Latest news with #KristenWelker
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters: Presidential oath or not?; Spay/neuter your animals
President Trump betrayed his oath of office by pretending not to understand his job. In January 2025 (and January 2017), Trump took the presidential oath, pledging allegiance to the Constitution: 'I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.' Less than four months later, Trump either forgot his solemn obligation — or never meant it. When asked by journalist Kristen Welker whether he agrees with Secretary of State Rubio that everyone — citizens and noncitizens — deserves due process, he replied, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.' Welker reminded him that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures due process. He repeated that he doesn't know. Finally, when given a chance to correct himself and speak directly about his obligation, he again showed his failure to do his job, formalized in his public oath of office. Asked, 'Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?' he replied 'I don't know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me ...' Democracy cannot survive when the president openly dismisses the Constitution, the foundation of our great nation — and when Republican sycophants, who took similar oaths, allow such violations to go unchecked. We must act before our Constitution is meaningless. Marilyn Goldfarb, Boalsburg To people in Bellefonte and adjoining Spring Township (and of course everyone): Please, please spay/neuter your animals. We are trying to get friendly with a litter of kittens so that we can get them fixed, checked and adopted before they are too feral. But there is another litter just a couple houses away! These are adorable, I know, but the mom and kittens need to be fixed so that there is not an endless supply of feral cats and hawk feed. This is a litter of five kittens — they seem quite healthy, but we don't need another five feral cats around here. We don't mind if you let your cat roam — this seems quite natural — but get them spayed/neutered. Centre County PAWS can help with vouchers to save of the cost involved. Thank you. Deborah Gabriel, Bellefonte Recently, the Penn State Board of Trustees amended their procedure for electing alumnus representatives, supposedly to make it easier for alumni to run. But nominations will now go through a nominations committee to see if the candidates are 'qualified.' Trustee Gursahaney stated: 'We need the right kind of people on the board.' The right kind of people? Does that mean that the people we have chosen as alumni are not 'the right kind of people?' I guess the board does not trust the alumni to decide who should be eligible to represent them. Let that sink in. The board does not trust the alumni to make decisions that are in the best interests of this great university. Shame! Shame! This may well be due to the recent disagreements between some alumni representatives and the executive board. Disagreements and disputes are not always a bad thing. As NCIS's Gibbs notes in his Rule 51: 'Sometimes — you're wrong.' Disagreements often help a board make better decisions. Though I was president of a award-winning alumni chapter, among many other alumni positions, I suspect I would not be considered the 'right kind of person,' as I have voiced my displeasure in the past with some board decisions. Thus, my giving has and will go elsewhere. Kenneth B Gilbert, Columbus, Ohio The recent column crediting President Trump for a reduction in gun violence misrepresents both the facts and the recent actions of this administration. Gun homicides dropped 38% by the end of 2022, as significant investments in violence prevention programs began. This administration taking credit before they even took office is insulting to the community leaders who hit the streets to save lives. Here are the facts: Trump eliminated the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a hub for coordinating national strategies to reduce shootings and save lives. He reversed restrictions that kept guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. His administration cut grants to community violence organizations — many in Pennsylvania. These actions didn't make us safer — they made us more vulnerable. And, he recently ended a policy that held licensed gun dealers accountable when they knowingly violated public safety laws — potentially putting firearms in the hands of domestic abusers and individuals with a violent criminal record. Where will we be a year from now? The evidence suggests fewer graduations, more funerals. Fewer birthday parties, more empty chairs. We warned that Trump's rollback of common-sense protections threatens to flood communities with more firearms, reduce oversight and gut valuable community programs. This is a fact: enforcement of background checks and investment in community violence intervention are the keys to lasting safety. We should not thank a man who dismantled the protections we overwhelmingly support. If we want to keep crime rates trending down, we need leaders who put evidence, lives ahead of ideology. Adam Garber, Philadelphia. The author is the executive director of CeaseFirePA.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The next stage of our democracy crisis: competitive authoritarianism
