Connect with us

Politics

More People Call To End Obama’s Presidential Library

Published

on

(Via Washington Examiner)

The Obama Foundation released plans last week for the presidential center it plans to build in Chicago’s Jackson Park, but behind the scenes, a battle is taking place to keep the former Democratic president from building on that specific lot of land, and there’s still a chance that it gets delayed when it seeks federal approval.

What initially started out as a library has morphed into a 20-acre private “center,” and some environmentalists and historians are unhappy with the Obama Foundation’s plans to swoop in and take over a national historic place.

The Obama Foundation originally said it would house a presidential library on the property and vowed to have the National Archives oversee the facility because of its placement on public land. But that’s no longer the case, and some are balking at the change in plans.

[Obama Foundation’s presidential center will include sledding hill, Women’s Garden, sports center]

“Here’s our bottom line. If the Obama Foundation wishes to construct this center on Chicago’s South Side, that’s fine, but not on parkland held in public trust. The University of Chicago, which orchestrated the winning bid for the project, has plenty of land on the South Side that they could and should use. Instead, they’ve been adamant since day one that they must have historic public parkland for the purpose,” Charles Birnbaum, president and founder of D.C.-based nonprofit, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, told the Washington Examiner in a written statement Saturday.

The foundation is not alone. The group is working alongside a number of others, including Friends of the Parks, Jackson Park Watch, Openlands, National Association for Olmsted Parks, Save the Midway, Landmarks Illinois, and Preservation Chicago, all of whom have raised concerns about the project.

In addition, 200 faculty members from Obama’s former employer, the University of Chicago, issued a formal letter last Monday stating its opposition to the presidential center being built at this location.

As a first step, the center’s proposal must be approved by Chicago’s planning department and the city council. That process is not expected to sit any snags, as Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is Chicago’s mayor.

“If past is prologue, municipal officials will rubber-stamp their approvals,” Birnbaum said.

But the federal process will be more complicated, and that’s where Birnbaum’s argument becomes especially relevant.

The Obama Foundation will have to get approval from the Environmental Protection Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A spokesperson for Birnbaum’s group said it is difficult to predict how the Trump administration’s EPA will handle it.

The first verification process will determine if the Obama Presidential Center would have “adverse effects” on Jackson Park. The State Historic Preservation Office will ask “official consulting parties” to provide opinions.

“This will play out over 2018 and involve several meetings of the ‘official consulting parties’ along with extensive written input from those parties,” Birnbaum explained in an email. “A determination could be made that this are no adverse effects and the OPC would proceed (highly unlikely); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects and a process of mitigation could be developed and approved by all of the consulting parties in a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects, but the consulting parties don’t agree on mitigation, then this would likely end in litigation.”

From the perspective of the landscape foundation, Jackson Park and the surrounding parklands are quintessential examples of historic property.

“This isn’t just any public open space; this is historic parkland originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux (of New York’s Central Park fame),” the organization’s website states. The park system was designed in 1871, and Olmsted wrote in 1895 that the Museum of Science and Industry was intended to be the only “dominating object of interest” in the park.

In 2012, Jackson Park was at the center of another Section 106 compliance review, and officials decided it should not be touched.

“As currently designed, the park retains a great deal of its integrity. While some of the original features have been modified, or removed, the remaining defining characteristics such as the overall plan … depicted on the 1905 map must be respected,” the document stated.

The foundation is expected to spend much of this year engaged in federal-related approval processes. The Chicago City Council will take up the issue this week.

Meanwhile, Obama’s team last week released more information about the center it hopes to open soon. In July 2016, the Obamas announced the selection of Jackson Park, a 500-acre park on Chicago’s South Side next to the University of Chicago, as their preferred site for his presidential library.

The spot is near the Museum of Science and Industry, Lake Michigan and the eastern edge of the university campus, where Obama used to teach constitutional law. The location is also near Woodlawn, a low-income black neighborhood that recently has begun to gentrify. The Obamas are longtime Chicago residents, and sought a part of their hometown that needed revitalization but could also benefit from the addition.

This week, the Obama Foundation shared dozens of changes to its proposal, including road closures within the park, a revamping of the picturesque landscaping, and a newly designed main building would stretch 23 stories high at 235 feet tall.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.