Contact Me By Email

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.

This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Thursday, August 31, 2023

Why Biden Can’t Expedite Work Permits for Migrants

Why Biden Can’t Expedite Work Permits for Migrants

“Congress is unwilling to change entrenched immigration laws. Other options face lawsuits or backlogs that could lead to even longer waits.

People wait in a crowded line on a city street.
Recently arrived migrants to New York City wait outside the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where a temporary reception center has been established.Mike Segar/Reuters

Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York has blamed the White House for failing to respond to her call to expedite work permits for the influx of migrants arriving in the state.

More than 100,000 migrants have traveled to New York City from the southern border over the past year, relying on the state and city government for food, shelter, medical care and education. Governor Hochul has been urging the Biden administration to get work permits to asylum seekers faster so that they can support themselves and their families as they wait out the years it takes for their cases to wind through the immigration system.

Under federal law, migrants have to wait about six months after they file their asylum application before they can apply for permission to work in the United States legally. This has forced asylum seekers to rely on communities to support them and has led to more people entering the illegal work force.

For New York, the costs to support the asylum seekers are in the billions. Other governors and local officials have made similar requests to the Biden administration, as they too have struggled to assist the influx of migrants.

For the most part, asylum seekers want to work and pay taxes, and businesses across the country are anxious to fill job openings that have lingered since the pandemic.

Here are the reasons the Biden administration can’t make changes quickly.

The delay is enshrined in law.

In 1996, Congress stipulated that asylum seekers had to wait nearly six months after they filed their asylum application before they could apply for permission to work in the United States. At the time, it was taking the government months to consider individual asylum applications, and there was a concern that tens of thousands of foreigners were using the system as a backdoor to work in the United States because they could work while they waited for a decision.

Lawmakers believed that forcing asylum seekers to wait six months before they could apply to work would discourage people from crossing the border illegally and making potentially fraudulent asylum claims so they could get jobs.

But over the years, the backlog for asylum applications has grown, and so has the wait time for cases to be decided. As of July, there were 2.5 million cases pending in immigration court, with an average processing time of four years, according to data collected by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

In that context, a six-month delay does little to discourage people from making fraudulent asylum claims. Instead, it places the burden on local communities to support asylum seekers for at least eight months and often longer. Migrants have one year from entering the country illegally to submit an asylum application. It is rare that people, who are often fleeing trauma and are unsettled in a foreign place, file asylum applications shortly after they arrive to the United States.

Processing applications for work permits for asylum seekers is not the issue. That generally takes less than two months, according to government data. The problem is how long migrants have to wait and rely on community support before they can submit their applications.

Congress cannot agree on changes to the law.

For the past 15 years, Congress has failed to agree on how to update the country’s immigration system, even as the current laws date back to the 1980s and 1990s and were designed around a much different U.S. economy and demographic set of migrants.

Immigration has become more and more politically divisive, and there is little sign lawmakers will find a compromise anytime soon.

There are proposals in both the House and Senate to reduce the wait time to apply for work authorization for certain asylum seekers from six months to 30 days. But there is scant support for either bill.

Lawmakers in both political parties worry that shrinking the wait time for work permits will encourage more migrants to cross the border illegally.

The few options President Biden has face legal and logistical challenges.

One of these options is to offer humanitarian relief to people from certain countries through a program called temporary protected status. This benefit, which typically lasts 18 months, comes with work authorization. The government can extend the relief as it sees fit.

Ms. Hochul and other officials have asked the Biden administration to make new and extend existing temporary designations, particularly for countries whose nationals have fled in large numbers and are seeking asylum in the United States. For New York, Ms. Hochul said, an expanded designation for Venezuelans would be particularly helpful since they make up a large share of the migrant population there. Currently, only Venezuelans who were in the United States on March 8, 2021, and applied by Nov. 7, 2022, are covered by the designation.

As of March, there were more than 610,000 people from 16 countries living in the United States under this designation. And there are more than 428,000 applications for this protection pending, with a median time of 13 months to process these applications. Even if the Biden administration expanded and made new designations, work authorizations would not likely get into asylum seekers’ hands any sooner because of the backlog.

The other option the president has that does not require Congress is to issue humanitarian parole, which comes with work authorization, on a case-by-case basis if there is an urgent need.