The mainstream American news media have failed as an institution to properly confront the country's worsening democracy crisis in the Age of Trump. He is America's first elected autocrat. His appetite for unlimited power is growing. It will likely never be satisfied. In one of the most recent examples, Trump recently told NBC News' Kristen Welker that he does not know if he is obligated to uphold and obey the United States Constitution. In response to a question about the constitutionally-guaranteed right of due process and the migrants and others deported to the infamous foreign prison in El Salvador, Trump said, 'I don't know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court say. They have a different interpretation.' Trump's statement that he does not know if he is obligated to obey and uphold the Constitution should have dominated the news coverage for the foreseeable future. Moreover, Trump's repeated hostility and disregard towards America's democratic norms should be the master narrative frame that structures the news media's coverage of him and his administration. Instead, Trump's unprecedented statement — what should be treated as a national emergency — was lost in the churn of the 24/7 news media and the bottomless maw of the attention economy and distraction experience machine. Conservative legal scholar and former judge Michael Luttig told MSNBC's Nicole Wallace that Trump's answer is 'perhaps the most important words ever spoken by a president of the United States.' Luttig warned that this is 'one of the most important stories of our times.' He continued: 'I'm quite confident that the president was saying what is on his mind, and that is that he, the president of the United States, doesn't necessarily believe that he is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court.' In another escalation in their campaign against American democracy and the rule of law, Trump and his agents are now signaling that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus may be suspended to facilitate Trump's mass deportation campaign against 'illegal aliens' and other 'undesirables.' Such an extreme action must be approved by Congress. The right of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in American history. As with Trump's recent statement about disregarding the Constitution, these threats to take away a foundational civil right were mostly treated as a curiosity by the mainstream news media. For example, a basic search of The New York Times and The Washington Post show that the Trump administration's threat to end habeas corpus did not receive sustained featured coverage. Donald Trump and his agents have made many such threats against American democracy and its institutions and norms during the 2024 campaign and his second term in office — many of these threats have been fulfilled. The Democrats and the so-called Resistance are celebrating how the courts and civil society organizations appear to be blunting Trump's 'shock and awe' and shock therapy campaign against American democracy and the American people. However, these celebrations are premature and ignore how the Trump administration is disregarding many of these rulings by the courts. There has been grave damage already done by Trump during these first 100 days of his return to power that cannot be easily remedied. In all, too many observers are confusing some selective momentary pauses by Trump and his MAGA forces to consolidate their gains, regroup, resupply, and reassess how to best continue their campaign against democracy and civil society. Donald Trump's power and willingness to punish and train the news media to serve his agenda through various means, both legal and extra-legal, has created a state of anticipatory obedience, aka surrender, collaboration, and a collective chilling effect across the news media. The American mainstream media has also been rolled over by Donald Trump and his forces' deft use of the propaganda technique known as 'flooding the zone,' where so much happens so quickly that the target does not know where and how to focus. Kenneth Lowande, a professor of political science and public policy at the University of Michigan, explained how this many years-long pattern of failures by the American news media is collectively enabling Donald Trump and his MAGA movement's authoritarian agenda: The Trump administration is extremely effective at playing to the weaknesses of news organizations like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. They are being taken advantage of. From Day 1 of the Trump administration, they have written relentless, daily headlines that announce President Trump's executive actions as if they are new laws. When readers see these, they give the President credit. They see it as an accomplishment. This has been a problem for decades. I show in my book that news coverage of executive action is shallow, brief, and very positive for the President. The media might as well be allowing the White House to write its own coverage. What can be done? The press needs to treat each new executive action for what it is: an order to bureaucrats. Nothing more, nothing less. These orders are remarkably contingent. Most of them don't produce the success they promise. In short: if people do not want the public to get used to having a dictator, then the media need to stop covering his actions as if he already is one. As an institution, the