It is the anticipation that they cannot endure. Following the arrests of the SNP’s former chief executive and treasurer by police investigating fraud allegations, foreboding has descended upon the party.
Ex-leader Nicola Sturgeon will at some point be invited to assist officers with their investigations, according to senior figures. Her office has stated that she will assist investigators “if asked” A few weeks ago, Sturgeon was regarded as the SNP’s most valuable asset. Now she may be the company’s greatest liability.
Tuesday’s Scottish Parliament reconvened without Sturgeon.
Sturgeon was nowhere to be found when the Scottish Parliament reconvened on Tuesday after the Easter recess. The nationalists’ official account of events — and thank them for attempting it — was that she had always intended to remain absent while new Prime Minister Humza Yousaf established himself.
The arrest of the party’s treasurer, Colin Beattie, two weeks after the arrest of Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, the SNP’s former chief executive, coincided with Yousaf’s attempt to launch a government program. Beattie has now resigned.
Yousaf had to discuss the police inquiry rather than his aims.
Yousaf’s efforts to manage the scandal that has engulfed his party have been akin to a man battling a blaze with only a bag of kindling and a can of lighter fluid.
On Tuesday, Yousaf stated, “Of course I’m surprised when one of my colleagues is arrested,” “I’ll have to speak with Colin — he’s still at the police station,” and, in response to a question about whether the SNP was acting criminally, “I don’t believe so.”
Yousaf continues to resist calls from opponents to suspend Murrell and Beattie from the party due to their involvement in the police investigation into the whereabouts of over £600,000 raised for a nonexistent referendum campaign. According to party sources, if he were to do so, he would be required to do the same for Sturgeon if police invite her to make a statement.
Nobody at Holyrood is currently paying much heed to Yousaf. Rather, Scottish politics is in a state of paralysis as participants await word on whether Police Scotland representatives have interviewed Nicola Sturgeon.
Last month in West Palm Beach, Gov. Ron DeSantis criticized diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
“In Florida, we will not back down to the woke mob, and we will expose the scams they are trying to push onto students across the country,” stated DeSantis. “Florida students will receive education, not political indoctrination.”
As part of his effort to reform publicly funded higher education, DeSantis, a potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate, has started dismantling university DEI programs.
This year, the Republican-majority Florida Legislature followed the governor’s lead and introduced DEI reform legislation for all 12 public colleges.
The Senate measure SB 266 was altered to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion components, while the House bill H.B. 999 to abolish DEI initiatives is moving forward.
DEI initiatives have been part of higher education since the 1960s civil rights movement and have increased diversity of thought and enrollment success of underrepresented populations in campus clubs, support groups, recruitment, and outreach.
Critics say DEI schemes erode merit and equality.
“Instead of being unifying, we see it as divisive and an attempt to cancel and censor those that don’t agree,” said Ray Rodrigues, Chancellor of the State University System of Florida, during the West Palm Beach roundtable.
“It’s become a means to advocate a political ideology of the left,” he remarked. “And, it has ignored merit and instead sought to provide equal outcomes not based on the merit of the individual or the work but on their physical characteristics, which is exclusionary not inclusive.”
Florida and Texas are among the dozen states considering outlawing similar programs. Legislators and lawmakers in Florida are debating if these programs are a smart use of public dollars, if they work, or if they divide employees, students, and departments.
New College of Florida closed its DEI office.
Palm Beach Atlantic University, a private Christian institution in Palm Beach County, terminated the contract of a longtime English teacher who taught black literature. A parent accused him of “indoctrinating” children.
H.B. 999 would bar public institutions from using state or federal funds for DEI or political action programs. It would also ban programs that show race, gender, or other preferences.
“Republicans have made [DEI] the new boogeyman or their new buzzword for wokeness,” South Florida Democrat State Sen. Shevrin Jones told WLRN. It’s always been there.”
Jones taught AP Chemistry and Biology at Florida Atlantic University high school in Boca Raton before entering politics.
“This new notion that these types of programs in colleges and universities are somehow turning children into quote unquote activists is just totally a mischaracterization of diversity equity and inclusion,” he told WLRN.
