Our Politics

Category: Public Policy

  • Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s National Guard Deployments to Portland

    Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s National Guard Deployments to Portland

    A federal judge in Oregon has halted the Trump administration’s efforts to deploy federalized National Guard members from California and other states to Portland, Oregon. In a rare late Sunday night virtual hearing on October 5, 2025, US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, granted a temporary restraining order requested by the state of California to prevent the deployment of up to 300 California National Guard members to Portland. This ruling followed Immergut’s decision the previous day to block President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy Oregon National Guard troops in the city.

    California Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans to sue the Trump administration after it deployed federalized National Guard troops—called into service by the president—to Oregon. In a statement, Newsom condemned the move, saying, “This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words—ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.”

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised Immergut’s ruling, suggesting the administration’s attempt to deploy California troops was a direct response to the judge’s earlier order blocking the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard. “The Trump Administration’s flagrant disregard for the courts was on full display when it sought to circumvent Judge Immergut’s order by redeploying troops from Los Angeles to Portland,” Bonta said. “This disrespect for the rule of law cannot stand—and I’m glad the court agreed.”

    Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat, confirmed that some California National Guard troops arrived in Oregon on the night of October 4, with more expected on OCtober 6. She strongly opposed the deployment, stating, “The facts haven’t changed. There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target. Oregonians exercising their freedom of speech against unlawful actions by the Trump Administration should do so peacefully.”

    In an op-ed published Sunday in The Oregonian, Portland Police Chief Bob Day addressed the situation, noting that “national portrayals” of Portland overstated the city’s issues. “There is no ignoring that we are facing an extraordinary time in our city’s history, with the deployment of both federal law enforcement and the Oregon National Guard,” Day wrote. He emphasized that Portland police employ a “layered approach” to managing public order, avoiding tactics like tactical gear lineups that could escalate crowd behavior.

    On the same day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in a memo that up to 400 Texas National Guard members would be federalized for deployment to Chicago and Portland for up to 60 days, with the possibility of an extension. The memo, included in a court filing by the Oregon attorney general’s office, cited President Trump’s determination on October 4, 2025, that “violent incidents, as well as the credible threat of continued violence,” were impeding federal law enforcement in Illinois, Oregon, and other locations.

    Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, supported the deployment, stating on X, “I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials. You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it. No Guard can match the training, skill, and expertise of the Texas National Guard.”

    Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, condemned the move, calling it “Trump’s Invasion.” He noted that no federal officials had coordinated with him regarding the deployment and criticized the involvement of another state’s military. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops,” Pritzker said. Both Pritzker and Kotek urged Abbott to withdraw his support for the deployment.

    The White House defended the deployment, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson stating, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement.” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell added that California National Guard members were reassigned from Los Angeles to Portland “to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal personnel performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property.”

    In response to Immergut’s ruling blocking the activation of 200 Oregon National Guard troops until at least October 18, the Trump administration filed a motion with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the judge “impermissibly second-guessed” Trump’s military judgments. The motion cited a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court precedent, asserting that such decisions are the president’s prerogative, not that of a governor or federal court.

    Judge Immergut’s rulings underscored a “longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.” Oregon’s Governor Kotek reiterated, “There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. No fires, no bombs, no fatalities due to civil unrest. The only threat we face is to our democracy—and it is being led by President Donald Trump.”

    The controversy extends beyond Portland. Last month, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines was illegal, and officials in Washington, D.C., also sued to block similar deployments. Trump has threatened to deploy troops and federal law enforcement to other cities, including Baltimore and New Orleans, escalating tensions with Democratic governors and mayors.

    Pritzker, in a CNN interview on Sunday, criticized the federal presence in Chicago, stating, “They are the ones that are making it a war zone. They need to get out of Chicago if they’re not going to focus on the worst of the worst, which is what the president said they were going to do.” He and other Democratic leaders have also condemned Trump’s suggestion to senior military officials that “dangerous cities” be used as “training grounds” for the National Guard.

    The deployment of federalized National Guard troops has sparked widespread debate about the balance between federal authority and state autonomy, as well as the appropriate use of military forces in domestic civil matters. As legal battles continue, the situation remains a flashpoint in the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and Democratic state leaders.

  • Trump Administration Cuts Nearly $8 Billion in Clean Energy Projects in States that Voted for Kamala Harris

    Trump Administration Cuts Nearly $8 Billion in Clean Energy Projects in States that Voted for Kamala Harris

    The Trump administration on October 2 terminated $7.6 billion in grants funding 223 clean energy projects across 16 states, all of which supported former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The decision, announced by the Energy Department, follows a review deeming the projects misaligned with national energy needs or economically unviable. The cuts, affecting initiatives like battery plants, hydrogen technology, electric grid upgrades, and carbon-capture efforts, have sparked accusations of political retaliation amid an ongoing government shutdown.

    The Energy Department’s review targeted funding from the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and other bureaus. While specific project details were not disclosed, the cancellations include up to $1.2 billion for California’s hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems (ARCHES), and $1 billion for a Pacific Northwest hydrogen project. Notably, hydrogen projects in Texas, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were spared. The 16 affected states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Each of these states voted for Harris in 2024, and their US Senators opposed a Republican short-term funding bill to avert the government shutdown.

    White House Budget Director Russell Vought announced the cuts on social media, framing them as eliminating funding for the “Left’s climate agenda.” President Donald Trump, in an interview with One America News, suggested the cuts target Democratic priorities, stating, “I’m allowed to cut things that never should have been approved in the first place.” The administration has also rescinded $13 billion in clean energy funding from the 2022 climate law, citing unspent allocations.

    Democrats and environmental groups have condemned the move. California Governor Gavin Newsom highlighted that ARCHES had secured $10 billion in private investment and supported over 200,000 jobs, calling the cut a threat to economic growth. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) labeled the decision “vindictive” and “shortsighted,” arguing it undermines US energy leadership. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA.) accused the administration of using American livelihoods as “pawns in some sort of sick political game.” Environmental organizations echoed these concerns. Jackie Wong of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) called the cuts a blow to innovative technology and clean energy jobs. Conrad Schneider of the Clean Air Task Force warned that the cancellations weaken U.S. competitiveness in global energy markets.

    Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the cancellations, emphasizing they were business decisions to protect taxpayer dollars and prioritize affordable, reliable energy. He denied political motivations, stating, “These decisions are made on whether it’s a good use of the taxpayer money or not.” Wright noted that projects in both Republican and Democratic states, including hydrogen initiatives in West Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana, are under review, with further cancellations expected. Award recipients have 30 days to appeal.

    The cuts align with the Trump administration’s broader rollback of climate programs, including vehicle emission and greenhouse gas regulations. The Energy Department’s review began after President Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory, with over a quarter of the rescinded grants awarded between Election Day and Inauguration Day under the Biden administration. The cancellations are part of a $7 billion hydrogen fuel program initiated by President Joe Biden to combat climate change.

    As the government shutdown continues, the debate over these cuts underscores tensions between fiscal priorities and clean energy innovation, with significant implications for jobs, energy costs, and US leadership in emerging technologies.

  • Government Shutdown Begins

    Government Shutdown Begins

    On October 1, the US federal government shut down, marking the first such closure since 2019. The shutdown, triggered by a contentious spending dispute between President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats, has disrupted federal services and furloughed many federal workers. The current shutdown echoes a 35-day closure in 2018/2019, when President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats clashed over funding for a southern border wall. The central issue behind this most recent government shutdown is the Democrats’ insistence that President Trump agree to extend expiring health care subsidies and reverse Medicaid cuts included in his signature tax cut and domestic policy law passed earlier in 2025. These health care provisions, particularly the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies set to expire by year’s end, are critical to millions of Americans’ access to affordable insurance.

    The deadlock became inevitable on the night of September 30, when Senate Democrats blocked a Republican proposal to extend federal funding through November 21. In a 55-to-45 vote, the Republican plan failed to secure the 60 votes needed for passage. In retaliation, Republicans blocked a Democratic counterproposal that would have extended funding through October and allocated over $1 trillion for health care programs, by a vote of 47 to 53. The failure of both proposals led White House budget director Russell T. Vought to instruct federal agencies to implement “orderly shutdown” plans.

    The shutdown reflects deep partisan divisions, with both sides digging in. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) accused Democrats of bowing to their “far-left base” and forcing a confrontation with the president, claiming that their actions would harm the American public. Thune emphasized that Senate Republicans would hold daily votes to pressure Democrats into supporting government funding extensions. Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), remain steadfast, arguing that the expiration of ACA subsidies and Medicaid cuts could lead to a health care crisis. Schumer warned that without action, Americans could face monthly health insurance cost increases of $400 to $600. He urged President Donald Trump and Republicans to prioritize health care solutions, noting that public opinion polls favor Democrats on this issue. The Congressional Budget Office projects that allowing ACA tax credits to lapse could result in four million Americans losing coverage starting in 2026, with an additional 20 million facing higher costs and 10 million becoming uninsured by 2034.

    President Donald Trump has taken a combative stance, framing the shutdown as an opportunity to target Democratic priorities. In public statements, he suggested that a shutdown could allow him to eliminate federal programs favored by Democrats and lay off federal workers aligned with the party. “A lot of good can come down from shutdowns,” Trump remarked, signaling his intent to use the closure to advance his political agenda.

    While most Democrats have united behind Schumer’s strategy, a few broke ranks to support the Republican funding plan, including Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA) (arguably the Democratic Senator most aligned with the MAGA movement on a majority of public policy issues), and Angus King (I-ME). On the Republican side, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was the sole dissenter against his party’s proposal. These defections highlight the complexity of the negotiations, as some lawmakers face pressure from constituents or upcoming re-elections.

    Democrats argue that their focus on health care resonates with voters, particularly after backlash from liberal activists in March when some Senate Democrats supported a stopgap funding bill. This time, Democrats are leveraging the health care issue to challenge Trump and Republicans, daring them to reject popular programs like ACA subsidies. Republicans, however, have accused Democrats of holding government funding “hostage” to secure health care concessions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed willingness to negotiate on extending ACA tax credits separately, but insists that such discussions should occur while the government remains operational.

    The shutdown has also amplified partisan rhetoric. On September 29, President Donald Trump met with congressional leaders but later posted an AI-generated video mocking Democratic leaders, including Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. The video, which featured offensive caricatures and fabricated quotes, falsely attributed statements to Chuck Schumer claiming Democrats aimed to provide free health care to undocumented immigrants to secure their votes, a debunked conspiracy theory. In response, Jeffries posted a photo of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein, captioning it “This is real” and condemning bigotry. Such exchanges underscore the toxic atmosphere surrounding the shutdown, with both sides using social media to inflame tensions. Republicans have continued to push misleading narratives, including claims that Democrats are prioritizing health care for unauthorized immigrants over government funding, further polarizing the debate.

    The immediate consequences of the shutdown include the suspension of non-essential federal services and the furlough of thousands of federal workers. Essential services, such as Social Security payments and national defense operations, will continue, but many agencies will face disruptions, affecting everything from national parks to regulatory oversight.

    As the standoff continues, the political fallout will likely shape the narrative heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Both parties are betting on their ability to sway public opinion, with Democrats banking on health care’s broad appeal and Republicans framing Democrats as obstructionists. For now, the American public awaits a resolution while grappling with the real-world impacts of a government in gridlock.

  • President Donald Trump Moves to Designate Antifa as a Major Terrorist Organization

    President Donald Trump Moves to Designate Antifa as a Major Terrorist Organization

    On September 22, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating the decentralized anti-fascist movement known as Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. This move, part of a broader crackdown on what the administration calls the “radical left,” directs federal agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any illegal operations linked to Antifa or its supporters, including through criminal prosecutions. The order accuses the group of orchestrating political violence, such as riots, assaults on law enforcement, doxing, and other acts, aimed at overthrowing the US government.

    In a post on X, President Donald Trump stated, “I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.” He further emphasized that he would push for thorough investigations into those funding Antifa, ensuring compliance with the highest legal standards.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the order as one of the administration’s first major steps in fulfilling President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to confront left-leaning political entities. Speaking at a briefing earlier that day, Leavitt railed against Democrats and Trump’s political opponents, stating, “Many Democrats in elective office have now been totally captured by a radical fringe of the far left who want to dehumanize every person they disagree with.” She pointed to Democratic lawmakers who voted against a resolution honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk, whose recent assassination has intensified the administration’s rhetoric. “We must continue to call this wickedness out,” Leavitt added. “It’s the only way that our nation can heal.”

    The announcement follows President Donald Trump’s vow last week to label Antifa a terrorist group, coming in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing. In a post on his Truth Social platform, President Trump wrote: “I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices!”

    Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the focus would extend beyond Antifa to its financial backers, noting, “We will be most importantly looking at who is funding Antifa and who is funding these other violent left-wing groups.” She cited evidence from the Kirk investigation, including bullets engraved with anti-fascist messages like “Hey Fascist! Catch!” She also referenced a series of alleged Antifa-linked incidents, including assailants shooting and assaulting law enforcement in Texas and Oregon in July, bringing a pipe bomb to a pro-Trump event in 2022, and threatening to shoot police and Trump supporters outside the Florida State Capitol in 2021. “We have seen a rise in violence perpetuated by Antifa, radical people across this country who subscribe to this group,” Leavitt said.

    The term “Antifa,” short for anti-fascist, originates from the German word “antifaschistisch,” referencing 1930s resistance groups that opposed Nazi ideology. It traces its roots to European movements that fought Italian dictator Benito Mussolini during World War II and white supremacist skinhead groups during the Cold War. In the US, Antifa has existed for decades but gained prominence after Donald Trump’s 2016 election and the 2017 Charlottesville rally, where far-right violence galvanized anti-fascist activists.

    Unlike structured far-right groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, which have clear leaders, hierarchies, and membership, Antifa is a loose, leaderless network of individuals and small cells leaning toward the far left, often including anarchists, communists, and hardline socialists. Its members broadly share anti-government, anti-capitalist, pro-LGBTQ+, and pro-immigration views. Activists often organize organically online and offline, without a national command structure, membership lists, or defined funding sources. This decentralization makes it challenging for authorities to target “leaders” or financial networks, as local groups operate independently.

    Critics, including President Donald Trump and Republicans, frequently use “Antifa” as a catch-all label for a wide array of liberal and left-wing groups they oppose, blurring lines between ideology and action. The administration’s push raises concerns that it could stretch executive authority to suppress large-scale left-wing dissent. President Trump has already suggested charging members of the activist group Code Pink, who protested him during a recent Washington, D.C., restaurant visit, with crimes, signaling a pattern of aggressive targeting. Trump first promised to designate Antifa a terrorist organization during his first term in 2020, but never followed through. The current effort aligns with his declaration that “radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” Authorities have described Kirk’s accused killer, Tyler Robinson, as holding a “leftist ideology,” though no direct link to Antifa has been established, and the motive remains unclear.

    What distinguishes Antifa from mainstream left-wing activism, according to critics, is some activists’ readiness to employ violence—often framed as self-defense against far-right threats. Participants frequently appear in public wearing dark clothing and face coverings, and online videos capture them wielding clubs, shields, sticks, and pepper spray at rallies. Notable incidents include a 2017 clash in Berkeley, California, where around 100 masked Antifa-linked activists attacked right-wing protesters, leading to multiple arrests. During the 2020 unrest following George Floyd’s killing, self-identified Antifa activist Michael Reinoehl fatally shot a member of the far-right Patriot Prayer group in Portland before being killed by police.

    The executive order invokes powers typically reserved for foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), which allow the US to ban members, deport individuals, seize assets, and prosecute material supporters. However, domestic groups like Antifa do not fit the FTO criteria, which require the entity to be foreign-based. The order specifies implementation within existing laws, directing agencies to pursue “any and all illegal operations” without broadly criminalizing anti-fascist ideology, a move that would violate the First Amendment. Legal experts anticipate swift constitutional challenges, given Antifa’s lack of a centralized structure. Prosecuting individuals for “material support” to domestic groups lacks the clear legal framework available for foreign ones, potentially limiting the order’s reach.

    As the administration moves forward, the designation’s practical impact remains uncertain. It fulfills a long-standing Trump pledge but underscores deepening partisan divides, especially in the shadow of Charlie Kirk’s death, where his widow, Erika Kirk, urged fighting hate with love, clashing with President Donald Trump’s assertion at the funeral that he “hates” his political opponents. Karoline Leavitt defended the president, saying, “The president is authentically himself.” Whether this authenticity translates to effective policy or fuels further unrest is a question that will define the coming months.

  • President-elect Donald Trump Endorses Mike Johnson To Continue As House Speaker

    President-elect Donald Trump Endorses Mike Johnson To Continue As House Speaker

    President-elect Donald J. Trump endorsed House Speaker Mike Johnson for another term in his post on December 30, moving to shore up the fortunes of a leader whose fate he threw into question this month when he sank a bipartisan spending deal Speaker Johnson had struck to avert a government shutdown. The announcement from Trump on his website, Truth Social, ended days of private discussions by the president-elect and his allies about whether to try to save Johnson or find another candidate, as some conservatives have been agitating for. It followed a concerted, monthslong effort by Johnson to ingratiate himself with the president-elect in hopes of winning his backing and averting another messy fight for the speakership at the start of the 119th Congress on Friday.

    It is still not clear whether President-elect Donald Trump’s stamp of approval would guarantee Congressman Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, a smooth road to re-election, given the antipathy he has drawn from some right-wing lawmakers who have recently shown their willingness to buck Trump. Given the very narrow margin of the incoming House majority, the loss of just a few votes could stymie Johnson. One Republican lawmaker, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, has already pledged to oppose him, and others have said their support is not a certainty.

    The House is set to choose a speaker as the new Congress convenes, just three days before President-elect Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory is scheduled to be certified by a joint session of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson must cobble together a majority in the 435-member chamber to keep his job, a feat that his predecessor Kevin McCarthy struggled to accomplish even though he, too, had Trump’s endorsement at the time. Failure to have a speaker in place by January 6 could delay the certification process and focus attention on the deep divisions within the narrow House Republican majority. It also could slow what Trump and Republican leaders had hoped would be a rapid start to legislative business in the new Congress to begin enacting the president-elect’s ambitious agenda.

