WASHINGTON: Starkly injecting race into his criticism of liberal Democrats, President Donald Trump said four congresswomen of color should go back to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from, ignoring the fact that all of the women are American citizens and three were born in the US His attack drew a searing condemnation from Democrats who labeled the remarks racist and breathtakingly divisive.
Following a familiar script, Republicans remained largely silent after Trump’s Sunday morning broadsides against the four women. But the president’s nativist tweets caused Democrats to set aside their internal rifts to rise up in a united chorus against the president.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump wants to “make America white again.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, after jousting for days with Pelosi, said Trump “can’t conceive of an America that includes us.”
Trump, who has a long history of making racist remarks, was almost certainly referring to Ocasio-Cortez and her House allies in what’s become known as “the squad.” The others are Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Only Omar, from Somalia, is foreign-born.
Ocasio-Cortez swiftly denounced his remarks . “Mr. President, the country I ‘come from,’ & the country we all swear to, is the United States,” she tweeted, adding that “You rely on a frightened America for your plunder.” Omar also addressed herself directly to Trump in a tweet, writing: “You are stoking white nationalism (because) you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, summed up the Democratic response: “Racial arsonist strikes again. Shut. Your. Reckless. Mouth.”
With his tweet, Trump inserted himself further into a rift between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, just two days after he offered an unsolicited defense of the Democratic speaker. Pelosi has been seeking to minimize Ocasio-Cortez’s influence in the House Democratic caucus in recent days, prompting Ocasio-Cortez to accuse Pelosi of trying to marginalize women of color.
“She is not a racist,” Trump said of Pelosi on Friday.
On Sunday, Trump’s tone took a turn.
“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run,” he tweeted.
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”
He added: “These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!“
The attacks may have been meant to widen the divides within the Democrat caucus, which has been riven by internal debate over how far left to go in countering Trump and over whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings against the president. Instead, the president’s tweets, which evoked the trope of telling black people to go back to Africa, brought Democrats together.
“Let’s be clear about what this vile comment is: A racist and xenophobic attack on Democratic congresswomen,” tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate.
Another 2020 contender, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, tweeted at the president: “This is racist. These congresswomen are every bit as American as you — and represent our values better than you ever will.”
Few Republicans weighed in on the president’s comments. Congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, did not respond to requests for comment, nor did Sen. Tim. Scott of South Carolina, the only Republican black senator.
Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection, in a previously scheduled appearance on “Face the Nation” on CBS, said only: “You’re going to have to ask the president what he means by those specific tweets.”
Shortly after the tweets, and a later presidential post defending the harsh scenes at a border detention facility where hundreds of migrant men are being held in sweltering, foul-smelling conditions, Trump left the White House to go golfing at his Virginia club.
Trump appeared unbowed Sunday night when he returned to Twitter to say it was “so sad” to see Democrats sticking up for the women. “If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior,” he tweeted, “then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!“
It was far from the first time that Trump has been accused of holding racist views.
In his campaign kickoff in June 2015, Trump deemed many Mexican immigrants “rapists.” In 2017, he said there good people on “both sides” of the clash in Charlottesville, Virginia, between white supremacists and anti-racist demonstrators that left one counter-protester dead. Last year, during a private White House meeting on immigration, Trump wondered why the United States was admitting so many immigrants from “shithole countries” like African nations.
Repeatedly, Trump has painted arriving immigrants as an “infestation” and he has been slow in condemning acts of violence committed by white supremacists. And he launched his political career with false claims that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Despite his history of racist remarks, Trump has paid little penalty in his own party.
Though a broad array of Republicans did speak out against his reaction to Charlottesville, they have largely held their tongues otherwise, whether it be on matter of race or any other Trump provocation. Fearful of his Twitter account and sweeping popularity among Republican voters, GOP lawmakers have largely tried to ignore the provocative statements.
Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democratic presidential hopeful from California, tweeted, “Let’s call the president’s racist attack exactly what it is: un-American.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, was born in the Bronx, New York, and raised in suburban Westchester County.
Pressley, the first black woman elected to the House from Massachusetts, was born in Cincinnati.
Omar, the first Somali native elected to Congress and one of its first Muslim women, was born in Somalia but spent much of her childhood in a Kenyan refugee camp as civil war tore apart her home country. She immigrated to the United States at age 12, teaching herself English by watching American TV and eventually settling with her family in Minneapolis.
Tlaib was born in Detroit.