American news media believed that the rule of law was sacrosanct in the United States, democracy was a settled matter, the Constitution was respected by Americans and the American people would never put an authoritarian or other demagogue in the White House. On the other hand, Black Americans, as a voting bloc, have been described as the miners' canary in American society. In that role, Black Americans were consistently sounding the alarm about how Donald Trump's return to power would imperil American democracy and society. In keeping with a common theme in American history, white Americans as a whole ignored those warnings and wisdom to their own (and the country's) extreme detriment. So what happens when a people vote for an autocratic authoritarian and against their own democracy? This is a tension and problem that the American mainstream news media and the country's other elites have been mostly afraid to confront. Why? Because it is an indictment of their legitimacy. It is also an indictment of the character and values of the American people. To boldly confront the latter is almost verboten among the American mainstream news media and others who maintain the limits of the approved public discourse and 'the consensus.' I asked historian Timothy Ryback, one of the world's leading experts on the fall of Germany's democracy and the rise of the Nazi Party, for some historical context: I am not one to draw straight lines from a historical figure or event in the past to present-day political figures or events. History doesn't repeat itself. We are all unique individuals in unique settings and situations. With that said, I think we can speak about resonances and modalities. Adolf Hitler and his closest lieutenants understood democratic structures and processes as well as anyone in the era, and set about disabling then dismantling the Weimar Republic. The Hitler acolyte Joseph Goebbels once said that the big joke on democracy was that it provided its mortal enemies with the means of its own destruction. This meant gridlocking legislative processes with obstructionist voting, using free speech guarantees to sow hatred and mistrust, and exploiting and abusing the judicial system in every way possible. Hitler's chief legal strategist, Hans Frank, boasted that every time Hitler appeared in court, his polling numbers surged. To that point, polling and other research from PRRI shows that a large percentage of Americans have an authoritarian personality. A 2024 report from PRRI details how: [W]hile most Americans do not hold highly authoritarian views, a substantial minority does: 43% of Americans score high on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS), while 41% score high on the Child-Rearing Authoritarianism Scale (CRAS). Two-thirds of Republicans score high on the RWAS (67%) compared with 35% of independents, and 28% of Democrats. Republicans who hold favorable views of Trump are 36 percentage points more likely than those with unfavorable views of Trump to score high on the RWAS (75% vs. 39%). This political personality type and its social dominance orientation is overrepresented among right-wing Christians. PRRI continues: 'White evangelical Protestants (64%) are the religious group most likely to score high on the RWAS, followed by smaller majorities of Hispanic Protestants (54%) and white Catholics (54%). A majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) score high on the RWAS, compared with 44% of Americans who attend church a few times a year and 38% of those who never attend church services.' A series of polls and other research has found that Republicans, and Trump followers specifically, are more likely than Democrats to want a leader who is willing to break the rules and disobey the law to get things done for 'people like them.' Research also shows that Republicans and MAGA followers embrace authoritarianism, including ending American democracy if white people like them are not the most powerful group. A 2021 poll from the Pew Research Center found that a strong majority of Democrats (78%) believe that voting is a foundational and inalienable right. By comparison, two-thirds of Republicans believe that voting is a privilege that can be restricted. Those who support voting restrictions are more likely to be older, white, and less well-educated. This is the profile of the average Republican voter. America's democracy is rapidly collapsing. But what is its present state? The American news media, the Democratic Party, civil society, the country's other elites and everyday pro-democracy Americans will not be able to effectively respond to the worsening crisis if they do not have the correct concepts and language to properly understand it. Via email, Jake Grumbach, who is the faculty director of the Democracy Policy Lab and associate professor at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, offered this clarification: The US is now in a new regime: competitive authoritarianism. There is political competition between parties, but the distinctions from liberal democracy is that 1) the ruling government routinely violates the Constitution and statutory law, and 2) uses the state apparatus as a tool to tilt the political playing field, especially by punishing political enemies. Under competitive authoritarianism, the ruling party typically comes to power through electoral victory. Under