    “The American people need IMMEDIATE relief from all of the destructive policies of the last Administration. Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man,” President-elect Donald Trump wrote in a discursive post that praised himself and his campaign, attacked Democrats, and mocked the Reverend Al Sharpton, with whom he has a long and contentious history. Trump said Johnson would “do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!!! A person close to Trump, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the fact that House Republicans had defied the president-elect on the debt limit demand helped Trump realize that some members of the House posed challenges, but that Johnson was not one of them.

    Before making his endorsement on December 30, President-elect Donald Trump had privately told people that House Speaker Mike Johnson had asked for his support, but that he was not sure he was going to back him. Trump and his advisers also told associates, though, that they did not see who else could get the 218 votes required to become speaker. No Republican has emerged to challenge him so far, though several have publicly vented their dissatisfaction with his performance and complained that Johnson did not keep them informed about his spending proposal.

    After President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement, Congressman Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who would be a potential alternative candidate, said on social media that he agreed with Trump’s endorsement as a way to move quickly on the Republican agenda. “Time to do what we said we would do.” Jordan wrote on social media.

    On the other hand, Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, Republican of Indiana, said on Fox News before President-elect Trump’s endorsement that she was uncommitted on supporting Mike Johnson for the speakership. She reiterated that view later in a social media post. “I understand why President Trump is endorsing Speaker Johnson as he did Speaker Ryan, which is definitely important,” Spartz wrote. “However, we still need to get assurances that @SpeakerJohnson won’t sell us out to the swamp.”

    After winning the House majority in 2022, Republicans got off to a rough start in 2023, taking 15 ballots and four days to elect Kevin McCarthy as speaker, only to see him deposed 10 months later. That led to Mike Johnson’s surprise election after others on McCarthy’s leadership team were rejected on the House floor. A similar scenario in the new Congress would be an embarrassing spectacle for Republicans who will control the White House and both chambers of Congress.

    In private, President-elect Donald Trump has fumed about the fact that Mike Johnson failed during the end-of-session negotiations this month to deliver on his late demand that a year-end spending package also contain a suspension of the debt ceiling, which would have spared him from having to address with the federal borrowing limit when he takes office. Trump had made that demand after he and his ally, Elon Musk torpedoed the original catchall spending deal Johnson had cut with Democrats. Musk also endorsed Johnson keeping his job on Monday.

    President-elect Donald Trump has complained about a broad fiscal deal negotiated by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Biden in May 2023, which increased the debt ceiling for two years while freezing and capping some government spending. He has also complained that Mike Johnson has failed to find a way to spare him a debt ceiling dilemma early in his next term, given that many Republicans refuse to support raising the limit no matter who is in the White House.

    The Republican resistance to suspending the debt limit showed that despite President-elect Donald Trump’s demands, dozens of the most conservative House Republicans were willing to oppose him and risk the backlash when it comes to a central issue for them. Thomas Massie was among those who balked at the debt limit request, and he renewed his opposition to Mike Johnson after the president-elect’s endorsement. “I respect and support President Trump, but his endorsement of Mike Johnson is going to work out about as well as his endorsement of Speaker Paul Ryan,” Massie wrote on social media, referring to the former speaker who ended up at odds with Trump. “We’ve seen Johnson partner with the democrats to send money to Ukraine, authorize spying on Americans, and blow the budget.” Johnson did rely on Democratic votes multiple times to push through spending bills to avoid government shutdowns and keep aid flowing to Ukraine. The latter position won him Democratic backing when Massie sought unsuccessfully to topple Johnson in May. But Democrats, who were outraged that Johnson abandoned the spending deal he had struck with them this month, have made it clear they would not rescue him a second time.

    Mike Johnson said he was “honored and humbled” by the incoming president’s backing. “Together, we will quickly deliver on your America First agenda and usher in the new golden age of America,” Johnson wrote on social media as he reposted Trump’s endorsement. “The American people demand and deserve that we waste no time. Let’s get to work!”

  • Republican-Run States See Opportunity To Push Extreme Policies Under Trump

    Republican-Run States See Opportunity To Push Extreme Policies Under Trump

    Republican state lawmakers and conservative leaders around the United States see Donald Trump’s re-election as a mandate that will help them enact right-wing policies in Republican-run states across the US. The policies include steep tax cuts, environmental legislation, religion in schools, and legislation concerning transgender medical care and education, among other hot-button social issues. Next year, Republicans will have trifecta control, meaning both legislative bodies and the governorship in a state, in 23 states, while Democrats will only control the three entities in 15 states. The other states have divided government.

    While federal and state control could allow Republicans to advance their top priorities, leaders of progressive groups point to other election outcomes, such as some red states supporting abortion rights, as evidence that even if people voted for Trump, that does not necessarily mean they support what opponents describe as extreme proposals. And they remain optimistic that they will prevail against such measures in court. “We are in a moment right now where the incoming administration” won “by distancing themselves from these very policies that it now seems that they are seeking to accelerate”, said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that includes more than 800 lawyers and has filed legal challenges to Republican regulations and administrative actions. Perryman added: “We are laser-focused on protecting the American people and on ensuring that people in this country have the tools to make their voices heard.”

    Top priorities among Republican state lawmakers appear to concern curriculum and school choice, meaning allowing parents to use public money to send their children to private schools, which can be religious or more socially conservative than public schools. According to Education Week, twenty-eight states have at least one school choice program, such as education savings accounts, which provide public per-pupil funds to families with children who do not attend public schools. President-elect Donal Trump’s platform stated that he wanted “to protect the God-given right of every parent to be the steward of their children’s education” and when nominating Linda McMahon to serve as education secretary, he stated that she would “fight tirelessly to expand ‘Choice’ to every state in America”.

    Since Trump’s election, Republicans in states such as Ohio have also introduced legislation labeled as a “Parent’s Bill of Rights” that would mandate that public school officials notify parents of a student’s mental, emotional or physical health, including “any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student’s biological sex”. Critics of such legislation have described it as “an endangerment to all LGBTQ+ youth”. Earlier this month, there were 129 pending anti-LGBTQ+ state bills, including proposals to prohibit doctors from prescribing to minors puberty-blocking drugs or gender reassignment surgery, according to the ACLU. Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, a rightwing advocacy group, said that the Department of Education under Trump would help states “stop gender ideology being taught in our nation’s schools”.

    President-elect Donald Trump has also promised to eliminate the Biden administration’s efforts to address the climate crisis. The Montana state senator Tom McGillvray said he hoped Trump would mitigate or rescind recent federal environmental regulations. “We don’t need Washington to tell us how to manage our environment,” said McGillvray. Still, the courts could provide a way for people to combat Trump administration policies. The Montana Supreme Court upheld a ruling last month that stated that 16 young plaintiffs had a “constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment” and invalidated a law that barred regulators from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting fossil fuel projects.

    Democracy Forward plans to use the courts to “challenge policies that are harmful and in instances where the incoming administration may be inclined to ignore the law”, said Skye Perryman. And even though Trump captured the popular vote and electoral college, voters in three states, including Montana, supported the Republican-passed ballot measures to protect abortion rights. According to polls, a majority of people also oppose Project 2025, a policy playbook from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. During the election, Trump distanced himself from the plan, which calls for withholding federal funding from states that share data on abortion that occurred within their borders and for dismantling the Department of Education, among a long list of other ideas. But Trump has since appointed people connected to Project 2025, including Tom Homan to serve as “border czar” and Brendan Carr to serve as chair of the Federal Communications Commission. “Some of the same architects behind the extreme federal policies also work at the state level,” said Perryman. “We are obviously monitoring the bills that are being filed in various sessions and ensuring that people at the state and local level can make their voices heard, including through using the courts.”

  • Senator Krysten Sinema Switches Parties From Democrat To Independent, Dealing A Major Blow To Demcoratic Senate Control

    Senator Krysten Sinema Switches Parties From Democrat To Independent, Dealing A Major Blow To Demcoratic Senate Control

    Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it. In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator said that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” Senator Sinema said. Provided that Sinema sticks to that vow, Democrats will still have a workable Senate majority in the next Congress, though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. The Democrats expected to also have the votes to control Senate committees. And Sinema’s move means that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past two years, will hold onto some but not all of his outsized influence in the Democratic caucus.

    Senator Krysten Sinema would not address whether she will run for reelection in 2024, and informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of her decision. “I don’t anticipate that anything will change about the Senate structure,” Sinema said, adding that some of the exact mechanics of how her switch affects the chamber is “a question for Chuck Schumer … I intend to show up to work, do the same work that I always do. I just intend to show up to work as an independent.” She said her closely held decision to leave the Democratic Party reflects that she’s “never really fit into a box of any political party,” a description she said also applies to her fiercely independent state and millions of unaffiliated voters across the country.

    Senator Krysten Sinema has a well-established iconoclastic reputation. She competes in Ironman triathlons, moonlighted at a Napa Valley winery and often hangs out on the Republican side of the aisle during floor votes. The 46-year-old said her party switch is a logical next step in a political career built on working almost as closely with Republicans as she does with Democrats. That approach helped her play a pivotal role in bipartisan deals on infrastructure, gun safety and same-sex marriage during the current 50-50 Senate. It’s also infuriated some Democrats, particularly her resistance to higher tax rates and attempts to weaken the filibuster. Her move will buck up her Republican allies and is certain to embolden her Democratic critics, at home and on the Hill. Sinema said that “criticism from outside entities doesn’t really matter to me” and she’ll go for a “hard run” after her announcement becomes public, “because that’s mostly what I do Friday mornings.”

    Even before her party switch, Senator Krysten Sinema faced rumblings of a primary challenge in 2024 from Congressman Ruben Galleg. Becoming an independent will avoid a head-to-head primary against Gallego or another progressive, should she seek reelection. A theoretical general-election campaign could be chaotic if both Democrats and Republicans field candidates against her. Senator Sinema asserted she has a different goal in mind: fully separating herself from a party that has never never really been a fit, despite the Democratic Party’s support in her hard-fought 2018 race. Sinema wouldn’t entertain discussions of pursuing a second Senate term: “It’s fair to say that I’m not talking about it right now.” “I keep my eye focused on what I’m doing right now. And registering as an independent is what I believe is right for my state. It’s right for me. I think it’s right for the country,” she said, adding that “politics and elections will come later.”

    It has been a decade since the last Senate party switch, when former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter left the Republicans to become a Democrat, and even longer since former Senator Joe Lieberman switched from Democrat to independent. Senator Krysten Sinema said she is not directly lobbying anyone to join her in leaving either the Democratic Caucus or Republican Conference, saying that she’d like the Senate to foster “an environment where people feel comfortable and confident saying and doing what they believe.” What that means practically is continuing to work among the Senate’s loose group of bipartisan dealmakers, some of whom are retiring this year. She has already connected with Senator-elect Katie Britt (R-AL) about working together. She insisted that she will not deviate from her past approach to confirming Democratic presidential appointees, whom she scrutinizes but generally supports, and said she expects to keep her committee assignments through the Democrats (she currently holds two subcommittee chairmanships). Nor, she said, will anything change about her ideology, which is more socially liberal than most Republicans on matters like abortion and more fiscally conservative than most Democrats.

    Senator Kryten Sinema voted to convict former President Donald Trump in two impeachment trials, opposed Trump-backed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and supported Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, tapped by President Joe Biden. She also supported two Democratic party-line bills this Congress, one on coronavirus aid and the other devoted to climate, prescription drugs and taxes. She said she maintains good relationships with Biden and the Senate majority leader as well as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who invited her to give a closely watched speech on bipartisanship in his home state several months ago.

  • Senator Mitch McConnel Re-elected Senate Republican Leader Despite Disappointing Election Performance

    Senator Mitch McConnel Re-elected Senate Republican Leader Despite Disappointing Election Performance

    Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on November 16 overwhelmingly won re-election as his party’s Senate leader, holding off Senator Rick Scott of Florida in the first challenge Senator McConnell has faced since assuming the post in 2007. Despite a disappointing election performance that left them demoralized and still mired in the minority, Senate Republicans stuck with their longtime leader, opting for an experienced hand rather than a change at the top that could add to the post-election turmoil engulfing their party. “I think the most important thing we can do is get these differences behind us,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a leading McConnell ally.

    The leadership bid by Senator Rick Scott was always a long shot, particularly since he had served as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party campaign arm that was tasked with winning back the Senate majority, and came up short. Many of his colleagues saw him as more responsible for the election defeat than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But critics of Senator McConnell, who was re-elected leader on a vote of 37 to 10, with one abstention, said they saw it as a worthwhile demonstration of unrest in the ranks. “We had a double-digit vote against the current leader, and that’s never happened in the time I’ve been here,” said Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who opposed McConnell and attempted to delay the leadership selection until after a December 6 Georgia runoff election, a bid that was soundly rejected by his colleagues.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was not offended by the challenge and some of his supporters relished the showdown as a chance for the Kentucky Republican to give a concrete demonstration of his strong standing within his conference. “We had a good opportunity to discuss the differences, people had an opportunity to listen to both candidates, and I’m pretty proud of 37 to 10,” Senator McConnell said after the vote. The vote at the end of a meeting behind closed doors that stretched for more than three hours, as Republican senators sat at desks in the Old Senate Chamber, a semicircular room adorned with marble columns and an ornate central table hung with crimson fabric, to hash out their differences. The room is a traditional spot for leadership elections.

    Republicans in both the House and Senate are reeling from their poor performance in midterm elections in which they expected to post significant gains based on a sour public mood, inflation, and historical trends. But Senate Democrats held their majority and could still expand it, while Republicans managed to squeak into the majority in the House. Party leaders in both chambers are facing an internal backlash, exposing divides that could persist as they confront Democrats over the next two years.

    Senator Rick Scott and his allies said that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell represented the status quo and that a new approach was necessary if Republicans were to regroup and triumph in 2024. They criticized Senator McConnell for cooperating too much with Democrats, allowing them to notch legislative victories this year that boosted their campaigns. “Clearly, the Republican Party’s got to do something different if we ever want to be a majority party,” said Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO). “I put it to them, you know, what would they see to do differently, and what do they think the approach ought to be. But most Senate Republicans regarded Senator McConnell as a much better bet for a rebound than Senator Scott. “I have a lot of admiration for his vision and look forward to carrying forward with that,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who was elected as the fifth-ranking Republican, becoming one of two women in the party leadership, alongside Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, who won the fourth-ranking spot.

    The leadership challenge was conducted by secret ballot, but those who indicated they voted against Senator Mitch McConnell included Senators Rick Scott, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “I think Rick Scott accomplished his point,” said Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND). “And that is that several members are frustrated and have been for some time that they want to see a more inclusive process. They don’t want to see so many back-room deals.” Senator McConnell acknowledged the sentiment and said senators were reminded in their private meeting that any five Republican senators could call a party meeting to hash out an issue “We acquainted our members with the tools they have if they have an idea they want to promote,” McConnell said. “I think that will be used more often. I certainly welcome it.” Senator Scott, for his part, hinted that he would not hesitate to continue voicing dissent even in the wake of his loss. “I’m going to continue to fight for what I believe,” Scott said.

    Even though Republicans fell short of expectations on November 8, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his leadership team emphasized that the Senate, and the nation as a whole, remains narrowly divided and that the Republicans in the Senate could still have significant influence with a Republican House. “It is still a 50-50 country,” said Senator McConnell. “They’ve given us a 50-50 government again. I think what the public is going to be looking at is whether or not this narrowly divided Congress can accomplish anything that does them any good in terms of their lives.” McConnell said he urged the Biden administration and Senate Democrats to try to “find some things between the 40-yard lines that we can agree on, and do them.”

    When the next Congress convenes in January, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will set the record for serving the longest in a Senate leadership role, surpassing Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, who spent 16 years as majority leader in the 1960s and 1970s. The impending record has prompted speculation that Senator McConnell could step aside after he hits that milestone, though he dismissed that idea. “I’m not going anywhere,” he told reporters

  • House of Representatives Passes Bill to Avert Temporary Government Shutdown

    House of Representatives Passes Bill to Avert Temporary Government Shutdown

    The US House of Representatives on February 8 approved legislation to fund federal government agencies through March 11 and avoid a chaotic shutdown of many of the government’s operations when existing money expires at midnight on February 18. The House voted 272-162 to approve the stop-gap measure that will give Democratic and Republican negotiators in the House and Senate an additional three weeks to work out a deal on a full-year funding bill. The temporary measure, the third since the start of the fiscal year that began on October 1 now goes to the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised prompt action.

    Negotiators have been struggling for weeks to agree on the so-called “omnibus” spending bill to finance the federal government’s wide-ranging activities through September 30, the end of the current fiscal year. During House debate, Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) noted that the “omnibus is the only way to unlock” the full $1 trillion in spending on infrastructure projects authorized by Congress late last year. The measure would also beef up spending on defense and veterans programs, along with environmental, education, and other domestic initiatives. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also expressed confidence that a full-year funding bill would be set in place by March 11. Meanwhile, Senator Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters negotiators were nearing a deal on top-line spending for such a bill. That figure might hover around $1.5 trillion. Republicans were insisting the money be equally divided between defense and non-defense programs, while Democrats who control Congress fashioned bills providing slightly more money on the non-defense side of the ledger.

    Once the framework of a bill is sketched out through an overall spending level, negotiators are expected to dive into resolving disagreements over specific line-items, such as environmental programs and border security, while also settling perennial battles over policies related to divisive issues such as abortion and Internal Revenue Service activities. “With these basic things, a bipartisan deal should be achievable,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

  • New York, New Jersey, & Several Other States Rollback Mask Mandates, Other COVID Mandates as Omicron Surge Recedes

    New York, New Jersey, & Several Other States Rollback Mask Mandates, Other COVID Mandates as Omicron Surge Recedes

    Governor Kathy Hochul will drop New York’s stringent indoor mask mandate on February 9, ending a requirement that businesses ask customers for proof of full vaccination or require mask-wearing at all times, and marking a turning point in the state’s Coronavirus response, according to three people briefed on her decision. The decision will eliminate a rule that prompted legal and interpersonal clashes over mask-wearing, especially in conservative parts of New York. It was set to expire on February 10 and would have required renewing. Governor Hochul is expected to let the mask mandate lapse just as a crushing winter surge in coronavirus cases is finally receding. But it was as yet unclear whether the Governor would renew or drop a separate mask mandate in New York schools that expires in two weeks.

