The Case of Shani Robinson, Wrongly Accused of Cheating in Atlanta, Is Finally Resolved

By dianeravitch
July 10, 2024 //
27

In 2009, Atlanta’s school superintendent, Dr. Beverly Hall, was honored by the American Association of School Administrators as National Superintendent of the Year for the city’s amazing progress in the past ten years.

The scores seemed too good to be true for skeptical journalists. So that same year,the Atlanta Journal Constitution analyzed test results in the city’s schools and found some extraordinary gains that seemed improbable. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation launched a probe and released a report in July 2011 claiming that there was cheating in 44 out of 56 schools. The GBI charged 178 educators with changing answers to raise scores.

Dr. Hall was charged with multiple crimes in 2013. She was accused of putting pressure on teachers to raise scores and creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear. She never went to trial. She died of cancer in 2015 at the age of 68.

Ultimately 35 educators were indicted and punished with jail time, fines or both. Twelve educators refused a plea deal, insisting on their innocence. Using the RICO statute, intended for racketeering, District Attorney Fani Willis continued to prosecute the 12 holdouts.

One of them, Shani Robinson, wrote a book insisting on her innocence. The book is titled None of the Above. I read the book and was persuaded that she had suffered a grave injustice. Shani was a first-grade teacher. Her students’ scores did not affect the district’s ratings. There were no stakes, no rewards or punishments attached to them.

She was offered a deal: Confess or turn someone else in, and all charges would be dropped. Because Shani refused to do either, she was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison, four years of probation,a fine of $1,000, and 1,000 hours of community service. She believes someone else named her to escape punishment. She has appealed repeatedly and has spent a decade in limbo, worrying about whether she would be sent to prison. Meanwhile, she married and has two children.

I wrote the following posts on her behalf and sent an affidavit to the judge.

In April 2019, I reviewed Shani’s book and became persuaded of her innocence.

In September 2019, I posted a video in which Shani insisted that she was innocent.

In February 2022, at Shani’s request, I wrote a post about my letter to the judge, in which I said,

Shani taught first grade, where the tests have no stakes for students or teachers. She had no motive or reason to cheat. 

I believe she was unjustly prosecuted by overzealous investigators. She could have pleaded guilty or accused others to avoid prosecution but she insisted on her innocence. 

I believe her.

In February 2023, I wrote an update, quoting two Atlanta lawyers who excoriated the prosecution, calling the case “a textbook example of overcriminalization and prosecutorial discretion gone amok…”

In October 2023, Shani wrote an update on the case for my blog.

She wrote:

This RICO indictment has hung over my head for the past 10 years, leading to a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The impact of PTSD and the fallout from the trial has taken a significant toll on my family. I have 2 small children, sothe thought of going to prison and being separated from them is agonizing. There are 6 defendants, including me, still appealing convictions. We’ve all been able to remain out of prison thus far due to being on appeal bonds. But the case has been handled so poorly; the entire appeals process restarted this year with no end in sight. Millions of tax players dollars have already been spent on this trial. 

 Last year brought a ray of hope: Judge Jerry Baxter granted a new sentence for a principal who was convicted, enabling her to avoid prison and do community service instead. I’m hopeful that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Judge Jerry Baxter will come to the realization that RICO was misused in our case and find a peaceful resolution. 

The long ordeal is finally over.

A few days ago, Shani and the other holdouts arrived at a plea deal. They had to make a public apology to the children of Atlanta, admitting their guilt, in exchange for no prison time. In addition, she is required to pay a fine of $1,000 and give 1,000 hours of community service.

I believe Shani. I believe she is innocent. I think it’s a travesty that she had to admit guilt in order to avoid prison. That was the deal. I wish she could sue the city of Atlanta for destroying her profession and ruining 15 years of her life.

Categories Accountability, Atlanta, Cheating, Cruelty, Ethics, Fraud, Georgia, Teachers

Biden Gave Highest Civilian Honor to NATO Leader. Who Did Trump Honor?

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2024 //
11

This afternoon, President Biden gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO.

To whom did Donald Trump give this high honor? Here’s a trip down memory lane.

Robin Acadian of the Los Angeles told this story on January 16, 2021:

Nothing makes sense anymore.

The party of “law and order” just rampaged through the Capitol, bludgeoning a police officer to death and calling for the lynching of the vice president. The party’s leader, President Trump, has pardoned a rogues’ gallery of thieves and murderers. And now, in a last-gasp effort to prove there is nothing that Trump won’t defile, he’s been handing out Medals of Freedom like Chiclets to his unprincipled political acolytes and enablers.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, created by President Kennedy in 1963, was established to recognize individuals who have made an “especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or world peace, or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

There have been a few recipients who fell from grace after receiving the medal. Bill Cosby, for example, got one from President George W. Bush in 2002 and was later convicted of aggravated indecent assault. But presidents have generally maintained a high bar, awarding the medal to popes, astronauts, scientists, statesmen, military heroes, thinkers and artists. In 1985, President Reagan gave the award to Mother Teresa.