The Biden administration already does this for people from certain countries. One of those programs, which extends a two-year humanitarian parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who have sponsors committed to supporting their needs, is facing a legal challenge from 21 Republican-led states.

The administration also offers humanitarian parole of up to two years and immediate permission to apply for a work permit for some migrants who register through a smartphone app, called CBP One, for an appointment at an official port of entry on the U.S. southern border. But White House officials said very few people receiving humanitarian parole and eligible to apply right away for a work permit have done so.

Democrats in Illinois and other parts of the country are asking the Biden administration to create a humanitarian parole program that pairs with the individual employment needs of states. Gov. Eric Holcomb, Republican of Indiana, has said his state would support this type of program as well.

But a new humanitarian parole program that comes with work authorization would not do anything to help other asylum seekers in the country waiting for permission to work.

Federal officials said they can offer some short-term help, but that won’t solve the problem.

Ms. Hochul met with officials in the White House on Wednesday. The Biden administration said it would continue to help with housing and additional federal assistance for education and health services.

Officials also said the administration would launch an effort to assist asylum seekers — in New York and around the country — who are already eligible to apply for work authorization but have yet to do so. But that will only cover a fraction of the asylum seekers in New York who cannot support themselves.”

Eileen Sullivan is a Washington correspondent covering the Department of Homeland Security. Previously, she worked at the Associated Press where she won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. More about Eileen Sullivan

Trump, Under Oath, Says He Averted ‘Nuclear Holocaust’

Trump, Under Oath, Says He Averted ‘Nuclear Holocaust’

“During a deposition in his civil case, the former president offered a series of defenses, digressions and meandering explanations of his political and professional dealings.

Donald Trump standing on a runway in front of a group of journalists, with an SUV and a plane in the background.
The civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump and his company is scheduled to head to trial in early October.Doug Mills/The New York Times

Under oath and under fire, Donald J. Trump sat for a seven-hour interview with the New York attorney general’s office in April, part of the civil fraud case against him and his company.

But as lawyers from the office grilled Mr. Trump on the inner-workings of his family business, which is accused of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars, he responded with a series of meandering non sequiturs, political digressions and self-aggrandizing defenses.

Asked about his authority at the Trump Organization while he was in the White House, Mr. Trump responded that he considered the presidency “the most important job in the world, saving millions of lives.”

Understand New York State’s Civil Case Against Trump

An empire under scrutiny. Letitia James, New York State’s attorney general, has been conducting a yearslong civil investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business practices, culminating in a lawsuit that accused Trump of “staggering” fraud. Here’s what to know:

“I think you would have nuclear holocaust, if I didn’t deal with North Korea,” he explained, and then added: “And I think you might have a nuclear war now, if you want to know the truth.”

Although Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination when initially questioned by the office last year, he answered questions from the attorney general, Letitia James, and her lawyers in the April deposition, a transcript of which was unsealed on Wednesday.

The transcript shows a combative Mr. Trump, who was named as a defendant in the case alongside his company and three of his children, at times barely allowing lawyers to get a word in. The former president frequently seems personally offended by the idea that his net worth is being questioned.

Mr. Trump is seeking to have the case thrown out. A judge could rule on that effort next month, but for now, the case appears headed to trial in early October.

Below are some of the highlights from the transcript of his deposition:

Mr. Trump refers to his time in the Oval Office with a notable understatement.

The former president was asked by Kevin Wallace, a senior lawyer in Ms. James’s office, about his relationship to his company. He said that he was not the final decision maker, though he later suggested he might be involved in “something major, final decisions, whatever.”

KEVIN WALLACE: Mr. Trump, are you currently the person with ultimate decision-making authority for the Trump Organization?


MR. WALLACE: Who would that be?

MR. TRUMP: My son Eric is much more involved with it than I am. I’ve been doing other things.

Mr. Trump claims to have protected the world from nuclear war while in office.

In an exchange soon after that, Mr. Trump acknowledged that those other things included having been president.

MR. TRUMP: I was very busy. I was — I considered this the most important job in the world, saving millions of lives. I think you would have nuclear holocaust, if I didn’t deal with North Korea. I think you would have a nuclear war, if I weren’t elected. And I think you might have a nuclear war now, if you want to know the truth.

Mr. Trump declines to say who has expressed interest in buying Mar-a-Lago.