Jones said DEI programs support first-generation college students, fund outreach initiatives, provide anti-racism workshops, and pay administrators to run them.
Jones toured Florida’s 12 public universities in 2021 as vice head of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Education and concluded that schools were helping close the equity gap.
“That’s not wokeness, that’s school support to help their students on their campus to make sure that everyone feels like they belong there,” he said.
Florida public colleges reported spending approximately $35 million on DEI programs annually. State funds account for $21 million.
Conservative Florida politicians doubt the money is being spent. The University of Florida spent nearly $1 million on four DEI office personnel, $780,000 of which was state money.
Christopher Rufo, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and New College of Florida trustee, attended the DeSantis roundtable discussion “Education Not Indoctrination.”
I think we should examine the details. “Get past the Orwellian word games that sound good in theory and really understand what these offices do and is it a good use of public resources.”
Rufo is often credited with sparking right-wing fury against critical race theory, a legal phrase used to teach about slavery. He publishes military visions of New College’s future on social media.
Rufo has called the new public institution trustees the “landing team,” declaring, “We got over the wall,” and referring to an operation to “recapture” the college.
The Philadelphia-based charity Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression promotes academic free speech, and Joe Cohn told WLRN that legislators are entitled to examine DEI spending.
It’s exploding. “There’s data that shows the percentage of money dedicated towards the administrative arm of institutions is exponentially growing, while the resources dedicated to faculty are shrinking vastly,” Cohn added.
Better spent.
DEI is multifaceted. Florida colleges have DEI programs. The University of Florida College of Medicine has a Center for Inclusion and Multicultural Engagement and an Office for Diversity and Health Equity.
Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade, who sponsored H.B. 999, claims that DEI officials are sending the incorrect message by promoting particular ideas. He thinks these programs waste money.
“I think the state benefits from reallocating it to more beneficial pursuits,” Andrade added.
DEI initiatives comprise 1% of school expenditures. According to documentation in the staff analysis of the bill, certain Florida public colleges fund DEI programs themselves.
Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton has 20% Black and 27% Hispanic students. Last year, the institution spent $900,000 on DEI efforts, including administrative staff, student success programs, workshops, seminars, and social events. State funding exceeded $640,000.
H.B. 999 goes beyond finance.
The law prohibits coursework that “distorts significant historical events or that uses instruction from critical theory.”
“Racism and Anti-Racism” and “Gender and Climate Change” at Florida Atlantic University are state-funded.
Cohn, from the organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the bill would jeopardize other comparable courses.
The measure has several complex aspects. “For example, it prevents certain majors from existing on campus all targeted because they espouse views that the majority in the Florida legislature dislikes,” Cohn said.
The law prohibits “solicitation of pledges or commitments to viewpoints related to DEI, CRT, or any political identity or ideology, as part of any hiring, promotion, admission, disciplinary, or evaluation process.”
Political tests?
Political litmus tests—used to determine principles and morals—would be banned.
“It’s inappropriate for institutions to be imposing any political litmus tests in either direction on any issues,” Cohn says.
FAU School of Communications & Multimedia professor Christopher Robe teaches film. “There’s a confusion between talking about subjects and indoctrinating subjects,” he remarked. That’s different, right?
He informed WLRN that UFF opposes this law.
I teach pro-KKK Birth of a Nation. My class does not promote the KKK. But it’s crucial to acknowledge the film’s historical significance and its impact on Hollywood and cinema. It’s childish. This idea that mentioning it implies support.”
Jay Goodman, a sophomore music composition student at Florida Atlantic University, helped write a resolution against the law.
It contradicts college’s mission to educate and open minds. The government shouldn’t restrict ideas.
While a lawsuit continues, the Supreme Court is evaluating whether women will face limits in acquiring a medication used in the most frequent abortion method in the US.
In a fast-moving Texas case, abortion opponents are seeking to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone.
The medicine was FDA-approved in 2000, and its use has been relaxed, including mail delivery in states that allow it.
The Biden administration and Danco Laboratories, the drug’s manufacturer in New York, seek the Supreme Court to overturn lower courts’ mifepristone use restrictions while the case is pending. They argue drug limits will cause havoc for women who desire the drug and physicians who supply it. The judges may order women to take a higher dose of the medicine than the FDA recommends.