Then came Trump. Over the course of his tenure, Trump has awarded the medal to 24 civilians, 14 of whom are athletes. He has honored only three women, including golfer Annika Sörenstam; Miriam Adelson, the wife of his largest campaign contributor, the late Sheldon Adelson; and Olympic gold medalist Babe Didrikson Zaharias (who died in 1956).

Trump has used the country’s highest civilian honor to reward his most fervent supporters — angry, divisive partisans like Rush Limbaugh (who coined the term “feminazi”), Rep. Jim “Shouty” Jordan and, of course, his favorite cow-suing congressman, Rep. Devin Nunes.
Just as he has done with the presidency, Trump has debased the Medal of Freedom.

“Everything about Donald Trump screams narcissism, so it’s hardly a surprise he turns the highest civilian award into a tool to reflect his own interests,” said Rob Weissman, president of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “He gave the Medal of Freedom to individuals for their service to him.”

Exactly. Nunes was cited for uncovering “the greatest scandal in American history” and helping “thwart a plot to take down a sitting United States president.”

“Congressman Nunes,” said the White House announcement, “pursued the Russia Hoax at great personal risk and never stopped standing up for the truth. He had the fortitude to take on the media, the FBI, the Intelligence Community, the Democrat Party, foreign spies, and the full power of the Deep State. Devin paid a price for his courage.”

The price? Columnists wrote mean things about him.

On Sunday, I asked Democratic Rep. Adam B. Schiff how he reacted to Nunes receiving the Medal of Freedom. “I feel like I am living in Alice in Wonderland,” Schiff said. “It grieves me to think about what that means to others who have received the honor.”

Now, I don’t mean to pick on Nunes. … Oh, who am I kidding? Yes, I do.

He has distinguished himself as Congress’ most thin-skinned member, suing for defamation newspapers, magazines, television networks, a fellow congressman, an organic fruit farmer and, of course, the anonymous author of a Twitter account who purports to be a cow. As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote last March, “That’s a lot of litigation for a guy who co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act of 2017.”

The other day, Nunes seemed to excuse Trump’s incitement of the crowd that stormed the U.S. Capitol and killed Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. “Look,” he told Sean Hannity, “the president makes a lot of mistakes. All presidents make mistakes.”

Nunes’ unhinged performance during the House’s first impeachment inquiry in 2019 should go down as one of the most bizarre political displays of all time. He showed no interest in Trump’s alleged crimes but continually tried to drag an unknown Democratic National Committee operative named Alexandra Chalupa into the proceedings by implying with absolutely no proof that she’d sabotaged Trump’s 2016 campaign.

He and his colleagues, including most notably his fellow medalist Jordan, tried to out the anonymous whistleblower who first raised concerns about Trump’s phone call with the new president of Ukraine. That was, of course, the call during which Trump asked Volodymyr Zelensky, who wanted Trump to allow the release of nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine, to “do us a favor though” and dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Trump himself, you’ll recall, had already endangered the safety of the unnamed whistleblower by accusing him of treason. During the impeachment inquiry, Nunes repeatedly tried to get witnesses like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House.

“It was shocking to see Devin Nunes receiving the medal for his work in the first impeachment and [Russian election interference] investigations,” said Irvin McCullough, a national security analyst who specializes in military and intelligence community whistleblowing for the Government Accountability Project. “How did I react? With a mixture of disgust and disappointment.”

In Trump’s first impeachment, McCullough said, “Republicans just abandoned the bipartisan tradition of whistleblower protection.”
And it hasn’t gotten any better.

In December, Foreign Policy magazine reported, Nunes blocked reforms to the Whistleblower Protection Act that would have strengthened those protections. Among other things, the reforms would have imposed criminal penalties on anyone who shares a whistleblower complaint with the target of an investigation without the whistleblower’s permission (as happened with the complaint about Trump’s Ukraine call), McCullough said.

“Supporting whistleblowers is supporting the safeguards that prevent our democracy from going off the rails,” McCullough added. “Opposing strengthening protections for whistleblowers is the same as opposing oversight. From a national security standpoint, that makes us all less safe.”

I would certainly not lump Nunes in with his fellow medalist Cosby, a serial assaulter of women. But no one should get a Medal of Freedom for assaulting the Constitution, either.

Categories Biden, Shame, Trump

Dan Rather: A Dangerous Double Standard

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2024 //
56

Dan Rather is puzzled about why the media scrutinizes Biden for any misstatements or gaffes and seems to be gleefully stoking the “resign” story. Yet Trump says crazy and incoherent things, and the media ignores it.

He writes on his blog “Steady”:

What a weekend. You know I have seen some things in my seven decades covering American politics. I have never seen anything quite like the wrangling, hand-wringing, and behind-the-scenes gamesmanship currently swirling around President Biden. These are compounded by the one-sided media coverage against Biden. And it isn’t over yet. 

One thing is for certain: If Biden stays in the race, every step, every word, every gesture will be parsed, dissected, and magnified. This is the reality, at least for the Democrats. Trump? Not so much. Or really, very little.

Case in point: On Friday, Biden sat down with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. In the transcript of the interview released by ABC, Biden said, “I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about.” Several news organizations and the White House took issue with the word “goodest.” According to The New York Times,the ABC standards team listened again to the audio and changed “goodest” to “good as.” According to the Times, “Mr. Biden’s actual words at that point in the interview were difficult to make out and open to interpretation.”