    Still, the easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California have announced similar moves this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of public-health planning, back-channel discussions, and political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election. The moves highlight how even local officials who installed sweeping safety measures early in the pandemic are now considering shifting to an endemic response to COVID. “This is not a declaration of victory as much as an acknowledgment that we can responsibly live with this thing,” said New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Muphy, who imposed some of the countries strictest COVID-related mandates in the earliest days of the pandemic. Under Governor Murphy’s new policies, which will come into effect on March 7, students and school employees in the state will no longer be required to wear masks.

    Shortly after the New Jersey announcement on February 7, the Democratic Governors of California, Connecticut, Delaware, and Oregon separately said they would also end some mask mandates. Connecticut will permit students and staff members to stop wearing masks in schools by no later than Feb. 28 and Delaware will end mask mandates in schools by March 31. Oregon and California announced the end to mask mandates at indoor public spaces. Governor Gavin Newsom of California wrote on Twitter on February 7 that cases had dropped, hospitalizations had stabilized, and the state’s indoor mask mandate for vaccinated people would expire on February 15. Governor Kate Brown of Oregon on Twitter said on Monday that the state would “lift mask requirements no later than March 31.” The moves to eliminate mask mandates in these states come as the number of reported cases has dipped to its lowest level since the highly contagious Omicron variant touched off a wave of cases in December.

    As of February 8, the daily average of new cases in the United States dropped to around 240,000, the lowest that figure has been since late December. Though the daily average of hospitalizations has steadily declined since its peak on January 20, the daily average of deaths linked to the virus has hovered at nearly 2,600 since January 27. The rollbacks also highlight the patchwork nature of health protocols that have yet to be synchronized from county to county within many states, let alone between states, since the pandemic began in early 2020. New Mexico and Illinois have statewide mask mandates for schools and many indoor settings. Idaho, Louisiana, and Mississippi recommend indoor mask-wearing, and Republican-led states like Texas and Florida have banned mandates. Whether to mandate mask-wearing in schools is up to local officials in most states. The mask rollbacks announced on February 7 appear to undercut messaging coming from federal officials.

    Asked on February 7 about the lifting of mask mandates in New Jersey, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, pointed to federal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that says masks can reduce transmission of coronavirus. “Our responsibility as the federal government is to rely on the data and the science that is being analyzed by our public health experts,” Psaki said at a news conference.

  • CDC: Omicron Cornavirus Variant Less Severe Compared To Earlier Variants

    CDC: Omicron Cornavirus Variant Less Severe Compared To Earlier Variants

    Federal health officials reported on January 25 that the Omicron COVID variant caused less severe illness in hospitalized patients than earlier virus lineages, even though its explosive transmissibility has caused far more infections and led to more than 2,200 deaths a day on average, one of the highest tolls since early last year. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that people hospitalized with the omicron variant had shorter stays and less frequent admission to intensive care compared with those hospitalized with other coronavirus variants.

    Despite record infections and hospitalizations caused by Omicron, the percentage of hospitalized patients with severe illness is lower compared with those in earlier pandemic waves. That lower disease severity is partly the result of immune protection from higher vaccination coverage among those 5 and older, booster use, and previous infection, as well as the potential lower virulence of the virus itself, according to the report. Other studies have suggested that the variant is less able to penetrate deep into the lungs. That pattern notwithstanding, the virus spreads from person to person with frightening speed, resulting in significant numbers of hospitalizations and deaths. On January 25, the seven-day average of daily deaths in the United States was 2,230, the highest since late February 2021.

    “People with underlying conditions, people with advanced age, people who are unvaccinated, can have a severe form of covid-19, following infection from omicron,” World Health Organization epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove said this week. “People are still being hospitalized with this variant, as well as dying.” The strain on health systems stemming from the large numbers of infections underscores the importance of hospital surge capacity and the ability to adequately staff healthcare systems, the report said.

    The CDC report’s findings are consistent with recent studies from health systems in California and Texas, as well as from South Africa, England, and Scotland. One of the studies, a preliminary report by Kaiser Permanente that has not yet been peer-reviewed, looked at nearly 70,000 covid-19 cases in Southern California from November 30 to January 1. It found that rates of hospitalization, admission to intensive care units, use of mechanical ventilation, and death were all substantially lower in patients infected with omicron compared with the delta variant. Hospital stays were also shorter.

    “What sets this report apart is that it focuses on the overall impact of the three waves on the health system, more than on ‘severity,’” Andrew T. Pavia, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Utah, said in an email on January 25. He did not take part in the study. “The omicron wave has been bad news with the largest societal and health care impact, but for infected individuals, particularly those who are vaccinated, the decreased overall severity is good news,” Pavia said.

    The data reinforces the importance of being up to date with vaccinations, including booster shots. Recent data from hospitals has shown that a booster shot is critical to preventing severe outcomes during the omicron surge. In a CDC study released last week, researchers showed that a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna shots reduces the chance of hospitalization by 90 percent compared with unvaccinated people, and reduces the chance of a trip to the emergency room or urgent-care center by 82 percent.

  • In A Major Defeat For The Demcoratic Party, Voting Rights Legislation Narrowly Fails In Senate

    In A Major Defeat For The Demcoratic Party, Voting Rights Legislation Narrowly Fails In Senate

    Voting legislation that the Democratic Party and civil rights leaders say is vital to protecting democracy collapsed late on January 19 when two senators refused to join their party in changing Senate rules to overcome a Republican filibuster after a raw, emotional debate. The outcome was a stinging defeat for President Joe Biden and his party, coming at the tumultuous close to his first year in office. Despite a day of piercing debate and speeches that often carried echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed by opponents of civil rights legislation, Democrats could not persuade holdout senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to change the Senate procedures on this one bill and allow a simple majority to advance it. “I am profoundly disappointed,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. However, the president said he is “not deterred” and vowed to “explore every measure and use every tool at our disposal to stand up for democracy.”

    Voting rights advocates are warning that Republican-led states nationwide are passing laws making it more difficult for African Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes. Vice President Kamala Harris briefly presided over the Senate, able to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate if needed, but she left before the final vote. The rules change was rejected 52-48, with Manchin and Sinema joining the Republicans in opposition. The nighttime voting brought an end, for now, to legislation that has been a top Democratic priority since the party took control of Congress and the White House. “This is a moral moment,” said Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA).

    The Democrats’ bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots, which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic, and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. It has passed the House. Both Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema say they support the legislation, but Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to push the bill over the Republican filibuster. It failed to advance 51-49 on a largely party-line vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) cast a procedural vote against so the bill could be considered later. Next, Schumer put forward a rules change for a “talking filibuster” on this one bill. It would require senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections. But that, too, failed because Manchin and Sinema were unwilling to change the Senate rules a party-line vote by Democrats alone.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who led his party in doing away with the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees during Donald Trump’s presidency, warned against changing the rules again. McConnell derided the “fake hysteria” from Democrats over the states’ new voting laws and called the pending bill a federal takeover of election systems. He admonished Democrats in a fiery speech and said doing away with filibuster rules would “break the Senate.”

    Senator Joe Manchin drew a roomful of senators for his own speech, upstaging the president’s news conference and defending the filibuster. He said changing to a majority-rule Senate would only add to the “dysfunction that is tearing this nation apart.” Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked across the Capitol for the proceedings. “We want this Senate to act today in a favorable way. But if it don’t, we ain’t giving up,” said Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the highest-ranking Black member of Congress. Senator Manchin did open the door to a more tailored package of voting law changes, including the Electoral Count Act, which was tested during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. He said senators from both parties are working on that and it could draw Republican support.

    Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK said a bipartisan coalition should work on legislation to ensure voter access, particularly in far-flung areas like her state, and to shore up Americans’ faith in democracy. “We don’t need, we do not need a repeat of 2020 when by all accounts our last president, having lost the election, sought to change the results,” said Murkowski. She said the Senate debate had declined to a troubling state: “You’re either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, really? Is that where we are?” At one point, senators broke out in applause after a spirited debate between Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the longer serving Senators, and the relative newcomer Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA), over the history of the Voting Rights Act.

    Dsspite the defeat of the voting rights bill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer contended the fight is not over and he ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout, comparing it to Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 presidential election. Democrats decided to press ahead despite the potential for high-stakes defeat as President Joe Biden is marking his first year in office with his priorities stalling out in the face of solid Republican opposition and the Democrats’ inability to unite around their own goals. They wanted to force senators on the record, even their own party’s holdouts, to show voters where they stand. Once reluctant himself to change Senate rules, Biden has stepped up his pressure on senators to do just that. But the push from the White House, including Biden’s blistering speech last week in Atlanta comparing opponents to segregationists, is seen as too late.

  • Omicron Surge Spurs New Coronavirus Relief Push In Congress

    Omicron Surge Spurs New Coronavirus Relief Push In Congress

    Hotels, fitness clubs, tour bus companies, and minor league baseball clubs are part of a long line of businesses seeking billions of dollars in new COVID relief aid in response to the Omicron variant surge, if they can overcome opposition from many Republicans who say Congress has already given enough. Lobbyists for the businesses say their campaign has taken on new urgency as the Omicron variant sweeps across the country, forcing many companies to scale back or shut down operations as employees call in sick and customers cancel orders and reservations. A few Republican lawmakers support more relief funding for targeted industries, but most are generally opposed to spending more funds to help struggling businesses. These opponents say that the government has already provided sufficient relief, including more than $900 billion through the Paycheck Protection Program, and that more government spending will fuel inflation and budget deficits. “The U.S. government has no money to give anyone,“ said Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). ”In the past two years, Congress piled on several trillion dollars to our already substantial deficit. This unprecedented accumulation of debt is causing today’s inflation and will continue to wreak havoc in the future.”

    Lobbyists for those seeking aid, which also includes restaurants and Broadway stage productions, contend that their clients were left out of previous relief efforts or didn’t get nearly enough to cover losses. Industry lobbyists are targeting legislation being crafted by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, who had found an ally in Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) for a bill that would deliver roughly $60 billion in grants from the Small Business Administration.

    Efforts to provide COVID relief assistance appear to have support in the House. Nearly 100 Democratic and Republican lawmakers signed a letter in December calling for help for businesses. Prospects are sketchier in the Senate. Under modern Senate procedures, most legislation needs 60 votes for approval. Democrats and their allies control 50 votes, so Senator Ben Cardin is seeking to sweeten the stimulus bill with provisions that can draw the support of 10 Republicans. He has the support of roughly a half-dozen Republicans so far.

    Lobbyists for various industries are angling to add their COVID relief proposals to a large appropriations bill that Congress must approve by mid-February to fund the government for the current fiscal year. But that too could prove tricky. Most Republican lawmakers say they are not eager for more government spending, though that could change if the Omicron surge further disrupts the economy and forces business closures and layoffs.

  • President Joe Biden Announces New US Coronavirus Strategy Regarding Omicron Variant

    President Joe Biden Announces New US Coronavirus Strategy Regarding Omicron Variant

    President Joe Biden on November 29 said the new Omicron coronavirus variant is “a cause for concern, not a cause for panic,” as federal health officials brace for the first cases of the new variant to be detected in the US. “Sooner or later we’re going to see cases of this new variant here in the United States. We’ll have to face this new threat just as we face those who have come before it,” Biden said, speaking from the White House. The President noted scientists and officials are learning more every day about the new variant. He said the new travel restrictions his administration put in place, which went into effect on November 29 and restricted travel from several countries in Southern Africa, gives the US more time to respond. Biden said on December 2 he would put forward a “detailed strategy outlining how we’re going to fight Covid this winter. Not with shutdowns or lockdowns, but with more widespread vaccinations, boosters, testing and more.”

    President Joe Biden told reporters lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus were off the table “for now.” “If people are vaccinated and wear their mask, there’s no need for lockdown,” Biden said. The President again urged Americans to get vaccinated and get their booster shots, saying it is the best protection against this new variant, as well as any other variants. “We have the best vaccine in the world, the best medicines, the best scientists, and we’re learning more every single day. And we’ll fight this variant with scientific and knowledgeable actions and speed — not chaos and confusion,” Biden said. He continued: “We have more tools today to fight the variant than we’ve ever had before, from vaccines to boosters to vaccines for children, 5 years and older and much more.”

    President Joe Biden was joined during his speech by Vice President Kamala Harris and his chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci.Officials briefed Biden for approximately 45 minutes on November 28 on the new variant and again early on November 29, with a heavy dose of caution about what is still unknown. Health officials say there are likely far more cases worldwide than is currently known. President Biden praised South African scientists for their transparency and quick work in identifying and reporting the new variant. “This kind of transparency is to be encouraged and applauded because it increases our ability to respond quickly to any new threats, and that’s exactly what we did,” Biden said, adding that he does not believe the travel restrictions would make other countries less likely to report new variants. The President said: “We needed time to give people an opportunity to say get that vaccination now before it, it’s going to move around the world. I think it’s almost inevitable that there will be at some point that strain here in the United States, but I don’t think anyone is going to be reluctant to report.”

    President Joe Biden’s team told him it will likely take one to two weeks to know more about the variant, including whether antibodies handle it effectively. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently sequencing coronavirus genomes and working closely with state health officials, two steps that will be critical to figuring out if the variant is already in the US. Biden said to beat the pandemic, the world needs to be vaccinated and said the US has shipped more than 275 million coronavirus vaccines to 110 countries. “Now we need the rest of the world to step us as well,” Biden said. Anthony Fauci said that scientists will be able to make a determination soon on whether the Omicron variant is resistant to current coronavirus vaccines. It is also too soon to tell whether Omicron causes a more severe disease. Fauci said he does not think there is any possibility that Omicron could completely evade any protection from the vaccine, but that it may diminish the level of protection. If there is a diminution of protection, Fauci and other health officials said getting a coronavirus vaccine booster shot could help enhance protection since boosters enlarge the capacity of the body to recognize all kinds of mutations on coronavirus variants.

    President Joe Biden announced on November 26 the US would restrict travel from South Africa and seven other countries starting on November 29 because of the new variant. The Biden administration is now restricting travel from South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique, and Malawi. The President was acting on advice from Anthony Fauci and the CDC. The Omicron variant has already been detected on five continents, North America, Australia, Africa, Europe, Asia, and the travel restrictions are already generating push back, with South Africa’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation saying they are “akin to punishing” South Africa. The Omicron variant was the quickest to be labeled a “variant of concern” by the World Health Organization because of its seemingly fast spread in South Africa and its many troubling mutations. WHO designates coronavirus variants as either variants of concern, meaning they look dangerous enough to bear close scrutiny and continual updates, or as variants of interest, or variants under monitoring. Only five currently meet the definition for variants of concern: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron.

  • Biden Administration Seeks To Reinstate Workplace Coronavirus Vaccine Requirement

    Biden Administration Seeks To Reinstate Workplace Coronavirus Vaccine Requirement

    The Biden administration asked a federal appeals court on November 23 to lift a court-ordered stay on a sweeping workplace coronavirus vaccine rule to avoid serious harm to public health, or to allow a masking-and-testing requirement. Delaying the rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that requires employees to be vaccinated or tested weekly would lead to thousands of hospitalizations and deaths, the administration said in a filing with the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The White House asked for the rule to be reinstated immediately, but the court set a briefing schedule that runs through December 10.

    President Joe Biden has issued several rules aimed at encouraging vaccinations, although OSHA’s November 5 standard is the most far-reaching. The OSHA rule requires businesses with at least 100 employees, covering tens of millions of American workers, to comply by January 4. Although 82% of US adults have gotten at least one vaccine dose, requiring shots against the coronavirus has become a divisive political issue over trade-offs between civil liberty and public health. The rule was challenged by Republican-led states, businesses, and trade groups, and it was quickly blocked by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which called it “staggeringly overbroad” and a “one-size-fits-all sledgehammer.” 

    After the stay was imposed, lawsuits from across the country were transferred to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati. That has allowed the Biden administration to ask for the 5th Circuit ruling to be reviewed. The administration said in its filing that if the ruling remained, it should at least be modified to allow the masking-and-testing requirement. A modified stay would also shield employers from state and local laws banning vaccine and mask mandates, the administration said.

  • Amid Rising Energy Costs, Biden Administration Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    Amid Rising Energy Costs, Biden Administration Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    President Joe Biden said on November 23 that the administration will tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of a global effort by energy-consuming nations to calm 2021′s rapid rise in fuel prices. The coordinated release between the US, India, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom is the first such move of its kind. The US will release 50 million barrels from the SPR. Of that total, 32 million barrels will be exchanged over the next several months, while 18 million barrels will be an acceleration of a previously authorized sale. US oil dipped 1.9% to a session low of $75.30 per barrel following the announcement, before recovering those losses and moving into positive territory. The contract last traded 2.5% higher at $78.67 per barrel. International benchmark Brent crude stood at $82.31 per barrel, for a gain of 3.2%.

    The announcement follows the Biden Administration saying for months that it was looking into the tools at its disposal as West Texas Intermediate crude futures surged to a seven-year high, above $85. Prices at the pump have followed the ascent and are hovering around their highest level in seven years. The national average for a gallon of gas stood at $3.409 on Monday, according to AAA, up from $2.11 one year ago. Crude prices make up between 50% and 60% of what consumers pay to fill up their tanks, AAA said. “The President stands ready to take additional action, if needed, and is prepared to use his full authorities working in coordination with the rest of the world to maintain adequate supply as we exit the pandemic,” the White House said in a statement.

