Tag: california
 Kamala Harris

Harris Presidential Campaign Reignites 'Birtherism' On The Right

It’s 2024, so everyone reading this knows exactly what the deal is with birthers. We know that the Constitution requires anyone running for president to be a “natural born Citizen,” and that Vice President Kamala Harris, having been born in Oakland, California, surely qualifies.

Birtherism must be understood not as a wild conspiracy theory about where Kamala Harris and Barack Obama were born, but rather as a slur against their status as Americans. There are no good-faith legal questions about whether or not Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen, just like there were no good-faith questions about where Barack Obama’s mother gave birth to him. We all know the deal. MAGA pundits are pushing birtherism against Harris now — like they did to Obama before her — in order to signal to their audience that people like Harris and Obama are somehow less American. Regardless of your politics, these claims deserve nothing more than absolute contempt.

The biggest name currently spreading this is Trump associate Tom Fitton. You may remember that Fitton, the Judicial Watch president who is not a lawyer, reportedly advised former President Donald Trump to keep secretive government documents that the former president had stored on a ballroom stage and in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. (Ironically, in 2009 — years before Trump picked up birtherism and used it to help take over GOP politics — Fitton was one of the few right-wing voices who spoke dismissively about birtherism against Obama, saying he had not “seen any credible evidence Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen eligible for the presidency.”)

Fitton links to an August 14, 2020, piece by John Eastman in Newsweek. Eastman is the intellectual architect of Trump’s attempt to remain in office despite losing the election, which culminated in January 6. (A judge has since ruled that Eastman should be disbarred for his actions.) We addressed this at the time when then-Trump campaign official Jenna Ellis reposted Fitton’s identical tweet.

The following note is on the top of the Eastman column that Fitton now links to:

Editor's note, 8/14: This op-ed is being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia. We apologize. The essay, by John Eastman, was intended to explore a minority legal argument about the definition of who is a "natural-born citizen" in the United States. But to many readers, the essay inevitably conveyed the ugly message that Senator Kamala Harris, a woman of color and the child of immigrants, was somehow not truly American.

The op-ed was never intended to spark or to take part in the racist lie of Birtherism, the conspiracy theory aimed at delegitimizing Barack Obama, but we should have recognized the potential, even probability, that that could happen. Readers hold us accountable for all that we publish, as they should; we hold ourselves accountable, too. We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted and weaponized.

As we said in our earlier note, this essay was an attempt to examine a legal argument about the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized," the latter being ineligible to hold the office of president. In the days since the op-ed was published, we saw that it was being shared in forums and social networks notorious for disinformation, conspiracy theories and racist hatred. All of us at Newsweek are horrified that this op-ed gave rise to a wave of vile Birtherism directed at Senator Harris. Many readers have demanded that we retract the essay, but we believe in being transparent and are therefore allowing it to remain online, with this note attached.

None of this has stopped other MAGA figures online from pushing this ridiculous, bigoted argument now that Harris is poised to be at the top of the Democratic ticket. And yes, free speech gives them the right to spread this bigoted bullshit.

As the late, great Simon Maloy wrote in 2019:

The Obama-era birthers never came anywhere close to proving their accusation, and it didn’t matter one bit. The only thing they cared about was getting people to treat their obvious bullshit with a modicum of seriousness. The country’s most famous birther was challenged repeatedly to back up his outlandish allegations about President Barack Obama; he never did, but flogging the racist conspiracy theory made him a hero to the political movement that eventually elected him president.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Former President Donald Trump

Suddenly Most Republicans Support Electing A Felon As President

A county sheriff in California shared a novel idea with his Instagram followers this week.

"I think it’s time we put a felon in the White House,” Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said, donning his uniform in a video posted to his personal account.

But it turns out Bianco, a Trump supporter, is more of a lagging indicator than a leader. A new YouGov survey published this week found that a majority of Republicans now say they are just fine with electing a criminal president—a wholesale change from their views on the matter before Trump was convicted of 34 felonies.

In April, just 17 percent of Republican voters said convicted criminals "should be allowed" to become president while 58 percent said they should not. But, hey, sometimes life comes at you fast. Now 58 percent of Republicans say felons "should be allowed" to be president, while just 23 percent say they should not.

In April, 37 percent of Republicans also said they wouldn't vote for a convicted felon "under any circumstances." Now just 14 percent say that.

Indeed, Trump's indictment and conviction have been transformative for the Republican electorate. In March 2023, whenRepublicans were asked whether it's a crime for a candidate seeking elected office "to pay someone to remain silent about an issue that may affect the outcome of an election," 73 percent of them said it was a crime. But a month later, following Trump's April 2023 indictment in the hush money case, only 40 percent of Republicans said it's a crime.

That's some major whiplash. And if it wasn't so predictable, it would be preposterous that a majority of Republicans are now putting out a presidential welcome mat for convicted felons.

But MAGA Republicans were always going to rally around Trump, regardless of his criminal status. It's the 23 percent of Republicans who still feel queasy about electing a felon president that matters.

In fact, on the margins, Biden has gained on Trump since his conviction, particularly among low information voters. The New York Times recontacted nearly 2,000 voters from its pre-conviction polls and found that Biden is picking up two points on Trump, putting the race at 46 percent Biden and 47 percent Trump.