During the deposition, Mr. Trump claimed to own “the greatest pieces of property in the world” and said that if he were ever to put them up for sale, the prices offered would be staggering. At one point, Mr. Wallace decided to test one of those assertions.

MR. TRUMP: I’ve had people say, if you ever sell Mar-a-Lago, please call me. That’s not for sale.

MR. WALLACE: Who, for example, has told you that?

MR. TRUMP: Well, I rather not say because I don’t want to embarrass them, and I may be putting some of these people on the stand.

Later in the session, Mr. Trump said while he didn’t know who the specific people were who had made such offers, “I know they’re very rich people.”

Mr. Trump derides his annual financial statements, saying that he never felt they would be taken seriously.

The attorney general’s case against Mr. Trump focuses on his annual financial statements, which she says overvalue his property by up to $2.2 billion each year.

Each of Mr. Trump’s financial statements includes a number of disclaimers, which acknowledge that Mr. Trump’s accountants had not reviewed or authenticated his claims. During the interview, Mr. Trump refers to those disclaimers, saying that they essentially render the statements meaningless.

MR. TRUMP: I never felt that these statements would be taken very seriously, because you open it up and right at the beginning of the statement, you read a page and a half of stuff saying, go get your own accounting, go get your own this, go get your own that.

MR. WALLACE: So why did you get these statements prepared?

MR. TRUMP: I would say more for maybe myself just to see the list of properties. I think more for myself than anything else. Sometimes an institution would like to see.

Mr. Trump then went on to say that his properties were even more valuable than was reflected in the statements themselves.

Mr. Trump attacks the case.

The former president frequently used the deposition to attack the case itself. At one point he told Mr. Wallace that the banks from which he had received loans were “shocked” at the lawsuit.

MR. TRUMP: The banks — the banks are shocked by this case. That’s my opinion, because they’ve never had anything like this. Do you know the banks were fully paid? Do you know the banks made a lot of money? Do you know I don’t believe I ever got even a default notice, and even during Covid, the banks were all paid? And yet you’re suing on behalf of banks, I guess. It’s crazy. The whole case is crazy.

Mr. Trump describes the value of his brand.

When asked during the deposition what might have been left out of his annual financial statements, Mr. Trump at first seemed to dispute the premise of the question, saying, “They list everything in the kitchen sink here.” But he then elaborated.

MR. TRUMP: The biggest thing that is not included is my brand. My lawyers never bring it up, but the brand is the biggest, and cause you can, maybe you can double or triple my statement. But my brand is — if I wanted to create a good statement, I would put — I’d start off with Sentence 1, my brand is worth billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Trump’s friends say he is “the most honest person in the world.”

Asked about policies and procedures to ensure that the Trump Organization complies with the law, he said: “That’s why we have law firms. You know, we have law firms that do this.”

MR. TRUMP: And friends of mine have said, you are the most honest person in the world. So we’ve done a good job. Don’t get credit for it. That’s OK.

The lawyers fought.

Depositions are often contentious, and there were a few highlights from the exchanges between Mr. Wallace and lawyers for Mr. Trump, Christopher M. Kise and Alina Habba.

CHRISTOPHER M. KISE: We’re going to be here until midnight if you keep asking questions that are all over the map.

MR. WALLACE: Chris, we’re going to be here until midnight if your client answers every question with an eight-minute speech. So let’s get down to business.

Ben Protess is an investigative reporter covering the federal government, law enforcement and various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies. More about Ben Protess

DeSantis slammed by FL state rep.: ‘He had a lot of audacity to come there after he lit the match’

Electile Dysfunction

Trump Asks to Dismiss Suit as A.G. Says He Inflated Worth by $2.2 Billion - The New York Times

Trump Asks to Dismiss Suit as A.G. Says He Inflated Worth by $2.2 Billion

"Letitia James, the attorney general, asked a judge to find, without a trial, that the former president had fraudulently overvalued his assets.

Donald Trump scowls as he walks out of a plane in a blue suit with a red tie.
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Before Donald J. Trump was indicted four times over, he was sued by New York’s attorney general, who said that for years the former president, his business and members of his family had fraudulently overvalued their assets by billions of dollars.

Before any of those criminal trials will take place, Mr. Trump is scheduled for a civil trial in New York in October. During the trial, the attorney general, Letitia James, will seek to bar him and three of his children from leading their family business, the Trump Organization, and to require him to pay a fine of around $250 million.