competitive authoritarianism, and even under fully autocratic totalitarianism, ruling leaders often carry a lot of support from the mass public. Democracy involves both majoritarianism — governance that is responsive to the people — and the rule of law — that everyone is accountable to the rules. Trump won the popular vote (though not an electoral majority), which gives him more democratic legitimacy than he otherwise would have. However, Trump's electoral margin of victory was very small, and his public support has dropped dramatically since taking office. Susan Stokes, who is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the Faculty Chair of the Chicago Center on Democracy, echoes Grumbach's warning about how America is succumbing to authoritarianism. In this email, Stokes offers some explanations for why people in democratic societies embrace authoritarianism: Majorities of people in most democracies consistently say they prefer democracy to other forms of government. There are some people who actually favor authoritarian rulers. They view democracy as messy and slow, and like the idea of a single person or small group imposing decisions on others. Many people don't have a strong sense of the importance of due process or the rule of law — these are abstract concepts, of course, until people themselves face arbitrary rule or have friends and family members who do. Most support for authoritarians — most votes for leaders who have shown themselves to be anti-democratic — has other motives, in particular economic factors. Many voters practice what political scientists call 'retrospective economic voting' — if economic conditions have been good in the year or so leading up to an election, they will vote for the incumbent, if not they will vote for a challenger. That's a lot of what the 2024 election in the U.S. was about. One could argue about how good or bad economic conditions were, but inflation was a new phenomenon for many people and very frightening. The cost of living was a real challenge for many Americans, given high food and housing costs. This type of political reasoning often backfires. As Stokes explains, 'The problem is if electing autocratic leaders means that voters gradually lose the ability to vote incumbents out when times are bad, then this strategy becomes self-defeating for voters. In my research, I find that income inequality is a big predictor of democratic erosion. The more unequal the distribution of income in a democracy, the more likely it is to experience erosion. Under vast inequality, it's easier to persuade people that elite institutions are against them. Inequality also contributes to partisan polarization. And the more polarized a polity, the better for autocratic leaders. Even voters who would prefer to preserve democracy say to themselves, 'This guy's not perfect, but if the other side wins . . .'' A series of recent polls have shown growing levels of anger and discontent among wide swaths of the American public towards Donald Trump and his administration's policies and the harm they have caused the economy, the government, and the American people's overall sense of normalcy, safety, and security. These polls have also shown that a large percentage of Democrats and a not insignificant percentage of Republicans and independents are also deeply concerned about Trump's abuses of power and obvious contempt for democracy and the rule of law. Donald Trump has repeatedly referenced President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as being his model for expansive authority and power — and why such power is legitimate, necessary, and good. Stephen Skowronek, who is a professor of political science at Yale University, explained that such claims and comparison(s) are ahistorical and serve authoritarian goals: Progressives have long lamented that Roosevelt was stopped by a bi-partisan coalition of southern reactionaries and Republican conservatives. But now that progressivism has been sequestered in one of the major parties, and Trumpism reigns supreme in the other, the costs of eroding all back stops are on full display. Trump has opened his second term with a drive toward presidentialism that apes Roosevelt's, and the fate of multi-part power-sharing arrangements again hangs in the balance. In this case, however, the courts are already packed, the party has already been purged of internal opposition, and the case for the president's exclusive control over the executive branch is well advanced. Roosevelt's New Deal transformed America, but it was nothing compared to transformation now in polls given some hope to those who believe that Donald Trump and has autocratic plans and MAGA movement will exhaust itself by overreaching and that the American people — assuming there are in fact 'free and fair' elections in 2026 and 2028 — will course correct by voting the MAGAfied Republicans out of office. I would suggest that such hopes are very premature. The compulsion and attraction towards Trump, MAGA, and authoritarianism are very deep, if not inexorable, for many tens of millions of Americans. Joe Walsh is a former Republican congressman and conservative talk radio host who led a GOP primary challenge against Donald Trump in 2020. He is currently the director of The Social Contract and host of the 'White Flag with Joe Walsh' podcast. Walsh maintains his connections to