Trump’s tweets against liberal congresswomen called racist
Trump’s tweets against liberal congresswomen called racist
- Trump said four congresswomen of color should go back to the “broken and crime infested” countries they came from
- The attacks may have been meant to widen the divides within the Democrat caucus, which has been riven by internal debate
Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal’s custody extended until April 1 in graft case
- Delhi CM Kejriwal was arrested in connection with corruption allegations related to city’s liquor policy
- Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party says case is fabricated, politically motivated against him by Indian government
NEW DELHI: An Indian court extended the custody of opposition leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until April 1 on Thursday in a graft case related to the national capital territory’s liquor policy, local media said.
India’s financial crime-fighting agency arrested Kejriwal last week in connection with corruption allegations related to the city’s liquor policy and he was remanded to its custody until Thursday, weeks before India begins voting in general elections on April 19.
Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) says the case is fabricated and politically motivated. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and his Bharatiya Janata Party deny political interference and say law enforcement agencies are doing their job.
All the main leaders of AAP were already imprisoned in the case before Kejriwal was arrested.
Terming his arrest a “political conspiracy,” Kejriwal, 55, told reporters outside court on Thursday that “the public will respond to this.”
Speaking in court later, he said the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has arrested him, aims to crush AAP.
ED lawyers told the court that they needed Kejriwal in custody for another seven days as he was “deliberately not cooperating” and needed to be interrogated further.
Kejriwal’s arrest has sparked protests in the national capital and the nearby northern state of Punjab, which is also governed by AAP, over the last few days.
Dozens of AAP supporters were detained on Tuesday as they attempted to march to Modi’s residence to demand his release.
Some AAP workers protesting and distributing leaflets to commuters outside a busy metro station in central Delhi were also detained on Thursday.
“This is the time when we campaign (for elections), our leaders are being put in prison, arrested ... they (federal government) are stopping us from campaigning, (but) nobody can stop us from winning,” a protester told news agency ANI.
A joint rally of the ‘INDIA’ alliance, consisting of more than two dozen political parties including AAP, is planned in the capital on Sunday to protest against the arrest.
The issue has also drawn international attention with the US and Germany calling for a “fair” and “impartial” trial in the case, causing New Delhi to tell Washington and Berlin that India’s legal processes are based on an independent judiciary and that they should stay away from its internal affairs.
China says Philippine ‘provocations’ cause of South China Sea tensions
- ‘China will not allow the Philippines to do whatever it wants, and has responded in a reasonable and forceful manner’
- Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.: ‘We will not be cowed into silence, submission, or subservience
BEIJING/MANILA: China on Thursday blamed Philippine actions for recent rising tension between the two sides in the hotly contested South China Sea.
“The provocations by the Philippine side are the direct cause of the recent heating up of the South China Sea issue,” a statement from the defense ministry read, adding: “China will not allow the Philippines to do whatever it wants, and has responded in a reasonable and forceful manner.”
The Philippines will implement countermeasures proportionate and reasonable against “illegal, coercive, aggressive, and dangerous attacks” by China’s coast guard and maritime militia in the South China Sea, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said on Thursday.
“We seek no conflict with any nation, more so nations that purport and claim to be our friends but we will not be cowed into silence, submission, or subservience,” Marcos said on Facebook.
He did not specify what the countermeasures would include.
The Philippines has been furious in the past year over what it calls repeated aggression by China’s coast guard and allied fishing vessels around disputed features located inside Manila’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
The latest flare-up occurred last week, when China used water cannon to disrupt another Philippine resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal for soldiers posted to guard a warship intentionally grounded on a reef 25 years ago.
China, which claims almost the entire South China Sea as its own, has accused the Philippines of encroaching on its territory and says it took necessary measures against the vessels.
China warned the Philippines on Monday to behave cautiously and seek dialogue, saying their relations were at a “crossroads” as confrontations between their coast guards over maritime claims worsened tensions.
Marcos said he met his defense and security officials and has been in communication with “friends in the international community.”
“They have offered to help us on what the Philippines requires to protect and secure our sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction while ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” Marcos said.
The deterioration in relations with China come at a time when Marcos seeks to deepen defense ties with the United States. He has increased US access to Philippine military bases and joint exercises have been expanded to include sea and air patrols over the South China Sea, vexing Beijing.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Wednesday reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to a 1951 mutual defense treaty with the Philippines and criticized as “dangerous” China’s actions at the Second Thomas Shoal.
In a phone call on Wednesday with his Philippine counterpart Gilberto Teodoro, Austin “reaffirmed the ironclad US commitment to the Philippines” which it said was undertaking a lawful resupply mission.
