© ZUMAPRESS.com
"Biden chose [Kamala] Harris as his VP because of the color of her skin and sex — not qualification. She's been a disaster," wrote Gabbard, who is part-Samoan. "Now he promises to choose Supreme Court nominee on the same criteria."
Gabbard, who represented Hawaii for eight years in the House of Representatives, endorsed Biden for president after she dropped out of the race in March 2020.
Biden confirmed last week that he would pick a black woman to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, saying it was "long overdue."
"I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment," the president said at the White House.
But new polling indicates this is one campaign promise Americans don't want Biden to keep.
An ABC/Ipsos survey out Sunday showed that 76 percent of Americans think the president should "consider all possible nominees," while only 23 percent said he should follow through on his pledge.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki was left to defend the selection process Monday, telling reporters that Biden made "a promise to the country."
"Our latest poll shows that just over three quarters of Americans, 76 percent, want the president to consider all possible nominees, not only black women, as he pledged on the campaign trail," asked ABC's Mary Bruce. "What do you make of this and why do you think that a majority of Americans want the president to take a different approach?"
"What we can assure the American public of ... is that he will choose and nominate someone who has impeccable credentials and is eminently qualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice and someone who is eminently qualified to serve in the lifetime appointments," Psaki said. "He did make a promise to the country. That's certainly how he sees it."
The press secretary went on to claim that "there's a long history" of Republican presidents singling out women for seats on the highest court in the land.
"President Reagan promised the country he would nominate the country's first woman to serve on the court [Sandra Day O'Connor] and he did so," Psaki said. "Former President Trump also promised to choose a woman [Amy Coney Barrett] just over a year ago."
Psaki would not say how many candidates are under consideration for the lifetime position or who at the White House is leading the effort to guide the nomination through the Senate.
The nine-justice Supreme Court currently has three women and six men. One justice, Clarence Thomas, is black, and another, Sonia Sotomayor, is Hispanic. The court has never had an Asian-American or Native American member, a justice who publicly identifies as gay, lesbian or transgender, or one who practices a religion other than Christianity or Judaism.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) elicited Biden's vow to nominate a black woman to the high court as a condition of Clyburn's crucial endorsement ahead of South Carolina's 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
The third-ranking House Democrat has been openly campaigning for Biden to nominate South Carolina federal judge Michelle Childs, 55, to the post, citing her bipartisan appeal.
"I can't think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the Supreme Court than Michelle Childs," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday.
Psaki said Monday that "we appreciate Sen. Graham's thoughts," but added Biden "is working hard to choose from a wealth of deeply qualified candidates who bring to bear the strongest records, credentials and abilities that anyone could have for this role."
Biden said last week that he plans to announce his pick by the end of February. He will meet Tuesday with Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — the chairman and top Republican on the Judiciary Committee — to discuss the process.
Top contenders to replace Breyer include 51-year-old DC appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk who was confirmed by the Senate 53-47 last year with three Republican votes.
Another possibility is 47-year-old Georgia federal Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner, the sister of two-time Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, 45, is also believed to be in contention.
Vice President Kamala Harris, 57, has also been mentioned as a potential contender due to her background as a former California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, though the White House has insisted Biden and Harris will run together for re-election in 2024.
If someone did not realize that China (and not the United States and not the West as a whole) has become the largest creditor of the countries called "new markets", then there were those who wanted to talk about it. Speak openly and appeal to Beijing, if not to completely stop helping partners, at least to tell everyone everything: how much money it has given, under what conditions.We are talking about an appeal article published by a not very well known organization: the Bretton Woods Committee. "Bretton Wood" is the name of the global financial system that emerged after the Second World War (in fact it began to form shortly before).
This system had to be uniform throughout the world, so that all governments obeyed it (ideally), taking into account the factor that governments come and go and those who manipulate them are collectively eternal.
The Committee, in fact, is nothing more than a screen, a platform for the announcement of all the ideas of the "Mr. Trillions". But his list of fathers-fathers is a real song: here is the financial speculator George Soros, the ideologue of globalism without borders. And three former presidents of the United States (Ford, Carter and Bush), retired lower-ranking politicians, former Federal Reserve helmsmen, and so on.
The conversation about China's unpleasant generosity started like this: the "covid reset" of the world began, proclaimed in his book by Klaus Schwab, who is ideologically close to the Bretton Woods, leading their fraternal committee conference in Davos. Both in the lines of this book and between the lines of its commentators they saw many of the plans of the masters of world finance themselves: if not a complete zeroing out of the entire world economy (both political and ideological), then something like that.
Just destroy the world and put it back together. And what a disgrace if in the process many countries - and especially among the "new markets" - destroy themselves. This is where the whole Bretton Woods dollar system is supposed to come into play, deal the cards ... sorry, the money again and start a new round of play.
But this "reset" hardly assumed that, following the next global crisis, China would become even stronger, in particular it would prove to be the friend and savior of many states, mainly in Africa and Asia, but not only there. Today, the picture is as follows: the total debt of developing countries in the third quarter of last year reached $ 36.4 trillion, while in 2019 it was only $ 3.6 trillion (for comparison: the US GDP now adds about $ 23 trillion annually). Much of this debt arose from government loans, and China gave most of the money to these governments.And it is not the first time that it has nullified the plans of the former masters of world finance. We remember the "Asian" financial crisis of 1997-1998, when George Soros, mentioned above, with a group of other financiers attacked the currency systems of several Southeast Asian countries and brought them down - then there was nothing to do but wait for the International. Monetary Fund, which had already started its activity, proposing suitable conditions for loans. But then China stepped in and didn't even give money to the needy, but simply reserved it in case of a new attack by speculators. And the markets have calmed down. That was the first episode in which Beijing not only saved its currency (which was already in the process of getting closer), but in general played a significant role in world finance, upsetting Soros and many others.
And now, in fact, the same people are publishing an accusatory dossier against China. As a negative example, Zambia is cited, which declared sovereign default in 2020, yet the main creditor of the government of this country is China, which is preparing a new aid package for the Zambians (i.e. also debt restructuring), but does not reveal the details.What is now being offered to Beijing and its departments: it seems nonsense, never hide anything.
Note that the sovereign (i.e. government) debt of countries in general, according to established practice, is not widely disclosed, which is bad, the committee says, it interferes with global financial stability. For example, then it is difficult for the faithful squires of financial circles - the rating agencies, which are indispensable in any game with currencies and not only with them. These people should know everything.
And what, before no one gave money to governments, and not just to corporations and other private borrowers?
They made. And advertising wasn't always necessary. But it was the right creditors who fit the Bretton Woods system. International Monetary Fund, for example.
The Bretton Woods Committee formulates its demands carefully: it is necessary to form a global consensus on the "minimum requirements for voluntary disclosure" of the details of such loans, it is necessary to create a permanent reporting system for the obligations of all and any loans sovereigns. Yes, all over the world . For reasons of financial stability such. All the right words are said here about China's transparency and accountability as the main distributor of money in many markets.To form a global consensus, that is to persuade everyone to do voluntarily and with music something that they did not do and did not want before. As the classic said: "Unbearable when forced, but voluntarily - unbearable!"
I wonder what levers this old financial guard against China will use in the future and how effective they will be.
What we have before us: so far a gentle attempt to restore the global financial dominance of not even one country (the United States), but of a system that stands behind both states and its allies, and claims universal and comprehensive coverage. By the way, this system has suffered damage for a simple fact: in many countries today they know that the West may not have much money now, but China often does.
That is, at the same time, it is an acknowledgment that China has successfully created a counterweight, a competition to this system. Not on a global scale as the creators of the Bretton Woods construction thought, but this competition at least undermines the monopoly of the old masters of world finance to provide assistance to states in exchange for well-known conditions that destroy the sovereignty of these states.