Alliance Defending Freedom, representing anti-abortion doctors and medical groups in a drug challenge, is defending the verdicts and urging the Supreme Court to allow the limitations take effect now.
Less than a year after conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade, more than a dozen states banned abortion.
Despite major changes in numerous states, abortion opponents focused on pharmaceutical abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the US.
Amarillo, Texas, abortion opponents sued in November. After a federal judge revoked FDA permission of mifepristone, one of two abortion medicines, on April 7, the case went to the Supreme Court.
A federal appeals court changed the order a week later to allow mifepristone with restrictions while the case is pending. The appeals court ruled that the medicine cannot be sent or given as a generic and that patients must make three in-person medical appointments.
In a court filing, Las Vegas-based GenBioPro Inc. noted that two-thirds of US mifepristone is generic.
The FDA has approved the medicine until 10 weeks of pregnancy since 2016, but the court stated it should only be approved through seven weeks.
A Washington federal judge ordered the FDA to keep mifepristone available under current restrictions in 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that filed a separate lawsuit.
The Biden administration claims the verdicts clash and put the FDA in an untenable position.
Last Friday, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the court to suspend the limits until Wednesday to consider the emergency appeal.
If the justices don’t block the order, the Democratic administration and Danco can ask the court to hear the mifepristone dispute, argue, and rule by early summer.
The court rarely does so before at least one appeals court has thoroughly explored the legal concerns.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans set arguments for May 17 on an accelerated schedule.
In 2000, the FDA approved mifepristone for pharmaceutical abortions in the US. Since then, almost 5 million women have induced abortions with it and misoprostol.
The encyclical Pacem in Terris, issued by John XXIII on April 11, 1963, solidified his reputation as “Good Pope John” by calling for a world without victims or executioners. A papal appeal for “peace on earth” was well received everywhere, including the Soviet Union, after the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. However, the Vatican’s belief that the Kremlin masters took the encyclical’s message to heart was naive.
Pacem in Terris taught what? Six decades later, how does its global analysis look?
John XXIII preached that “all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity” in a new historical era. That view meant that the fundamental Catholic social doctrine notion of the common good was global, not just national, and that a “worldwide public authority” was needed to achieve “peace on earth.” That worldwide authority should prioritize human rights, which Pope John broadly defined.
Communism, despite its “false philosophical teachings,” may “contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval” and should be included in the global political community. “In an age such as ours, which prides itself on its atomic energy, it is contrary to reason to hold that war is now a suitable way to restore rights which have been violated,” Pacem in Terris concluded.
For all that John XXIII’s grand vision inspired hope that the world could find its way beyond the knife’s-edge stalemate of the Cold War, the encyclical’s lacunae that friendly critics pointed out after it was issued—its lack of attention to the realities of power in world politics, its misreading of the intrinsic linkage between Marxist ideas and totalitarian politics, its seeming indifference to the enduring effects of original sin in the political sphere—were,
In The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan, The Cold War, and the World on the Brink, William Inboden calls the US-supported strategy of “negotiated surrender” the reason the Cold War ended. In the 1980s, an arms race increased nuclear war risks but also destroyed the Soviet Union’s motivation to compete.
The encyclical’s call for a “universal public authority” to address global issues has been called into question by the UN’s incompetence and corruption since Pacem in Terris, particularly in the defense of basic human rights.
Pacem in Terris’ 60th anniversary shows a worthy goal but a weak understanding of its obstacles.
John XXIII’s welcome emphasis on human rights as an important issue in international public life was validated by the 1979 revolution of conscience—the human rights revolution—that his third successor, John Paul II, started in East Central Europe, another key factor in the nonviolent collapse of European communism.
But Pacem in Terris’ tendency to label nearly every political, social, and economic desirable as a “human right” has not served the Church or world politics, and the Holy See’s address to world politics has become irresistible.
The famous Jesuit philosopher John Courtney Murray contended in his commentary on the encyclical that John XXIII’s ideal political community—”the free man under a limited government”—was derived from Thomas Aquinas.
Pacem in Terris was influenced by the Angelic Doctor, but where was Augustine, another great Catholic political theorist? As Augustine was, was the pope aware of the scope of human political foolishness and the risks of dictatorship in utopian dreams of human perfection?
Denver Catholic, the Archdiocese of Denver’s newspaper, syndicates George Weigel’s “The Catholic Difference” column.
Former president Donald Trump stated that if he returns to the White House in 2025, he will require federal employees to complete a civil service exam or face termination.
A video of the former president’s remarks was released on Friday.
“I will require every federal employee to pass a new civil service exam demonstrating knowledge of our constitutionally limited government,” he said.
Mr. Trump stated that the test would include knowledge of due process rights, equal protection, free speech, religious liberty, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which prompted him to reference the August search of his Mar-a-Lago estate for classified documents by the FBI.
“We will return unelected bureaucrats to their proper place, liberalize the US economy, and attract millions of jobs and trillions of dollars to our shores.”
Mr. Trump has previously advocated for new federal employee requirements. In March of the previous year, he advocated for legislation that would make every executive branch employee subject to termination by the president.
He stated at the time, “We will pass critical reforms making every executive branch employee subject to termination by the president of the United States.” “The deep state must be brought to heel, and it will be. It is already occurring.”
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Trump consistently attacked various executive branch officials, such as when he fired FBI director James Comey and frequently attacked his attorney general Jeff Sessions.
Mr. Trump was recently indicted and arraigned in Manhattan on 34 offenses related to allegedly paying Stormy Daniels hush money. He is also the subject of a federal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate his retaining of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including his actions on January 6.
Abortion politics might undermine Republicans’ prospects of reclaiming the Senate in 2024, as some Republicans believe happened in last year’s midterm election.
Republicans disagree on how the federal government should limit abortion.
Some GOP politicians want to outlaw abortion nationwide, while others want to leave it to the states.
Republican senators expect their party to debate the matter in the months before the next election.
“This issue is not going away,” said Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), adding that there is no unanimity “at the moment” within the Senate GOP conference on Congress’s role in the national abortion debate.
“I think we’ll discuss it a lot. We’re pro-life and want our policies to reflect that. “How that looks right now is still up for debate,” he said.
Republican presidential candidates are already being tested on whether a nationwide abortion ban should take effect at 15 weeks, six weeks, or perhaps earlier.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who is considering a presidential run, gave multiple replies over several days regarding what kind of federal abortion restriction he would sign into law.
Last week in New Hampshire, Scott first declined to say whether he would sign a 15-week abortion ban, then said he would “definitely” sign a 20-week ban, then said he would sign “the most conservative pro-life legislation that they can get through Congress.”
Republican abortion opponents cringed at Scott’s changing answers.
“I think they ought to say what their conviction is,” remarked one anonymous lawmaker on the 2024 presidential primary. “Primary voters want to know someone is pro-life and fights for it. They don’t want wishy-washy.”
After signing a six-week state abortion ban behind closed doors, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) held a rally at Liberty University in Virginia and barely mentioned abortion.
Former President Trump, who seldom misses an opportunity to bash an opponent, has avoided discussing Florida’s six-week abortion ban.
In a recent interview, former Vice President Mike Pence declined to comment on South Carolina’s proposal to execute abortion-defying women. Pence’s spokeswoman later said he opposes it.
Some Republicans interpreted the triumph of Democratic-allied Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this month as an early harbinger of another abortion rights reaction next year.
In an interview with The Hill earlier this month, Wisconsin Republican strategist Brandon Scholz said the state race showed the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, continues to energize voters.
He referred to Justice Samuel Alito’s draft abortion opinion, which leaked in May. The Supreme Court is still searching for the leaker.
Republicans are preparing for a Washington abortion discussion that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) avoided before last year’s midterm election.
McConnell assured voters that Republicans would not try to implement a countrywide abortion ban if they took control of the Senate and House in 2022 and criticized Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) 15-week restriction.
In September, McConnell told reporters Graham had proposed a federal abortion ban, not GOP leaders.
“In terms of scheduling, I think most of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level,” he said.
