<[Event "24th Queen City Open"] [Site "Manchester NH"]
[Date "2000.02.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Ivanov, Alexander"]
[Black "Wojtkiewicz, Aleksander"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C01"]
[WhiteElo "2635"]
[BlackElo "2677"]

According to him, same as many another of the Far Right, it is always Soros to blame:

<In a stunning rejection of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, Louisiana voters turned down all four of his constitutional amendments Saturday, including the governor’s plan to overhaul the state’s tax and budget laws.

Nearly two-thirds of voters rejected all of the amendments in an election that could have broader political implications for the rest of Landry’s term.

The governor, who has sometimes relied on strong-arm tactics to get his agenda through the Louisiana Legislature, could become more vulnerable to pushback after failing to pass his most ambitious policy proposal at the ballot box.

Landry’s priority for the election, Amendment 2, would have lowered the maximum income tax rate the state could enact and restricted annual state budget increases. It also would have made it more difficult to enact new tax breaks.

The proposal was expected to produce a financial windfall for Landry and state legislators later this year. Amendment 2 would have moved hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue from state savings accounts into Louisiana’s general fund, where Landry and state legislators could have spent it more easily.

Landry had attempted to sweeten voters on Amendment 2 by tying it to compensation for public school teachers. Had it passed, temporary stipends worth $2,000 and $1,000 that teachers and school support staff have received for the past two years were expected to become permanent.

Now, the educators are at risk of a pay cut since Landry hasn’t included money for their stipend in his current budget proposal.

In a statement after the outcome was certain, the governor attributed the defeat of Amendment 2 to billionaire George Soros, a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor who conservatives have targeted for several years for his support of liberal causes.

“Soros and far left liberals poured millions into Louisiana with propaganda and outright lies about Amendment 2,” Landry said. “Although we are disappointed in tonight’s results, we do not see this as a failure. We realize how hard positive change can be to implement in a State that is conditioned for failure. … This is not the end for us, and we will continue to fight to make the generational changes for Louisiana to succeed.”

The most recent tax records available show Soros’ Open Societies Foundations gave $1.25 million in 2023 to an affiliate of the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit with revenue totaling $260 million that put money into efforts to defeat Amendment 3. It’s not clear whether any of the Soros’ foundation’s 2023 donation was spent in Louisiana on the election.

Landry had support for Amendment 2 from another controversial billionaire. Conservative Republican Charles Koch is the founder of Americans for Prosperity, a group that knocked on doors, ran phone banks and sent out direct mail in favor of the proposal.

Opponents of Amendment 2 celebrated its defeat Saturday night. They include William Most, an attorney who unsuccessfully sued to have the proposal removed from the ballot. He has argued that the language put before voters was convoluted and misleading, making it illegal.

“I think this is a full-throated rejection of attempts to trick Louisiana voters into voting for something they don’t want,” Most said. “… This sends a clear message that if state officials want to change our constitution, they can’t do it through trickery or deceit.”

Landry and the Republican-dominated legislature might have inadvertently stirred up public opposition to Amendment 2 by putting it on the same ballot as Amendment 3, a juvenile justice measure that drew the ire of Democrats and national anti-incarceration groups.

Amendment 3, which 66% of voters opposed, would have made it easier to send more minors to adult jails and prisons for longer sentences. It spurred national criminal justice reform organizations, such as the Vera Institute and Southern Poverty Law Center, to spend more than $500,000 to turn voters against it....>

<....Amendment 3, which 66% of voters opposed, would have made it easier to send more minors to adult jails and prisons for longer sentences. It spurred national criminal justice reform organizations, such as the Vera Institute and Southern Poverty Law Center, to spend more than $500,000 to turn voters against it.

Sarah Omojola, Louisiana director for the Vera Institute, said the results for Amendment 3 show voters are starting to reject incarceration as the sole option for criminal justice. She added that high incarceration rates have only served to destabilize communities rather than reduce crime.

“In defeating Amendment 3, voters made clear their desire for the things that actually make our communities safer — like quality education and opportunity,” Omojola said in a statement.

While those organizations focused on defeating Amendment 3, they also became the backbone of a “No on All” campaign working to vote down all four of the constitutional amendments Landry was pushing.

Supporters of the tax proposal in Amendment 2 said they believed the criminal justice issue had a negative effect on their measure in interviews earlier this week.

“[Amendment 3] is a huge motivation of the groups that are saying no to everything. That seems to be the motivating factor,” said Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, a conservative think tank that helped push the tax and budget amendment.

Landry’s team started to see trouble during the early voting period for the election. John Couvillon, an experienced Louisiana pollster, said Democrats and Black voters showed up in far greater numbers than Republicans during the early voting period.

“I have just never seen an early vote this strong [for Democrats],” Couvillon said.

In addition to Amendment 3, Couvillon said left-leaning voters may also be motivated to vote against Republicans because of concerns about President Donald Trump. Landry is also closely aligned with the Trump administration.

However, opposition to Amendment 2, and the budget and tax changes, also came from some conservative activists. Religious groups and nonprofits were unhappy the amendment would have weakened constitutional protections for property tax exemptions they enjoy.

Woody Jenkins, chairman of the East Baton Rouge Republican Party and a former state representative, was among those who opposed the amendment. In an interview Saturday night, he noted that even though the “entire political establishment of the state” supported the proposals, voters had an especially hard time digesting Amendment 2.

“Members of the public don’t want to vote on something they don’t understand,” Jenkins said. “… They don’t want a massive revision of the constitution with everything but the kitchen sink in it.”

The defeat of Amendments 2 and 3 also likely led to the downfall of Amendment 1, which failed with 65% of voters against the proposal. It would have allowed the formation of specialty courts in Louisiana with jurisdiction outside current parish and judicial districts.

Amendment 4 also failed, with 64% of voters. It would have adjusted the rules for special elections to fill vacant or new judgeships, primarily on the Louisiana Supreme Court.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Bragg, David R"]
[Black "Rust, Lary F"]
[ECO "B78"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<President Trump has only been in office since January, but he's already made a number of significant changes. One of them was halting funding for foreign aid programs.

Specifically, Trump initiated a 90-day freeze on the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which aims to reduce poverty, fight disease and address humanitarian needs in foreign countries.

By Feb. 4, his administration announced that nearly all 10,000 USAID employees were being put on leave and that those working overseas would be recalled.

While a federal judge halted the move, the block was only temporary.

As of March 10, The Guardian reported that the Trump administration has officially eliminated 83% to 90% of USAID's programs. It's unclear which programs remain, but the State Department will be administering them.

Halting foreign aid clearly hurts overseas communities, but the impacts have hit hard domestically, too.

In fact, halting aid is already hurting U.S. farmers.

As Kansas farmer Vance Ehmke told ABC News, “We are having a real crisis out here in terms of income."

The Trump administration’s decision has resulted in the stoppage of critical supplies to 177 countries. But the impact isn't limited to USAID recipients. Local U.S. suppliers of food and other resources have lost a share of their income.

That includes Vance Ehmke and his wife, Louise. Their farm produces grain that gets shipped overseas. And if the program goes away completely, they, and many farmers like them, will be at a loss for income.

"USAID annually buys about $2 billion of surplus and commodities like wheat and grain," Vance told ABC News. "There's a very valuable market that's vanished."

The Ehmkes aren't the only ones losing income in light of the USAID freeze. USAID contractors are said to have reported laying off nearly 13,000 American workers — though the number could be much larger.

Cutting off aid to foreign countries could have a massive impact on international relationships. But that aside, it could cause a world of unfavorable consequences domestically.

USAID doesn't just send supplies overseas. It also, as the Ehmkes explain, helps fund a lot of research — research that’s critical to preserving the U.S. food supply.

As Louise explained, farmers need drought-resistant crops. But they can't do that sort of research on their own. In the absence of research, the U.S. food supply could be threatened by extreme weather events, which have increased in frequency in recent years due to climate change.

For example, according to The Associated Press, a University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign lab working to expand soybean usage could shutter in April without funding. And that's just one of many food labs reliant on grant money from USAID for critical research.

Farms may also have to raise prices to compensate for their lost income if they lose out on their USAID contracts. That could drive food prices up across the board.

As it is, in January, food prices were up 1.9% annually, per the Consumer Price Index. Given that 70% of Americans are already struggling to cover the cost of groceries, according to Swiftly, a rise in food prices would only exacerbate the problem.

And even if local farmers raise prices, that may not be enough to compensate for lost USAID contracts. This means that farmers across the country risk struggling financially or, in a more dire scenario, falling into poverty.

More than 80% of companies with USAID contracts are American, according to data company DevelopmentAid. So, this decision has the potential to spur an unemployment crisis.

For Vance Ehmke, the concern is twofold. He's worried about his family's livelihood and the wellbeing of in-need communities overseas.

"We do have a humanitarian and a moral obligation to help, you know, get food to these food-deficient areas," he said.>

<Until March 25, 2025, Rumeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey, might have assumed that when she wrote an op-ed in the school’s newspaper critical of her school's failure to stand up for the human rights of Palestinians, she was doing what people in the United States were free to do. Indeed, all who live in the U.S. might have thought the same thing, even if we disagree with the views she expressed in her piece.

Those assumptions were well grounded. The Washington Post notes, “The First Amendment protects the right to speak, protest and publish views, regardless of citizenship status.“ It quotes a 1953 Supreme Court decision that said: “’Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.’”

But since then, the Court “has not directly addressed the issue of immigrants’ free speech rights.” Whether people here illegally are protected by the First Amendment has not been settled by the Supreme Court. However, that silence on immigration status is irrelevant in this case.

Öztürk was here legally on a student visa.

She was seized and taken into custody because "DHS and ICE investigations found Öztürk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans."

No one has said what those activities were. But Öztürk has never been charged with a crime or with violating the rules or policies of Tufts University.

That didn’t stop the Trump administration from revoking her visa and spiriting her off to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. It claims that the secretary of state has authority under what the Associated Press calls “a seldom-invoked statute… to revoke visas of noncitizens who could be considered a threat to foreign policy interests.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says, “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you’re coming to the United States is not just ’cause you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we’re not going to give you a visa.”

“If you come into the U.S. as a visitor and create a ruckus for us… We don’t want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country,”

All Öztürk did was write an op-ed in March 2024, long after university buildings had been vandalized or taken over. No evidence has been presented to suggest she was involved in those activities.

The “ruckus” that made her unwelcome to continue to study here was caused because she said something in public that the administration in Washington did not want people to say.

Seems odd and out of step with the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects speech even if it creates a commotion, disturbance, stir, or fuss and is troublesome, offensive, or even hateful. Only if it falls into specific, narrowly defined categories of unprotected speech, like incitement to violence or true threats, can speech be prohibited or punished.

Speaking out on topics where there might be disagreement is not prohibited speech. In fact, If some speech didn’t create a ruckus, it wouldn’t need protection.

As Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions says, exchanging ideas should “disturb and unsettle us." Their statement continues: “That means that all positions and points of view, no matter how radical or even unjust or immoral they may seem to people who oppose them, are on the table for discussion, scrutiny, and assessment on equal terms.”

Considering those principles, let’s look at Öztürk’s op-ed.

Its purpose was to take the administration of Tufts University to task for ignoring resolutions passed by the Tufts Community Union Senate, a student government body.

Along with three co-authors, Öztürk acknowledged, in the best First Amendment tradition, arguments against their position. “(A)n argument may be made,” the students wrote, “that the University should not take political stances and should focus on research and intellectual exchange.”

But they argued, “the automatic rejection, dismissive nature, and condescending tone in the University’s statement have caused us to question whether the University is indeed taking a stand against its own declared commitments to free speech, assembly and democratic expression.”....>

<....So far, it is hard to see any hint of the kind of ruckus or threat to foreign policy interests that should get someone who is here legally deported. The authors were engaging in a spirited discussion about the nature of the University’s commitment to free speech.

The problem seems to be that Öztürk and her co-authors went on to demand that the “University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, … disclose its investments, and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.” The op-ed called for Tufts “to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right guaranteed by international law.“

Let me say, if it matters, that I strongly disagree with this description of the war in Gaza and with the call for divestment. I also think the authors should have condemned the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel as part of their account of the war.

But there is nothing here that would suggest that they support either Hamas or terrorism. In fact, the op-ed “affirm(ed) (its belief in) the equal dignity and humanity of all people.” I don’t see anything beyond what is universally regarded as protected speech.

Why Öztürk came to be a target remains somewhat unclear, although reports surfaced saying pro-Israel groups gave her name to the authorities. They did so even though, as the Boston Globe notes, “friends and family said Öztürk isn’t actually much of an activist, let alone a terrorist sympathizer ….. Multiple people who know Öztürk told the Globe… that she had not been a leading figure in protests at Tufts last spring.”

By grabbing her off the street in broad daylight, the Trump administration signals the lengths to which it will go to instill fear in those who use their free speech rights in ways that they consider unacceptable.

We have seen attempts by those in power in this country to silence dissent before. Professor Wilson Huhn reminds us that examples of such things date back to the Republic's early years. The early twentieth-century Red Scare and its later incarnation in the McCarthy period provide other instances in which government officials tried to stop people from saying things or supporting causes of which they disapproved.

In each of those “limitations on freedom of speech were,” Hun observes, “in effect, limitations on the right of the people to govern themselves.” He cites Alexander Hamilton, who characterized the relationship between the people and their government “as one of principal and agent.”

Efforts to silence people who create a ruckus suggest that “the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master.” “The implication for freedom of expression,” Huhn says, “is that just as an agent may not silence the principal, the government may not silence the people.”

Make no mistake, what has happened to Ruymesa Öztürk (and to others) is a sign that the Trump administration is prepared to set the government above the people, and not just green card holders and those who are here on student visas. That is why we all have a stake in Öztürk’s fate and why we should call out this violation of our constitutional norms for what it is.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Giorgadze, Giorgi"]
[Black "Seltzer, Robert"]
[ECO "C76"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]