The Philippine-US treaty binds both countries to defend each other if under attack and includes coast guard, civilian and military vessels in the South China Sea.
Russia strikes Ukraine’s Kharkiv with aerial bombs for the first time since 2022
The airstrikes caused widespread damage, hitting several residential buildings and damaging the city’s institute for emergency surgery.
Russia has escalated its attacks on Ukraine in recent days, launching several missile barrages on the capital Kyiv and hitting energy infrastructure across the country in apparent retaliation for recent Ukrainian aerial attacks on the Russian border region of Belgorod. Such sporadic attacks, however, have been common throughout the war.
The Kharkiv region cuts across the front line where Ukrainian and Russian forces have been locked in battles for over two years since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The region is frequently attacked with missiles and drones.
Sergey Bolvinov, head of the investigative police department in Kharkiv, said in a Telegram post that Wednesday’s attack marked the first time aerial bombs were used since 2022. Regional governor Oleh Syniehubov also reported the use of aerial bombs.
The recent escalation comes as exhausted Ukrainian troops struggle with a shortage of personnel and ammunition and face growing Russian pressure along the front line that stretches over 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
On Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sacked one of his top security officials, replacing him with the head of Ukraine’s foreign spy agency in a new reshuffle.
Zelensky dismissed Oleksii Danilov, who served as secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, thanking him for his service in a video address late Tuesday. The president gave no reason and said, without providing details, that Danilov will be “reassigned to another area.”
Zelensky replaced him with Oleksandr Lytvynenko, who served as head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service.
The National Security Council is a policy coordination body that is chaired by Zelensky. Danilov had held his position since October 2019, a few months after Zelensky took office.
The dismissal follows Zelensky’s decision in February to fire Ukraine’s chief military officer, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and replace him with Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi. Tensions between Zaluzhnyi and the president grew after Ukraine’s much-touted 2023 summer counteroffensive failed to reach its goals. This month, Zaluzhnyi was named Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.
US-Israel rift heads for moment of truth over Rafah
- As Netanhayu refused to heed warnings against attacking Rafah, the US for the first time allowed a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution to pass
- But critics say Biden's not using his key point of leverage — cutting US military assistance to Israel — shows his action is more of a PR stunt
WASHINGTON: The United States has taken a public distance from Israel as never before over the Gaza war but the decisive test will be Rafah and whether Israel heeds US warnings against an offensive in the packed city.
The United States on Monday abstained at the Security Council, allowing a resolution to pass for the first time that called for an immediate ceasefire, infuriating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who delayed a delegation to Washington to discuss US concerns on Rafah.
But in a stance surely noted by Netanyahu, President Joe Biden has made clear he will not use his key point of leverage — cutting US military assistance to Israel.
Annelle Sheline, who recently resigned in protest from the State Department, where she had been on a fellowship working on human rights, said the Biden administration may be shifting but that its actions so far — including the resolution and plans for an emergency pier to bring in aid — amounted to “PR stunts.”
“I can only hope that things are starting to change. Unfortunately, I don’t yet see the US actually using its leverage as far as ending or withdrawing support for Israeli military operations, turning off the tap of weapons,” she told AFP.
Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute who was a top White House aide on the Middle East under former president George W. Bush, said Biden was responding at the United Nations not just to domestic politics but to calls from US allies to compromise and not keep vetoing resolutions.
A resolution “is a signal, but it doesn’t in any tangible way impact Israel’s ability to prosecute the conflict,” Singh said, while arms restrictions would “come at a much higher cost” strategically and politically.
Israel has been waging a relentless military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas’s surprise attack on October 7 that was the deadliest in Israel in its history.
The United States has repeatedly warned Israel not to attack Rafah, the southern city where more than 1.4 million Palestinians have taken shelter, but Netanyahu last week vowed to press ahead after a direct appeal from visiting Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
US officials say they will present alternatives to the Israeli delegation on Rafah that will focus on striking Hamas targets while limiting civilian casualties.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that US officials’ presentation of alternatives “indicates to me that they believe some sort of military operations will occur and they’re trying to limit the damage of that operation.”
Singh said the holding pattern on Rafah hurt the United States and Israel as international pressure builds.
“I would say that probably there’s a desire in Washington for them to get on with whatever they’re going to do one way or the other — absolutely protect civilians from harm, but this kind of perpetual indecision, I think, is itself harmful,” Singh said.
James Ryan, executive director of the Middle East Research and Information Project, said: “You do own it a bit more if you give them plans and they don’t go well.”