    As of November 19, the SPR held 604.5 million barrels spread across four sites, according to the Department of Energy. It takes 13 days after a presidential announcement for the oil to hit the market, the department said. In total, the SPR, which was founded in 1975 after the oil embargo, can hold 727 million barrels. The SPR can be tapped in three ways: a full drawdown to counter a “severe energy interruption,” a limited drawdown of up to 30 million barrels, or a drawdown for an exchange or test sale, according to the DOE. “This is a well-timed move to try and lower oil prices,” John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital, said after the announcement. “This added supply should help to bridge the production shortfall ahead of winter, especially if we get confirmation of meaningful supply, as well, from several of the major Asian consuming nations.”

    In August, the Biden administration called on OPEC and its oil-producing allies to boost output in the face of rising energy prices. But the group decided to maintain its previously agreed-upon schedule of raising production by 400,000 barrels per month. In April 2020, the group made the unprecedented decision to remove nearly 10 million barrels per day from the market as the pandemic sapped demand for petroleum products. Other producers, including the US, also curbed production as oil prices plunged to never-before-seen lows. Since then, demand has rebounded while producers have been slow to return oil to the market, which has pushed crude to multiyear highs. “Today marks an official emergence of an ‘anti-OPEC+’, a group of top oil-consuming countries that are taking the supply-side dynamics into their own hands in the unconventional and unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves to create artificial looseness in the oil market and deliver a negative blow to oil prices,” said Louise Dickson, senior oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy.

  • House of Representatives January 6 Select Committee Subpoenas Far-Right Leaders & Groups

    House of Representatives January 6 Select Committee Subpoenas Far-Right Leaders & Groups

    The House of Representatives Select Committee investigating the Capitol attack issued subpoenas on November 23 to the leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, directly focusing for the first time on the instigators of the violence at the January 6 Insurrection. The subpoenas demanding documents and testimony targeted both the leaders of the paramilitary groups on the day of the Capitol attack that sought to stop the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s election win, as well as the organizations behind the groups. House investigators in total issued five subpoenas to Proud Boys International LLC and its chairman, Henry “Enrqiue” Tarrio, the Oath Keepers group and its president, Stewart Rhodes, as well as Robert Patrick Lewis, the chairman of the 1st Amendment Praetorian militia. 

    The chair of the Select Committee, Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said in a statement that subpoenas reflected the panel’s interest in uncovering possible connections between the paramilitary groups, efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election and the Capitol attack. “We believe the individuals and organizations we subpoenaed today have relevant information about how violence erupted at the Capitol and the preparation leading up to this violent attack,” Thompson said.  Dozens of paramilitary group members have been indicted by the justice department as they pursue criminal charges against rioters involved in the insurrection, but the Select Committee had not yet publicly sought their cooperation in its investigation. The new subpoenas are aimed to uncover whether there was any coordination between the paramilitary groups and the White House, according to a source close to the investigation, and whether Donald Trump had advanced knowledge of plans about the Capitol attack.

    The Select Committee said they subpoenaed the Proud Boys group since its members called for violence leading up to the January 6 Insurrection and that at least 34 individuals affiliated with the group had been indicted by the justice department for their roles in storming the Capitol. Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson suggested in the subpoena letters to Proud Boys International LLC and Tarrio that the group appeared to have advanced knowledge of the violent nature of the Capitol attack, having fundraised for “protective gear and communications” in planning for January 6. The select committee said they similarly subpoenaed the Oath Keepers for their part in leading the deadly assault on Congress, which a federal grand jury indictment in Washington DC described as a conspiracy involving at least 18 members. The members of the Oath Keepers led by Stewart Rhodes, the select committee said, planned their assault on the Capitol in advance, and traveled to Washington DC with paramilitary gear, firearms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, and radio equipment.

    According to the indictment, the main unnamed conspirator, believed to be Stewart Rhodes, was in direct contact with his Oath Keepers members before, during, and shortly after the Capitol attack, the select committee added in the subpoena letters. The Justice Department has said Rhodes directed members of the Oath Keepers as they stormed the Capitol on 6 January but has not been charged with a crime and has denied any wrongdoing. He surrendered his phone to law enforcement and has sat for an interview with the FBI. House investigators also subpoenaed the leader of the 1st Amendment Praetorian, as Lewis was in constant contact with Trump operatives based at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC, which served as a “command center” for President Donald Trump to stop President-elect Joe Biden’s certification. The select committee said to Lewis that he was subpoenaed in part because he claimed the day after the Capitol attack that he “war-gamed” with constitutional scholars about how to stop Biden from being certified president on January 6. Thompson noted in the subpoena letter that members of the 1st Amendment Praetorian wore body cameras, suggesting the select committee’s interest in obtaining those recordings.

  • Biden Administration Announces Plan To Invest Billions In Expanded Coronavirus Vaccine Manufacturing

    Biden Administration Announces Plan To Invest Billions In Expanded Coronavirus Vaccine Manufacturing

    The Biden Administration is planning to invest billions of dollars to expand US manufacturing capabilities of coronavirus vaccines to increase the supply of doses for poorer nations and better prepare the country for future pandemics. The White House will aim to spur the production of at least 1 billion doses a year by investing in companies that make mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna, and helping them expand capacity by funding facilities, equipment, staff, and training. Pfizer and Moderna said that they are reviewing the government’s proposal and while open to the idea, made no commitments to working with US officials on this effort.

    The announcement received mixed reactions from global health activists, who lauded the investment but raised concerns about the speed of its implementation and the latitude that could be given to pharmaceutical companies. For months, the US has been under pressure to play a larger role in sharing vaccines with the world, but one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations, said some of the advocacy groups specifically lobbied an investment on the scale the US is making.

    The Biden Administrations’ announcement marks the latest partnership between the federal government and pharmaceutical companies to bolster vaccine production during the pandemic. “The goal is to guarantee capacity to produce approximately 100 million mRNA vaccines a month against covid or other pandemic viruses upon demand for the United States or global use,” said David Kessler, the administration’s chief science officer who oversees vaccine distribution. “We are looking to enter into a historic partnership with one or more experienced pharmaceutical partners. This partnership will be used for COVID and any future pandemic viruses with the goal of having enough vaccines available within six to nine months of the identification of the virus.” Kessler said the funds for the effort have already been allocated as part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that President Biden signed into law in March.

    The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has published a “request for information,” seeking proposals from companies that have experience using mRNA technology. BARDA, which is housed within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for developing vaccines and other medical countermeasures. “It would combine the expertise of the US government in basic scientific research with the robust ability of pharmaceutical companies to manufacture mRNA vaccines,” Jeff Zients, the White House coronavirus coordinator, said at the White House’s coronavirus news briefing. “We hope companies step up and act quickly to take us up on this opportunity to expand production of mRNA vaccines for the current pandemic and set us up to react quickly to any future pandemic threats.” Zients also touted the country’s effort to share vaccines globally, saying the US has already donated 250 million doses and has committed a total of $1.1 billion. He said the US has already donated more vaccines than all other countries combined.

    Vaccine manufacturers said they were open to the Biden administration’s new plan but were also seeking further details. In an interview, Moderna President Stephen Hoge said that his firm was reviewing the government’s request for information. “We haven’t talked about it, but the concepts we’re definitely supportive of and would expect to participate in,” Hoge said. Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, said the company appreciates the administration’s focus on ensuring long-term supply, and the company would review BARDA’s “request for information.” “Pfizer is proud to be a strong and reliable partner to the U.S. government with vast capacity and capabilities that create solutions,” Rose said in a statement. “As we consider the White House’s proposal, we will come to the table with how we can best contribute to the ongoing global fight against the coronavirus.”

    Despite support for President Joe Biden’s plan to expand the manufacture of coronavirus vaccines, current, and former government health officials raised questions about the administration’s newest vaccine manufacturing proposal, suggesting that the White House still needed to flesh out its plan. “How long will this take — at least nine months? Is it really necessary or will we already basically be done with the need by the time it’s online?” asked one former official who previously worked with BARDA and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the government’s plan.

    Since the US started distributing vaccines, activists have criticized the Biden administration for failing to scale up domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity to boost the global supply of vaccines. Protesters have gathered outside the homes of top officials in Washington in recent weeks, including Jeffery Zients and White House chief of staff Ron Klain, demanding the Biden administration do more to share vaccines with the world. In September, activists gathered outside Klain’s house and set up a 12-foot pile of fake bones they said symbolized American inaction in combating the global coronavirus crisis.

    The US has also faced criticism for moving forward with booster shots for Americans while many countries are struggling to provide the first round of vaccines to its citizens. The Food and Drug Administration is expected to authorize booster shots of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for all adults this week after some state officials already widened eligibility in recent days. The FDA approved booster shots for some Americans in September, but the agency is likely to broaden access as evidence shows waning effectiveness of the vaccines over time.

    https://youtu.be/Xz7eh_zFqIw
  • At COP 26 Conference, US and China Issue Joint Pledge To Slow Climate Change

    At COP 26 Conference, US and China Issue Joint Pledge To Slow Climate Change

    The US and China jolted the United Nations climate summit here with a surprise announcement on November 10, pledging the two countries would work together to slow global warming during this decade and ensure that the Glasgow talks result in meaningful progress. The world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters said they would take “enhanced climate actions” to meet the central goals of the 2015 Paris climate accord, limiting warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) beyond preindustrial levels, and if possible, not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius. Still, the declaration was short on firm deadlines or specific commitments, and parts of it restated policies both nations had outlined in a statement in April of 2021. To try to keep those temperature limits “within reach,” Chinese and American leaders agreed to jointly “raise ambition in the 2020s” and said they would boost clean energy, combat deforestation and curb emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

    The US and China, plus other major emitters such as the European Union, have come under fire in recent days for not yet delivering on some of the lofty rhetoric their leaders showcased last week. But many leaders have demonstrated a willingness during COP26 to go further than they have before, as shown by a new draft of the agreement conference president Alok Sharma released barely 12 hours before the US-China declaration came out. The draft, which Sharma said he hoped would be signed by the end of the week, proposed a breakthrough not seen in three decades of U.N. climate negotiations: an explicit acknowledgment that nations must phase out coal-burning faster and stop subsidizing fossil fuels. “It’s fossil fuels that cause climate change,” said Mohamed Adow, director of the Kenya-based think tank Power Shift Africa. “Explicitly mentioning it gets on the path to addressing it.”

    Many nations have come under scrutiny at the summit, but few have faced closer examination than the US and China. Speaking before US Climate Change Envoy and former Secretary of State John Kerry at an unannounced news conference, Chinese special climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said that as superpowers, the two countries have a special obligation to work together on keeping the world a peaceful and sustainable place. “We need to think big and be responsible,” Xie said, adding, “We both see that the challenge of climate change is an existential and severe one.” He acknowledged that “both sides recognize there is a gap between the current efforts and the Paris agreement goals.”

    Both envoys on November 10 said the joint declaration was a product of nearly three dozen negotiating sessions over the year. While many of those meetings were virtual, US and Chinese diplomats also had face-to-face talks in China, London, and during the Glasgow summit. The declaration also marked a payoff for the men who announced it. John Kerry has spent this year pursuing extensive personal diplomacy, and he has broken with other Biden aides to advocate robust engagement with China on climate issues. Meanwhile, Xie, a veteran Chinese climate negotiator who led his delegation at previous talks in Copenhagen and Paris, came out of retirement to manage China’s climate diplomacy in the run-up to the high-profile talks in Glasgow.

    The news drew various reactions, from outright praise to skepticism over whether the agreement would lead to new and concrete action. “Tackling the climate crisis requires international cooperation and solidarity, and this is an important step in the right direction,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres tweeted. “This is a challenge which transcends politics,” tweeted the EU’s top climate envoy, Frans Timmermans. “Bilateral cooperation between the two biggest global emitters should boost negotiations at #COP26.” Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed that having the US and China on the same page on climate change trumps having them at odds. But, he added in a statement, if the world is to meet the goals it set six years ago in Paris, “we urgently need to see commitments to cooperate translate into bolder climate targets and credible delivery.”

    China and the US, which together account for about 40 percent of the world’s emissions, are central to any international accord on climate change. The two nations have joined forces before with outsize influence, most notably when President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping forged a similar partnership a year before the Paris climate accord, helping to make that landmark pact a reality.

  • Fifth Circut Court Of Appeals Temporarily Blocks Biden Administration COVID Vaccine Mandate

    Fifth Circut Court Of Appeals Temporarily Blocks Biden Administration COVID Vaccine Mandate

    A federal appeals court temporarily blocked President Joe Biden’s Covid vaccine and testing requirements for private businesses on November 6, just a day after they had officially gone into effect. The Republican attorneys general of Texas, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, as well as several private companies, filed petitions on November 5 challenging the mandate in the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court on November 6 ordered the vaccine and testing requirements halted pending review “because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate.” The three judges who issued the order, Stuart Kyle Duncan, Kurt Damian Englehardt, and Edith Hollan Jones, were appointed by former Presidents Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan.  

    The Labor Department’s top lawyer, Seema Nanda, said the Biden Administration is “fully prepared to defend this standard in court.” The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices workplace safety for the Labor Department, developed the vaccine and testing requirements under emergency authority that allows the agency to shortcut the process to issue workplace safety standards, which normally take years. “The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them,” Nanda said in a statement after the Republican attorneys general and companies filed their challenge.

    Under the mandates, companies with 100 or more employees must ensure their staff has received the shots necessary for full vaccination by January 4. After that date, unvaccinated employees must submit weekly negative COVID-19 tests to enter the workplace. Unvaccinated workers must start wearing masks indoors at their workplaces starting December 5. Seema Nanda said the mandate “preempts any state or local requirements that ban or limit an employer’s authority to require vaccination, face-covering, or testing.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott banned vaccine mandates in his state through an executive order last month.     

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in a statement, called the vaccine mandate “a breathtaking abuse of federal power,” arguing that it is “flatly unconstitutional.” Paxton said the mandate goes beyond the “limited power and specific responsibilities” of OSHA. In their petition to halt the mandates, several companies that operate in Texas challenged OSHA’s authority to issue emergency workplace safety standards, arguing that it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch. OSHA’s emergency authority was established by Congress. The companies Burnett Specialists, Choice Staffing, and Staff Force also argued that the requirements put them in the position of either violating federal regulations or Texas state law. They also said the mandates would result in irreparable harm, including fines for possible non-compliance as well as the loss of employees to smaller companies who are not covered by the mandates. 

  • Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Passes House of Representatives, To Be Signed Into Law By President Biden

    Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Passes House of Representatives, To Be Signed Into Law By President Biden

    The House of Representatives passed a more than $1 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill late on November 5, sending it to President Joe Biden’s desk in a critical step toward enacting sprawling Democratic economic plans. The Senate approved the revamp of transportation, utilities, and broadband in August. The legislation’s passage is perhaps the unified Democratic government’s most concrete achievement since it approved a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package in the spring. The measure passed in a 228-206 vote. Thirteen Republicans supported it, while six Democrats voted against it. The US Congress has tried and failed for years to pass a major bill to upgrade critical transportation and utility infrastructure, which has come under more pressure from extreme weather. The Biden Administration has also contended passage of the bill can help to get goods moving as supply-chain obstacles contribute to higher prices for American consumers.

    The House vote followed a day of wrangling over how to enact the two planks of the party’s agenda. The push-and-pull exemplified party leaders’ months-long struggle to get progressives and centrists, who have differing visions of the government’s role in the economy, behind the same bills. Democrats entered the day planning to pass both the infrastructure legislation and the party’s larger $1.75 trillion social safety net and climate package. A demand from a handful of centrists to see a Congressional Budget Office estimate of the social spending plan’s budgetary effects delayed its approval. Progressives sought assurances the holdouts would support the bigger proposal if they voted for the infrastructure bill. After hours of talks, and a call by President joe Biden into a progressive caucus meeting urging lawmakers to back the infrastructure bill, the party’s liberal wing got assurances from centrists that they would support the larger package. 

    Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said the group reached a deal to back the infrastructure plan in exchange for a commitment to take up the safety-net bill “no later than the week of November 15.” A group of five centrists separately issued a statement saying they would back the Build Back Better legislation pending a CBO score that assuages their concerns about long-term budget deficits. 

    In a statement after the House vote, President Joe Biden said the legislation would “create millions of jobs, turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, and put us on a path to win the economic competition for the 21st Century.” He also noted that the procedural vote on the second Democratic bill will “allow for passage of my Build Back Better Act in the House of Representatives the week of November 15th.” The bills together make up the core of President Biden’s domestic agenda. Democrats see the plans as complementary pieces designed to boost the economy, jolt the job market, provide a layer of insurance to working families and curb climate change.

    President Joe Biden and Democrats have looked for a signature achievement they can point to on the 2022 midterm campaign trail as the president’s approval ratings flag. President Biden will welcome the developments, as House passage of the bill followed a strong October jobs report and approval of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine for 5-to-11-year-olds in the US. While President Biden could sign the infrastructure bill soon, the safety net and climate package will likely take weeks longer. The House will have to wait for a CBO score. The Senate may pass a different version of the plan, which would require another House vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has set a Thanksgiving target to pass the larger Democratic bill.

    The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would put $550 billion in new money into transportation projects, the utility grid, and broadband. The package includes $110 billion for roads, bridges, and other major projects, along with $66 billion for passenger and freight rail and $39 billion for public transit. It would put $65 billion into broadband, a priority for many lawmakers after the coronavirus pandemic highlighted inequities in internet access for households and students across the country. The legislation would also invest $55 billion into water systems, including efforts to replace lead pipes. Before the vote, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told MSNBC that “the moment the president signs this, then it’s over to our department on the transportation pieces to get out there and deliver.” It can take years to complete major projects after Congress funds them. Republicans helped to write the bill in the Senate, and it garnered 19 Republican votes in the chamber. A range of congressional Republicans opposed the plan because they considered it too closely tied to Democrats’ larger proposal, which they are passing without Republicans through the budget reconciliation process.