So here we are — one slightly hard to discern word in an otherwise coherent interview. And then there is the other guy. The one who can’t seem to string together a single coherent sentence — a fact news organizations don’t even bother mentioning any more. Try making sense of this gobbledegook from Trump’s remarks at a recent rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania:

“Our nation was saved by the immortal heroes at Gettysburg. Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. The battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable. I mean it was so, was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways — it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow! I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch. And uh the statement of Robert E. Lee, who’s no longer in favor — did you ever notice that? He’s no longer in favor. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill, he said. Wow, that was a big mistake, he lost his great general and uh they were fighting uphill. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys,’ but it was too late.”

What?? You may not have heard about this because it was “lightly” reported, i.e. not a word from The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, or the Associated Press. Jon Stewart did mention it on “The Daily Show,” saying it was “plagiarized, almost directly, from my seventh-grade book report, ‘Gettysburg, Wow.’”

Why are the rules so different for these two men? Both should be held accountable for their deeds and words. But they aren’t. Trump gets pass after pass.

The Republicans have hitched their wagon to a cult leader. They are willing to do just about anything to win back the White House: lie; obliterate the rules; blindly back a convicted felon, a cheater, a sexual assaulter, a Project 2025 promoter, a dictator on day one, and an insurrectionist. Maybe they should change their MAGA caps to say “The ends justify the means.”

The Democrats have, to this point, backed the president, a decent man who has devoted his life to the service of the country. Now that the proverbial chips are somewhere near rock-bottom, the party doesn’t know what to do. Remain loyal to a man who has objectively done a very good job after the debacle that was the Trump administration, and risk Trump 2.0? Or nudge Biden out in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris or any number of untested contenders? The finger-pointing and “blames-manship” will be epic if Trump wins. Where is this headed? As my father said, “he who lives by the crystal ball learns to eat a lot of broken glass.”

But for those of us who believe in the great American Experiment — a constitutional republic based on the principles of freedom and democracy — this is what it looks like, folks. It’s raucous, sometimes ugly, painful, and chock full of anxiety. But one thing we can do and are doing is speak freely. That could all change. Imagine a world where the Trump police track down naysayers and truth tellers. He has vowed retribution, even military tribunals for his political enemies. And then he would not be subject to prosecution. In our system of government, we have the right to question our leaders. If Trump wins, that could quickly disappear.

In the confusion, uncertainty, and anxiety of the moment, and amidst all the disappointing media coverage, it is time to remind ourselves once again what is at stake in this election.

Please know that we feel your anxiety and we welcome your insights, your frustration, your worries in the comments on this forum. It’s an open exchange. All I ask is that you remain respectful to your fellow Steady readers. Please, no name-calling or foul language. I enjoy reading your comments. We desperately need this passion come November. Our democracy depends on it.

Categories Biden, Elections, Hypocrisy, Media, Trump

Peter Greene Debunks the Leading Evangelist for the School Choice Movement

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2024 //
5

Peter Greene, who taught for 39 years in Pennsylvania, wrote recently in The Progressive about Corey DeAngelis, who travels the nation to trash public schools and to advocate for vouchers. If you hate public schools and unions, he’s your guy. If you adore Betsy DeVos and her plans to destroy local communities and to get more children into discriminatory religious schools, he’s your guy.

Greene writes:

Corey DeAngelis is an influential, if not the most influential, voice in the rightwing campaign to demonize public schools and privatize public education. The guy’s résuméhits all the bases in the libertarian gameplan. After earning a doctorate at the University of Arkansas’s education reform program (funded bythe pro-school choice Walton family), DeAngelis helped found the Education Freedom Institute, became a senior fellow at the Reason Foundation, worked as an adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute, took up an appointment as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and was hired on as a senior fellow at Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children.

He still holds all of those jobs, but his more common title is “school choice evangelist.” As the recent school voucher wave has surged in state after state, DeAngelis has been there to spread the word. While on tour in support of his new book, he distills the current pro-voucher argument.

In a recent talk at the Heritage Foundation, DeAngelis touched on most of the main arguments for vouchers (many of them false) and revealed a few truths about the pro-voucher strategy.

1. The Evil Unions and COVID

The villainy of the teachers union is a thread that runs through much of DeAngelis’s argument, especially related to the COVID-19 pandemic narrative. DeAngelis blames the unions (and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten) for “fear mongering” and accuses them of extorting ransom payments by holding schools hostage. The unions, he charged, used the pandemic to empower themselves and the “government schools” that he calls “a jobs program for adults.”

There’s no recognition that teachers had a legitimate fear during the pandemic or that hundreds of educators died of COVID-19. Nor did he mention the many private and non-union charter schools that also closed their doors. Every problematic decision that he cited from pandemic times is blamed on the union, with no mention that Betsy DeVos’s Department of Education provided little or no guidance to districts facing difficult decisions in an evolving situation.  

