yet released his latest fundraising numbers.

Incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) received over $17.2 million in second quarter fundraising while former football star Herschel Walker (R) got nearly $6.2 million. 

Some of those Senate races are considered to be among the most competitive for this election cycle. These fundraising figures could provide some optimism for Democrats who are facing headwinds in the midterms amid high inflation and President Biden’s lagging approval ratings.  

House Democrats’ campaign arm edged past its Republican counterpart

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats’ campaign arm, reported slightly higher fundraising in the latest quarter than House Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

The DCCC announced on Wednesday it brought in $40.7 million over the last three months compared to the NRCC, which reported over $34 million.

In June alone, House Democrats’ campaign arm raised $17 million while House Republicans’ raked in $16.5 million.

The NRCC begins the next quarter with $109 million in the bank compared with the DCCC’s $121.5 million.

While the president’s party usually suffers loses seats in the midterms, a Politico-Morning Consult poll released earlier this week showed that Democrats held a 4-percentage point lead over Republicans in a generic congressional ballot. However, that polling comes with several months left to go before the November midterms. 

House Republicans’ campaign arm posts higher Q2 fundraising than GOP Senate counterpart

The NRCC posted higher figures for this latest quarter of fundraising than the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. 

While the NRCC received more than $34 million for this last quarter, the NRSC raised $25.6 million. Looking at June alone, Senate Republicans’ campaign arm raked in $9.45 million compared to its House GOP counterpart, which received $16.5 million.

The House committee has raked in $215 million for this cycle so far and begins the next quarter with $109 cash on hand. The Senate committee has raised $173.4 million in the cycle so far and starts off the next quarter with $28.453 million cash on hand.

Two GOP incumbents raked in more money than their Trump-endorsed challengers

Two Republican incumbents’ campaigns — those of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) — received more money in this latest quarter of fundraising than those of their challengers, who were endorsed by Trump.

In Alaska, Murkowski’s reelection campaign announced that she raised close to $1.7 million. Anchorage Daily News reported that her Trump-endorsed competitor Kelly Tshibaka’s (R) campaign raked in $587,000. 

Over in Wyoming, Cheney’s campaign told the Casper Star-Tribune she had raised roughly $2.9 million. Meanwhile, her challenger Harriet Hageman (R) fundraised more than $1.8 million during that same time period. 

Both Murkowski and Cheney drew Trump’s ire when they voted in favor of impeaching the former president following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Cheney is also one of two Republicans who sits on the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack. 

Major hauls reported in Texas and Georgia gubernatorial races

Two gubernatorial races are seeing a notable amount of fundraising, with millions of dollars being raised by all four candidates in the latest quarter of fundraising. 

In Texas, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke’s campaign announced he had raised $27.6 million between Feb. 20 and June 30 from over 511,000 donations, while incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) campaign raked in $24.9 million from roughly 113,000 donations. 

A University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs poll out this week showed Abbott holding a 5 percentage point lead over O’Rourke.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the gubernatorial race as “likely Republican.”

The Georgia gubernatorial race is also seeing some major figures reported for this latest quarter. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s (R) campaign raked in roughly $3.8 million in addition to about $3 million that the Kemp-aligned PAC, Georgians First Leadership Committee, received in May and June.

But Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams hauled in roughly $9.6 million in the same two months, in addition to roughly $12.3 million raised by her One Georgia Leadership Committee.

A poll from the AARP’s Georgia chapter released this week showed Kemp leading Abrams 52 percent to 45 percent.

The gubernatorial is rated as a “toss up” by Cook Political Report. 

Source: TEST FEED1