Democratic presidential candidate in ‘excellent health’ before November’s US election, doctor says.

United States Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, released a letter from her doctor that pronounced her in “excellent health” and fit for high office, in an effort to draw a contrast with her counterpart, Donald Trump.

As president, I will take on corporate price gouging to lower the cost of groceries.

Donald Trump can’t figure out what groceries are. pic.twitter.com/fhvYsYj9Ep

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2024

In a memo released on Saturday, physician Joshua Simmons said Harris’s April exam was “unremarkable”, noting her active lifestyle, “very healthy diet”, seasonal allergies, sporadic hives, and moderate alcohol use.

“In summary, Vice President Harris remains in excellent health. She possesses the physical and mental resiliency required to successfully execute the duties of the presidency, to include those as chief executive, head of state and commander in chief,” Simmons wrote.

Donald Trump’s Project 2025 plan will gut Social Security and Medicare. pic.twitter.com/BcmhhA593n

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 9, 2024

Harris, 59, is running against Republican Trump, 78, for the White House in November.

Locked in a tight race, Harris’s campaign hopes that contrasting her comparative youth and mental acuity with Trump’s more advanced age and tendency to meander, along with the differences in transparency between the two, will help convince undecided voters that she is more fit for office than he is.

Simmons said Harris’s allergies had been well-managed with over-the-counter and prescription medications.

Her urticaria, or hives, were “sporadic and transient and do not seem to be triggered by any particular exposure nor are they associated with other symptoms” and respond well to antihistamine treatment.

Harris has been on allergen immunotherapy for the last three years, dramatically improving her allergy and urticaria symptoms and negating her need for medication other than occasional nasal spray, he said.

Trump’s health

Former President Trump questioned President Joe Biden’s health when the 81-year-old president was seeking re-election. Since Biden was replaced on the ticket with Harris, Trump’s own health has drawn more attention.

According to a Harris aide, the vice president made her medical information public on Saturday in an effort to draw attention to Trump’s refusal to do so.

Trump has released very little health information, including after his ear was grazed by a bullet during an assassination attempt in July.

Last November, Trump marked Biden’s birthday by releasing a letter from his physician that reported the former president was in “excellent” physical and mental health.

The letter posted on Trump’s social media platform contained no details to support its claims – measures like weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, or the results of any test.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article Kamala Harris releases medical report, drawing contrast with Donald Trump est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

On January 6, as the two chambers of Congress convened to count Electoral College votes and officially certify Joe Biden as the president-elect of the United States, a violent mob stormed the US Capitol in support of President Donald Trump and his false allegation that the presidential contest was “stolen” through voter fraud.

Carrying Confederate flags and wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats, hundreds of rioters broke through barricades, smashed windows and entered congressional offices and chambers. After wreaking havoc on the very heart of American democracy and live-streaming their unlawful actions on social media for several hours, the rioters left the Capitol with ease, with only a few dozen of them being detained. Some even carried “souvenirs” with them as they walked out.

So where were the mighty US security forces during this unprecedented domestic terror attack? How did a bunch of violent white supremacists manage to breach a high-security federal building, defile the “seat of American democracy”, threaten the lives of some of America’s highest-ranking elected representatives, and leave without facing any real resistance from the police?

The authorities tried to explain their failure to swiftly secure the Capitol and detain those responsible for the attack by claiming that they were “underprepared” and did not have the necessary resources at their service to keep the angry mob under control. They said their officers were simply “overwhelmed”.

These excuses did not sit well with anyone who watched the US security forces clamp down on last year’s racial justice protests, which were overwhelmingly peaceful, using not only excessive force but also seemingly limitless resources.

On June 1, when Black Lives Matter demonstrators peacefully gathered near the White House to demand an end to impunity for the police killing of Black Americans, for example, the US security forces were neither “underprepared” nor “overwhelmed”.

They charged on the mostly Black crowd, situated almost a block away from the White House, with a large force made up of Washington police, US Park Police, National Guard troops, and members of other federal agencies. Army helicopters swooped low over the heads of protesters, forcing them to disperse. And when Trump wanted to stage a photo op outside a church across the street, officers used tear gas, batons and horses to quickly clear the president’s way.

That day, 289 Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested. The protesters never even came close to breaching the White House and were doing nothing other than exercising their First Amendment right to protest, but nonetheless, they faced the full force of US law enforcement.