DeAngelis’s narrative argues that parents viewing Zoom school were appalled and awakened by what they saw. That oft-repeated tale stands in contrast to polls that show the vast majority of parents were satisfied with how their schools handled COVID-19. A 2022 Gallup poll found that, while the general public’s opinion of public schools is “souring,” parents’ favorable opinion of their own school matched pre-pandemic levels. The common sense conclusion to draw from this data is that people who don’t have first-hand experience with public schools are developing a low opinion of them based on some other source of information.

DeAngelis’s argument has other flaws. He claimed that the unions extracted a huge ransom from schools. But he also argued that pandemic relief funds given to schools never reached teachers and were, instead, soaked up by administrative bloat, which would seem to be a big tactical blunder on the unions’ part.

2. The Evil Unions and the Democratic Party

DeAngelis made the unusual claim that Democrats aren’t having kids, but Republicans are. But that, he said, won’t save conservatives because schools are fully “infiltrated by radical leftist union teachers.” The left uses schools as a way to control other people’s children. The Democratic Party, he added, is a fully owned subsidiary of the teachers’ union.

DeAngelis also repeated a false narrative of the National School Board Association’s supposed campaign to muzzle parents. In fall 2021, local school boards found their usually sleepy meetings had turned into wild, threatening, and even violent chaos. The NSBA turned to the Biden Administration for help, calling some of the actions “the equivalent of a form of domestic terrorism or hate crimes.” This was quickly and inaccurately cast as the Democratic administration calling parents domestic terrorists.

The resulting controversy caused the NSBA to lose some members, which DeAngelis seemed happy about. “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes,” he said.

This narrative that smears public school-friendly groups fits a general pattern of conservative attacks on groups seen as Democratic Party supporters.

Open the link to read more about the DeVos-funded public school hater who is spreading his propaganda across the nation.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Bigotry, Billionaires, Democracy, Education Industry, Evil, Extremism, Privatization, Propaganda, Segregation, Shame, Unions, Vouchers

Why Democrats and the Media Love to Pull Down Democratic Candidates

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2024 //
149

A reader who calls herself New York City Public School Parent (NYCPSP) posted this gem of a commentary. It is a brilliant rant by a journalist about how Democrats and the media love to tear apart Democratic candidates. When faced with a choice between a flawed incumbent only four months before the election, they gather into a wolfpack to demand he be replaced by an ideal candidate. Groupthink prevails. If they got their wish, they would immediately attack the new candidate, because she or he is also flawed. Meanwhile the fascist and his bootlicking party are treated as normal.

NYCPSP explains that she found this rant by climate/energy journalist David Roberts on the Facebook page of author/historian/activist Rebecca Solnit. NYCPSP wrote “It is one of the most trenchant analyses of how the media does political reporting that I have ever read.”

I am not on Facebook so I am borrowing NYCPSP’s transmission, which follows, and I thank her both for sending it and for adjusting (but not deleting) words like “f**k”

Rebecca Solnit writes: “this is the best thing I’ve read so far on the situation, and it’s some tweets a guy who has a Substack newsletter on climate did for free, while a thousand salaried media pundits are congratulating themselves while striving to outdo and imitate each other in pulling down the republic.”

David Roberts: “I haven’t written much about politics since the debate, mainly because I’m so overwhelmed by disgust & contempt toward this country’s media & commentariat that it has rendered me inarticulate with rage. Twitter probably doesn’t need more rage. I do just wanna make one point tho.

To be clear up front: I don’t give one tiny hot f**k who the Dem nominee is. I truly don’t. Biden’s fine. Harris is fine. A warm puddle of vomit is fine. *There is no conceivable resolution to the nomination fight that could change the basic calculus of this race.*

Preventing a fascist takeover of the US is my top priority–as a journalist, as a voter, as a human. If it isn’t yours too, you should feel bad about yourself. If you haven’t made the stakes of this election clear to everyone within the sound of your voice, you should feel bad.

But I’m not gonna rant. [breathes deeply] Just gonna make my one point, which is this: the idea that that the process of jettisoning Biden & choosing someone else will go well — will be *allowed* to go well — is a deeply deranged fantasy.

The idea that Dems will do this & will end up feeling unified, that Harris will come out popular, that “the dynamics of the race will shift,” all of that … f**king deranged. Deranged in such a perfectly characteristic Dem way.

“This person/policy/slogan/approach has been irredeemably slimed by Republicans & a hostile media — let’s throw it overboard!” That’s the Dem way. Always with this starry-eyed hope that they can reset, start over, get it right this time.

Just as one example — other people have aggregated these — there have been “calls” for every Dem nominee of the last 30 years to step aside. Dems practically delight in abandoning their own people, policies, & principles in response to bad-faith pressure. They f’ing love it.

But, as I’ve been saying for, oh, 20 years now, the situation is structural. The current situation is an outcome of a particular incentive structure & that structure will remain exactly the same if Harris takes over the ticket.

For centrists, journalists, pundits, *even Dem electeds*, the way you prove you are a Reasonable, Serious Person in DC is by sh**ting on Dems. For the left, the way you prove you are a true radical is by sh**ting on Dems. For the right … well, obviously.

Everyone’s professional incentives are to s**t on Dems. Dwelling on Trump & his fascist movement — however justified by the objective facts — just doesn’t bring that juice, doesn’t get the clicks & the high-fives, doesn’t feel brave & iconoclastic. It’s just … no fun.

