‘Stop the Steal’ campaign founder’s Twitter account reinstatedAli Alexander, who originated campaign based on lie that inspired the January 6 attack, was banned on 10 January 2021 The founder of the campaign that promoted the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump has had his Twitter account reinstated.Ali Alexander, who originated the “Stop the Steal” campaign that inspired the January 6 insurrection, was permanently banned from Twitter on 10 January following the Capitol riot.Upon his account being reactivated, Alexander tweeted his thanks to the Twitter CEO, Elon Musk: “Thank you [Elon Musk]. Now, bring everyone else.”In a follow-up tweet, Alexander dedicated his account to “Jesus Christ, Love, @J6Families, YE, and beating up naughty Republicans”, reported the Daily Beast.Since being banned, Alexander posted on the far-right platform Truth Social and claimed credit for the Capitol riot as the “main organizer”.The Enemy made false promises to our opponents.Their murderous lust for our destruction made them greedy.As a result, they’ve destroyed faith in already failing institutions and forced Twitter to go private. Normalizing us.Thank you @elonmusk.Now, bring everyone else.— Ali Alexander (@ali) January 9, 2023
On the day of the insurrection, Alexander posted several tweets about the protest and subsequent riot, including a message at 4.13am reading: “First official day of the rebellion.”Alexander also posted an image of 6 January attendees marching to the US Capitol, captioned: “200,000 marching to the US Capitol.”While Alexander has not faced criminal charges for his role in the 6 January events, his name appeared more than 100 times in the House committee’s final report, most relating to his false claims that the 2020 election was illegitimate.Alexander also responded to a subpoena to be questioned for the Department of Justice’s criminal inquiry into the January 6 attack, among the first high-profile pro-Trump activists to do so.Shortly after his Twitter reinstatement, Alexander celebrated a similar riot that took place in Brazil by supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro. In a series of posts on Truth Social, Alexander wrote that he “endorsed the real people of Brazil” and not the “fake CIA backed rigged election”, adding: “The National Supreme Court in Brazil is illegitimate and the most corrupt part of the country … Do whatever is necessary!”TopicsUS Capitol attackTwitternewsReuse this content More

Under a traditionally liberal view of the Supreme Court, its decision on Monday to uphold, at least for this year, a Congressional map in Alabama that intentionally weakens the voting strength of Black people in the state is a betrayal of its duty to protect the rights of minorities, racial and otherwise.Under a more historical view, it is the court doing what the court does.First, a little background on Monday’s decision. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars any voting law or procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race,” as the Department of Justice puts it. This includes situations where lawmakers have “cracked” minority communities into multiple districts in order to dilute the strength of their voters. To remedy this, courts can require states to create “majority-minority” districts in which these voters can then elect the candidates of their choice. This is especially important in places where voting is so polarized by race that minority communities are rarely, if ever, able to shape the outcome of an election.Last year, Alabama’s Republican-controlled Legislature drew and passed a Congressional map that packed a large number of Black voters into a single district encompassing the cities of Birmingham and Montgomery, while spreading the remaining voters throughout six majority white districts. By “packing” one group of Black voters and dispersing the rest, Alabama Republicans successfully reduced the voting strength of the entire Black community in the state, which accounts for 27 percent of its population.Black Alabamians filed suit. In January, after seeing evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, a three-judge district court panel (with two Trump appointees) agreed that the state had violated the Voting Rights Act. It ordered the Legislature to draw a new map containing a second majority-minority district. Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, where five members voted to stay the order, reinstating the original map.This, wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, was not done “on the merits.” It was merely an attempt to keep the courts from disrupting the upcoming election which, he said, was “close at hand.” Except Alabama’s primary is not until May and its general election is not until November. There was, and there still is, plenty of time to draw new maps.In the view of Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted with the minority despite his hostility to the Voting Rights Act, “the District Court properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.” By granting a stay, the conservative majority has effectively changed the law, freeing Alabama (and other states) to devise the kinds of racial gerrymanders that the Voting Rights Act was in part written to prohibit. That is one reason my colleague Linda Greenhouse called the decision a “raw power play by a runaway majority that seems to recognize no stopping point.”But again, historically speaking, we should not see this as an exception to the rule, but as the rule.On July 9, 1868, the United States ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. As the historian Eric Foner explains in “The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution,” the amendment was written, among other things, to “establish general principles about the rights of the freed people and of all Americans.” Within a decade, however, the Court had radically narrowed the scope of that amendment, construing it as “a vehicle for protecting corporate rights rather than those of the former slaves.”On Feb. 3, 1870, the United States ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. It prohibited the national government and states from denying the right to vote on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” and gave Congress the power to enforce that prohibition with “appropriate legislation.” It was written, specifically, to extend suffrage to Black men. But in 1876, Foner notes, the Supreme Court “overturned the convictions of Kentucky officials who had conspired to prevent blacks from voting in a local election.”Writing for an 8-1 majority of the court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite conceded that the amendment grants “an exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race,” but denied that it conferred the “right of suffrage” on anyone. His opinion opened the door to the kinds of restrictions — poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses — that Southern states would eventually use to disenfranchise their Black populations.In the 1870s, Congress passed laws to punish acts of violence meant to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights, to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations and to prohibit exclusion from jury service. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court either invalidated those laws or rendered them a dead letter. In his 1883 opinion for the majority in the Civil Rights Cases, which held that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendments gave Congress the power to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals, Justice Joseph P. Bradley declared that, “When a man has emerged from slavery” there must be “some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws.”It is Congress, and not the Supreme Court, that has, over time, done more to defend the civil and voting rights of all Americans. To do the same, the court has had to reverse its own work. As Nikolas Bowie, an assistant professor of law at Harvard, has written, “As a matter of historical practice, the Court has wielded an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth, and status.”Barring the unexpected, and assuming the presidency continues to swing evenly between the two parties, conservatives can expect to hold the Supreme Court for at least a generation. But this won’t be a new frontier as much as a return to form.For most of its history, the Supreme Court — the 16 years of the Warren court notwithstanding — has been a friend to hierarchy and reaction. Thus, for Americans who want a more equal society, the Supreme Court has been, is and will continue to be an adversary, not an ally. Understanding that fact is the first step toward doing something about it.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

The memory Police Officer 6311 told her to forget will not fade, even now in the silence. She looks at the plastic clock on the stand beside the bed, pulls the tattered wool blanket tighter and tries to organize her thoughts before she sleeps. The departure tomorrow has been hastily planned, but she knows the coded phrases she must speak to the guard to get by the Station Eleven checkpoint. When she gets beyond the wall and out of Zone One, she must find the road marked by the Children of Men resistance group and she will be on her way to paradise — or at least what’s left of it.The memory Police Officer 6311 told her to forget will not fade, even now in the silence. She looks at the plastic clock on the stand beside the bed, pulls the tattered wool blanket tighter and tries to organize her thoughts before she sleeps. The departure tomorrow has been hastily planned, but she knows the coded phrases she must speak to the guard to get by the Station Eleven checkpoint. When she gets beyond the wall and out of Zone One, she must find the road marked by the Children of Men resistance group and she will be on her way to paradise — or at least what’s left of it.The memory Police Officer 6311 told her to forget will not fade, even now in the silence. She looks at the plastic clock on the stand beside the bed, pulls the tattered wool blanket tighter and tries to organize her thoughts before she sleeps. The departure tomorrow has been hastily planned, but she knows the coded phrases she must speak to the guard to get by the Station Eleven checkpoint. When she gets beyond the wall and out of Zone One, she must find the road marked by the Children of Men resistance group and she will be on her way to paradise — or at least what’s left of it. More

