As
scholars of Jewish history, we are acutely attuned to the fragility of
democracies and the consequences for minorities when democracies fail to live
up to their highest principles. The United States has a fraught history
with respect to Native Americans, African Americans and other ethnic and
religious minorities. But this country was founded on ideals of liberty
and justice and has made slow, often painful progress to achieve them by
righting historic wrongs and creating equal rights and opportunities for all.
No group has been more fortunate in benefiting from this progress than
American Jews. Excluded by anti-Semitism from many professions and social
organizations before the Second World War, Jews in the postwar period became
part of the American majority, flourishing economically and politically and
accepted socially. There are now virtually no corners of American life to
which Jews cannot gain entry. But mindful of the long history of their
oppression, Jews have often been at the forefront of the fight for the rights
of others in this country.
In
the wake of Donald Trump’s electoral victory, it is time to re-evaluate where
the country stands. The election campaign was marked by unprecedented
expressions of racial, ethnic, gender-based, and religious hatred, some coming
from the candidate and some from his supporters, against Muslims, Latinos,
women, and others. In the days since the election, there have been
numerous attacks on immigrant groups, some of which likely drew inspiration
from the elevation of Mr. Trump to the presidency of the United States.
Hostility
to immigrants and refugees strikes particularly close to home for us as
historians of the Jews. As an immigrant people, Jews have experienced the
pain of discrimination and exclusion, including by this country in the dire
years of the 1930s. Our reading of the past impels us to resist any attempts to
place a vulnerable group in the crosshairs of nativist racism. It is our
duty to come to their aid and to resist the degradation of rights that Mr.
Trump’s rhetoric has provoked.
However,
it is not only in defense of others that we feel called to speak out. We
witnessed repeated anti-Semitic expressions and insinuations during the Trump
campaign. Much of this anti-Semitism was directed against journalists,
either Jewish or with Jewish-sounding names. The candidate himself
refused to denounce—and even retweeted--language and images that struck us as
manifestly anti-Semitic. By not doing so, his campaign gave license to
haters of Jews, who truck in conspiracy theories about world Jewish domination.
We
condemn unequivocally those agitators who have ridden Trump’s coattails to
propagate their toxic ideas about Jews. More broadly, we call on all
fair-minded Americans to condemn unequivocally the hateful and discriminatory
language and threats that have been directed by him and his supporters against
Muslims, women, Latinos, African-Americans, disabled people, LGBT people and
others. Hatred of one minority leads to hatred of all. Passivity and
demoralization are luxuries we cannot afford. We stand ready to wage a struggle
to defend the constitutional rights and liberties of all Americans. It is not
too soon to begin mobilizing in solidarity.
Mika
Ahuvia, University of Washington
Allan Amanik, Brooklyn College of CUNY
Karen Auerbach, Brandeis University
Leora Auslander, University of Chicago
Eugene M. Avrutin, University of Illinois
And 193 more signatories
***********
Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
***********
You Do
Not Represent Us: An Open Letter to Donald Trump
Dear
Mr. Trump:
At the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, students are taught to
represent the highest levels of respect and integrity. We are taught to embrace
humility and diversity. We can understand why, in seeking America’s highest
office, you have used your degree from Wharton to promote and lend legitimacy
to your candidacy.
As a
candidate for President, and now as the presumptive GOP nominee, you have been
afforded a transformative opportunity to be a leader on national and
international stages and to make the Wharton community even prouder of our
school and values.
However,
we have been deeply disappointed in your candidacy.
We,
proud students, alumni, and faculty of Wharton, are outraged that an
affiliation with our school is being used to legitimize prejudice and
intolerance. Although we do not aim to make any political endorsements with
this letter, we do express our unequivocal stance against the xenophobia,
sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry that you have actively and
implicitly endorsed in your campaign.
The
Wharton community is a diverse community. We are immigrants and children of
immigrants, people of color, Muslims, Jews, women, people living with or caring
for those with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ community. In other
words, we represent the groups that you have repeatedly denigrated, as well as
their steadfast friends, family, and allies.
We
recognize that we are fortunate to be educated at Wharton, and we are committed
to using our opportunity to make America and the world a better place — for
everyone. We are dedicated to promoting inclusion not only because
diversity and tolerance have been repeatedly proven to be valuable assets to
any organization’s performance, but also because we believe in mutual respect
and human dignity as deeply held values. Your insistence on exclusion and
scapegoating would be bad for business and bad for the American economy. An
intolerant America is a less productive, less innovative, and less competitive
America.
We, the
undersigned Wharton students, alumni, and faculty, unequivocally reject the use
of your education at Wharton as a platform for promoting prejudice and
intolerance. Your discriminatory statements are incompatible with the values
that we are taught and we teach at Wharton, and we express our unwavering
commitment to an open and inclusive American society.