“I think it’s safe to say there aren’t 60 votes there at the federal level, no matter who happens to be in the majority,” the GOP leader said.
Despite McConnell’s efforts, both parties’ strategists believe abortion rights dominated last year’s races. Democratic campaign commercials nationwide stressed it.
Trump blasted GOP leaders for losing a Senate seat and not winning enough House seats.
“The ‘abortion issue’, poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large number of voters,” he wrote on Truth Social in January.
Despite losing in Wisconsin earlier this month, Senate Republicans look ready to fight over abortion legislation again.
Graham told The Hill on Tuesday that he will resubmit his 15-week abortion ban.
On the other side of the intraparty argument, moderate Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) to codify the Roe v. Wade right to an abortion before 24 weeks.
“I believe that there is a need for codification of Roe and that’s why last Congress we worked to put together a bill that we saw that reflected exactly that,” Murkowski said. “We would like to see it advance.”
Utah was formerly a red state outlier. In 2021, a Utah state Senate committee rejected a ban on transgender girls playing sports. Utah lawmakers heard from proponents on both sides of transgender student sports participation legislation for months.
Republican legislators revoked the arrangement and excluded trans students from feminine sports.
According to FiveThirtyEight, Utah has approved at least six new transgender-targeted laws this year, more than any other state. They prohibit gender-affirming care for children, make birth certificate changes tougher, and make school sports harder for transgender athletes.
Utah is one of at least 14 states that has passed new laws this year restricting transgender people, particularly trans kids, as well as their parents and health care providers, including sports bans, gender-affirming care bans, and bathroom laws.
Trans concerns have dominated statehouses, but do voters support these bills? Does passing these laws risk GOP backlash?
This legislation has divided opinions nationwide. Polls demonstrate that restricting minors from getting transition-related health care is marginally unpopular. In a March Marist/NPR/PBS NewsHour poll, 43% of Americans supported such legislation, while 54% opposed it.
In March, Selzer & Co./Grinnell College reported a similar outcome, with voters opposing legislation to “ban transgender children from receiving gender-affirming medical care” by 12 points (41% in favor, 53% opposed).1
But Americans favor other anti-trans measures approved in various states. Similar to past studies, a March YouGov/Yahoo News poll revealed that Americans supported “banning transgender female athletes from playing on women’s and girls’ teams at public schools” by a margin of 21 points (52% in favor, 31% opposed).
In an April YouGov/Economist survey, 60 percent of Americans favored “requiring K-12 schools to inform parents if their child requests to go by different pronouns while at school,” including majorities of Democrats (50 percent), Republicans (77 percent), and independents (56%).
Utah voters and politicians appear to agree. A January Dan Jones & Associates study for the Deseret News and Hinckley Institute of Politics indicated 54 percent of registered Utah voters supported the new legislation banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children, with 41 percent opposing it.
In a February 2022 Scott Rasmussen/Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics survey, 39 percent of Utahns opposed transgender women playing on women’s high school and college sports teams, but only 5 percent said government officials “should determine which athletes may compete” (41 percent said school athletic associations, 18 percent said medical experts, and 36 percent said it should b
Utahns aren’t the only ones who favor laws restricting transgender kids’ access to health care, sports, and other opportunities. According to a May 2021 Hendrix College/Talk Business & Politics survey, Arkansas voters backed the first U.S. legislation limiting gender-affirming care for transgender youngsters by 15 points. Arkansas enacted a measure this year that would expose gender-affirming clinicians to malpractice charges, even while the SAFE Act is on hold due to litigation.
In February, 65 percent of likely Arkansas voters opposed “the teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation topics in Arkansas’s public elementary schools,” while a bill that has since become law was moving through the state legislature.
In Georgia and Iowa, which restricted gender-affirming care for kids this year, voters approve restrictions by single-digit margins. An April 2022 Morningside University study of Iowans backed a bill restricting school restroom use by 24%.2 States that have considered gender-affirming child healthcare measures but have not approved them continue this pattern.
Texas and Ohio surveys approve limiting transition-related healthcare for minors. Since January 2021, the public has supported banning transgender females from playing women’s sports by 30 points or more in all but one state-level survey.