So, say Biden stepped aside in favor of Harris tomorrow. How long until the vapid gossips we call political reporters find something wrong with her, some alleged flaw they just have to write 192 stories about? How long until the hopped-up mediocrities we call pundits …

…find some “counter-intuitive” reason that the new Dem ticket is flawed after all? How long until the irredentist left gets over the temporary thrill of its new Harris memes & remembers that she’s a cop & turns on her? How long before the ambient racism & misogyny in the US…

… lead center-leftists to conclude that, sure, they’d support a black woman, just not *this* black woman? In other words: how long before everyone reverts to their comfortable, familiar identity & narratives?

About 30 f’ing seconds, is my guess.

Dems uniting, feeling good, telling a clear story, receiving credit for their accomplishments–all of that is *impossible* in the current environment. It won’t be allowed. Dems can punch themselves in the face all they want, abandon whoever they want, apologize all they want…

… they simply will not be allowed to turn the page & start fresh, because everyone’s incentives remain the same. If they did that, elites, including media elites, would have no choice but to openly & frankly grapple with Trump & what he represents & they *don’t want to*.

Everyone feels comfortable sh**ting on Dems — it’s just a cozy professional space. You get to feel brave & independent (just like all the replacement-level pundits around you) with zero risk.

Yes, it’s abysmal, contemptible cowardice on a genuinely embarrassing scale …

… but it is what it is & we should have no illusions that it will change with a change in the top of the ticket.

As @whstancil has been trying to tell you people (good god how he tries), the information environment is thoroughly corrupted.

@whstancil For some reason, left pundits are pathologically averse to acknowledging that fact. And so they grasp at these straws — if we could just get rid of Biden, we could have a reasonable conversation! Yeah, sure. You absurd summer children.

@whstancil This election is not a choice between two individuals, it’s a choice between worldviews, between futures. Do we want to continue down the path to multiethnic democracy or do we want to impose a white patriarchal Christian autocracy?

@whstancil At stake is the entire federal civil service. The machinery of state built since WWII. Freedom & dignity for millions. Yes, democracy itself. That’s not an exaggeration. Yet this country’s elites have utterly failed to convey those stakes to the populace. A *grotesque* failure.

You can not look at this extraordinary media freakout this last week and not psychologize, not see all kinds of displacement. They can’t or won’t be serious about Trump & so they are f**king *giddy* at having permission to scold Dems again. Their safe place.

Anyway, my point is just: none of this will change if Harris replaces Biden at the top of the ticket. The idea that the media — with these soulless careerist court gossips in charge — will allow it is just fantasy. They *need* Dems in disarray & so they will engineer it.

The US is right on the precipice of falling into bona fide fascism & *the vast majority of the voting public doesn’t even know it*. That speaks to a deeply diseased information environment. Until Dems do something about that, all their self-flagellation will buy them nothing.

Not knowing what else to do, Dems s**t on their own.”

This analysis confirms what I have been thinking and writing. As I read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and other mainstream media, I feel that they jump to distribute news of a Congressman, a Senator, a donor, or a bunch of big donors (“Hollywood”) that wants Biden to step aside. They seem to be on a death watch, waiting for Biden to succumb to their pressure. If you added together the stories about why or whether Biden will retire and compared them to the stories about Trump’s absurd lies and dangerous threats, the ratio would be about 10:1. It’s “news” to hound Biden out of office, it’s not “news” to report on Trump’s incitement of violence, hatred, and division.

I support Biden because he has been a very successful President, because he is sane, rational, and I share his love of democracy. I would support any Democrat against Trump. I won’t repeat why I oppose Trump but he is the opposite of Biden. He represents the worst in America.

Categories Bias, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Media, Trump

Chris Hayes: What Is Project 2025? A Frightening Plan for Trump’s Next Term: LINK ADDED

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
50

It occasionally happens that I forget to add a link. I forgot to add the link for this great segment by Chris Hayes. I was embroiled in a computer glitch all day (my computer and printer are not communicating). Please watch the segment to learn what horrors Trump has in store for us.

Chris Hayes has a regular evening news program on MSNBC.

In this short video, he explains Project 2025, which spells out plans for major changes in the government and in our freedoms.

It’s a short video. Please watch.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Billionaires, Civil Rights, Democracy, Deregulation, Disruption, Education Industry, Elections, Environment, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom to Read, Funding, Gender, Privatization, Shame, Trump

Robert Reich: Project 2025 Gives Evangelicals All They Want

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
25

It’s one of the great ironies of our time that Trump—a completely irreligious man—is serving the interests of the most evangelical Christians. Ban abortion? Done. End LGBT rights? Certainly. Ban contraception? Soon. Crush unions? Soon. Eliminate any climate regulations? On the way. Defund public schools? Yes. Send public money to religious schools with no accountability? Yes.

Robert Reich describes Project 2025 and demonstrates that—no matter how much he pretends otherwise—it is Trump’s blueprint for the long-sought goals of far-right extremists.

Reich writes:

“Project 2025” is nothing short of a 900-page blueprint for guiding Donald Trump’s second term of office if he’s re-elected.