    Despite much bipartisan support, many Democrats considered the infrastructure bill inadequate because it did not address issues including child care, pre-K education, Medicare expansion, and the enhanced child tax credit. Those policies, priorities for President Joe Biden and top Democrats, made it into the House version of the social safety net bill. Democratic leaders tied the proposals together in an effort to keep centrists and progressives on board with both plans. A thorny legislative process has unfolded for months as Democrats try to get disparate groups with varied visions of the federal government’s role in the economy to back both packages.

  • President Joe Biden Announces Sweeping Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate Covering Nearly 100 Million Americans

    President Joe Biden Announces Sweeping Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate Covering Nearly 100 Million Americans

    In his most forceful pandemic actions and words, President Joe Biden, on September 9 ordered sweeping new federal vaccine requirements for as many as 100 million American private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors in an all-out effort to curb the surging COVID-19 delta variant. Speaking at the White House, President Biden sharply criticized the tens of millions of Americans who are not yet vaccinated, despite months of availability and incentives. “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us,” he said, all but biting off his words. The unvaccinated minority “can cause a lot of damage, and they are.”

    Overall, the immediate reaction to the Biden Administrations’ vaccine mandate proposal was mixed. Both Republican political leaders and private sector unions said that President Joe Biden was going too far in trying to muscle private companies and workers, a certain sign of legal challenges to come. Republican Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina said in a statement that “Biden and the radical Democrats (have) thumbed their noses at the Constitution,” while American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley insisted that “changes like this should be negotiated with our bargaining units where appropriate.” On the other hand, there were strong words of praise for Biden’s efforts to get the nation vaccinated from the American Medical Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable, though no direct mention of his mandate for private companies.

    The expansive rules mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans. And the roughly 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid also will have to be fully vaccinated. President Joe Biden is also requiring vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government, with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers. President Biden announced the new requirements in an address from the White House as part of a new “action plan” to address the latest rise in coronavirus cases and the stagnating pace of COVID-19 shots.

    Just two months ago, President Joe Biden prematurely declared the nation’s “independence” from the virus. Now, despite more than 208 million Americans having at least one dose of the vaccines, the US is seeing about 300% more new COVID-19 infections a day, about two-and-a-half times more hospitalizations, and nearly twice the number of deaths compared to the same time last year. Some 80 million people remain unvaccinated. “We are in the tough stretch and it could last for a while,” President Biden said. After months of using promotions to drive the vaccination rate, Biden is taking a much firmer hand, as he blames people who have not yet received shots for the sharp rise in cases killing more than 1,000 people per day and imperiling a fragile economic rebound.

    In addition to the vaccination requirements, Preisdent Biden moved to double federal fines for airline passengers who refuse to wear masks on flights or to maintain face-covering requirements on federal property in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. He announced that the government will work to increase the supply of virus tests, and that the White House has secured concessions from retailers including Walmart, Amazon, and Kroger to sell at-home testing kits at cost beginning this week. The administration is also sending additional federal support to assist schools in safely operating, including additional funding for testing. And Biden called for large entertainment venues and arenas to require vaccinations or proof of a negative test for entry. The requirement for large companies to mandate vaccinations or weekly testing for employees will be enacted through a forthcoming rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that carries penalties of $14,000 per violation, an administration official said. Biden’s order for executive branch workers and contractors includes exceptions for workers seeking religious or medical exemptions from vaccination, according to press secretary Jen Psaki. Federal workers who do not comply will be referred to their agencies’ human resources departments for counseling and discipline, including potential termination.

    An AP-NORC poll conducted in August found 55% of Americans in favor of requiring government workers to be fully vaccinated, compared with 21% opposed. Similar majorities also backed vaccine mandates for health care workers, teachers working at K-12 schools, and workers who interact with the public, as at restaurants and stores. President Joe Biden has encouraged COVID-19 vaccine requirements in settings like schools, workplaces, and university campuses. On September 9, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted to require all students 12 and older to be fully vaccinated in the nation’s second-largest school district. Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, said in late July it was requiring all workers at its headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, as well as its managers who travel within the US, to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 4. But the company had stopped short of requiring shots for its frontline workers. CVS Health said in late August it would require certain employees who interact with patients to be fully vaccinated by the end of October. That includes nurses, care managers, and pharmacists.

    In the government, several federal agencies have previously announced vaccine requirements for much of their staff, particularly those in healthcare roles like the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Defense moved last month to require all service members to get vaccinated. Combined, the White House estimates those requirements cover 2.5 million Americans. September 9ths order is expected to affect nearly 2 million more federal workers and potentially millions of contractors. President Joe Biden’s measures should help, but what is really needed is a change in mindset for many people, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “There is an aspect to this now that has to do with our country being so divided,” said Sharfstein. “This has become so politicized that people can’t see the value of a vaccination that can save their lives. Our own divisions are preventing us from ending a pandemic.”

    More than 177 million Americans are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, but confirmed cases have shot up in recent weeks to an average of about 140,000 per day with on average about 1,000 deaths, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the spread, and the vast majority of severe illness and death, occurs among those not yet fully vaccinated. So-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated people occur at a rate of about 1 in 5,000, but tend to be far less dangerous and have only resulted in around 500 deaths. 

  • In A Rare Bipartisan Vote, US Senate Passes $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

    In A Rare Bipartisan Vote, US Senate Passes $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

    The Senate gave overwhelming bipartisan approval on August 11 to a $1 trillion infrastructure bill to rebuild the nation’s deteriorating roads and bridges and fund new climate resilience and broadband initiatives, delivering a key component of President Joe Biden’s agenda. The vote, 69 to 30, was uncommonly bipartisan. The yes votes included Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and 18 others from his party who shrugged off increasingly shrill efforts by former President Donald Trump to derail it. “This historic investment in infrastructure is what I believe you, the American people, want, what you’ve been asking for for a long, long time,” President Biden said from the White House as he thanked Republicans for showing “a lot of courage.” Senator McConnell, who publicly declared that his priority was stopping the Biden agenda, said in a statement that “I was proud to support today’s historic bipartisan infrastructure deal and prove that both sides of the political aisle can still come together around common-sense solutions.” The measure faces a potentially rocky and time-consuming path in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a majority of the nearly 100-member Progressive Caucus have said they will not vote on it unless and until the Senate passes a separate, even more ambitious $3.5 trillion social policy bill this fall. That could put the infrastructure bill on hold for weeks, if not months.

    The recently passed infrastructure bill is one of the largest passed by the Senate in recent years. It would be the largest infusion of federal investment into infrastructure projects in more than a decade, touching nearly every facet of the American economy and fortifying the nation’s response to the warming of the planet. Funding for the modernization of the nation’s power grid would reach record levels, as would projects to manage climate risks. Hundreds of billions of dollars would go to repairing and replacing aging public works projects. With $550 billion in new federal spending, the measure would provide $65 billion to expand high-speed internet access; $110 billion for roads, bridges, and other projects; $25 billion for airports; and the most funding for Amtrak since the passenger rail service was founded in 1971. It would also renew and revamp existing infrastructure and transportation programs set to expire at the end of September.

    Its success, painstakingly negotiated largely by a group of Republican and Democratic Senators in consultation with White House officials, is a vindication of President Joe Biden’s belief that a bipartisan compromise was possible on a priority that has long been shared by both parties, even at a moment of deep political division. “This is what it looks like when elected leaders take a step toward healing our country’s divisions rather than feeding those very divisions,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), a key negotiator, said before the bill’s passage. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), said that “everyone involved in this effort can be proud of what this body is achieving today — the Senate is doing its job.”

    With a bipartisan victory pocketed, Democrats turned immediately to a more partisan venture, a second social policy package that would fulfill the remainder of their spending priorities. The Senate’s $3.5 trillion social policy budget, which is expected to pass along party lines later in the week, will allow Senate committees to draft legislation packed with policies to address climate change, health, education, and paid family and medical leave, and pass it over the threat of a filibuster. It will also include tax increases and is expected to generate unanimous Republican opposition. “Despite this long road we’ve taken, we have finally, finally reached the finish line,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). But, directing his comments to colleagues eager to take up unaddressed priorities, he added, “We are moving on to a second track, which will make a generational transformation.”

    The Senate vote capped a grueling, months-long negotiation between the Biden administration and Senators in both parties over the scope and size of an infrastructure bill. After an abbreviated effort to work with Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), on a plan that could win backing from Republican leaders, President Joe Biden turned his focus to a group of 10 moderate Republicans and Democrats who had helped strike the compromise that paved the way for a postelection pandemic relief package in December. The Senators and top White House officials spent weeks debating how to structure and finance the legislation over late-night meals, virtual meetings, and phone calls. Even after the group triumphantly announced an outline in June, it took a month to translate that framework into legislation. Along the way, the effort appeared on the brink of collapse, after it failed a test vote in the Senate and former President Donald Trump sniped at it from the sidelines, trying to persuade Republicans that they would pay a steep political price for supporting it.

    “When we have more people on both sides of the aisle who want to do things in a partisan way, as opposed to figuring out how we can work together, I don’t think that’s in the best interests of the country,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), one of the key negotiators, said in an interview. “It was really important for the continued relationships within the Senate that are so important to getting things dome. Negotiators were particularly bedeviled by the question of how to pay for their plan. Republicans declared that they would not support any legislation that raised taxes and rejected a proposal to beef up IRS enforcement against tax cheats, and Democrats ruled out raising user fees for drivers.

    Democrats and President Joe Biden, who had initially proposed a $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, made significant concessions. The package includes far less funding than they had wanted for lead pipe replacement, transit, and clean energy projects, among others. To finance what remained, analysts said the government would most likely have to borrow heavily. On August 5, the Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would add $256 billion to the deficit over 10 years, contradicting the claims of its authors that their bill would be fully paid for. That is nearly half of the new spending in the legislation, which includes a patchwork of measures purported to raise revenue to pay for it, including repurposing unspent pandemic relief funds, more tightly regulating cryptocurrency and delaying carrying out a Trump-era rule that would change the way drug companies can offer discounts to health plans for Medicare patients.

    The infrastructure bill also carries major policy changes. It amounts to a tacit, bipartisan acknowledgment that the country is ill-prepared for a worsening climate. Billions of dollars would be invested in projects to protect homes from weather calamities, move vulnerable communities out of harm’s way and support new approaches to countering climate change. It also includes $73 billion to update the nation’s electricity grid so it can carry more renewable energy, $7.5 billion to construct electric vehicle charging stations, $17.5 billion for clean buses and ferries, and $15 billion for removing lead pipes. The agreement targets critical resources toward underserved communities, although not as much as President Joe Biden had requested. It would direct $1 billion over five years, slightly more than half of it in new federal funding, to a program to help reconnect communities divided by highway construction, as well as millions of dollars to help improve access to running water in tribal and Alaska Native communities.

    The infrastructure bill also includes money to restore lakes across the country, $66 billion in new funding for Amtrak, and more funding for programs intended to provide safe commutes for pedestrians. It also creates a $350 million pilot program for projects that reduce collisions between vehicles and wildlife. The bill dedicates an increasing amount each year for grants to clean up drinking water by removing lead-contaminated pipes and making other infrastructure upgrades. The legislation reserves at least $25 million per year for “small and disadvantaged communities.” In the days before the measure passed, senators engaged in a last-ditch attempt to allow some exemptions to strict tax regulations on cryptocurrency brokers that had been included in the original bill, after pushback from senators in both parties. But without agreement on other amendments, negotiators ultimately failed to secure unanimous consent to make those changes.

    Despite the fact that the infrastructure bill passed the Senate by a decent margin, legislation faces a tricky path in the House, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she will not take it up until the Senate clears the reconciliation bill. The House has also passed its own infrastructure bill, which includes more money for climate change mitigation and nearly $5.7 billion to pay for 1,473 home district projects, or earmarks, that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee vetted. A handful of moderate Democrats have urged House Speaker Pelosi to avoid delaying a stand-alone vote on the bipartisan agreement. But leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in a letter to Pelosi, warned that a majority of its 96 members confirmed they would withhold their support for the legislation until the second, far more expansive package cleared the reconciliation process in the Senate.

  • President Joe Biden Unveils Infrastructure Reform Proposal

    President Joe Biden Unveils Infrastructure Reform Proposal

    President Joe Biden unveiled a more than $2 trillion infrastructure package on March 31 as his administration shifts its focus to bolstering the post-pandemic economy. The plan President Biden outlined includes roughly $2 trillion in spending over eight years and would raise the corporate tax rate to 28% to fund it. Speaking at a union hall in Pittsburgh, the President called it a vision to create “the strongest, most resilient, innovative economy in the world” — and millions of “good-paying jobs” along the way. The White House said the tax hike, combined with measures designed to stop offshoring of profits, would fund the infrastructure plan within 15 years.

    The announcement kicks off President Joe Biden’s second major initiative after the passage of a $1.9 trillion Coronavirus relief plan earlier this month. In the new move, the administration aims to approve a first proposal designed to create jobs, revamp US infrastructure, and fight climate change before it turns toward a second plan to improve education and expand paid leave and health-care coverage. President Biden said he will unveil the second part of his recovery package “in a few weeks.” “These are investments we have to make,” Biden said of revamping US infrastructure. “We can afford to make them. To put it another way, we can’t afford not to.”

    While Democrats narrowly control both chambers of Congress (with ultra-conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia being the deciding vote), the party faces challenges in passing the infrastructure plan. The Republican Party broadly supports efforts to rebuild roads, bridges, and airports and expand broadband access, but Republicans oppose tax hikes as part of the process. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that he is “not likely” to support the proposal because of the tax increases. McConnell’s Democratic counterpart, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, touted the bill as a means to create jobs while promoting clean energy and transportation. In a statement issued on March 31, he said, “I look forward to working with President Biden to pass a big, bold plan that will drive America forward for decades to come.” 

    President Joe Biden responded to criticism of proposed tax hikes, saying he would not increase the burden on anyone making less than $400,000 per year. He said he did not aim to punish the wealthy. “This is not to target those who’ve made it. Not to seek retribution,” President Biden said. “This is about opening opportunities for everybody else.” Among the administration’s goals, it aims to revamp 20,000 miles of roads and highways and repair 10,000 bridges. The proposal calls to build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2030 and replace 50,000 diesel public transit vehicles. The administration hopes to build or rehabilitate 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income Americans and replace all lead pipes in drinking-water systems. The plan also aims to deliver universal, affordable broadband service. 

    President Joe Biden plans to fund the spending by raising the corporate tax rate to 28%. Republicans slashed the tax to 21% from 35% as part of their 2017 tax law. President Biden also wants to boost the global minimum tax for multinational corporations and ensure they pay at least 21% in taxes in any country. The White House aims to discourage firms from listing tax havens as their address and writing off expenses related to offshoring, among other reforms. Biden hopes the package will create manufacturing jobs and rescue failing American infrastructure as the country tries to emerge from the shadow of the Coronavirus pandemic. He and congressional Democrats also plan to combat climate change and start a transition to cleaner energy sources.

    President Joe Biden has said he hopes to win Republican support for an infrastructure bill. If Democrats cannot get 10 Republican senators on board, they will have to pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would not require any Republicans to back the plan in a chamber split 50-50 by party. Biden said he would hear out GOP ideas on infrastructure. “We’ll have a good-faith negotiation with any Republican who wants to help get this done,” Biden said on March 31. “But we have to get it done.”

  • Amid Surge In Border Crossings, Biden Administration Reinstitutes Program To Help Migrant Minors Reunite With Families

    Amid Surge In Border Crossings, Biden Administration Reinstitutes Program To Help Migrant Minors Reunite With Families

    President Joe Biden moved to help children fleeing violence in Central America on March 10 even as he grappled with a surge of migrants at the US southern border that is taxing resources and exposing him to bipartisan criticism. White House border coordinator Roberta Jacobson told reporters the Biden administration is restarting the Central American Minors (CAM) program for children, which between 2014 and 2017 allowed children fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to apply in their home countries to settle in the US. Then-President Donald Trump ended the program in 2017. It had allowed children under 21 years old with parents lawfully living in the US to apply for a refugee resettlement interview as a way to avoid making the dangerous journey by themselves to the US.

    The move was the latest step taken by President Joe Biden as he tries to create a more humane situation along the border with Mexico. Mixed messaging by the Biden Administration, however, is leading to criticism from Republicans that he is encouraging migrants to make the dangerous journey to try to reach sanctuary in the US. “The Biden border crisis is real and is only going to get worse,” Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas said at a news conference held by House Republicans on March 10. At the same time, Democrats complain that President Biden is not moving fast enough to release children from Border Patrol custody.

    US officials are urging people not to try to cross the border, warning they will be sent back. President Joe Biden has not reversed a Trump-era public health rule that allows border agents to expel most border crossers quickly but is not applying the policy to unaccompanied minors. “The border is not open,” said Roberta Jacobson, switching to Spanish on several occasions during a White House briefing to stress the point. The phrase was repeated in a call with reporters on March 10 by Troy Miller, the senior official performing duties as the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection. Miller said agents on the U.S.-Mexico border encountered 100,441 migrants attempting to enter the country illegally in February, confirming the highest monthly total since a major border surge in mid-2019. Miller said more than 19,000 of those encounters were families, close to 9,500 were unaccompanied minors, and the remainder adults. Border officials said they also count repeat crossers in their numbers.

    White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said members of President Joe Biden’s immigration team briefed him on a border visit they had and that they discussed how to speed up the processing of migrant children. A State Department representative said in a statement that the administration is set to resume processing CAM applications, starting with children whose cases were suspended under Trump and then opening up to new applicants. The department plans to reach out to parents starting as soon as March 15, the representative said. To date, the program has reunified almost 5,000 children with their parents.

  • Congress Gives Final Approval Of Coronavirus Relief Bill

    Congress Gives Final Approval Of Coronavirus Relief Bill

    The US House of Representatives gave final approval on March 10 to one of the most significant economic stimulus measures in American history, a sweeping $1.9 trillion Coronavirus relief bill that gives President Joe Biden his first significant victory in office. The measure provides $400 billion for $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, $350 billion in aid to state and local governments, an expansion of the child tax credit, and increased funding for vaccine distribution. Forecasters expect it to supercharge the US economic recovery. “Help is here,” President Biden wrote in a tweet after the vote. The White House said he plans to sign the bill on March 12.