On Wednesday, Ms. James fired an opening salvo, arguing that a trial is not necessary to find that Mr. Trump and the other defendants inflated the value of their assets in annual financial statements, fraudulently obtaining favorable loans and insurance arrangements.

The fraud was so pervasive, she said in a court filing, that Mr. Trump had falsely boosted his net worth by between $812 million and $2.2 billion each year over the course of a decade.

“Based on the undisputed evidence, no trial is required for the court to determine that defendants presented grossly and materially inflated asset values,” the filing said.

But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in their own motion, argued that the entire case should be thrown out, relying in large part on a recent appellate court decision that appeared as if it could significantly narrow the scope of the case because of a legal time limit. Mr. Trump had received most of the loans in question too long ago for the matter to be considered by a court, his lawyers argue.

“The appellate division has now limited the reach of the N.Y. A.G.’s crusade against President Trump and his family” wrote Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Christopher M. Kise, Michael Madaio and Clifford S. Robert.

Both filings seek what is known as summary judgment, or a ruling from the judge that they are entitled to a victory before trial based on undisputed facts in evidence.

Ms. James sought that ruling on the claim at the core of her case — that Mr. Trump’s financial statements were fraudulent — and if she prevails, it would mark a significant victory and could smooth her path to a potential win at trial on the remaining claims.

If Mr. Trump won even partial summary judgment, the case could become a shadow of what it once appeared, significantly lowering the stakes of the October trial.

Or the judge could deny both bids for early victory, which would simply set the case for trial.

The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, is scheduled to hold a hearing in late September and could rule then.

Ms. James’s lawsuit disputes the value of some of Mr. Trump’s best-known properties, including Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate, and Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan. In her new filing, she wrote that, given the way that the worth of Trump Tower was calculated in 2018, it was overvalued by nearly $175 million. The following year, she said, the value of the building was falsely boosted by nearly $323 million.

“At the end of the day this is a documents case,” the filing unsealed on Wednesday said, adding that the documents left not a shred of doubt that Mr. Trump’s annual financial statements “do not even remotely reflect the ‘estimated current value’ of his assets.”

Ms. James also took aim at Mr. Trump for submitting the financial statements to obtain loans for a golf resort outside Miami, a hotel in Washington and a hotel in Chicago.

Yet Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue that Justice Engoron should throw out those transactions from the case, citing the recent appellate court ruling. In that ruling, the appeals court dismissed Ms. James’s case against his daughter, Ivanka Trump, because the accusations concerned conduct that had occurred too long ago. As Mr. Trump’s lawyers interpret the appellate ruling, any loans that Mr. Trump and his company received before July 2014 were too old to be included in the case.

The appeals court declined to throw out the case against Mr. Trump, his company and his two adult sons — effectively leaving it to Justice Engoron to decide. But Mr. Trump’s lawyers noted in their motion for summary judgment that the loans for the Chicago hotel and Florida resort were negotiated before the July 2014 legal deadline.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also argued that Mr. Trump’s lenders did not rely heavily on his financial statements when issuing him loans, and that the lenders reaped millions from their dealings with the former president.

“The sophisticated private parties all profited considerably from successfully consummated transactions,” Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Thus, ‘fraud’ cannot exist in the abstract or solely in the mind of the N.Y. A.G.”

Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination when initially questioned by the attorney general’s office last year. But he answered Ms. James’s questions in a deposition in April, the transcript of which was unsealed on Wednesday.

Many of his answers were non sequiturs and recycled political grievances. But occasionally he did respond substantively to questions from Kevin Wallace, a senior enforcement counsel in Ms. James’s office.

At one point, Mr. Wallace asked the former president whether he was aware of any instances in which an accountant had identified fraud at the Trump Organization.

“Not often. I don’t — I don’t know; not often,” Mr. Trump responded.

Mr. Wallace followed up, asking if Mr. Trump remembered specifics.

“Not — I mean, not — I can check, but not that I know of,” the former president replied. “Normally that wouldn’t be brought to me.” 

Ben Protess is an investigative reporter covering the federal government, law enforcement and various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies. More about Ben Protess"

Trump Asks to Dismiss Suit as A.G. Says He Inflated Worth by $2.2 Billion - The New York Times

Justice Thomas Reports Private Trips With Harlan Crow - The New York Times

Justice Thomas Reports Private Trips With Harlan Crow

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. had asked for extensions on their annual forms that show travel, gifts and other financial information.