TrumpWorld and the MAGAverse. IHe explained that there is almost nothing too extreme and authoritarian to make Trump's MAGA supporters abandon him: Trump's base wants him to be an authoritarian. That's always been his appeal to the base. That he will be a strongman and do what he has to do to get them back the America they believe we once were. So, nothing he does as an authoritarian will bother them, no unconstitutional move will bother them, that's what they want him to do. The only thing that will move part of Trump's base from him is economic pain. Losing their job, disappearing their 401ks, paying way too much for that next truck or pair of shoes. Real economic pain that personally hits them is the only way they turn on Trump in any meaningful numbers. That's why his tariff madness is so politically dangerous for him. It's bad policy, and it will lead to bad economic results. Trump will have a much tougher time trying to lie about the economy because his base lives the economy. So, when Trump lies and says that Haitian migrants are eating cats and dogs, Trump's base eats it up. But when Trump says your 401k is doing just great and your 401k has actually lost 50% of its value, his base won't believe that lie because they know it's not true. The Age of Trump will last decades, not a few election cycles. The benchmarks and landmarks of normal politics in America have been radically shifted and changed, if not demolished. Ultimately, authoritarianism (e.g. herrenvolk democracy and white racial authoritarianism) is a feature and not a bug in America's history and present. Denial and avoidance will not change our reality. The post The next stage of our democracy crisis: competitive authoritarianism appeared first on
NBC News
18-05-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Biden weighs treatment options after cancer diagnosis
Former President Biden is weighing his treatment options after being diagnosed with an 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer, according to his personal office. NBC News' 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker has 18, 2025
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's outrageous conduct must not be normalized by partisanship
During an interview on May 4, President Trump offered a startling response to a question from NBC's Kristen Welker. She asked whether he believes he needs to uphold the Constitution in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, and the Supreme Court has ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return. Trump responded to Welker: 'I don't know.' 'I don't know' from the person who, on Jan. 20, took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' is not acceptable. It hardly seems believable. The interview came at the end of the president's first 100 days in office. Expanded executive power, global chaos, a weakened dollar, and impending shortages in the stores add up to the worst first 100 days for any president in American history. But the bitter taste of living under Trump has barely made a dent in the support and loyalty of his base. In his supporters' eyes, Trump, like the pope, is infallible, an association he reinforced deliberately when he reposted on Truth Social an AI-generated of himself in papal attire. While the president has disregarded constitutional values like freedom of speech and due process of law, his supporters contrast what they see as the president's commitment to freedom with repressive, left-wing regimes; they resent it when they hear commentators call the president a dictator. We have long known that people take in new information selectively and seek to avoid what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance,' the discomfort people experience when they hold beliefs, values or attitudes that are inconsistent with one another. To avoid that discomfort, people seek out information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, or they minimize the importance of dissonant messages. The reaction of Trump's supporters to his first 100 days shows the power of such processes. While 42 percent of Americans give Trump an F for his first 100 days, only 5 percent of self-identified Republicans agree with that grade. Eighty-four percent of them give him either an A or a B. Things are almost exactly reversed among Democrats, with 5 percent giving the president an A or a B and 80 percent of them giving him an F. Other polls reflect similar sentiments. A Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 5,000 American adults found that 52 percent of those respondents called Trump a 'dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.' Eighty-seven percent of Democrats agreed with that statement compared to only 17 percent of Republicans. The survey shows that 19 percent of Republicans believe the president should be able to postpone the 2026 midterm elections if it is necessary to get the country out of a crisis. And 27 percent thought the Constitution should be amended to 'allow presidents to serve more than two terms in office.' Also, 29 percent of Republicans agree that 'we need a president who is willing to break some laws if that's what it takes to set things straight.' While far from a majority, 29 percent of Republicans translates into millions of people who condone presidential lawlessness. That's a steep hill to climb for people wanting to save