Transgender rights activists, especially in key presidential election states, have some good news.
According to a December 2022 Public Policy Polling/Progress Michigan survey, 51 percent of Michiganders supported adding sexuality and gender identity to the state civil rights statute. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin citizens oppose policies that “restrict” transgender rights.
In March, Data for Progress reported that 64 percent of likely voters nationwide said that state lawmakers were passing too much anti-trans legislation and that “politicians are playing political theater and using these bills as a wedge issue.”
While Republicans in red states are unlikely to face backlash for their anti-trans legislation this year, polling in swing states could be a warning sign for the GOP ahead of the 2024 election, especially since state and national polling shows the U.S. is far from a consensus on trans issues.
As with most polls on divisive subjects, even little changes in question-wording or the sort of trans law being questioned about can change results.3 Even little shifts in public perception may affect politics and elections.
Democrats will confirm their presidential nominee in the Midwest. If he runs again, President Biden will be nominated for a second term at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, according to the DNC.
The Democratic convention returns to Chicago after 1996. Given the current political climate, some worry that 2024 could repeat the 1968 Chicago convention, which “was a catastrophe that hardly needs explaining — masses of shaggy-haired protesters battling police,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
However, the 1996 conference is fondly remembered. “Events held across the city as Chicago used the convention to showcase its beauty and diversity” made it “a literal and figurative turning of the page from the 1968 Democratic National Convention,”
The New York Times noted that Chicago is “a liberal place that embraces abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and labor and civil rights — and that Illinois reflected the diversity of the nation.” Will the conference attract Midwestern voters? Will the heightened political landscape resemble 1968?
No city compares.
Chicago hosting the DNC “reawakens something that feels like hope,” according to the Chicago Tribune editorial board. The Tribune believes that Chicago likely won the convention because “no other city comes close to pulling off the number of national political conventions that Chicago has hosted for both parties.”
The Tribune notes that Chicago is still a major union town, whereas Atlanta, its biggest convention opponent, is in “a ‘right-to-work’ state where workers are not required to join a union as a condition of employment.” Given Biden’s pro-union stance, Chicago could benefit.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Illinois had 735,000 union members in 2022, compared to Georgia’s 200,000. This may have influenced the DNC’s choice.
Chicago’s location benefits Democrats. “Well because, you know, we’re in the Midwest here – and it’s undoubtedly Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota — those seats are going to be in play,” political consultant Pete Giangreco
. North Central College political science professor Stephen Maynard Caliendo said that while a convention’s site seldom affects voters, Chicago’s working-class character is “going to be an important part of the message for the Democrats next year.”
“Throwing away a chance to grow”
Because the South will likely be an important demographic in the 2024 election, not everyone liked Chicago. Forgoing Georgia for Illinois, which is already blue, “national Democrats are also jettisoning a chance to gain a bigger foothold in a pivotal battleground state that both parties see as key to winning in 2024,” Greg Bluestein and Riley Bunch write for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Good for Chicago, but I think the activity and action in the general election of 2024 is going to be right here,” former Georgia Democratic Party chairman Bobby Kahn tells the Constitution, adding that his state “is still very much in the center of politics and presidential politics in particular.”
Chris Heaton-Harris told the DUP that “real leaders know when to say yes”. Agreement 25, Queen’s University’s major conference, included the Secretary of State.
He said the Union’s biggest challenge is the party’s absence from the Assembly.
His remarks before a party leaders’ discussion that DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson skipped.
Mary Lou McDonald, Naomi Long, Doug Beattie, and Colum Eastwood attended, while MLA Emma-Little-Pengelly represented the DUP.
Mr. Heaton-Harris praised David Trimble’s “foresight and leadership,” Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, and John Hume for ending decades of conflict.
He also noted Mo Mowlam, Monica McWilliams, and Baroness May Blood’s “critical role” and the Clintons’ and Senator George Mitchell’s personal involvement.
“The efforts of those people to get peace mean that there are men and women alive today, possibly here today, who otherwise may not be,” he remarked.
He said, “I make no apologies for wanting Northern Ireland to work within the Union.”