Justice Clarence Thomas wearing black robes.
Justice Clarence Thomas had requested a 90-day extension for his financial disclosures.Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his annual financial disclosure form that was released Thursday, responded in detail to reports that he had failed to disclose luxury trips, flights on private jet and a real estate transaction with a Texas billionaire.

In an unusual move, the justice included a statement defending his travel with the billionaire, Harlan Crow, who has donated to conservative causes.

The latest financial disclosures come as the justices face increased scrutiny about their financial dealings and about the court’s lack of an ethics code. Although the justices, like other federal judges, are required to file annual reports that document their investments, gifts and travel, the justices are not bound by ethics rules, instead following what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has referred to as a set of foundational “ethics principles and practices.”

The justices file the financial forms each spring, and most were released in early June. But Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. requested 90-day extensions, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which collects and publishes the forms. Justice Alito’s financial disclosure form was also released on Thursday morning.

In his disclosure, Justice Thomas addressed his decision to fly on Mr. Crow’s private jet, suggesting that he had been advised to avoid commercial travel after the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating a constitutional right to an abortion.

“Because of the increased security risk following the Dobbs opinion leak, the May flights were by private plane for official travel as filer’s security detail recommended noncommercial travel whenever possible,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas also defended his past filings, which did not include many of the trips with Mr. Crow and other wealthy friends. He wrote that he had “adhered to the then existing judicial regulations as his colleagues had done, both in practice and in consultation with the Judicial Conference.”

But he said he “continues to work with Supreme Court officials and the committee staff for guidance on whether he should further amend his reports from any prior years.”

Justice Thomas also acknowledged errors in his previous financial reports, including personal bank accounts and his wife’s life insurance, which he said were “inadvertently omitted from prior reports.” 

The justice also listed four trips from 2022, the year covered by the form. Three of the trips were speaking engagements. The fourth, from July 2022, was a trip to Mr. Crow’s estate in the Adirondacks.

The nature of Justice Thomas’s decades-long relationship with Mr. Crow has elicited questions after a series of reports in ProPublica described the extent of his generosity and the justice’s failure to disclose it. Mr. Crow treated the justice on a series of lavish trips, including flights on his private jet, island-hopping on his superyacht and vacationing at his estate in the Adirondacks. Mr. Crow also bought the justice’s mother’s home in Savannah, Ga., and covered a portion of private school tuition for the justice’s great-nephew, whom he was raising.

Other wealthy friends have hosted Justice Thomas, including David L. Sokol, the former heir apparent to Berkshire Hathaway. Another, Anthony Welters, underwrote — at least in part — his motor coach, a 40-foot Prevost Marathon that he has said allows him to slip away from the “meanness that you see in Washington.”

Justice Alito, for his part, acknowledged in June that he had taken a private plane on a vacation in 2008 to a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska, where he was hosted by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire. In the years that followed, Mr. Singer repeatedly had business before the court.

Both justices have insisted that the gifts and travels did not need to be reported.

Justice Thomas said in a previous statement that he had been advised that he did not need to disclose such trips because they were “personal hospitality from close personal friends.”

Before ProPublica published an article about his travels with Mr. Singer, Justice Alito took the unusual step of pre-empting the report by defending his actions in The Wall Street Journal. He wrote that he was not required to report the trip because “justices commonly interpreted this discussion of ‘hospitality’ to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts.” He had not disclosed the private flight, he added, because it was “transportation for a purely social event.”

Abbie VanSickle covers the ​Supreme Court with a focus on the world of the court, including its role in politics and the lives of the justices.​ She is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and a graduate of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. More about Abbie VanSickle"

Justice Thomas Reports Private Trips With Harlan Crow - The New York Times

Trump Statements Leads to DISASTROUS Consequences Yet Again

Furious Florida Democrat TORCHES Ron DeSantis in MUST-SEE takedown

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

Gloves off: Fani Willis makes AGGRESSIVE move against Trump in Georgia

'YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE!' Desantis Booed At Vigil For Jacksonville Shoo...