After the Heritage Foundation unveiled Project 2025 in April last year, when Trump was seeking the Republican nomination, he had no problem with it.

But now that the nation is turning its attention to the general election, Trump doesn’t want Project 2025 to draw attention. Its extremism is likely to turn off independents and moderates.

So Trump is now claiming he has “no idea who is behind” Project 2025.

This is another in a long line of Trump lies…

Trump has said he’d seek vengeance against those who have prosecuted him for his illegal acts. Project 2025 calls for the prosecution of district attorneys Trump doesn’t like, and the takeover of law enforcement in blue cities and states.

Project 2025 is, in short, the plan to implement what Donald Trump has said he wants to do if he’s re-elected.

Trump may want to distance himself from Project 2025 in order to come off less bonkers to independents and moderates, but he can’t escape it. The document embodies everything he stands for.

Categories Bigotry, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Environment, Evil, Extremism, Gender, Hoax, Religion, Republicans, Separation of church and state, Trump

Aaron Rupar: What’s Behind Project 2025?

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
21

Blogger Aaron Rupar, writing at “Public Notice,” sums up the goal of Project 2025, which is a lengthy tome describing the plans of the next Trump administration. The main goal, Rupar writes, is to abolish the 22nd Amendment—the one that sets limits for Presidents at two terms. Their hope: Trump for life. In recent days, Trump insisted that he knows nothing about Project 2025 or those who wrote it. That’s hard to believe since the authors served in his administration, and the project was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. There’s a photo of Trump shaking hands with Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation, on the Heritage Twitter feed. Trump must have forgotten that he knows him.

Rupar writes:

Project 2025, the Republican plan to functionally annihilate not just the federal government but democracy as well if Trump wins in November, is an unceasing parade of horrors. 

Banning the abortion pill nationwide? Check. Rolling back protections for LGBTQ people? Check. Deporting literally millions of undocumented immigrants? Check. But amid each objectively horrible aim is an even more more insidious one: abolishing the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. It’s an unvarnished, right-out-in-the-open plan to keep Trump in office well past 2028. 

It’s not as if this is genuinely unexpected. By July 2019, Trump had “joked” at least six times about being president for life. Floating that as a possibility, as Peter Tonguette did last week over at The American Conservative, is a great opportunity to show fealty to a candidate who values loyalty over all else. 

The American Conservative is a “partner” of Project 2025, along with such luminaries as Stephen Miller’s America First Legal law firm (currently suing everyone over the mildest of diversity efforts) and the Claremont Institute, which gave us Christopher Rufo and Moms for Liberty.

As Media Matters notes, the reasoning in Tonguette’s piece is dubious at best, but that doesn’t really matter. Project 2025 doesn’t rest on solid law, respect for democracy, or an understanding of history. It rests only on the notion that Trump should be allowed to exhibit raw, vicious, and unchecked power. 

Tonguette’s piece doesn’t even bother with the pretense that getting rid of the 22nd Amendment would strengthen democracy overall. Instead, the piece is predicated on the utterly unfounded notion that when the amendment was passed, no one could have foreseen that a president would be elected to nonconsecutive terms.

While Tonguette does mention Grover Cleveland, who every schoolchild learns did indeed serve two nonconsecutive terms, he seems to think that people were perhaps unaware of him when the 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951. Tonguette handwaves away the existence of Cleveland by simply writing, “In modern times, it is virtually inconceivable that any of the ousted one-term presidents would have seriously thought of running anew against the same opponent (now the occupant of the White House) who had bested them four years earlier.” 

It’s also inconceivable that millions of Americans would line up for a candidate who incited an insurrection, is facing 91 criminal charges, was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, and was just recently rich-guy panhandling to pay his massive bond to appeal his civil fraud penalty in a different case, but here we are. 

Embracing autocracy … for this guy?

Like many other projects of the modern Republican Party, a newfound loathing of the 22nd Amendment is wildly hypocritical. 

Though there were multiple unsuccessful pushes for presidential term limits before the passage of the 22nd amendment, the GOP House majority prioritized the issue after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s death in 1945. No Republicans broke the party line during key congressional votes on the amendment, but they were helped along by southern Democrats who were mad that President Harry Truman continued FDR’s liberal economic policies.

To be fair, vaguely kicking around the idea of a third term has been standard procedure for a lot of two-term presidents, with President Barack Obama saying he thought he would likely have won a third election and President Bill Clinton saying he would probably have run for a third term if possible. However, the only serious push for a third term came from President Ronald Reagan, who said in 1987 that he “would like to start a movement” to repeal the amendment because it interfered with the right to “vote for someone as often as they want to do.” Reagan said he didn’t want this for himself but would press for it going forward, but like many things he said, that was somewhat less than truthful, as Republicans fundraised off the possibility of a Reagan third term starting in 1986.

Returning to Tonguette’s argument, it rests largely on his assertion that Trump is incredibly, historically popular, so he should get a third term. This, of course, ignores the fact that Trump is not actually that popular. He lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016, Hillary Clinton trounced him by 2.87 million votes, while in 2020, Biden bested him by over 7 million.