    Approval by a 220-211 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber came with zero Republican support after weeks of partisan debate and wrangling in Congress. Democrats described the legislation as a critical response to a pandemic that has killed more than 500,000 people and thrown millions out of work. “This is a historic day. It is the beginning of the end of the great COVID depression,” Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement that passage of the legislation was a pivotal day for the US economy and would speed its recovery. But Republicans said the measure was too costly and was packed with wasteful progressive priorities. They said the worst phase of the largest public health crisis in a century has largely passed and the economy is headed toward a rebound.“It’s the wrong plan at the wrong time for so many wrong reasons,” Republican Representative Jason Smith said.

    Despite unanimous Republican opposition to the measure, Democrats predicted that Republicans would tout the benefits of the bill to constituents, despite their lock-step opposition in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republican Senator Roger Wicker wrote on Twitter: “This funding will ensure small businesses can survive the pandemic by helping to adapt their operations and keep their employees on the payroll.” Democrats were eager to get the final bill to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature before current enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire.

    Although many Republicans supported Coronavirus relief under former President Donald Trump’s administration, no Republican lawmakers voted for the bill in the House or Senate. But the bill is popular with the public. A Reuters/Ipsos national opinion poll, conducted March 8-9, showed that 70% of Americans support the plan, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans. Among Republicans, five out of ten say they support the plan, while nine out of ten Democrats supported it. The legislation could have high stakes for both parties. If it succeeds in giving the economy a major boost, the plan could improve Democrats’ political fortunes as they attempt to hold their slim majorities in Congress in the 2022 midterm elections. Only one House Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voted against the package, saying its high borrowing costs endangered the recovery.

    The Coronavirus relief bill passed by the Senate in a marathon weekend session removed a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage increase by 2025; tightened the eligibility for $1,400 direct payments, capping them at those earning below $80,000, cut the unemployment insurance payment to $300 per week from the House’s $400 and targeted some of the state and local government aid to smaller communities. States that voted for Donald Trump in the November election are due to get a larger amount of education and child-care aid per resident than those that backed Joe Biden, according to estimates from two congressional committees. Residents of Republican-leaning states, which tend to have lower household incomes, also are likely to get larger stimulus checks and tax breaks as well, according to an independent research group. The massive spending push is seen as a major driver, coupled with a quickening pace of Coronavirus vaccinations and a slowing infection rate, in a brightening outlook for the economy. Morgan Stanley this week pegged 2021 economic output growth at 8.1%. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicted US growth would top 6% this year, up from an estimate of around 3% three months ago.

    With the Coronavirus relief bill now completed, attention turns to President Joe Biden’s next round of major legislation, including massive infrastructure investments, immigration reforms, and climate change initiatives. While conservatives bridled at the $1.9 trillion cost of the Coronavirus relief bill, it could be possible to get Republican buy-in on immigration and climate change legislation in the Senate, said Paul Sracic, a political science professor at Youngstown State University. But getting enough Republican support for Democratic initiatives to propel them to passage will be a challenge and “anything that gets 60 votes in the Senate is likely to be a problem with progressive Democrats in the House,” Sracic added.

  • Dozens of Former Bush Administration Officials Leave Republican Party, Calling It A “Trump Cult

    Dozens of Former Bush Administration Officials Leave Republican Party, Calling It A “Trump Cult

    Dozens of Republicans who served in former President George W. Bush’s administration are leaving the Republican Party, dismayed by a failure of many elected Republicans to disown former President Donald Trump after his false claims of election fraud sparked a deadly storming of the US Capitol last month. These officials, some who served in the highest echelons of the Bush administration, said they had hoped that a Trump defeat would lead party leaders to move on from the former president and denounce his baseless claims that the November presidential election was stolen. But with most Republican lawmakers sticking to Trump, these officials say they no longer recognize the party they served. Some have ended their membership, others are letting it lapse while a few are newly registered as independents, according to a dozen former Bush officials who spoke with Reuters.

    “The Republican Party as I knew it no longer exists. I’d call it the cult of Trump,” said Jimmy Gurulé, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Bush administration. Kristopher Purcell, who worked in the Bush White House’s communications office for six years, said roughly 60 to 70 former Bush officials have decided to leave the party or are cutting ties with it, from conversations he has been having. “The number is growing every day,” Purcell said.

    Their defection from the Republican Party after a lifetime of service for many is another clear sign of how a growing intraparty conflict over former President Trump and his legacy is fracturing it. The party is currently caught between disaffected moderate Republicans and independents disgusted by the hold Trump still has over elected officials and Trump’s fervently loyal base. Without the enthusiastic support of both groups, the party will struggle to win national elections, according to polling, Republican officials and strategists. “We’re having a little bit of a spat right now. But we are going to come together. We have to,” Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said, predicting the party will unite against the agenda of President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

    More than half of the Republicans in Congress, eight senators and 139 House representatives, voted to block certification of the election just hours after the Capitol siege. Most Republican Senators have also indicated they would not support the impeachment of former President Donald Trump, making it almost certain that the former president will not be convicted in his Senate trial. Trump was impeached on January 13 by the Democratic-led House of Representatives on charges of “incitement of insurrection,” the only president to be impeached twice. The unwillingness by party leaders to disavow Trump was the final straw for some former Republican officials. “If it continues to be the party of Trump, many of us are not going back,” Rosario Marin, a former Treasurer of the US under Bush, told Reuters. “Unless the Senate convicts him, and rids themselves of the Trump cancer, many of us will not be going back to vote for Republican leaders.”

  • CDC Implements Sweeping Order Mandating Masks On Public Transportation AS Coronavirus Cases Surge

    CDC Implements Sweeping Order Mandating Masks On Public Transportation AS Coronavirus Cases Surge

    The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a sweeping order late on January 28 requiring the use of face masks on nearly all forms of public transportation as of February 1 as the country continues to report thousands of daily Coronavirus deaths. The order, which takes effect at 11:59 p.m. EST on February 1, requires face masks to be worn by all travelers on airplanes, ships, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares and at transportation hubs like airports, bus or ferry terminals, train and subway stations and seaports. President Joe Biden on January 21 ordered government agencies to “immediately take action” to require masks in airports and on commercial aircraft, trains and public maritime vessels, including ferries, intercity bus services and all public transportation. Under former President Donald Trump, a CDC push to mandate masks in transit was blocked, and the agency instead only issued strong recommendations for mask use. President Trump also rejected efforts by Congress to mandate mask use. “Requiring masks on our transportation systems will protect Americans and provide confidence that we can once again travel safely even during this pandemic,” said the 11-page order signed by Marty Cetron, director for CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.

    While airlines and most transit modes already require masks, the CDC order will make not wearing a mask a violation of federal law that could make it easier for flight attendants and others to enforce. A US airline group told President Joe Biden this month that carriers had had to bar “thousands of passengers” from future flights for failing to comply with airline mask policies. The CDC said people violating the order could potentially face criminal penalties but suggested civil penalties would be more likely if needed. The order will be enforced by the Transportation Security Administration and federal, state and local agencies.

    The order says passengers must wear a mask in transit except for brief periods, such as to eat, drink or take medication. Masks may be either manufactured or homemade. The only exceptions are for travelers younger than two and for those with certain medical conditions. People in private cars and solo commercial truck drivers do not have to wear masks. US airlines raised concerns this week about passenger requests to opt-out of mask-wearing on health grounds. The CDC order says airlines and other transit modes may require medical documentation and consultation by a medical specialist and require a negative Coronavirus test from a passenger to board a plane or a different mode of transportation. The CDC said this week it was “actively looking” at requiring negative Coronavirus tests for domestic air travel after mandating it for nearly all international travel effective January 26. The CDC order says airlines and other operators must “at the earliest safe opportunity, disembark any person who refuses to comply.”

  • President Joe Biden Begins Rollback Of Hardline Trump-Era Immigration Policies

    President Joe Biden Begins Rollback Of Hardline Trump-Era Immigration Policies

    US President Joe Biden on February 2 ordered a review of asylum processing at the US-Mexico border and the immigration system as he seeks to undo some of former President Donald Trump’s hardline policies. President Biden also created a task force to reunite migrant families who were separated at the border by Trump’s 2018 “zero tolerance” strategy. “We are going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration that literally, not figuratively, ripped children from the arms of their families,” Biden said, as he signed the three immigration-related executive orders at the White House. The executive orders called for a dizzying array of reviews and reports that could trigger policy changes in the weeks and months ahead, but provide limited immediate relief to immigrants barred by Trump-era rules.


    Immigration advocates have urged the new Democratic administration to quickly undo Trump’s policies but President Joe Biden’s aides say they need time to unravel the many layers of immigration restrictions and to put in place more migrant-friendly systems. “It’s not going to happen overnight,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on February 2. The cautious strategy reflects the tightrope President Biden is walking to reverse hardline Trump policies while simultaneously trying to prevent a surge in illegal immigration. Biden opponents could also derail or slow down his agenda with lawsuits if his administration moves too quickly and fails to follow proper procedures.

    In a sign of the wary approach, President Joe Biden’s executive orders on February 2 did not repeal an order known as “Title 42,” which was issued under President Donald Trump to stop the spread of the Coronavirus and allows US authorities to expel almost all people caught crossing the border illegally. He did, however, mandate a review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a Trump program that ordered 65,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US Court hearings. The Biden administration has stopped adding people to the program but has not yet outlined how it will process the claims of those already in it. Chad Wolf, former acting Department of Homeland Security secretary under Trump, said in an interview that halting the MPP program was a mistake because it had been an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. “If you do have a surge (of migrants), you’re taking one of your tools off the table,” he said in reference to the program.

    The tone of President Joe Biden’s orders differed dramatically from former President Donald Trump’s incendiary immigration rhetoric depicting asylum seekers as a security threat or an economic drain on the US. “Securing our borders does not require us to ignore the humanity of those who seek to cross them,” reads the order dealing with asylum. But opposition from Republicans continues and lawsuits by conservative groups could potentially slow down Biden’s agenda. A federal judge last week temporarily blocked one of his first immigration moves, a 100-day pause on many deportations, after the Republican-led state of Texas sought an injunction.

    Former President Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 while making border security a major theme of his campaign. If President Joe Biden fails to prevent surges in illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border, he could give ammunition to Republicans in the 2022 congressional elections, said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute. “This is the thing that rallied Donald Trump supporters,” she said. President Biden, on the other hand, pledged in his 2020 election campaign to move quickly to reunite parents and children separated at the southern border and the task force set up is aimed at fulfilling that promise. However, it will face a daunting challenge in trying to track down the parents of more than 600 children who remain separated, according to a January court filing in a related case. The children are living with relatives or in foster care, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the litigation told Reuters. The task force will be led by Alejandro Mayorkas, one of the senior officials said on February 1. The US Senate on February 1 confirmed Mayorkas as the new head of the Department of Homeland Security, the first Latino and immigrant to hold that position.

    President Joe Biden’s executive orders also called for a review of former President Donald Trump’s so-called “public charge” rule, which makes it harder for poorer immigrants to obtain permanent residency in the US. The review is expected to start the process to rescind it, according to two people familiar with the plan. President Biden’s asylum-focused order called on US agencies to address drivers of migration in Central America, expand legal pathways to the US and consider ending Trump-era asylum pacts with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. After the order, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a written statement the US intended to suspend and terminate the agreements, which sought to allow asylum seekers from other countries to be sent to those nations.

  • Nancy Pelosi Re-elected House Speaker Despite Democratic Congressional Losses

    Nancy Pelosi Re-elected House Speaker Despite Democratic Congressional Losses

    Nancy Pelosi has been reelected speaker of the House by her caucus for Congress’s next session, marking her fourth term with the gavel. The caucus vote was conducted virtually, but a voice vote approved Pelosi. Pelosi did not face any challenge for her post, but she will also need to secure a simple majority, 218 Democratic votes, by the full House of Representatives in January to be sworn in again as House Speaker. She indicated after the vote that the upcoming term could be her last. In 2019, several Democrats voted for someone other than her on the floor, but with a slimmer margin in the majority after the 2020 election, she cannot afford to lose more than a handful of votes. In remarks to her colleagues after the vote on November 18, Pelosi made a pitch for unity. “As we go forward with liberty and justice for all, we must do so listening to the American people, listening to each other with respect, acting to unify, Joe Biden is a unifier, so that will make it easier for us, remembering the guidance of our Founders: E pluribus unum, from many, one,” she said.

    House Democrats are holding leadership elections as they grapple with unexpected losses and the prospects for a Congress that remains divided. The Republican party appears heavily favored to maintain control of the Senate. Additionally, House Republicans picked up at least eight seats, and several races are too close to call. Other top Democratic leaders, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, also ran unopposed and were approved by the caucus to serve in those roles next year. House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not face any competition for his post as the fifth-ranking leader and was reelected as well. For the fourth-ranking position, assistant speaker, Massachusetts Congresswoman Katherine Clark defeated Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island. Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL), who ran the House Democrats’ campaign arm, said she would not run for another term. Congressmen Tony Cardenas of California and Sean Patrick Maloney of New York are vying for the position, which will be decided later this month.

    Before the election, top leaders and political analysts had forecast that Democrats would expand their majority, potentially picking up as many as 15 seats. But the party’s disappointing results sparked a blame game that has increased tensions about policy priorities going forward. Moderates who were ousted or won very narrowly say progressives who pressed to “defund the police” or advocated for sweeping policies like the Green New Deal gave Republican opponents an opening by taking the party off-message when voters were concerned about the economy or the coronavirus. Progressives, on the other hand, have argued their message drove turnout among young voters and people of color. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has downplayed the Republican gains, pointing out that Democrats flipped 40 seats in the 2018 midterms, a figure that meant they had more incumbents to protect this year. She also said Democrats deserve credit for boosting turnout in crucial swing states, helping the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket ultimately win in those places. The speaker circulated a letter on November 16 urging unity among Democrats, saying that “President-elect Biden’s message and mandate as a unifier have given the American people hope.”

    When Nancy Pelosi was reelected in 2018, she agreed to limit herself to two terms as speaker, but the caucus never formally adopted rules to lock in the term limit for the speaker or other top leadership positions. After winning support from her colleagues, Pelosi suggested on November 18 that she would stick by that pledge. She noted that the caucus did not choose to enact term limits for leaders or committee chairs but told reporters, “Whether it passes or not, I will abide by those limits that are there.” She has moved to expand the slots on the leadership ladder to respond to sentiment inside the caucus that she held on too tightly to power and had not given more opportunities for newer members to gain valuable experience.

    Nancy Pelosi will need to manage various ideological factions inside her caucus, which already have different priorities for next year, with a Democrat in the White House. Progressive hopes for broad climate change legislation and significant expansion for health care coverage will face challenges. The California Democrat has negotiated those differences before and brushed off questions last week from a reporter who pressed whether she would need to modify her legislative approach. “Not at all,” Pelosi insisted. She added that “our leverage and our power is greatly enhanced by having a Democratic president in the White House, especially Joe Biden.”

  • Trump Administration Sets Record Low Limit For New US Refugees

    Trump Administration Sets Record Low Limit For New US Refugees

    The Trump Administration has slashed the number of refugees it will allow to resettle in the US in the coming year, capping the number at 15,000, a record low in the country’s refugee program’s history. President Donald Trump finalized his plan in a memo overnight and said the ceiling for fiscal 2021, which started this month, includes 6,000 unused placements from last year “that might have been used if not for the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Republican president, seeking re-election on November 3, has taken a hard line toward legal and illegal immigration, including sharply curbing refugee admissions every year since taking office in 2017.

    In his statement, President Donald Trump said any new refugees this year should be placed by the US State Department in parts of the country open to hosting them. “Newly admitted refugees should be placed, to the maximum extent possible, in States and localities that have clearly expressed their willingness to receive refugees” and “resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force,” Trump said. Critics say that President Trump has abandoned a longstanding US role as a safe haven for persecuted people and that cutting refugee admissions undermines other foreign policy goals. Trump’s Democratic rival and former Vice President Joe Biden has pledged to raise refugee admissions to 125,000 a year if he defeats Trump, although advocates have said the program could take years to recover.

    Tens of thousands of refugees have applications in the pipeline for the US, even as increased vetting by the Trump administration and the novel coronavirus have slowed arrivals for the 2020 fiscal year, which had an 18,000 quota. President Donald Trump’s 2021 plan allocates 5,000 slots for refugees facing religious persecution, 4,000 for refugees from Iraq who helped the US, and 1,000 for refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, leaving 5,000 for others. It bans refugees from Somalia, Syria, and Yemen except in “special humanitarian concerns,” citing the risk of terrorism.

  • Coronavirus Relief Negotiations Stall As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Comes Out Against Proposed Relief Bill

    Coronavirus Relief Negotiations Stall As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Comes Out Against Proposed Relief Bill

    Congressional negotiations on a substantial Coronavirus relief bill took a modest step forward on October 20, though time is running out and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Donald Trump’s most powerful Senate ally, is pressing the White House against going forward. Senator McConnell on October 20 told fellow Republicans that he has warned the Trump administration not to divide Republicans by sealing a lopsided $2 trillion relief deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the election — even as he publicly said he would slate any such agreement for a vote. Pelosi’s office said talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on October 19 and 20 were productive. However, other veteran lawmakers said there is still too much work to do and not enough time to do it to enact a relief bill by Election Day.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made his remarks during a private lunch with fellow Republicans, three people familiar with them said, requesting anonymity because the session was private. The Kentucky Republican appears worried that an agreement between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin would drive a wedge between Republicans, forcing them to choose whether to support a Pelosi-blessed deal with President Donald Trump that would violate conservative positions they’ve stuck with for months. Many Republicans say they cannot vote for another Pelosi-brokered agreement. McConnell said if such a bill passed the Democratic-controlled House with Trump’s blessing, “we would put it on the floor of the Senate.” Those public remarks came after the private session with fellow Republicans.

    Despite his previous dismissal of further Coronavirus relief efforts, President Donald Trump is hoping for an agreement before the election, eager to announce another round of $1,200 direct payments going out under his name, but it is increasingly evident that time has pretty much run out. If he wins, President Trump is promising relief, but if he loses, as polls indicate, it is unclear that his enthusiasm for delivering Coronavirus aid will be as strong. Recent history suggests that any post-election lame-duck session in the event of a Trump loss would not produce much. “It’s not a question of ‘íf.’ It’s a question of ‘when.’” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota. “We have to do more. We know that.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she and Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin remained at odds over refundable tax credits for the working poor and families with children, the size of a Democratic-sought aid package for state and local governments, and a liability shield for businesses and other organizations against lawsuits over their Coroanvirus preparations. Pelosi’s spokesman, Drew Hammill, wrote on Twitter that she and Mnuchin then spoke for 45 minutes and found “more clarity and common ground” and that “both sides are serious about finding a compromise.” The Pelosi-Mnuchin talks also involve pandemic jobless aid, the second round of $1,200 direct payments, and money for schools, testing, and vaccines.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said October 20 was a deadline day, but clarified in an interview with Bloomberg News that the aim is to spur the two sides to exchange their best proposals on a host of unresolved issues, not to close out all of their disagreements or have final legislative language at hand. “Let’s see where we are,” Pelosi said. “We all want to get an agreement.” Time is running out, and Pelosi has instructed her committee chairs to try to iron out details, but the Senate Republican negotiators do not appear as eager as she is. “It’s getting to be toward the last minute and the clock keeps ticking away,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL), said. “I’m not optimistic about doing anything.” Aides familiar with the talks say the price tag for a potential Pelosi-Mnuchin deal is inching close to $2 trillion. Senate Republicans are recoiling at both the size of the measure and Pelosi’s demands, even as President Donald Trump is beating the drums for an agreement.“I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats. Not every Republican agrees,” President Donald Trump said in a Fox News interview. “But they will.”

  • President Donald Trump Announces Economic Empowerment Plan For African Americans

    President Donald Trump Announces Economic Empowerment Plan For African Americans

    President Donald Trump unveiled a plan to win over the African American vote on September 25, less than two months before Election Day, primarily expanding upon the existing economic-related initiatives the President established in his first term. The proposals include prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan and Antifa as terrorist organizations, making Juneteenth a federal holiday, and bolstering Black economic prosperity. During an Atlanta event announcing what was deemed the Black Economic Empowerment “Platinum Plan,” Trump sought to draw contrasts between his plan for the African American community and Joe Biden’s proposals, arguing that the former vice president “inflicted” damage on the Black community over the last 47 years he’s spent working in Washington. Trump garnered just 8% of the African American electorate in 2016, and an average of recent 2020 polls shows Biden leading Trump with African American voters by an 83% to 8%, or 75-point, margin. “They only care about power for themselves, whatever that means. My opponent is offering Black Americans nothing but the same old, tired, empty slogans,” President Donald Trump argued.

    Like many other Republican politicians since the 1960s, President Donald Trump has presented different racial messages when playing to diverse audiences. He defended Confederate symbols. He has called the Black Lives Matter movement a “symbol of hate,” days after retweeting and then deleting a video that included a Florida supporter shouting “White power.” The White House has maintained that Trump did not hear the supporter say the phrase. But on September 25, the President spoke about the pillars of the plan in broad terms, saying, that among other proposals, he would be building up “peaceful” urban neighborhoods with the “highest standards” of policing, bringing fairness to the justice system, expanding school choice, increasing African American home ownership and creating a “national clemency project to right wrongful prosecutions and to pardon individuals who have reformed their (lives).” 

    The proposal borrows efforts from proposals by other Republicans, such as South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who played a vital role in the establishment of opportunity zones and remains the sole African American Republican in the Senate. For example, President Donald Trump’s plan proposes making lynching a national hate crime. In 2019, Scott co-sponsored legislation to make lynching a hate crime alongside none other than California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, who is now the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. The legislation passed in the Senate but was never passed by the House. As demonstrations rocked the country this summer protesting against police brutality and racism following the death of George Floyd, President Trump sought to console African Americans who have died as a result of police violence. However, he has consistently delivered a law and order message, calling demonstrators “thugs” and “anarchists” and rebuking what he said was protesters’ “mob rule.” A Monmouth University poll released earlier this month found that 82% of Black respondents said Trump’s handling of the protests made the current situation worse.

    President Donald Trump’s proposed “Platinum Plan” also proposes recognizing Juneteenth, the widely observed holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States, as a federal holiday. The Trump campaign scheduled a rally on Juneteenth in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of a 1921 massacre of hundreds of African Americans during racial unrest in the historic section of the city known as “Black Wall Street.” President Trump said before the rally that it was not scheduled on Juneteenth “on purpose,” but after the event, which his campaign rescheduled in order to avoid further criticism, he sought credit for popularizing the holiday. Trump told The Wall Street Journal that “nobody had ever heard of” the holiday before he brought it up. “I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said. In June, several senators, including Tim Scott and other Republicans, co-sponsored legislation to make Juneteenth a national holiday.

    Overall, President Donald Trump’s recently-proposed “platinum plan” represents significant outreach on the part of a Republican Presidential candidate to make inroads with African American voters. Despite his recent outreach to African American voters, President Trump faces an uphill battle at gaining African American support. For example, a January 2020 Washington Post poll found that than 8 in 10 African Americans believe Trump is racist and has contributed to making racism a bigger problem in the US. A majority of the poll’s respondents, 58%, said Trump’s actions as president are “very” bad for African Americans in the nation. Trump has roundly denied accusations of racism. As President, he has faced blistering criticism over his public and private statements, like in 2017, when he blamed “both sides” after violence sparked by a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Trump also privately referred to some African nations as “s***hole countries” and criticized the protests led overwhelmingly by black NFL players. Last year, the US House of Representatives voted to censure the President’s comments when he told four congresswomen of color to “go back” to where they came from.

  • Joe Biden Condemns President Trump’s, Senate Republicans, Push To Quickly Confirm Supreme Court Justice Before Presidential Election

    Joe Biden Condemns President Trump’s, Senate Republicans, Push To Quickly Confirm Supreme Court Justice Before Presidential Election

    Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden urged Senate Republicans on September 21 not to vote on any candidate nominated to the US Supreme Court as the November election nears, calling President Donald Trump’s plan an “exercise of raw political power.” Biden said that if he wins the Presidential election, he should have the chance to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. The former Vice President rejected the idea of releasing the names of potential nominees, saying that doing so, as President Trump did, could improperly influence those candidates’ decisions in their current court roles as well as subject them to “unrelenting political attacks.” He reiterated his pledge to nominate an African-American woman to the court, which would be a historic first, if he has the opportunity.

    Earlier on September 21, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she did not support Trump’s plan to move fast on filling the seat, becoming the second of the 53 Republicans in the 100-seat chamber to object publicly following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. On September 20, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the presidential election winner should pick the nominee. She is locked in a tight re-election battle and is currently polling behind her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon. On the other hand, Lisa Murkowski’s Senate term does not end until 2022, though she is expected to face a tough primary election fight against 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, another moderate Republican, said in a statement he did not object to a vote, adding: “No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year.”

    Democrats noted that in 2016 Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on a Democratic appointee on the grounds that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer did not rule out that his party might move in the future to end the filibuster, a procedural tactic under which the support of 60 members is required to move to a vote on legislation if the Republicans went ahead with the nomination. “We first have to win the majority. … But if we win the majority, everything is on the table,” he said. A majority of Americans, some 62% including many Republicans, told a Reuters/Ipsos poll that they thought the winner of the November election should get to nominate a justice to fill the vacancy. Justice Antonin Scalia, a close friend of Ginsburg’s, died in February 2016, but McConnell blocked a vote on Democratic President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death upended the November election campaign, energizing both President Donald Trump’s conservative base, eager to see the court overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, and presenting new complications in the battle for control of the US Senate. “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” President Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, where supporters chanted: “Fill that seat.” Trump and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have time to schedule a vote. While elections are on November 3, a new Congress will not be sworn in until January 3, with the winner of the presidential contest inaugurated on January 20.

    Republican Senator John Barrasso, the second-highest-ranking Senate Republican and a strong ally of President Donald Trump on nearly every policy issue brushed off Democratic complaints in a September 22 interview. “Let’s be very clear – if the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court,” Barrasso said. Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom President Trump defeated in the 2016 election, called that view “indefensible.” “What’s happening in our country is incredibly dangerous,” said Clinton, whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, nominated Ginsburg to the court in 1993. “Our institutions are being basically undermined by the lust for power.”

    President Donald Trump has already appointed two justices: Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed after a heated confirmation process in which he angrily denied accusations by a California university professor, Christine Blasey Ford, that he had sexually assaulted her in 1982 when the two were high school students in Maryland. On the other hand, Neil Gorsuch was somewhat easily confirmed in early 2017 but has ruled against President Trump at times on legal issues.

  • Justice Department Threatens To Cut Funding To Cities Allowing “Anarchy”

    Justice Department Threatens To Cut Funding To Cities Allowing “Anarchy”

    The US Justice Department on September 21 threatened to revoke federal funding for New York City, Seattle, and Portland, saying the three cities were allowing Anarchy and violence on their streets. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. In a joint statement, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, and Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan accused the Trump administration of playing politics and said withholding federal funds would be illegal. “This is thoroughly political and unconstitutional. The president is playing cheap political games with congressionally directed funds. Our cities are bringing communities together; our cities are pushing forward after fighting back a pandemic and facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, all despite recklessness and partisanship from the White House,” they said.

    Many cities across the US have experienced unrest since the May 25 death of George Floyd. In some cases, the protests have escalated into some forms of violence and looting. The federal government has mounted a campaign to disperse the violence, including by sending federal agents into Portland and Seattle and encouraging federal prosecutors to bring charges. Last week, the Justice Department urged federal prosecutors to consider sedition charges against protesters who have burned buildings and engaged in other violent activity.

    The September 22 threat by Attorney General William Barr to revoke federal funds was the government’s latest escalation in its quest to curb the protests. It comes after President Donald Trump earlier this month issued a memo laying out criteria to consider when reviewing funding for states and cities that are “permitting anarchy, violence, and destruction in American cities.” The criteria include things such as whether a city forbids the police from intervening or if it defunds its police force. In all three cities, the Justice Department said, the leadership has rejected efforts to allow federal law enforcement officials to intervene and restore order, among other things. In a press briefing earlier on September 21, New York City Corporation Counsel Jim Johnson promised a court battle if the Trump administration proceeds to cut off the funds. “The president does not have the authority to change the will of Congress,” he said. “The designation of ‘anarchy’ doesn’t even pass the common sense test. If need be we can send, in addition to our legal filings, a dictionary. Because what we have in New York is not anarchy.”

  • In Major Victory For Coronavirus Lockdown Opponents, Federal Judge Rules Unconstitutional Lockdown Measures Put In Place In Pennsylvania

    In Major Victory For Coronavirus Lockdown Opponents, Federal Judge Rules Unconstitutional Lockdown Measures Put In Place In Pennsylvania

    On September 14, a federal judge ruled as unconstitutional some of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s orders to control the Coronavirus outbreak, including limits on crowd sizes, requirements that people stay home, and non-essential businesses close down. Ruling on a lawsuit brought by business owners and Republican politicians, District Judge William Stickman IV, a Trump appointee, said the restrictions were executed with good intentions but were arbitrary and violated individual rights. While some of the limits have been lifted since the lawsuit was filed in May, the Democratic governor has maintained some restrictions on gatherings and on bars and restaurants. Previous legal challenges to some of the governor’s pandemic-related restrictions had been unsuccessful.

    There have been hundreds of cases filed in federal and state courts across the US, challenging various local Coronavirus restrictions, with some going all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in July declined to lift a 50-person limit on religious services adopted by Nevada’s Democratic governor in response to the pandemic, and in May it rejected challenges to Coronavirus curbs on religious services in California and Illinois. Perhaps one of the most emblematic cases of the clash over pandemic curbs took place in Wisconsin in May, when some residents flocked to bars to celebrate a ruling by the state’s top court that struck down a statewide stay-at-home order. Several lawsuits challenging Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker orders are working their way through state courts. The lawsuits accuse Pritzker, a Democrat, of overstepping his authority.

    Despite a recent return to school for many students and teachers, Coronavirus cases in the US have dropped sharply in recent weeks, and both deaths and hospitalizations are trending lower at a slower pace. According to a Reuters analysis, the number of new cases fell 15% last week and deaths fell for a fourth week in a row. On average, the US reported 35,000 new cases each day in the week ended September 13, marking the eighth straight week of declines from a peak in July of about 75,000 new cases a day. Coronavirus death rates have declined somewhat as well, with approximately 1,200 people dying per day, down from a peak of 3,000 per day at the end of March.

  • US Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of President Trump’s Plan To Phase Out Immigrant Humanitarian Protections

    US Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of President Trump’s Plan To Phase Out Immigrant Humanitarian Protections

    A US Appeals Court on September 14 sided with President Donald Trump over his administration’s decision to end humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the US for decades. In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of three judges in the California-based 9thCircuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had blocked President Trump’s move to phase out so-called Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The ruling is expected to affect the status of people from Honduras and Nepal, who filed a separate lawsuit that was suspended last year pending the outcome of the broader case. The appeals court ruling means that those immigrants will be required to find another way to remain in the US legally or depart after a wind-down period at least until early 2021. Judge Consuelo Callahan, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote in a 54-page opinion that the Trump administration decisions to phase out the protections were not reviewable and, therefore, should not have been blocked. Judge Callahan also rejected a claim by plaintiffs that President Trump’s past criticism of non-white, non-European immigrants influenced the TPS decisions. “While we do not condone the offensive and disparaging nature of the president’s remarks, we find it instructive that these statements occurred primarily in contexts removed from and unrelated to TPS policy or decisions,” she wrote.

    An attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which represents plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said that they planned to seek another “en banc” review of the matter by 11 of the appeals court’s judges. The attorney, Ahilan Arulanantham, called the decision “deeply flawed” during a call with reporters, and said the case eventually could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, depending on the outcome of the request for a broader appeals court review. The termination of TPS for Haitians is also subject to separate litigation in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court heard arguments in that case in June but has not yet ruled.

    President Donald Trump has made his tough immigration stance a hallmark of his presidency and the 2020 re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Joe Biden. TPS allows foreigners whose home countries experience a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other extraordinary events to remain in the US and apply for work permits. The status must be renewed periodically by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who can extend it for six- to 18-month intervals. The Trump administration has argued that most countries in the program have recovered from the related disasters or conflicts, while the status has been renewed for years beyond its need.

    The Biden campaign has called the TPS decisions “politically motivated” and said that Joe Biden would protect enrollees from being returned to unsafe countries. Immigrants from El Salvador make up the largest group of TPS recipients, with an estimated 263,000 Salvadorans covered by the program. Still, a bilateral agreement will allow Salvadorans an additional year to stay in the US if the courts ultimately uphold Trump’s termination.

    https://youtu.be/sRZKpnbR8Pc
  • According To Whistleblower Complaint, US Intelligence Officials Told To Halt Russian 2020 Election Meddling Threat Assessments

    According To Whistleblower Complaint, US Intelligence Officials Told To Halt Russian 2020 Election Meddling Threat Assessments

    Acting US Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told a former top aide to stop providing assessments of the threat of Russian interference in the 2020 Election and to play down US white supremacist activity, according to a whistleblower complaint released on September 9. Brian Murphy, a former Homeland Security deputy undersecretary for intelligence, said in the complaint that Wolf told him in mid-May to begin reporting instead on political interference threats posed by China and Iran and to highlight the involvement of left-wing groups in domestic disorder. The instruction had come to Wolf from White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Murphy cited Wolf as saying. The White House and Department of Homeland Security denied the claims. “Ambassador O’Brien has never sought to dictate the Intelligence Community’s focus on threats to the integrity of our elections or on any other topic; any contrary suggestion by a disgruntled former employee, who he has never met or heard of, is false and defamatory,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Matthews. Homeland Security spokesman Alexei Woltornist added: “We flatly deny that there is any truth to the merits of Mr. Murphy’s claim.”

    US intelligence assessments that a Russian influence operation aimed at swaying the 2016 election in then-Republican nominee Donald Trump’s favor has overshadowed much of his presidency with a series of investigations being dismissed by Trump as a hoax. President Trump has expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government denied election meddling. US officials say Russia, China, and Iran have been working to influence the 2020 election between Trump and his Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Brian Murphy’s complaint said he declined to comply with Chad Wolf’s order because doing so “would put the country in substantial and specific danger.” On a second occasion in July, Murphy said Wolf told him an intelligence notification on Russian disinformation efforts should be “held” because “it made the president look bad.” Murphy said that he “objected, stating that it was improper to hold a vetted intelligence product for reasons for political embarrassment. In response, Wolf took steps to exclude Murphy from relevant future meetings on the subject,” according to the complaint.

