Pelosi says Democrats will move to impeach Trump this week if Pence doesn’t respond to calls to invoke the 25th Amendment.
- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a letter Sunday that impeachment proceedings will begin this week if Vice President Mike Pence does not respond to calls to invoke the 25th Amendment.
- Should the House successfully impeach Trump, a Senate trial would determine whether or not to remove him from office, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that trial wouldn’t happen until after the end of Trump’s term.
- Calls to remove Trump from office have grown since the deadly riots at the US Capitol by a mob of the president’s supporters.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
In a letter sent to her Democratic colleagues Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said impeachment proceedings will start this week if Vice President Mike Pence does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
“In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both,” Pelosi said in the letter, obtained by CNN. “As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetuated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.”
Pelosi said the House will first seek to pass a resolution calling on Pence to activate the 25th Amendment, which would allow the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare President Donald Trump unable to fulfill his duties.
Unless the House unanimously agrees to the resolution on Monday, which is unlikely, the House will vote on the resolution Tuesday and give Pence 24 hours to respond.
If the vice president declines to act, the House will then proceed with impeachment legislation, Pelosi said in the letter.
There have been mixed reports on whether or not the vice president will choose to invoke the 25th Amendment. Two of Pence’s advisors told Insider’s Tom LoBianco it’s highly unlikely he would opt for the unprecedented intervention, but other reports say he’s not ruling it out.
The timeline Pelosi outlines in the letter means the House could move forward with impeachment on Wednesday this week, one week after the deadly riots at the US Capitol by a mob of the president’s supporters.
Should the House successfully impeach Trump, for the second time, a Senate trial would determine whether or not to remove him from office.
However, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, because the Senate is currently in recess, that trial would likely not begin until after Trump leaves office on January 20.
Calls to remove Trump from office have grown since the Capitol siege and are coming from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. House Democrats almost immediately began planning to impeachment the president for “incitement of insurrection.”
“President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government,” a draft article of impeachment obtained by CNN said. “He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coordinated branch of government.”
“President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” the draft said.
But House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested Sunday that the House should consider waiting to bring articles of impeachment until after President-elect Joe Biden’s first 100 days in office.
“Let’s give President-elect Biden the 100 days he needs to get his agenda off and running, and maybe we’ll send the articles sometime after that,” he said during an interview on CNN.
He also said it would allow time to “make an effective presentation to the Senate,” but noted the decision of when to begin impeachment proceedings is ultimately up to the Speaker.Read the original article on Business Insider
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.