🚨 Subscribe to Public Notice 🚨

Project 2025 is about enshrining minority rule

Much of the post-2020 discussion from Republicans — the parts not about unhinged conspiracy theories — has centered around outrage that anyone could disregard Trump’s 74 million votes. It’s unclear what conservatives mean by that, save for that even when they have less support and don’t win elections, they should still run things. 

And that’s what Project 2025 is all about. Republicans want to permanently enshrine their minority policies into law despite the fact that what they want is broadly unpopular. Fifty-nine percent of Americans want abortion to be legal. Over half of registered and likely voters do not want to vote for someone who makes robbing transgender youth of health care their core issue. Nearly three-quarters of American adults want the government to take bold steps to fight climate change. 

Project 2025 is all about enacting minority rule in America immediately upon Trump’s election. To do so, Trump would first need to gut civil serviceprotections, which ensure that federal workers don’t have to adhere to the politics of any given president.

Trump tried this at the end of his term, issuing an executive order that would have made thousands of federal civil servants at-will employees. When he didn’t win a second term, he didn’t have time to implement it. Those apolitical employees — as many as 50,000 people — would be replaced with Trump loyalists. Power would be wholly consolidated in the executive branch. 

Of course, Republicans hate that the executive branch, currently led by a Democratic president, wields any power and have been engaged in a decades-long project to dismantle the administrative state. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are helping along nicely with this project. But that pendulum would swing the other way fast if Trump retakes power, at which point conservatives will again love consolidating all power in the executive branch because the administrative state will be completely beholden to Trump. 

Comparisons to historic fascist leaders once felt overblown, but with Trump declaring he’d be a dictator on day one of his presidency, those comparisons no longer seem so hyperbolic. However, Trump has much more modern analogs. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has thrashed that country’s nascent attempts at democracy, amending the constitution twice to allow him to stay in power as long as he wants. With his most recent victory last month in an election that was really no election at all thanks to widespread coercion and censorship, Putin may end up being ruler for life.

Then there’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. In the summer of 2023, he forced a vote to curtail the power of Israel’s Supreme Court, a project his conservative government had been pursuing for months because the court doesn’t vote in lockstep with his goals. There’s also the fact that Netanyahu, like Trump, faces corruption charges and needs to be sure the courts can’t take action against him.

And finally, there’s Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Orbán has been the king of the culture wars in a way that Republicans can’t get enough of. In 2022, he gave a speech joking about gas chambers and warning against Europeans becoming “peoples of mixed race.” Unsurprisingly, this did not result in him getting disinvited to the Conservative Political Action Conference a short while later. Instead, Republicans loved his nationalist rhetoric so much that there is now a CPAC Hungary, where in 2023, Orbán complained about “the woke movement and gender ideology.” 

If you want a preview of what would happen in a second Trump term, look to Hungary, which now bans anything with LGBTQ content whatsoever being shared with minors, and where the constitution was amended in 2020 to define “family” only as “based on marriage and the parent-child relation. The mother is a woman, the father a man.” Orbán also hates migrants and refugees, saying that people fleeing from war in places like Syria are a threat to Christianity. He has said he will defend Hungary against “tens of millions” of immigrants. 

Trump’s vision for America is impossibly grim. It’s fueled by hate and disrespect for democracy, and the only way it can be stopped is at the ballot box in 2024, so that Project 2025 never comes to fruition.

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Religion, Trump, Vouchers

Nancy Bailey: Project 2025 Will Hurt Students with Disabilities

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
2

Nancy Bailey, retired teacher and veteran blogger, explains how Trump’s Project 2025 will strip away the federally-guaranteed rights of students with disabilities.

She writes:

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is generally troubling, and its education plan is worrisome. It involves Milton Friedman’s undemocratic ideas to privatize public education, and its voucher plan for students with disabilities will continue to end public school services as we know them.

Project 2025 will eliminate the costs and hard-fought legal protections for children with special education needs instead of strengthening the public school programs.

The All Handicapped Children Education Act

Since its start in 1975, The All Handicapped Children’s Education Act, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has opened public schools to children with disabilities. Before then, children had limited services, and many were mistreated in poor institutions.

The momentous passage of this act was a proud moment for America! For years afterward, public education focused on improving education for students with disabilities.

However, many politicians and policymakers have worked to undermine these school programs, believing this law is too expensive or wanting to privatize those services.

They reauthorized the Act in 1997 and 2004, when it changed to IDEA. They shuttered long time programs, turning a blind eye to states and local school districts that have pushed children out of services.

Consider how Texas officials denied children services for years, as did New Orleans  by converting public schools to charters after Hurricane Katrina. Those reading this might have their own examples of how their local schools reneged on the necessary services.

In these cases the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) did not perform due diligence to stop states from rejecting students. A stronger federal department should have ensured that students who needed disability services got them.

As disability services have been whittled down throughout the years, parents have become increasingly frustrated with public schools and convinced they should remove their students with a voucher, even though other school options lack accountability and are often less than ideal.

Project 2025 is correct that there are too many lawsuits by parents unhappy with public school programs, but without public schools, parents will have no rights!

Please open the link and read the post in full to learn how Project 2025 will hurt the most vulnerable children.