"The shift was especially pronounced among the young, nonwhite, and disengaged Democratic-leaning voters," who had pushed Trump's lead in earlier polling, reported the Times. And among the so-called double-haters, who don't like either Biden or Trump, Trump shed more than 20 percent support, with half going to Biden and half retreating to undecided.

So it looks like MAGA Republicans aren't the only voters having a change of heart since Trump’s conviction.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Rep. Michelle Steel

GOP Rep. Steel Got Pregnant With IVF -- Then Sponsored A Bill To Ban It

It's been a really rough week for Republicans who hate reproductive rights, and Republican Rep. Michelle Steel of California is no exception.

"As someone who struggled to get pregnant, I believe all life is a gift. IVF allowed me, as it has so many others, to start my family," she tweeted Thursday. "I believe there is nothing more pro-life than helping families have children, and I do not support federal restrictions on IVF."

Great! Just one teeny tiny little problem with that, as Inside Elections editor Jacob Rubashkin noted: Steel actually does support federal restrictions. Steel is one of the co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Act, a House bill that "declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being."

And as Rubashkin points out, there is no carveout in the bill for in vitro fertilization. Oops!

Ever since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that "unborn children"—including frozen embryos created for IVF—"are children," and multiple hospitals and clinics have announced they are pausing IVF treatment because of it, Republicans like Steel have been scrambling to figure out how to respond.

It's a real problem for the GOP, and it's only going to get worse. On the one hand, they've spent years pushing legislation, like the bill Steel cosponsored, to declare that life begins at conception, every sperm is sacred, and an embryo is the exact same thing—and entitled to the exact same legal rights—as a live human being with a name and a Social Security number.

On the other hand, the ruling out of Alabama is absolutely batshit insane, and even Republicans know it, which is why they're now trying to pretend this isn't the direct consequence of their actions and rhetoric to convince everyone—or at least conservatives in the judiciary—that, as the Republican-controlled Alabama Supreme Court held, "unborn children are children."

The problem is that IVF is popular because, as Steel notes, it has helped so many people to be able to start their families. And starting families is supposed to be a Republican value.

But darn the luck, it's a slippery slope from "unborn children are children" to "frozen embryos are the exact same thing as children" to double oops, sorry, you can't use IVF to start your families anymore. As Republicans are now learning the hard way.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Gavin Newsom

Democratic Governors Plan To Stockpile Abortion Medications

Following the unprecedented decision by a federal judge in Texas to stay the Food and Drug Administration's approval two decades ago of the abortion medication mifepristone, officials in Democratic-led states are now stockpiling both that medicine and a second one used in abortions, misoprostol, to ensure that they remain accessible to patients.

So far, Democratic officials in Washington, California, New York, and Massachusetts have announced measures to purchase and store large quantities of the drugs in their states.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Tuesday that the state would purchase 150,000 mifepristone pills.

During a Planned Parenthood conference, Hochul said: "I'm proud to announce that New York State will create a stockpile of misoprostol, another form of medication abortion. … Extremists, judges have made it clear that they won't stop at any one particular drug or service. So it's going to ensure that New Yorkers will continue to have access to medication abortion no matter what."

Connecticut has not yet begun storing mifepristone, but that state's Attorney General William Tong says his office has been proactively notifying pharmacies to confirm that the drug remains legal in the state and to offer support should a Republican attorney general in another state try to convince them otherwise.

On Monday Tong said: "(I'm) obviously deeply disappointed that my colleagues have taken that action. … We're pushing back on that. We're in communication with all the big pharmacy chains, advising them of their rights and obligations here in Connecticut."

According to Bloomberg, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey announced her state would reserve 15,000 doses of mifepristone. She also issued an executive order both to safeguard the availability of the medication and to protect physicians who perform abortion procedures in her state, the Guardian reports.

In early April, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced his state would invest in a three-year supply of mifepristone. In a statement, Inslee said that his office had "directed the state Department of Corrections, using its existing pharmacy license, to purchase the medication last month. The full shipment was delivered on March 31."

Inslee tweeted on Monday: "After we announced our actions last week to protect access to mifepristone, it's heartening to see other states doing the same. To be clear: no matter the outcome of the TX case, WA's laws ensure we will be able to sell and distribute this medication."

Mifepristone and misoprostol are used in a two-drug procedure to terminate a pregnancy through 10 weeks' gestation. The drugs are used in over half the abortions carried out in the U.S.

Misoprostol can be used on its own and is effective for abortions, but the two-drug combo has fewer side effects, and both drugs are commonly used in treating cases of miscarriage.

On Friday, after the ruling by Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordering a stay of the FDA's 23-year-old approval of mifepristone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the state has already collected 250,000 doses of misoprostol, with nearly two million more pills coming.

"In response to this extremist ban on a medication abortion drug, our state has secured a stockpile of an alternative medication abortion drug to ensure that Californians continue to have access to safe reproductive health treatments," Newsom said in a statement Monday. "We will not cave to extremists who are trying to outlaw these critical abortion services. Medication abortion remains legal in California."

The office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has launched a new website offering facts and information on abortion care.

In a statement following Kacsmaryk's ruling, Shapiro said, "Your rights and freedoms here in Pennsylvania have not changed — you can get a safe, legal medication abortion using mifepristone in our Commonwealth." He added, "As your Governor, I believe decisions on reproductive care are to be made between women and their doctors, not extremist politicians or radical court rulings."

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World