Giuliani Suffers MAJOR LOSS in Federal Court Order

The racist Florida shooter’s ideology extends to ordinary people | Jason Stanley | The Guardian

The racist Florida shooter’s ideology extends to ordinary people | Jason Stanley

n Saturday, Ryan Palmeter, a 21-year-old gunman, entered a dollar store in Jacksonville, Florida, and killed 52-year-old Angela Carr, 19-year-old AJ Laguerre Jr and 29-year-old Jerrald Gallion. All three victims were Black Americans. This shooting comes on the heels of an even larger mass shooting of Black Americans last year, in Buffalo, New York, where 18-year-old Payton Gendron murdered 10 people.

In less than two years, two young white men have committed two mass murders of Americans motivated by an explicit desire to kill Black people.

In the manifesto Gendron published online, which revealed in detail his motivations and thinking, the very first goal he listed was “kill as many blacks as possible”. None of Palmeter’s three manifestos have been revealed to the public. We have been told by police that they reveal “a disgusting ideology” that tries to justify the irrational hatred of another group, and this ideology of hate is certainly disgusting when it tries to justify the kind of mass killing Palmeter committed. Yet describing Palmeter’s ideology this way, as accurate as it may be, also incurs a risk. Few ordinary people think of themselves as sympathetic to “a disgusting ideology of hate”, even when it bears a close resemblance to a view they themselves possess.

Ideologies don’t kill people. But they do motivate people to kill. Some ideologies lend resentful and angry individuals a justification for mass killing. But ideologies have also motivated perfectly ordinary people into participation, active support or deep complicity in mass atrocity. The view that Black people are naturally subordinate to white people was once widespread in the United States. It justified a system of almost inconceivable brutality, in which whippings and rape were normalized for centuries. It was held by many ordinary people.

Gendron’s manifesto laid out his ideology clearly and consistently, in the question-and-answer style that has become a hallmark of this genre:

Are you a fascist?

Yes, fascism is one of the only political ideologies that will unite Whites against the replacers. Since that is what I seek, calling me a fascist would be accurate.

Are you a white supremacist?

Yes, I would call myself a white supremacist, after all, which race is responsible for the world we live in today? I believe the White race is superior in the brain to all other races.

Are you racist?

Yes I am racist because I believe in differences of capabilities between races.

Gendron’s ideology is white supremacy, which he believes to be under threat from higher birth rates among non-white people. Gendron also thinks that identifying as transgender is a mental illness, and that gender fluidity is a plot by Jews to subvert the west (AKA white civilization). According to Gendron, critical race theory is a (Jewish) plot “to brainwash Whites into hating themselves and their people”. We have been toldthat the Jacksonville killer also harbored anti-LGBTQ+ and antisemitic views.

Aside from these, something very close to Gendron and Palmeter’s ideology is held by many people today. The idea that white people face a threat of replacement by non-white people is behind the brutal treatment of immigrants in Europe and the United States, including the tolerance of mass drownings on the borders of Europe, family separations in the United States and the widespread denial of food and water to small children on borders. It emerges in the mass incarceration of Black Americans, the lack of action on the vast racial wealth gap and the militarized police force Black Americans often face. Gendron and Palmeter’s ideology is recognizable in the harshness and violence towards gender fluidity, and in the bans on critical race theory and Black history. It is, also, increasingly tied to the reemergence of antisemitism, as Jews, in racist ideology, tend to be viewed as those behind movements for racial equality, as well as intolerance of sexual minorities. As has been increasingly clear in recent years, on the individual level it also justifies murdering non-white people.

Ron DeSantis’s Florida recenters the world through the lens of an America defined by whiteness and Christianity. Through this lens, it certainly does appear that America is under threat by non-white mass immigration. Critical race theory is indeed a threat to such a perspective, as is an education that also allows a Black perspective on US history, or one that normalizes LGBTQ+ citizens. It is a politics that has justified DeSantis’s treatment of immigrants as things. More recently, DeSantis has essentially suggested shooting migrants even suspected to be drug smugglers – here, he connects immigrants to crime, and uses that connection to justify killing some of them on sight.

Payton Gendron also justified his mass killing in Buffalo by connecting Black Americans to crime. It is not unreasonable to see, in the spate of mass murders of Black Americans, an all too predictably violent echo of Florida’s own emerging ideology."

  • Jason Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University, and the author, most recently, of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them"

The racist Florida shooter’s ideology extends to ordinary people | Jason Stanley | The Guardian