Categories Bigotry, Education Industry, Elections, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Special Education, Trump

Heather Cox Richardson: How Will Project 2025 Affect the Election?

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
27

I wonder how many voters have read Project 2025 or heard of it. Apparently enough to worry Trump, who claims that he knows nothing about it or who wrote it. The 900-page document was drafted by people who are well known to him; it’s supposed to be the master plan for the next Trump term.

Heather Cox Richardson explained the controversy about Project 2025:

For all that certain members of the media continue their freakout over Biden’s electability after his appearance in last Thursday’s event on CNN, it is Trump and his Republicans who appear to be nervous about the upcoming election. 

Journalist Jennifer Schulze of Heartland Signal noted today that as of 8:00 this morning, the New York Times had published 192 pieces on Biden’s debate performance: 142 news articles and 50 opinion pieces. Trump was covered in 92 stories, about half of which were about the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Although Trump has frequently slurred his words or trailed off while speaking and repeatedly fell asleep at his own criminal trial, none of the pieces mentioned Trump’s mental fitness. 

But for all of what independent journalists are calling a “feeding frenzy,” egged on by right-wing media figures, it seems as if the true implications of Project 2025 are starting to gain traction and the Trump campaign recognizes that the policies that document advocates are hugely unpopular. 

On July 2, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts assured Trump ally Steve Bannon’s followers that they are winning in what he called “the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” In March, Roberts told former Trump administration official and now right-wing media figure Sebastian Gorka about Project 2025: “There are parts of the plan that we will not share with the Left: the executive orders, the rules and regulations. Just like a good football team we don’t want to tip off our playbook to the Left.” 

This morning, although Roberts has described Project 2025 as “institutionalizing Trumpism,” Trump’s social media feed tried to distance the former president from Project 2025. “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it,” the post read. Despite this disavowal of any knowledge of the project, it continued: “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” 

In what appeared to be a coordinated statement, the directors of Project 2025 wrote on social media less than two hours later that they “do not speak for any candidate.”  

Aside from the fact that “[a]nything they do, I wish them luck,” sounds much like the signaling Trump did to the Proud Boys when he told them to “stand back and stand by,” Trump’s assertion and Project 2025’s response can’t possibly erase the many and deep ties of the Trump camp to Project 2025. Juliet Jeske of Decoding Fox News noted that Trump’s name shows up on more than 190 pages of the Project 2025 playbook. 

Rebekah Mercer, who sits on the board of the Heritage Foundation, was one of Trump’s top donors in 2016; her family founded and operated Cambridge Analytica, the company that misused the data of millions of Facebook users to push pro-Trump and anti-Clinton material in 2016. Trump’s national press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has appeared in a Project 2025 video. Trump’s own super PAC has been running ads promoting Project 2025, calling it “Trump’s Project 2025,” and many of its policies—killing the Department of Education, erasing the separation of church and state, ending renewable energy programs and ramping up use of fossil fuels, deporting immigrants—are also Trump’s.

Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, as well as both of its associate directors, Spencer Chretien and Troup Hemenway, were in charge of personnel in Trump’s White House, and the theme of Project 2025 is that “people are policy,” by which they mean that hand-picked loyalists must replace civil servants. Trump’s former body man John McEntee, who reentered the White House as a senior advisor after having to leave because he failed a background check, was in charge of hiring in the last months of the Trump White House; he helped to draft Project 2025. Key Trump ally Russell Vought wrote the section of Project 2025 that called for an authoritarian leader; he is also on the platform committee of the Republican National Convention. 

If indeed Trump knows nothing about Project 2025 and has no idea who is behind it, his cognitive ability is rotten. As former chair of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele wrote, “Since [Project 2025] is designed to institutionalize Trumpism and you know nothing about it, then why do you echo some of its policy priorities during your rallies? Coincidence? And how exactly don’t you know that Project 2025 Director Paul Dans served as your chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, and Associate Director Spencer Chretien served as your special assistant and associate director of presidential personnel? And folks say we should be worried about Biden.”

Trump’s attempt to distance himself from Project 2025 indicates just how toxic that plan is with voters. As political scientist Ian Bremmer dryly noted, it seems that “the second [A]merican revolution apparently [is] not polling as well as the first in internal focus groups.” Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson was even more direct, saying that Trump was trying to distance himself from Project 2025 because “most of it polls about like Ebola,” the deadly virus that causes severe bleeding and organ failure, and has a mortality rate of 80 to 90%.

The extremism of the MAGA Republicans was on display in another way today as well after The New Republic published a June 30 video of North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson, currently the Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina, saying to a church audience about their opponents—whom he identified in a scattershot speech as anything from communists to “wicked people” to those standing against “conservatives”—”Kill them! Some liberal somewhere is gonna say that sounds awful. Too bad!… Some folks need killing! It’s time for somebody to say it…” 

The other big news today was that the U.S. added 206,000 jobs in June, bringing the total number of jobs created under this administration to 15.7 million. Last month’s numbers were, once again, higher than economists expected and, according to economic analyst Steven Rattner, above job growth levels before the pandemic. He added that these jobs are not simply a bounceback from the depths of the pandemic: 6.2 million more Americans are employed now than before Covid hit. 

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democracy, Elections, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »