Connect with us

News

Kamala Harris delivers powerful concession speech after loss to Donald Trump

Published

1 month ago

on

Vice President Kamala Harris addressed the nation from Howard University, her alma mater, publicly conceding defeat in the presidential election to Donald Trump.

“The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for,” she said. “But hear me when I say — the light of America’s promise will always burn bright as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting.”

She urged her supporters to accept the results of the election

“We owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States,” she said.

The Associated Press called the presidential race Wednesday morning around 5:30 a.m. ET after Trump won 276 electoral votes to Harris’s 223, although Trump declared victory at 2:30 a.m. ET during a speech to supporters at an election party in Florida. Harris did not address supporters or the country on Tuesday night as the election results were coming in.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign,” she said Wednesday. “The fight — the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and for the dignity of all people.”

In a message directed specifically at young voters, Harris said, “Sometimes the fight takes a while, that doesn’t mean we won’t win. This is not a time to throw up our hands, this is a time to roll up our sleeves.”

Harris called President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday to congratulate him, and during the reportedly brief conversation they discussed the “importance of a peaceful transfer of power and being a president for all Americans,” a senior Harris aide told CNN. Trump’s campaign communications director, Steven Cheung, said Trump “acknowledged Vice President Harris on her strength, professionalism and tenacity throughout the campaign, and both leaders agreed on the importance of unifying the country.”

President Biden also congratulated Trump over the phone on Wednesday, and invited Trump to meet with him at the White House in the near future. Biden will address the nation on Thursday.

Harris launched her presidential campaign at the end of July after Biden withdrew from the race following Democratic calls for him to drop out due to his June debate performance. Harris locked up the Democratic nomination within two weeks but had about 100 days to sway voters compared to Trump, who announced his intention to run in November 2022 and clinched the Republican nomination in mid-March.

The Harris campaign focused on helping middle- and lower-class families, making housing more affordable, bringing down the cost of health care and protecting reproductive rights. But the campaign seemed to struggle with connecting to working-class voters, with the Teamsters union declining to endorse either candidate for the first time in almost 30 years.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

News

Trump demands Republicans ‘kill’ bill that would protect journalists from government spying

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

New York CNN — In between his posts on Truth Social announcing nominees for his incoming administration, President-elect Donald Trump urged Republicans Wednesday to nix a bipartisan bill that would give journalists greater protections under federal law.

Trump wrote on his favorite social network that “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!”

He linked to a PBS “NewsHour” interview with Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, who urged the Senate to pass the legislation.

Known as the PRESS Act, the Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act would prevent the government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources and limit the seizure of their data without their knowledge.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, one of the many groups advocating for the bill, “The PRESS Act would bar the federal government from using subpoenas, search warrants, or other compulsory actions against journalists to force the disclosure of information identifying confidential sources as well as other newsgathering records, except in very limited circumstances. It would also broadly limit the government’s ability to use the same actions against third parties, including email providers and search engines, to seize journalists’ data, with narrow exceptions.”

The bill has been passed by the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support, and it has Republican sponsors in the Senate, but it has been stalled for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Sen. Tom Cotton is said to be holding up the measure.

Cotton’s office did not respond to a request for comment about his position on the bill.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

“It’s really important that we have that federal shield law to protect journalists at the federal level,” Ginsberg said on PBS. “We know that Trump is interested in going after whistleblowers, people who leak. And it’s absolutely essential that they are protected… and that journalists are allowed to do their job.”

Several media outlets and newspaper editorial boards have urged readers to contact their senators and lobby for the passage of the bill.

“Hostility toward the news media in the polarized politics of the day makes it more urgent than ever to ensure that reporters can continue to pursue their essential role as watchdogs,” The New York Times editorial board opined last month.

But “Senate Democrats are running out of time” to pass the law, WIRED reporter Dell Cameron wrote last week. Democratic lawmakers have focused on confirming Biden’s judicial nominees during the lame-duck session.

Trump’s edict on Wednesday may have sealed the bill’s fate while also raising public awareness of the issue.

Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, told CNN that Trump should reconsider his position because “the PRESS Act protects conservative and independent journalists just as much as it does anyone in the mainstream press.”

“Democratic administrations abused their powers to spy on journalists many times, too,” he said. “The bipartisan PRESS Act will stop government overreach and protect the First Amendment once and for all.”

“Much of the reporting Trump likes, from the Twitter files to stories poking holes in the Russiagate conspiracy, came from confidential sources,” Timm observed. “Many Trump supporters from Rep. Jim Jordan to Sen. Mike Lee are champions of the PRESS Act because it would protect all journalists, including many who reach primarily conservative audiences. That’s good for the public, whether they voted Republican or Democrat.”

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

USCIS Simplifies the Path to U.S. Citizenship for Long-Term Permanent Residents

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a significant update to its policy regarding the lawful admission requirement for naturalization applicants.

Effective November 14, 2024, this change clarifies the burden of proof for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) seeking to become U.S. citizens.

The new guidance specifies that naturalization applicants need only demonstrate lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of their initial entry or adjustment of status. This marks a departure from the previous interpretation, which considered subsequent reentries into the United States.

This policy update aligns with a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Azumah v. USCIS. The court determined that USCIS’s earlier interpretation imposed an additional requirement not found in the statute. The court ruled that applicants should only need to prove their lawful admission at the time of their initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, rather than at any subsequent reentry.

This change is expected to simplify the naturalization process for many applicants, as it removes a layer of complexity related to their travel history. Under the new policy, USCIS will focus on an applicant’s initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, meaning that subsequent reentries will not be considered in determining lawful admission. This shift could significantly benefit long-term LPRs who have maintained their status but may have faced complications during later travels.

By narrowing the scope of what is required for naturalization, USCIS aims to provide a clearer and more consistent process for applicants.

The updated guidance is effective immediately and applies to pending requests as well as new applications filed on or after November 14, 2024. It has been incorporated into Volume 12 of the USCIS Policy Manual.

This change is part of USCIS’s ongoing efforts to streamline immigration processes and align them with recent legal interpretations, ultimately reducing barriers for eligible LPRs seeking to become U.S. citizens.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

African American

‘Malcolm X Daughters’ sue CIA, FBI, NYPD over their Dad’s Assassination

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

(AP) — Three daughters of Malcolm X have accused the CIA, FBI, the New York Police Department and others in a $100 million lawsuit Friday of playing roles in the 1965 assassination of the civil rights leader.

In the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, the daughters — along with the Malcolm X estate — claimed that the agencies were aware of and were involved in the assassination plot and failed to stop the killing.

At a morning news conference, attorney Ben Crump stood with family members as he described the lawsuit, saying he hoped federal and city officials would read it “and learn all the dastardly deeds that were done by their predecessors and try to right these historic wrongs.”

The NYPD and CIA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which was also sued, declined comment. The FBI said in an email that it was its “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.

For decades, more questions than answers have arisen over who was to blame for the death of Malcolm X, who was 39 years old when he was slain on Feb. 21, 1965, at the Audubon Ballroom on West 165th Street in Manhattan as he spoke to several hundred people. Born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska, Malcolm X later changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

Three men were convicted of crimes in the death but two of them were exonerated in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case and concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.

In the lawsuit, the family said the prosecution team suppressed the government’s role in the assassination.

The lawsuit alleges that there was a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers that went unchecked for many years and was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents,” leading up to the murder of Malcolm X.

According to the lawsuit, the NYPD, coordinating with federal law enforcement agencies, arrested the activist’s security detail days before the assassination and intentionally removed their officers from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed. Meanwhile, it adds, federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, in the ballroom but failed to protect him.

The lawsuit was not brought sooner because the defendants withheld information from the family, including the identities of undercover “informants, agents and provocateurs” and what they knew about the planning that preceded the attack.

Malcolm X’s wife, Betty Shabazz, the plaintiffs, “and their entire family have suffered the pain of the unknown” for decades, the lawsuit states.

“They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered-up their role,” it states. “The damage caused to the Shabazz family is unimaginable, immense, and irreparable.”

The family announced its intention to sue the law enforcement agencies early last year.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending