Latest news with #WilliamMcKinley
Associated Press
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Trump on past presidents: Ike was 'underrated,' FDR 'amazing,' Polk 'sort of a real-estate guy'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Turns out Donald Trump gauges his esteem for presidential predecessors by how well their portraits fit into his White House redecorating scheme. Or sometimes how well the frames around those portraits do. 'I'm a frame person,' Trump said Tuesday during a meeting with his Cabinet. 'Sometimes I like frames more than I like the pictures.' Trump wrapped up a 90-plus-minute session by explaining how he personally worked to redecorate the White House's Cabinet Room, seeming to take real joy in choosing which portraits were hung. The president also said he helped choose the room's drapes and polled those present about whether he should repaint the room in gold leaf. (Cabinet members think he should.) 'I actually spent time in the vaults. The vaults are where we have a lot of great pictures and artwork. And I picked it all myself,' Trump said. 'I'm very proud of it.' The president said that meant 'a lot of time, effort' and 'very little money.' And he even recounted having gone to the State Department and told its head, Marco Rubio, to have a grandfather clock there moved to the White House. That's despite there not being any record of Trump having paid a public visit to the State Department during Rubio's tenure. Trump also pointed out each portrait and shared what he thought of each past president depicted. He started by indicating 'the great Andrew Jackson " and went from there — renewing his frequent praise for William McKinley and getting in a dig about how Bill Clinton once offered donors overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign contributions. Here's what Trump said about some of his other presidential predecessors: James K. Polk (1845-49): 'That's a gentleman named — and we call him — President Polk. He was sort of a real-estate guy. He was — people don't realize — he was a one-termer. But he was a very good president. But, and I'm not sure I should be doing this, he actually gave us the state of California.' Then Trump revealed that his choice of Polk's picture might have had more do with the portrait's frame being almost the same size as the frame surrounding Jackson's portrait, which he suggested was especially aesthetically pleasing: 'Polk is actually a very good president who's got the same frame that I needed, OK.' Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-61): 'A very underrated president. Built the Interstate (Highway) System. And he was the toughest president, I guess, until we came along. But I don't mind giving up that crown, because, I don't want to be too tough on it. But we want to be humane. But he was the toughest president on immigration. He was very strong at the borders. Very, very strong. And, sometimes you can be too strong. He was strong at the borders and, during a certain period of time, there was so strong that almost every farmer in California went bankrupt. And we have to remember that. We have to work together. We have to remember that. But he was a very good president, and a very good general and a very good president and I thought he deserved a position somewhere on this floor.' Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45): 'He was not a Republican, to put it mildly. But he was, you know, a four-termer. He was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And, if you notice, we have a lot of ramps outside. You have a ramp. People say, 'It's an unusual place for a ramp.' It was because of him. He was wheelchair bound. But he was an amazing man.' Abraham Lincoln (1861-65): 'Over there is 'Honest' Abe Lincoln. And that picture was in his, ugh, in his bedroom. And we thought this would be a very important place because this is where wars are ended. I'm not going to say wars are declared. I'm going to say wars are ended. OK? We'll be positive. And, that's the picture of Abe Lincoln from his bedroom, sat in the bedroom for many, many years. That was his favorite picture of himself. And the Lincoln Bedroom's very famous. You remember when Bill Clinton had it and he rented it out to people. We don't do that.' John Adams (1797-1801): 'They were the first occupants of the White House. 1800. And John Quincy Adams, Mrs. Adams, they were the first occupants. So we have them looking at each other and, in between their stares is Abraham Lincoln trying to make peace.' (Trump is correct that John Adams, the nation's second president, and his wife Abigail, were the first first couple to move into the White House in 1800. But he was mistaken about John Quincy Adams, who was John and Abigail's son and the sixth president. He served from 1825 to 1829). William McKinley (1897-1901): 'McKinley was a great president who never got credit. In fact, they changed the name of Mount McKinley and I changed it back because he should have been — the people of Ohio, he was the governor of Ohio — the people of Ohio were very happy when I did that. I heard they were very insulted. They took the name of Mount McKinley off. That was done by Obama a little while ago and I had to change it back. I changed it back. He actually was a great president. He was a president. He was the tariff, the most, I guess since me — I think I'm gonna outdo him — but he was a tariff president. He believed that other countries should pay for the privilege of coming into our country and taking our jobs and taking our treasure. That's the way he explained it. They took our jobs and they took our treasure. And for that he should pay. And he made them pay. And he built a tremendous fortune.' ___ Will Weissert covers the White House for The Associated Press.