In the following days, as Black Lives Matter protests gathered steam across the country, the National Guard from several states were deployed to Washington, DC to guard federal buildings and public monuments. They stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in full military gear in an ironic show of force against thousands of peaceful protesters calling for racialised police brutality to come to an end. Meanwhile, federal police patrolled the streets of the capital without nameplates or badges. Some 14,000 arrests were made across 49 US cities during anti-racism protests last summer, according to The Washington Post.

The very same security forces that cracked down on overwhelmingly peaceful racial justice protests with such “efficiency” just a few months ago, however, were not able (or willing) to defend the US Capitol against a relatively small mob on January 6.

Moreover, last week’s riot did not come as a surprise to anyone, let alone the security agencies who had months ago warned that “white supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the US”. White supremacist groups and individuals who led the attack on the Capitol advertised their plans for violence on social media for everyone to see long before they travelled to Washington, DC.

The day before the riot, the FBI issued a report warning of a violent “war” at the US Capitol, which authorities did not heed or take seriously. Meanwhile, President Trump himself proclaimed January 6 a day of reckoning and urged his supporters to come to the Capitol on that day to help him overturn the election. “Big protest in DC on January 6th,” he tweeted on December 19, “Be there, will be wild!”

Nevertheless, as the images of a handful of officers unsuccessfully trying to keep the angry crowds behind a few light-weight barriers outside the Capitol building clearly demonstrated, the US security apparatus was neither prepared nor overly eager to get this riot under control.

Why did security forces treat Black Lives Matter protesters and pro-Trump rioters so differently?

Because the storming of the Capitol was not only about overturning the election but also maintaining white supremacy in an increasingly diverse America. This was evident in most rioters carrying not only pro-Trump insignia but also confederate flags and neo-Nazi emblems as they ransacked congressional offices and chambers.

As law enforcement itself has a long history of acting as a tool for maintaining white power in America, the security forces are not inclined to see overwhelmingly white, nationalist groups as threats. So while they are always prepared to crush even the most peaceful protests led by Americans of colour, they are often reluctant to intervene with force when white Americans, who they view as their primary supporters and benefactors, resort to unlawfulness and violence to preserve their privilege.

Indeed, social media footage from the Capitol riot show not only that the authorities failed to take the threat posed by the pro-Trump white nationalist gathering seriously, but also that some of the officers on the ground viewed the rioters as allies. Several officers were filmed joking, shaking hands or taking selfies with the rioters inside the Capitol building. One officer allegedly donned a MAGA hat and directed the pro-Trump mob around the Capitol building. According to The New York Times, another officer tried to direct rioters to the office of  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

There were also numerous off-duty police officers, military veterans and other security personnel actively participating in the riots in a personal capacity. Larry Rendall Brock Jr, a retired air force lieutenant colonel, for example, was pictured wearing combat gear and carrying zip-tie handcuffs in the Senate chamber. Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was shot and killed as she was trying to breach a barricaded door in Congress, was also an air force veteran.

Two Seattle police officers who allegedly travelled to Washington, DC to participate in Trump’s Stop the Steal “rally” were put on administrative leave so it can be determined whether they took part in the consequent riots. In the coming days, as we learn more about the rioters, we will most certainly hear many more stories of officers and other security personnel actively participating in, or at least voicing their support for, this attack on American democracy.

The police’s subdued and inefficient response to and tacit support for the Capitol riot was not an isolated incident. American police have long been treating white vigilantes who resort to violence to maintain white supremacy and suppress movements for racial justice with kid gloves. This is why far-right vigilantes felt emboldened enough to threaten and violently assault Black Lives Matter protesters hundreds of times in the last year. And this is why Kyle Rittenhouse was not immediately arrested after opening fire on anti-racist protesters in Kenosha.

The police support for angry white mobs targeting Americans of colour did not start during the Trump presidency either. Throughout US history, the police often either tacitly approved or actively participated in racist mob violence against Black Americans.

During the deadly New Orleans race riots in 1900, for example, as journalist Ida B Wells-Barnett explains, “The police and the legally constituted authorities showed plainly where their sympathies were, for in no case reported through the daily papers does there appear the arrest, trial and conviction of one of the mob for any of the brutalities which occurred. The ringleaders of the mob were at no time disguised.”

In 1898, when a mob of 400 white supremacists staged a coup against the local government of Wilmington, North Carolina, the police once again did nothing to stop the attack which resulted in dozens of deaths, or bring the perpetrators to justice.

In 1921, a white mob decimated the thriving Black community of Tulsa, Oklahoma, massacring hundreds, destroying homes and businesses and leaving thousands homeless. Bombs were dropped from aeroplanes on what was known as Black Wall Street in what is now considered the first aerial bombing of a US city. Despite all this, the local police and the National Guard did nothing to protect the victims or hold those responsible to account.