For the second time in two months, New Yorkers are voting in primary races, this time for Congress and the State Senate.There are several competitive congressional primaries and special elections, but there’s concern that a rare August primary, when many New Yorkers are distracted or away, will drive low turnout even lower than it usually is.How to votePolls are open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday. In New York State, you must be enrolled in a party to vote in its primary; independents cannot do so.Early voting ended on Sunday. If you have an absentee ballot but have not mailed it yet, today is the deadline; the ballot must have a postmark of Aug. 23 or earlier. You can also hand it in at a polling site before 9 p.m. (If you have requested to vote absentee but cannot mail your ballot, you may use an affidavit ballot at a polling place — but not a voting machine.)New Yorkers having trouble voting can call the state’s election protection hotline at 866-390-2992.Where to voteFind your polling place by entering your address at this state Board of Elections website.Who is on the ballotEarlier this year, the state’s highest courts ruled that district maps created by Democrats were unconstitutional and ordered them to be redrawn. That’s why primaries for Congress and State Senate were pushed back to August from June.If you’re in New York City, go here to see what’s on your ballot. Ballotpedia offers a sample ballot tool for the state, as well.The marquee contest is in the 12th Congressional District in Manhattan, where Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side, is facing Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, who represents the Upper East Side. A third candidate, Suraj Patel, is running on generational change.The 10th District, covering parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has a rare open seat that has drawn many Democratic entrants, including Daniel Goldman, an impeachment investigator in the trial of former President Donald J. Trump; Representative Mondaire Jones, who now represents a different district; and Elizabeth Holtzman, 81, who was once the youngest woman elected to the House of Representatives. Two local women, Councilwoman Carlina Rivera and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, have surged in the race.Two strong conservatives and Trump supporters are running in the 23rd District: Carl Paladino, a developer with a history of racist remarks, and Nick Langworthy, the state Republican Party chairman.In the revised 17th District, Alessandra Biaggi, a state senator, is challenging Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, from the left. Mr. Maloney drew heavy criticism after the districts were redrawn and he chose to run in a safer district held by Mr. Jones, one of the first Black, openly gay men elected to Congress.The 19th District’s seat was vacated when Gov. Kathy Hochul chose former Representative Antonio Delgado as lieutenant governor. Two county executives are in a special election to finish his term: Marc Molinaro, a Republican, and Pat Ryan, a Democrat.Another special election is being held in the 23rd District to complete the term of Representative Tom Reed. Joe Sempolinski, a former congressional aide, is expected to keep it under Republican control. More

As he unfurled his list of tariffs targeting most of America’s trading partners, President Trump repeatedly stressed that each nation’s rate was reciprocal — reflecting the barriers they had long erected to U.S. goods.He said little about the methodology behind those calculations, but a possible answer emerged later on Wednesday. Each country’s new tariff rate appeared to be derived by:Taking the trade deficit that America runs with that nation and dividing it by the exports that country sent into the United States.Then, because Mr. Trump said he was being “kind,” the final tariff number was cut in half.James Surowiecki, a financial writer and book author, first pointed out the trend in a post on X. His comment set off widespread speculation, given that Mr. Trump previously said each nation’s tariff rate would be “the combined rate of all their tariffs, non-monetary barriers and other forms of cheating.”Those non-monetary barriers include a host of hard-to-quantify laws and other policies that Mr. Trump sees as the primary reason that the U.S. experiences such trade imbalances in the first place. (There are exceptions: Some nations face only a standard 10 percent minimum tariff starting this month.)In an earlier briefing with reporters, White House officials said the figures were calculated by the Council of Economic Advisers using well-established methodologies. The official added the model was based on the concept that the trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all the unfair trade practices and “cheating” that country has done.The White House later clarified its methodology in this post. Though it uses some mathematical symbols that might be hard to parse, it confirms that the formula is essentially based on the U.S. trade deficit with a foreign country, divided by the country’s exports.“It was always going to be a really difficult exercise to come up with a very precise reciprocal tariff rate,” said Emily Kilcrease, the director of the Energy, Economics and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative.“Given what seems to be their desire to get something out quickly, it appears what they’ve done is come up with an approximation that is consistent with their policy goals,” she said. More