democracy and the rule of law in this country. Ben Rhodes, former President Obama's deputy national security adviser, got it right when he warned that the 'Democratic Party, in its current form, cannot lead the opposition that is required. ' And he reminds us that we can't save democracy by 'defending the status quo.' People wanting to save democracy have to link its survival to the lives that Americans live every day. They have to show that if we lose democracy, our lives will be worse. Just ask people in Hungary or Turkey, where the rise of authoritarian leaders has done nothing to cure the social or economic problems that beset those nations. Saving democracy will require building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition. That means sacrificing ideological purity and tolerating views that we might otherwise condemn. It requires us to change our habits and focus on building alliances, not enclaves. As the polls now show, that will not be easy. But we have no choice. We can't succeed in saving democracy if it is a strictly partisan project. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's outrageous conduct must not be normalized by partisanship
During an interview on May 4, President Trump offered a startling response to a question from NBC's Kristen Welker. She asked whether he believes he needs to uphold the Constitution in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, and the Supreme Court has ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return. Trump responded to Welker: 'I don't know.' 'I don't know' from the person who, on Jan. 20, took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' is not acceptable. It hardly seems believable. The interview came at the end of the president's first 100 days in office. Expanded executive power, global chaos, a weakened dollar, and impending shortages in the stores add up to the worst first 100 days for any president in American history. But the bitter taste of living under Trump has barely made a dent in the support and loyalty of his base. In his supporters' eyes, Trump, like the pope, is infallible, an association he reinforced deliberately when he reposted on Truth Social an AI-generated of himself in papal attire. While the president has disregarded constitutional values like freedom of speech and due process of law, his supporters contrast what they see as the president's commitment to freedom with repressive, left-wing regimes; they resent it when they hear commentators call the president a dictator. We have long known that people take in new information selectively and seek to avoid what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance,' the discomfort people experience when they hold beliefs, values or attitudes that are inconsistent with one another. To avoid that discomfort, people seek out information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, or they minimize the importance of dissonant messages. The reaction of Trump's supporters to his first 100 days shows the power of such processes. While 42 percent of Americans give Trump an F for his first 100 days, only 5 percent of self-identified Republicans agree with that grade. Eighty-four percent of them give him either an A or a B. Things are almost exactly reversed among Democrats, with 5 percent giving the president an A or a B and 80 percent of them giving him an F. Other polls reflect similar sentiments. A Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 5,000 American adults found that 52 percent of those respondents called Trump a 'dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.' Eighty-seven percent of Democrats agreed with that statement compared to only 17 percent of Republicans. The survey shows that 19 percent of Republicans believe the president should be able to postpone the 2026 midterm elections if it is necessary to get the country out of a crisis. And 27 percent thought the Constitution should be amended to 'allow presidents to serve more than two terms in office.' Also, 29 percent of Republicans agree that 'we need a president who is willing to break some laws if that's what it takes to set things straight.' While far from a majority, 29 percent of Republicans translates into millions of people who condone presidential lawlessness. That's a steep hill to climb for people wanting to save democracy and the rule of law in this country. Ben Rhodes, former President Obama's deputy national security adviser, got it right when he warned that the 'Democratic Party, in its current form, cannot lead the opposition that is required. ' And he reminds us that we can't save democracy by 'defending the status quo.' People wanting to save democracy have to link its survival to the lives that Americans live every day. They have to show that if we lose democracy, our lives will be worse. Just ask people in Hungary or Turkey, where the rise of authoritarian leaders has done nothing to cure the social or economic problems that beset those nations. Saving democracy will require building a broad-based, bipartisan coalition. That means sacrificing ideological purity and tolerating views that we might otherwise condemn. It requires us to change our habits and focus on building alliances, not enclaves. As the polls now show, that will not be easy. But we have no choice. We can't succeed in saving democracy if it is a strictly partisan project.