Decades later, in 1985, the second aerial bombing of a US city took place, and the target was once again Black Americans. The Philadelphia police bombed a home occupied by the Black radical group MOVE, killing 11 people, including five children, and burning a city block of 61 homes to the ground, leaving more than 250 homeless. Despite two grand jury investigations, a civil suit, and a commission report that defined the bombing as “reckless, ill-conceived, and hastily-approved”, no one was ever criminally charged for the attack.

So there is no reason to wonder why the police failed to secure the Capitol on January 6. The American police are efficient and ready to crush any dissent with excessive force – but only when the perpetrators are Black. In the land of the free, police afford white terrorists more respect than peaceful Black protesters, and this is an outrage.

David A Love – Philadelphia-based freelance journalist, commentator and media studies professor.

L’article The Capitol riot exposed police double standards est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

To understand what’s going on at the Capitol today as the House considers impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time, it’s helpful to look at a bit of recent history.

Throughout much of 2009, progressives watched in deep frustration as President Barack Obama and his allies kept chasing bipartisan buy-in for the massive health care law under consideration in Washington. Democrats, against all realism, thought they might be able to win over some Republican colleagues through the merits of the legislation, the political upsides of getting onboard or even personal affinity.

Democrats included a stunning 188 concessions to Republicans, including allowing small businesses to band together to increase their negotiating power and forcing members of Congress to use it as their provider. White House negotiators spent hours monitoring the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate, chasing a way to get Republican buy-in. The genuine friendship between Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Bachus and top Republican Chuck Grassley led to some fun conversations about how to structure this part or that to make a deal less toxic to Republicans.

In the end, though, Republicans never got to yes. Grassley started talking about “death panels” and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled that the future of lawmakers in his chamber hinged on toeing the line on this major vote. In the end, Obamacare became law without any meaningful Republican support.

In Washington, there are few lines as strong as a critique of a bill that “passed without a single vote from the other party.” It means the result was entirely one-sided — and it gives the other party implicit permission to scrap it as soon as it gets a majority. (One GOP House member, after the bill passed, cast his vote in support of Obamacare.) The 2009 economic stimulus package also passed without a single vote in the House, as did the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which attracted zero GOP yays in the House. Taken together, they all all served to unify Republicans to start to tear down the laws’— and Obama’s — legitimacy.

But there’s another, possibly equal power to be harnessed. Let’s call it the Power of Non-Zero. Even a few votes in support of a piece of opposition-led legislation insulates it from total demonization, for to call it evil incarnate and corrupt at its core implies members of your own tribe betrayed your common sense of values. Want to neutralize your critics? Hire their best friends.

It’s why on questions of national importance, you usually see lawmakers reach across the aisle, even if they have the numbers they need to get something passed. President George W. Bush and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy were about as different as they came, but found common ground on education with No Child Left Behind. A year later, when it came time for Bush to get the greenlight for wars in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, Bush’s White House lobbied for a bipartisan resolution. In the end, only one member of the House voted against Afghanistan and no Senators joined Rep. Barbara Lee in doing so. When it came to Iraq, roughly 40% of House Democrats backed it, and 60% of Senate Democrats did the same.

If you want to do big, durable things in Washington, you seldom can do it along party lines.

Which brings us to today, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to set in motion Trump’s second impeachment. A little more than a year ago, the House voted in favor of his first impeachment in a pretty straight, party-line vote. No Republicans in the House voted for it, and only Sen. Mitt Romney was willing to cross the President. Romney cast his vote to convict only on one of the two charges.

Now, you’re starting to see the floodgates break. Most significantly, Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of her party’s Leadership team, isn’t whipping votes away from Pelosi. She’s calling it a “vote of conscience,” meaning members can do what they think is best, and on Tuesday evening said she would be voting for impeachment. “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President,” she said.

In the Senate, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney have also been urging Trump to resign. It would take a massive flood of GOP defections to convict and remove Trump from office, though it might be possible. The rift between Establishment Republicans and the White House clearly is agape. But getting to the necessary 67 votes required in the upper chamber has always been tough, and purposefully so.

Ultimately, it doesn’t seem that enough Republicans in the Senate will defect, at least not right now. But that may not matter. The measure already has the Power of Not-Zero behind it, which may ultimately be what tells Trump that his career in politics is over next week.

World Opinions News – time.com

L’article Republicans Are Breaking Ranks on Impeachment. That’s Good for Democrats — and Bad for Trump est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.