US criticism has been mounting against Netanyahu with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a staunch backer of Israel and the highest-level elected American Jew, in a bombshell speech criticizing the conduct of the war and urging new elections.
A Gallup poll released Wednesday said only 36 percent of Americans approved of Israel’s actions, down from 50 percent in November.
Biden is a lifelong supporter of Israel who, facing a tough reelection fight in November, is feeling the wrath of the left in his Democratic Party on Gaza, where the United Nations is predicting famine.
Netanyahu, also battling for his political life at the helm of a far-right coalition, is a veteran fighter in Washington who has aligned himself with much of the Republican Party and clashed with three Democratic presidents.
“Both Biden and Netanyahu benefit from having some degree of friction between them,” Wertheim said.
“Possibly the one thing that could save Netanyahu's government once a new election occurs is for Netanyahu to be able to say to the public, I’m the one figure who was able to stand up to the Americans and also preserve America’s support for us,” he said.
Biden, in turn, is eager to show he is pushing back against Israeli “brutality” without imposing costs by restricting weapons.
“What we’re seeing is a lot of theater that serves the political interests of the leaders,” Wertheim said.
Indonesia’s top court hears appeals from losing presidential candidates who want a revote
- Dozens of protesters held a peaceful but noisy rally near the court building, declaring that they would oversee the trial
JAKARTA, Indonesia: Indonesia’s top court heard appeals lodged by two losing presidential candidates who are demanding a revote, alleging widespread irregularities and fraud at the polls in appearances before the judges Wednesday.
Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto won the election with an overwhelming margin: 58.6 percent, or more than 96 million votes, according to the General Election Commission — more than twice the runner-up’s share in the three-way race.
But the losing candidates — Former Jakarta Gov. Anies Baswedan and former Central Java Gov. Ganjar Pranowo — argue that the election was marred by irregularities throughout the campaign. They’re asking the Constitutional Court to annul the election results and order a revote, in separate lawsuits.
Both candidates presented parts of their cases in person, focusing on allegations that the court itself, as well as outgoing President Joko Widodo, bent laws and norms to support Subianto.
“We witness with deep concern a series of irregularities that have tarnished the integrity of our democracy,” Baswedan told the court.
Dozens of protesters held a peaceful but noisy rally near the court building, declaring that they would oversee the trial. Authorities blocked streets leading to the court where about 400 police were deployed in and around the building.
Indonesian presidents are expected to stay neutral in races to succeed them, but Subianto, a longtime former rival of Widodo who twice lost elections to him before joining his government, ran as his successor. He even chose Widodo’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, as running mate, even though Raka did not meet a constitutional requirement that candidates be at least 40 years old.
Baswedan and Pranowo argue that Raka should have been disqualified, and are asking the court to bar him from a revote. Before the election, the Constitutional Court made a controversial exception to the minimum age that allowed him to run, under the leadership of then-chief justice Anwar Usman, who is Widodo’s brother in law. Usman was later forced to resign as chief justice for failing to recuse himself.
“The Constitutional Court was designed to guard the constitution and stem arbitrariness, not to legitimize fraud and crime,” said Todung Mulya Lubis, a prominent lawyer who led Pranowo’s legal team, “This election is an opportunity for the Constitutional Court to reclaim its authority and dignity.”
Baswedan also said that regional officials were pressured or given rewards to influence political choices, and that state social assistance was used as “a transactional tool to help one of the candidates.”
Hefty social aid from the government was disbursed in the middle of the campaign — far more than the amounts spent during the COVID-19 pandemic — and Widodo distributed funds in person in a number of provinces.
“If we do not make corrections, the practices that occurred recently will be considered normal and become habits, then become culture, and ultimately become national character,” Baswedan said before the eight-judge panel.
Subianto himself twice went to the top court to challenge the results of elections he lost to Widodo, but the court rejected his claims as groundless both times. Subianto refused to accept the results of the 2019 presidential election, leading to violence that left seven dead in Jakarta.
Baswedan had the first turn before the court in the morning, while Pranowo spoke in the afternoon.
“What shocked us all, what really destroyed morale, was the abuse of power,” Pranowo told the court, “When the government uses all state resources to support certain candidates, when the security forces are used to defend personal political interests, then it is time for us to take a firm stand to reject all forms of intimidation and oppression.”
Chief Justice Suhartoyo, who like many Indonesians uses a single name, adjourned the hearing until Thursday, when Subianto and the General Election Commission will respond. The verdict, expected on April 22, cannot be appealed.
The case will be decided by eight justices instead of the full nine-member court because Usman, who is still on the court as an associate justice, is required to recuse himself.