Scoop
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
America's Imperial 'Gift': 'Crusader Democracy' Versus 'Christian Nationalism'
The United States has always fancied itself as the founder of modern democracy (aka 'Democracy'). And, although that country has been self-absorbed for most of its history, it has always sensed that Democracy was its greatest export. 'America' became involved in Africa and the 'Middle East' very early in its history. There was the American–Algerian War (1785–1795); and the Barbary Wars (1801-1805,1815), featuring the heroic re-seizure and scuttling by fire of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbor in 1804. Then there was the reverse colonisation (aka 'liberation', 'democratization') of a small corner of Africa from 1822, leading to Liberia's independence in 1862. In the 1846, there was the small matter of the United States' invasion of Mexico, resulting in the 1848 annexation of half of Mexico's territory. 'America' brought Democracy to California, through annexation. And, in 1898, the United States appropriated Spain's remaining worldwide empire, including the Philippines. And some other territories, including Hawaii. Upon his inauguration as the 47th President, Donald Trump explicitly invoked the memory of President William McKinley, America's most notorious annexor of foreign territory. And in 1889: "Three American warships then entered the Apia harbor and prepared to engage the three German warships found there. Before any shots were fired, a typhoon wrecked both the American and German ships." After ten years of military/political stalemate – known as the Second Samoan Civil War – the Samoan 'assets' were split between the United States, the German Second Reich, and the United Kingdom. (The UK traded its share with Germany. Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga, certain areas in the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar.) America's imperial 'burden' in the last 125 years Rudyard Kipling's poem The White Man's Burden was written in 1899; "a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country". America's empire today is partly formal, though mostly informal, with various grades of informality. Indeed, the recent acknowledgement by the European Union that it has free-ridden on the United States for its defence indicates that the United States has had a significant degree of imperial control over Europe; hegemony manifesting as control over foreign policy. The name 'America' itself is an imperial grab. America is the name for two continents, yet even the Canadians call the United States 'America', and its citizens 'Americans'. American exceptionalism represents the weaponisation of democracy. Democracy is packaged as 'Democracy', a secular faith like 'Communism' or 'Economic Liberalism'; a faith which must be proselytised, spread across the world as some kind of holy or secular crusade. The remaining territories on the 'autocratic' 'Dark Side' – ie territories not subject to United States' 'protection' – are mainly in continental Asia: especially West Asia (much of which is imperialistically called the 'Middle East', which extends to North Africa), North Asia, and East Asia. Though there is also very much a contest for South Asia; a contest, which if successful for the White Man's force, will bring secular Hindi along with secular Judaism fully into the imperial fold of secular Christianity. (We note that the labels Hindu and Jew have long been name-tags which confuse and conflate religion with ethnicity. So it may soon be with Christianity; with top-tier Christians behaving very much as top-tier Jews behave today, as supremacist gift-givers and bomb-throwers.) We should note that Catholic Christianity is now uneasy about this crusader culture, having been the main perpetrator of such culture nearly a millennium ago. And Orthodox Christianity is even more uneasy. In its North Asian (ie Russian) form, Orthodox Christianity – like Islam, and Chinese atheist capitalism – is a target of the present Christian Soldiers, not a collaborator. (The decline of the Christian East came with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ostensibly a western invasion force going to re-recover the 'Holy Land', instead that Crusade turned on Orthodox Christian Constantinople. The result was a weak Latin empire in the east; easy prey for the Ottoman forces which in 1453 created a Muslim empire in West Asia and Southeast Europe; an empire that lasted until 1918.) The modern American-led crusading mentality represents a schism of Protestant Evangelism (which dates back in particular to the Calvinist side of the sixteenth century Reformation) and Secular Liberalism. Protestant Evangelism (increasingly known today as Christian Nationalism) is the imperial currency of today's Republican Party, whereas Secular Liberalism is the imperial currency of today's Democratic Party (although secular Neoliberalism is presently teaming up with the Evangelists). What both have in common is a will to impose themselves upon the rest of the world. And to produce and export lots of big guns, military hardware; making money, and making American jobs. There are some strange bedfellows. As these two American socio-cultural Gods – Republican and Democrat; protagonist and antagonist, and vice versa – have battled out their Americanisms on a world stage, we have seen a significant posse of very rich devout Economic Liberals taking the side of the Christian Nationalists. So do a number of working-class and other disempowered former ballot-box 'Leftists', who wish to cast an anti-establishment vote but don't know which way to turn. This dabbling with new right-radicalism (not unlike leftist dabbling in New Zealand in 1984 with the recently late Bob Jones' New Zealand Party) follows the slow but comprehensive gutting of the Left-project that was so buoyant in the 1960s and 1970s. The name Christian Nationalism is a misnomer; a better name is Christian Extranationalism. Rather than being an internationalist movement – internationalism is a liberal concept – this is a movement to perpetuate and extend the global domination of American culture, through imperial merchant capitalism. The United States was born out of British merchant capitalism (and New York out of Dutch merchant capitalism); its values and institutions reflect those of eighteenth-century western Europe. Just as the British exacted tribute from their American colonies; imperial America seeks to extract tribute through the 'negotiation' of asymmetric 'deals'. Are we today witnessing an American Napoleon? Money, Lies and God: by Katherine Stewart (2025) Katherine Stewart this year has written about the new eclectic rightwing coalition in the United States that is coalescing under the name of Christian Nationalism. Though I've only read the introduction so far, the book has a real strength, in particular in identifying five components of this new new-right coalition: funders, thinkers, sergeants, infantry, power-players. Of particular interest to me is the "out-sourced" relationship between the funders and the thinkers. While Stewart emphasises the 'thinkers' in the well-funded (and mostly conservative) 'Think Tanks', the real issue is that of 'selective truth', in the Darwinian sense of 'selection'. Our 'intellectual' careerists compete to publish 'truths', and the truths which prevail will be the truths purchased by the 'funders', given that the funders have most of the funds. This kind of relationship with truth is somewhat like a 'court-of-law', where commonly two 'truths' are subject to a contest in which one will be declared 'the winner'. Not uncommonly, both rival 'truths' are at least partially false, and there may be other (possibly truer) truths that are not even 'on the table'. Evidence represents a part of the court process, but by no means the whole of that process. The truth-relationship between the funders and thinkers is a corrupt form of the 'law court' model; the more corrupt the more wealth the conservative funders control. Academic careers – indeed scientists' careers – are built on perpetuating narratives acceptable to their patrons. While Money, Lies and God represents a prescient and useful analysis, ultimately it is part of the problem. It represents one side of the great American divide calling out the other side. The process of belligerent finger-pointing – between, in American language, 'liberals' and 'conservatives' – is the bigger problem. Why bother talking about the world when you can talk about half of America instead? Indeed, too many American intellectuals talk and write about the United States as if America is the World; a kind of mental imperialism. (Another critique of American 'Christian Nationalism' can be found in a recent Upfront episode on Al Jazeera: The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States.) The problem of American imperialism belongs to both sides of the Divide; indeed, it is the Secular Liberalism of what has been exposed as the tone-deaf establishment – the Blinkens, Bidens and Nods – who represented the moral hypocrisy of America's imperial democratic gift. (The sheer stupidity of the Biden re-election campaign is documented in Original Sin, 2025, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.) That is, the belief that America created modern Democracy, and that those parts of the world – especially the 'western' world – have special rights accruing to them because they have been awarded the 'tick of Democracy'. These countries – and only these countries – have the "right to defend themselves", the right to make war (as 'defence through attack'), and the "right to possess nuclear weapons". Contemporary American imperialism is mainly a 'West on East' phenomenon; Asia is the target. Ukraine and Anatolia (Türkiye) are border territories between Europe and Asia. Palestine, perhaps too, given its location on the Mediterranean Sea; though the Mediterranean littoral, from Istanbul to Morocco, is better understood as West Asia, not Europe. Iran is unambiguously a part of Asia. What we are seeing at present is nothing less than a Euro-American invasion of Asia. Imperialism. Nuclear imperialism; geopolitical imperialism; cultural imperialism. The gift that keeps on taking. Note on the boundary between Europe and Asia We should note that the core geopolitical boundary between Europe and Asia was set by Charlemagne in around the year 800; representing the border between the predominancies of Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity (harking back to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires). There are other important historic geopolitical boundaries in Eurasia, of course, such as the eastern and southern borders of Orthodox Christianity; and the eastern and northern borders of Islam-dominated territories. Indeed there is perpetual tension on the Pakistan-India border. The principal medieval-era departure from that Charlemagne-set geopolitical boundary was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which peaked in territory in the fifteenth century. The first significant modern-era fudge of that geopolitical boundary was the West's acquisition of Greece over the long 19th century (essentially 1820s to 1920s). The Great World War started in 1914 very much as an East-West border conflict in the Balkans of southeast Europe. After a week or two of fudging, the anglosphere took the Eastern side; siding with Russia over Austria and Germany. Post World War Two, the next main geopolitical border fudges were the 'settlements' which placed a number of mainly Catholic East European countries into Russia's orb; and which placed Türkiye (then Turkey) into NATO. The current twentyfirst century fudge is one of European expansion, placing a number of predominantly Orthodox territories – most notably Ukraine – firmly into the European political realm. This longstanding geopolitical boundary contrasts with the widely-accepted geographic boundary; the latter – based more on physical geography and ethnicity than on faith-culture – passes along the Ural and Caucasus mountain chains, and through the lower Volga River, the Black Sea and the Bosporus/Dardanelle channels. Geopolitically, Russia, Belarus and Türkiye should be understood today to be Asian countries; indeed, the lower Dnieper River and line of the military trenches in Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk constitute the current geopolitical boundary between West and East; between Europe and Asia. And the lines within Eretz Israel – separating Israel from Palestine – also represent geopolitical borders; and American geopolitical encroachment on Asia. Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. Keith Rankin Political Economist, Scoop Columnist Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s. Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like. Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This California Carb Capital Has A Law About How You Carry Bread In Public
With some of the absolute best restaurants in the country and world-class bakeries popping up left and right, foodie culture reigns supreme in San Francisco. Arguably, the city's uniquely tangy sourdough bread is just as iconic as the city's skyline, or the iconic Golden Gate Bridge. Made with a special strain of bacteria that gives the bread its signature funkiness, it's hard to find a San Francisco bakery that doesn't carry the crusty delicacy. But believe it or not, there's one odd rule still on the books that might make even the most serious of bread connoisseurs scratch their heads. Despite being a mecca for all things carbohydrates, it's technically illegal to carry any bread, cakes, or pastries down the street in the city unless they're properly wrapped. That's right, after purchasing a freshly-baked loaf of sourdough bread, you must cover it up on public streets or even in your car to avoid breaking the law. If caught breaking Section 407 of the San Francisco Health Code, which has been on the books for over a century, you could potentially face legal punishment, although the exact details of such a punishment are not specified by law. Of course, the law is rarely (if ever) enforced nowadays, and is merely a remnant of a different era in the city's history. With that in mind, if you're walking down the streets of San Francisco eating a croissant, chances are you don't need to hide it from the police. Read more: 15 Vintage Snacks No One Remembers Anymore You might be wondering how such a strange law made its way into the San Francisco books. While the exact date of enactment and the specific reasoning behind it aren't explicitly detailed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, it's speculated that the law traces back to the early 1900s, when an outbreak of the bubonic plague (yes, that bubonic plague) made its way to The Golden City. As the plague wreaked havoc throughout the city, its residents began to panic. Chinatown was quarantined, and a slew of government officials, including the Governor of California and then-President William McKinley, put forward public health measures that were aimed at stopping the spread of the plague. As the plague raged on, many San Franciscans believed that the infection was spread by city rats that picked up the plague from sick humans. In reality, the plague was actually spread by bacteria-ridden fleas. With all that confusion, it's not difficult to theorize why San Francisco's city officials enacted a law aimed at limiting food's exposure to the elements. It might be a bit overkill, but if breads, cakes, and pastries were covered up on the streets and during travel, they wouldn't be as likely to attract rats or accumulate any germs or pests that could cause infection. While the bubonic plague isn't of concern to San Francisco in the 21st century, this culinary leftover still serves as a reminder of a dark time in the city's history. Read the original article on Tasting Table.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariffs seek to restore American exceptionalism
In response to duties imposed on foreign goods by the U.S. government, a leading international publication called out the U.S. policy, predicting that political and economic upheaval would follow. That dire prediction — made by The London Standard in 1896 (at that time known as The Standard) — did not quite pan out. Instead, the U.S. economy enjoyed a renaissance, ushering in an era of financial prosperity that has continued to this day. Although today's financial dynamics differ from those of that time, one core principle has remained the same — a fundamental reality that entwines President William McKinley's philosophy with that of President Trump. That is American exceptionalism — the idea that the American people are capable of so much more than what the naysayers believe of them. Since free trade began in earnest during the 1990s with NAFTA, this aspect of U.S. economics became a sort of holy grail for politicians. The allure of cheap goods was deemed too great to tamper with. It wasn't something to be questioned, from the left or the right — so much so, that many people didn't even know that American companies were competing at a steep disadvantage overseas. However, although they may not have known it, many Americans were feeling it. Millions of Americans in flyover regions were hurt by the rapid deindustrialization caused by these agreements. U.S. companies had their growth stunted by unfair trade practices that were being employed against them. And the fact that those practices were in place is indisputable. Economists can perhaps explain away trade deficits as normal economic activity (in some cases), but not trade barriers harming American companies. Charging a tariff ten times what the U.S. charged on cars (China), non-acceptance of U.S. safety standards for automobiles (Japan and South Korea), and the Value Added Tax, in which foreign products were able to retail at a significant discount over their American counterparts, were all part of a systematic squeeze on U.S. companies competing in foreign markets. It was the outcome of other nations taking advantage of American politicians looking the other way. The system may have been working, but it certainly wasn't thriving. As the sole superpower in a rapidly expanding global economy, the past decades represented a chance for the U.S. to corner the market, to solidify its dominance and grow its prosperity. Instead, it satisfied itself with mediocrity, settling for limited growth in exchange for cheap imports. Trump set out to change that — to throw off the shackles of American defeatism, and to recapture the magic of American exceptionalism. He recognized our enormous financial advantage of more than $10 trillion in nominal gross domestic product — and that is only over our closest competitor, China. His business instincts realized that we were squandering one of our greatest national assets, our economic leverage, instead being exploited by friend and foe alike. Free trade had become free for everyone except the U.S. Disrupting a system can come at a cost, and it is fair for there to be a discussion as to how best to do it. But it must be done. Because while we can get by without this, the economy can chug along without this drastic change, that isn't the American way. We didn't win World War II, send a man to the moon and emerge as the world's sole superpower simply by getting by, just by being good enough. We did it by being exceptional. And that should be the standard we continue to strive for. With the first trade deal of this tariff era now taking shape, American exceptionalism appears to be within reach once again. The agreement with the U.K. promises to open new markets to American goods, create a fair playing field for American companies competing in Great Britain, and increase British investment on American shores. This is more than a simple trade pact; it is the first step into a new age of American opportunity and prosperity. As President Trump puts it, 'our best days are yet to come.' Let's hope his words prove true as his trade policies usher in yet another great American century. Menachem Spiegel is an author and yeshiva student. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal's Future View, The Star-Ledger and The Jerusalem Post. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs seek to restore American exceptionalism
In response to duties imposed on foreign goods by the U.S. government, a leading international publication called out the U.S. policy, predicting that political and economic upheaval would follow. That dire prediction — made by The London Standard in 1896 (at that time known as The Standard) — did not quite pan out. Instead, the U.S. economy enjoyed a renaissance, ushering in an era of financial prosperity that has continued to this day. Although today's financial dynamics differ from those of that time, one core principle has remained the same — a fundamental reality that entwines President William McKinley's philosophy with that of President Trump. That is American exceptionalism — the idea that the American people are capable of so much more than what the naysayers believe of them. Since free trade began in earnest during the 1990s with NAFTA, this aspect of U.S. economics became a sort of holy grail for politicians. The allure of cheap goods was deemed too great to tamper with. It wasn't something to be questioned, from the left or the right — so much so, that many people didn't even know that American companies were competing at a steep disadvantage overseas. However, although they may not have known it, many Americans were feeling it. Millions of Americans in flyover regions were hurt by the rapid deindustrialization caused by these agreements. U.S. companies had their growth stunted by unfair trade practices that were being employed against them. And the fact that those practices were in place is indisputable. Economists can perhaps explain away trade deficits as normal economic activity (in some cases), but not trade barriers harming American companies. Charging a tariff ten times what the U.S. charged on cars (China), non-acceptance of U.S. safety standards for automobiles (Japan and South Korea), and the Value Added Tax, in which foreign products were able to retail at a significant discount over their American counterparts, were all part of a systematic squeeze on U.S. companies competing in foreign markets. It was the outcome of other nations taking advantage of American politicians looking the other way. The system may have been working, but it certainly wasn't thriving. As the sole superpower in a rapidly expanding global economy, the past decades represented a chance for the U.S. to corner the market, to solidify its dominance and grow its prosperity. Instead, it satisfied itself with mediocrity, settling for limited growth in exchange for cheap imports. Trump set out to change that — to throw off the shackles of American defeatism, and to recapture the magic of American exceptionalism. He recognized our enormous financial advantage of more than $10 trillion in nominal gross domestic product — and that is only over our closest competitor, China. His business instincts realized that we were squandering one of our greatest national assets, our economic leverage, instead being exploited by friend and foe alike. Free trade had become free for everyone except the U.S. Disrupting a system can come at a cost, and it is fair for there to be a discussion as to how best to do it. But it must be done. Because while we can get by without this, the economy can chug along without this drastic change, that isn't the American way. We didn't win World War II, send a man to the moon and emerge as the world's sole superpower simply by getting by, just by being good enough. We did it by being exceptional. And that should be the standard we continue to strive for. With the first trade deal of this tariff era now taking shape, American exceptionalism appears to be within reach once again. The agreement with the U.K. promises to open new markets to American goods, create a fair playing field for American companies competing in Great Britain, and increase British investment on American shores. This is more than a simple trade pact; it is the first step into a new age of American opportunity and prosperity. As President Trump puts it, 'our best days are yet to come.' Let's hope his words prove true as his trade policies usher in yet another great American century. Menachem Spiegel is an author and yeshiva student. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal's Future View, The Star-Ledger and The Jerusalem Post.