“Others who share that view should put the Union first, restore the devolved institutions and get on with the job of delivering for the people of Northern Ireland,” he says to cheers.
Leaders know when to say yes and have the fortitude to do so.
Mr. Heaton-Harris cautioned against the “tiny minority who seek to drag Northern Ireland back to its darkest days” after the New IRA shot senior police officer John Caldwell.
“For each who wants to drag it down, there are thousands determined to lift it up,” he remarked.
His statements were directed at the DUP, who refuse to join the NI Executive.
Emma Little-Pengelly defended DUP policy.
“I often think back. She responded, “We must learn.” “We need to learn what hasn’t worked, that was the politics of exclusion, of dismissing the genuinely held views of a substantial group in Northern Ireland. That fails.
Nationalists, unionists, and others should cooperate. We won’t ignore this problem.
People believe strongly that the protocol harmed the agreed stance that Northern Ireland would remain a member of the union until the people of Northern Ireland chose otherwise through a referendum.
However, UUP leader Doug Beattie called the reluctance to join Stormont “trampling all over democracy”.
“The Good Friday Agreement balanced unbalance. “Not everyone got what they wanted,” he remarked.
It was meant to alter. Already changed. Sinn Fein leads. We’re trampling democracy in Northern Ireland if we don’t let them in.
I speak as a UK unionist. Damaged parts weaken the whole. No group is excluded. First, stabilize, then see how we can work together.
Alliance leader Naomi Long said it a “tragedy” if the recent political declaration made people “jaded and cynical” about the Good Friday Agreement.
Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein added: “None of us have any right to disregard the views or rights of the other. Drift is the scariest. We’ll always live here. Institutions must now function.”
President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, High Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, and many other ministers and Knesset members attended the Knesset’s annual “Every Person Has a Name” Holocaust memorial service on Tuesday morning.
Ohana recounted the 1930s world lightweight boxing champion Victor Peretz, a Tunisian Jew. In 1942, Nazi invaders ordered Peretz to Auschwitz to join the camp’s boxing squad, which entertained the guards. Peretz defended and saved dozens of detainees while winning 133 battles. “It doesn’t matter,” he said. Ohana said he was shot by a camp guard while collecting food for his fellow detainees.
President Herzog recounted the names and brief tales of his Holocaust-killed family.
“We do not remember numbers; we remember lives,” Herzog stated. Human creatures. The greatest accomplishment is reading the names of every Jew who died in flames in Jerusalem, in the heart of our Jewish and democratic nation-state’s legislative, eighty years later. Last night at Yad Vashem, Holocaust survivor Shoshana Weiss urged us to unite and protect our homeland because we have no choice. “Listen to her,” the president said.
Netanyahu discussed his father-in-law, Shlomo Ben-Artzi, a biblical scholar, educator, and writer who won the Ka-Tzetnik Fund Award for Holocaust Literature. The prime minister claimed Ben-Artzi’s twin sister Yehduit was killed in the Holocaust. Netanyahu said Shlomo would cry if he uttered her name his whole life.
Hayut, Likud ministers Yisrael Katz, Miri Regev, and Dudi Amsalem, United Torah Judaism MK and deputy minister Uri Makleb, MKs Ze’ev Elkin and Orit Farkash-Hacohen (National Unity), MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu), MKs Boaz Bismuth and Ariel Kallner (Likud), and MKs Moshe Arbel and Erez Malul (Shas) also read names.
Holocaust survivors memorialize.
Six Holocaust survivors lighted memorial torches, four of them were connected to Knesset members: Sofi Sachs, mother of MK Yasmin Friedman-Sachs (Yesh Atid); Paulina Davidson, mother of MK Simon Davidson (Yesh Atid); second-generation survivor Haya Nir, mother-in-law of MK Sharon Nir (Yisrael Beytenu) and second-generation survivor Michaela Akunis, mother of Likud minister Ofir Akunis.
Ministers, Knesset members, Holocaust survivors, and others, including Jerusalem mayor Moshe Lion, lit remembrance candles at the parliament entrance to start the day. Isaac Dari (1912-1943), from Oujda, Morocco, died at Majdanek. Ohana lighted the first candle in his remembrance.