This
letter reflects the personal views of its signatories only and is not
affiliated with the Wharton School. The Wharton School takes no political
position and does not comment on its students, alumni, or faculty.
Democratic Congresswoman for 5th District of Massachusetts Katherine Clark, media release, 17 November 2016:
Washington, D.C. -- Congresswoman Katherine Clark has introduced legislation to ensure that U.S. Presidents are required to resolve any conflicts of interest with regard to financial interests and official responsibilities. Current law prohibits federal office holders from engaging in government business when they stand to gain profit. The President and Vice President are currently exempt from this statute.
Clark’s Presidential Accountability Act removes this exemption and requires the President and Vice President to place their assets in a certified blind trust or disclose to the Office of Government Ethics and the public when they make a decision that affects their personal finances.
This issue has been elevated to greater importance as concerns of conflicts of interest have surfaced in the first week of the President-elect’s transition period. From the Trump Organization’s federal contract to operate the President-elect’s hotel in the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington, D.C. to the scale of his debt to foreign banks, the President-elect’s business interests present an unprecedented level of conflict. Trump has also appointed his children to serve in leadership positions on both the President-elect’s transition team and his businesses.
Clark’s Presidential Accountability Act prohibits the President from engaging in government responsibilities from which they or their families can benefit financially.
“The President of the United States has the power to affect how our tax dollars are spent, who the federal government does business with, and the integrity of America’s standing in a global economy,” said Clark. “Every recent president in modern history has taken steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. The American people need to be able to trust that the President’s decisions are based on the best interests of families at home, and not the President’s financial interests.”
Previous American presidents including Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all used some form of blind trust or placed their assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control.
Full text of H.R. 6340 can be found here.
A number of Democratic Electoral College electors are planning to use their votes to undermine the election process in opposition to President-elect Donald Trump,
Some electors are lobbying their Republican counterparts to vote for someone other than Trump in an attempt to deny him the 270 votes required to elect him, according to the news outlet.
They are also contemplating whether to cast their votes for someone other than Hillary Clinton, like Mitt Romney or Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio).
With at least six electors already vowing to become "faithless," the defection could be the most significant since 1808, when six Democratic-Republican electors refused to vote for James Madison, choosing vice presidential candidate George Clinton instead.
The electors acknowledge that it is unlikely that they will be able to block Trump from gaining office, Politico reported, but they are optimistic that their effort will raise enough questions about the Electoral College to reform or abolish it.
"If it gets into the House, the controversy and the uncertainty that would immediately blow up into a political firestorm in the U.S. would cause enough people — my hope is — to look at the whole concept of the Electoral College," one of the electors told Politico.
It’s unclear how many, if any, Republicans have signed on to the effort.
Twenty-nine states legally require their electors to obey the results of the popular vote in their state.
An election recount will
take place soon in Wisconsin, after former Green Party presidential candidate
Jill Stein filed a petition Friday with the state’s Election Commission, the
first of three states where she has promised to contest the election result.
The move from Stein, who
raised millions since her Wednesday announcement that she would seek recounts
of Donald Trump’s apparent election victories in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania
and Michigan, came just 90 minutes before Wisconsin’s 5 p.m. Friday deadline to
file a petition…..
Trump secured a total of
1,404,000 votes in Wisconsin, according to the commission; Clinton had
1,381,823.
In the end, Stein, who
secured 31,006 votes in Wisconsin, was not the only presidential candidate to
demand a recount. Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, the Reform Party nominee who got
1,514 Wisconsin votes, also filed a recount petition, according to the state’s
Election Commission.
To be on the safe side,
the group of experts urged a recount — but it was Stein’s campaign that ended
up demanding one, soliciting at first $2.5 million and later
up to $7 million to fund the recounts. As of Friday evening, Stein’s
campaign reported taking in over $5.25 million in recount-related donations —
the most by a third-party candidate in history.
Wisconsin has the first
deadline of the three states in question. If Stein’s campaign wishes to file recount
petitions in the other states as promised, she must do so by Monday to meet
Pennsylvania’s deadline, and Wednesday to meet the Nov. 30 deadline in
Michigan.
In a statement, Wisconsin
Elections Commission Administrator Michael Haas guessed that the cost and
complexity of the recount would be in excess of the state’s last recount in
2011, which carried a price tag of more than $520,000. In that recount over a
state Supreme Court seat, the commission had to recount 1.5 million votes —
about half the 2.975 million ballot votes that were cast during the 2016
presidential election.
Jill Stein website as of 30
November 2016:
Congratulations on
meeting the recount and legal costs for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania! Raising
money to pay for the first two recounts so quickly is a miraculous feat and a
tribute to the power of grassroots organizing.
Now that we have
completed funding Wisconsin's recount (we filed on Friday) and fundraising for
Pennsylvania's voter-initiated recount (due Monday), we will focus on raising
the needed funds for Michigan's recount (due Wednesday). The breakdown of these
costs is described below!