    Brian Murphy filed the complaint on September 8 with the DHS Office of Inspector General. It was released on September by the intelligence committee of the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives. The complaint outlined other allegations of misconduct by Trump administration officials. Murphy said he was instructed by senior DHS officials to ensure that intelligence assessments he produced for former Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen supported administration claims that large numbers of suspected terrorists were entering the country from Mexico. Murphy said he declined to censor or manipulate the intelligence, believing this would be “improper administration of an intelligence program,” and that he warned one of the officials that doing so would constitute a felony. Officials said they would hold back one homeland threat assessment, according to Murphy, following expressions of “concerns” by Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, a top DHS official, about how it would “reflect upon President Trump.” Brian Murphy further said that two sections of the threat assessment particularly concerned the officials: one on white supremacist extremists and the other on Russian influence. Cuccinelli, Murphy said, told him to modify the section on white supremacists “in a manner that made the threat appear less severe, as well as include information on the prominence of violent ‘left-wing’ groups.” Murphy said he refused to make the requested changes, and advised Cuccinelli that doing so would amount to censorship of intelligence information.

    https://youtu.be/_zhz0PeK5Hs
  • President Donald Trump Threatens To Cut Federal Funds To “Lawless” Cities

    President Donald Trump Threatens To Cut Federal Funds To “Lawless” Cities

    President Donald Trump has ordered the Office of Budget Management to look into cutting federal funding to cities where he says “weak mayors” are allowing “anarchists” to “harm people, burn buildings, and ruin lives and businesses.” The official memo sent by President Trump to the OBM chief and Attorney General William Barr on September 2 accuses Democratic state leaders and mayors in cities including Portland, Seattle, and New York of allowing “persistent and outrageous acts of violence and destruction.” Trump has portrayed people attending the wave of protests across the nation, demanding social justice and fair treatment of minorities by law enforcement, as “thugs” and criminals as he campaigns for re-election on a tough “law and order” platform. On September 2, Trump said his administration would “do everything in its power to prevent weak mayors and lawless cities from taking Federal dollars while they let anarchists harm people, burn buildings, and ruin lives and businesses. We’re putting them on notice today.” “My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” he said in the memo to the OMB.

    The President has squared off with local and state leaders for months, even using federal security forces in American cities to quell protests, on some occasions against the wishes of those leaders. President Donald Trump insists the unrest that was sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota and fueled by a series of subsequent incidents of police violence involving African-American men is the result, not of systemic racism in the US, but of Democratic officials failing to execute their duties. Many Democratic leaders, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, argue that the President’s tough stance and refusal to acknowledge any systemic problem in law enforcement has only served to increase the angst on American streets.

    Leaders in President Donald Trump’s homestate of New York issued some of the sharpest rebukes over his threat to cut federal funding. “As much as Donald Trump wants New York City to drop dead, we will never let this stand. This has nothing to do with ‘law and order’. This is a racist campaign stunt out of the Oval Office to attack millions of people of color,” said Bill Neidhardt, spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, on Twitter. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was even more pointed, telling journalists that the President’s rhetoric would so enrage New Yorkers, that he “better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York.” “He can’t come back to New York. He can’t,” Cuomo said. “Forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York.” The governor said Trump was unwelcome as New York and its residents, “knows him for the joke that he is. The people who know him best, like him least.” The governor called Trump’s memo “an illegal stunt” in a Twitter post. “He is not a king. He cannot ‘defund’ NYC,” wrote Cuomo.

    President Donald Trump said in the memo that Attorney General William Barr should report back within 14 days identifying any “anarchist jurisdictions” where officials “have refused to undertake reasonable measures” to stop violence or property destruction. He gives OMB acting director Russ Vought 30 days to direct “heads of agencies on restricting eligibility of or otherwise disfavoring, to the maximum extent permitted by law, anarchist jurisdictions in the receipt of federal grants.” It is not the first time Trump has tried to deprive US cities of federal funds for enacting policies he dislikes. There are still court battles playing out over the White House’s efforts to withhold crime fighting funds from cities and states that declare themselves “sanctuaries” for migrants and refuse to hand information over to federal authorities in a bid to protect individuals from deportation or prosecution. 

  • House of Representatives Introduces Bipartisan Measure Condemning QAnon Conspiracy Theorist Organization

    House of Representatives Introduces Bipartisan Measure Condemning QAnon Conspiracy Theorist Organization

    Two lawmakers introduced a bipartisan measure on August 25 condemning the ring-wing conspiracy theory QAnon a week after President Donald Trump said the theory’s followers “like me very much” and QAnon-linked candidates won Republican congressional primary races across the country. Congressmen Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), and Denver Riggelman (R-VA), said their bill would make it clear the debunked conspiracy theory had no place in the American political mainstream. “Conspiracy theories that falsely blame secret cabals and marginalized groups for the problems of society have long fueled prejudice, violence and terrorism,” Malinowski said. “QAnon and the conspiracy theories it promotes are a danger and a threat that has no place in our country’s politics,” said Riggelman, who lost a Republican primary this year. The measure would condemn QAnon; ask federal law enforcement agencies to remain vigilant against violence provoked by conspiracy theories; and urge Americans to get information from trustworthy sources. The measure must first pass the House Judiciary Committee before it can be considered by the full House of Representatives. 

    The QAnon conspiracy theory, which the FBI has called a domestic terrorism threat, is based on unfounded claims that there is a “deep state” apparatus run by political elites, business leaders and Hollywood celebrities who are also pedophiles and actively working against President Donald Trump. The measure cites several incidents where QAnon adherents were linked to crimes they claimed were inspired by their beliefs, including the 2018 arrest of a man who plotted to plant a bomb in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda to raise awareness of the conspiracy theory. Political leaders have denounced the conspiracy theories. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Fox News last week, “There is no place for QAnon in the Republican Party.” And White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany dismissed the idea last week that the President supported the theory. 

    Despite the negative overall reaction to the QAnon conspiracy theory, several QAnon-linked candidates have nevertheless won Republican congressional primaries this year. One candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is likely to win the general election in her staunchly Republican district in northwestern Georgia. President Donald Trump called her a “future Republican Star” in a Twitter Post after her primary win, though Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Trump had not “done a deep dive into the statements” of Greene. President Trump said at his press briefing on August 19 that he did not know much about QAnon other than that “they like me very much, which I appreciate.” “These are people that don’t like seeing what’s going on in places like Portland, Chicago and New York and other cities and states,” he told reporters. “I’ve heard these are people that love our country.” When a reporter further explained the theory to Trump, including the belief that Trump is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals, Trump responded: “Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If I can help save the world from problems I’m willing to do it, I’m willing to put myself out there.” 

    https://youtu.be/So2AExCMzlo
  • Senate Releases Final Report On Trump-Russia Connections

    Senate Releases Final Report On Trump-Russia Connections

    The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded on August 18 as it detailed how associates of President Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help. The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

    The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on US elections. The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called the Russia investigations a “hoax,” said he “didn’t know anything about” the report, or Russia or Ukraine. He said he had “nothing” to do with Russia. 

    While the Mueller investigation was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn’t happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference. The report was released as two other Senate committees, the Judiciary and Homeland Security panels, conduct their own reviews of the Russia probe with an eye toward uncovering what they say was FBI misconduct in the early days of the investigation. A prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr, who regards the Russia investigation with skepticism, disclosed his first criminal charge Friday against a former FBI lawyer who plans to plead guilty to altering a government email.

  • President Donald Trump Signs Four Executive Orders Providing Economic Relief Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

    President Donald Trump Signs Four Executive Orders Providing Economic Relief Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

    At his Bedminster, New Jersey golf resort on August 10, President Donald Trump signed four executive actions to provide economic relief amid the coronavirus pandemic. The actions amount to a stopgap measure, after failing to secure an agreement with Congress. The three memorandums and one executive order called for extending some enhanced unemployment benefits, taking steps to stop evictions, continuing the suspension of student loan repayments, and deferring payroll taxes. President Trump promised that funds would be “rapidly distributed” to Americans in need, although it remains unclear whether the president has the authority to do certain steps unilaterally, without congressional approval. In any case, legal challenges are expected, which could delay any disbursement of funds. 

    In one memorandum, President Donald Trump authorized the federal government to pay $300 per week for people on unemployment. States would be asked to pay an additional $100, for a total of $400 weekly for unemployed workers. “If they don’t, they don’t. That’s up to them,” President Trump said when asked what happens if governors don’t have the funds available. “The states have money. It’s sitting there.” The previous enhanced unemployment benefits, which added $600 a week to standard state unemployment benefits, expired at the end of July. The text of the memorandum calls for up to $44 billion of federal funds for the benefits to come from the Department of Homeland Security’s Disaster Relief Fund. The White House said states could use funding from the March Coronavirus relief package, the CARES Act, to fund their portion of the benefits. Given the current number of Americans unemployed, those disaster funds would likely last only a handful of weeks.

    In an executive order calling to minimize evictions, President Donald Trump directed various federal agencies to make funds available for temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners facing financial hardship caused by the Coronavirus. “It’s not their fault that this virus came into our country,” he said of renters and homeowners. “It’s China’s fault.” That order also directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to consider whether measures to temporarily halt residential evictions for failure to pay rent “are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19” from one state to another. A federal moratorium on evictions expired on July 24, allowing landlords to begin issuing 30-day notices to vacate their properties. It is estimated that the temporary ban on evictions covered more than 12 million renters, preventing them from being pushed out of their homes even if they could not pay rent.

    President Donald Trump also extended relief for student loan borrowers. Student loan interest rates were cut to zero earlier this year, and students could suspend payments through September. President Trump directed the secretary of education to extend the relief through the end of the year and said an additional extension is likely. And a fourth action defers payroll tax collection for workers earning less than $100,000 a year, beginning September 1. “This will mean bigger paychecks [for a time] for working families, as we race to produce a vaccine and eradicate the China virus once and for all,” Trump told reporters. Trump said the “payroll tax holiday” would last through the end of the year but could be made permanent if he is reelected. The connection to November’s election wasn’t subtle. “If I’m victorious on Nov. 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. I’m going to make them all permanent,” Trump said, then turning to jab congressional Democrats and his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. “So they will have the option of raising everybody’s taxes and taking this away. But if I win, I may extend and terminate. In other words, I will extend it beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax. And so, we’ll see what happens.”

    Both congressional Democrats and Republicans alike opposed this payroll tax proposal when President Donald Trump was trying to get them to include it in the coronavirus relief package. Payroll taxes fund Medicare and Social Security, and this deferral won’t do anything to help the millions of Americans currently unemployed. Trump is likely doing this through the same mechanism that allowed taxpayers to put off filing their taxes until July 15 this year, says Andrew Rudalevige, a professor at Bowdoin College who specializes in presidential executive actions. “The Treasury secretary is authorized to delay the deadline for any action required under tax law up to one year,” said Rudalevige, in the case of a federally declared disaster, and all states are currently operating under one because of the pandemic. “So payroll tax payments could under this provision be delayed. But not forgiven — those taxes are still owed.” There are already significant concerns about the long-term solvency of the popular social safety net programs. Reducing payroll taxes would hasten those problems.

    President Donald Trump’s actions come after weeks of talks between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill over the next round coronavirus relief. As of August 8, they were still far from reaching an agreement. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to President Trump’s executive actions on August 9, calling them “unworkable, weak and narrow policy announcements.” In a statement, they called for Republicans to return to negotiations.

  • US Economy Declines Nearly 33% In The Second Quarter Of 2020

    US Economy Declines Nearly 33% In The Second Quarter Of 2020

    The US Economy contracted at a 32.9% annual rate from April through June, its worst drop on record, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said on July 30. Business ground to a halt during the pandemic lockdown inbeginnign in early March of 2020, and America plunged into its first recession in 11 years, putting an end to the longest economic expansion in US history and wiping out five years of economic gains in just a few months. A recession is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. Between January and March, GDP declined by an annualized rate of 5%. But this is no ordinary recession. The combination of public health and economic crises is unprecedented, and numbers cannot fully convey the hardships millions of Americans are facing. In April alone, more than 20 million American jobs vanished as businesses closed and most of the country was under stay-at-home orders. It was the biggest drop in jobs since record-keeping began more than 80 years ago. Claims for unemployment benefits skyrocketed and have still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. While the labor market has been rebounding since some states began to reopen, bringing millions back to work, the country is still down nearly 15 million jobs since February. 

    The Coronavirus pandemic pushed the US economy off a cliff. The second-quarter GDP drop was nearly four times worse than during the peak of the 2007-2010 financial crisis, when the economy contracted at an annual rate of 8.4% in the fourth quarter of 2008. Quarterly GDP numbers are expressed as an annualized rate. This means that the economy did not actually contract by one-third from the first quarter to the second. The annualized rate measures how much the economy would grow or shrink if conditions were to persist for 12 months. Not annualized, GDP declined by 9.5% between April and June, or by $1.8 trillion. But by either measure, it was still the worst quarter on record. The US only began keeping quarterly GDP records in 1947, so it is difficult to compare the current downturn to the Great Depression. Earlier recorded quarterly declines also pale in comparison to this year. Between April and June of 1980 (the start of the 1980-82 recession), the economy contracted at an annual rate of 8% on the heels of rising oil prices and restrictive monetary policy to control inflation. Additionally, in early 1958, GDP declined by an annualized 10%, as production slowed and high-interest rates put an end to the post-World War II expansion. The downturn followed the Asian flu pandemic of 1957, which killed 116,000 people in the US, according to the Center for Disease Control.

    In response to the Coronavirus pandemic shutdown, the US government has deployed trillions of dollars in monetary and fiscal stimulus to help the country through the recession. Loan programs for companies, expanded unemployment benefits, and checks sent directly to many Americans were designed to get the economy back on track as quickly as possible. Economists predict the current, third quarter of the year will witness a sharp upswing, with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, forecasting an annualized 13.3% jump between July and September. While that would be good news, it does not mean the crisis is over. Earlier this week, the Fed extended its various lending programs through the end of the year to help business and market functioning. The central bank’s main street lending facility that is geared at small and medium-sized companies became operational only in mid-June, three months after the lockdown began.

  • President Donald Trump Proposes Delaying Presidential Election Due To Coronavirus Pandemic

    President Donald Trump Proposes Delaying Presidential Election Due To Coronavirus Pandemic

    President Donald Trump explicitly floated delaying November’s presidential election on July 30, lending an extraordinary voice to persistent concerns that he will seek to circumvent voting in a contest where he currently trails his opponent by double digits. Hours later, President Trump seemed to acknowledge the move was meant to be a “trial balloon” of sorts primarily to inject uncertainty into an election he appears determined to undermine, though he did not entirely back away from the notion of a delay. Trump has no authority to delay an election, and the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for voting. Lawmakers from both parties said almost immediately there was no likelihood the election would be delayed and even some of Trump’s allies said his message reflected the desperate flailing of a badly losing candidate. Yet as toothless as it was, Trump’s message did provide an opening, long feared by Democrats, that both he and his supporters might refuse to accept the presidential results. In questioning it ahead of time, Trump is priming those in his camp to doubt the legitimacy of whatever outcome emerges in the first weeks of November.

    In his Twitter post early on July 30, coming 96 days before the election and minutes after the federal government reported the worst economic contraction in recorded history President Donald Trump offered the suggestion because he claimed without evidence the contest will be flawed. “With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA,” he wrote. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???” During a late-afternoon news conference, President Trump was asked to explain his motivations. At first, he suggested he was trying to avoid a drawn-out counting process that might stretch for days or weeks if large numbers of voters cast ballots by mail. But he eventually acknowledged the real impact of his message: sowing doubts early in whatever outcome emerges in November. “What people are now looking at is … are all these stories right about the fact that these elections will be fraudulent, they’ll be fixed, rigged,” he said. “Everyone is looking at it,” Trump added. “A lot of people are saying that probably will happen.”

    There is no evidence that mail-in voting leads to fraud. American elections have proceeded during wars and depressions without delay. The general election has been fixed on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November since 1845. President Donald Trump has previously sought to stoke fear and lay the groundwork to question the election’s results by promoting the idea that mail-in voting leads to widespread fraud and a “rigged” election. Democrats have warned his efforts are meant both to suppress voting and to provide a reason to refuse to leave office should he lose. Trump’s representatives had previously scoffed at Democratic suggestions he would attempt to delay the election, claiming they were unfounded conspiracies. His tweet marks the first time Trump has openly raised the idea of moving the date of voting. On July 30, Trump’s campaign said the President was offering a query. “The President is just raising a question about the chaos Democrats have created with their insistence on all mail-in voting,” campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said. “They are using coronavirus as their means to try to institute universal mail-in voting, which means sending every registered voter a ballot whether they asked for one or not.”

    President Donald Trump’s Twitter post comes as a spate of recent polling in battleground states, and even states he won handily in 2016, show him trailing or virtually tied with former Vice President Joe Biden, and widespread disapproval of his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic. While Trump has encouraged states to lift restrictions on businesses and said schools must reopen for in-person learning in the fall, his suggestion that the election might be delayed because of the pandemic undermines his efforts to act as the Coronavirus is under control. Due to the utter failure of his policies, President Trump has turned instead to stoking racial divisions and appealing to white voters as he works to consolidate support among the constituencies he won in 2016. And he has taken steps to undermine the election results in ways that reflect an extraordinary break in tradition. Asked during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace last week whether he would accept the results of the election, Trump refused. “No, I’m not going to just say ‘yes.’ I’m not going to say ‘no,’ and I didn’t last time, either,” he said.

    Responding to President Donald Trump’s comments, both Republicans and Democrats said Trump’s suggestion was a non-starter. “I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of President Trump’s strongest allies. “I think that’s probably a statement that gets some press attention, but I doubt it gets any serious traction,” said Senator John Thune, the Senate Republican whip. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply replied to President Trump’s tweet quoting the passage in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to set the date of elections. Presumptive Democratic nominee former Vice President Joe Biden has previously raised the possibility of Trump attempting to delay the election. “Mark my words: I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden said at a virtual fundraiser in April, according to a pool report. At the time, a spokesman for Trump said the claim amounted to “incoherent, conspiracy theory ramblings of a lost candidate who is out of touch with reality.”

  • US Senate Introduces Legislation To Curb Big Tech’s Ad Business Activities

    US Senate Introduces Legislation To Curb Big Tech’s Ad Business Activities

    On July 28 Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), a major critic of the big tech industry, introduced legislation that would penalize large tech companies that sell or show targeted advertisements by threatening a legal immunity enjoyed by the industry, the latest onslaught on Big Tech’s business practices. The bill, titled “Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (Bad Ads) Act,” aims to crack down on invasive data gathering by large technology companies such as Facebook and Google that target users based on their behavioral insights. It does so by threatening Section 230, part of the Communications Decency Act, that shields online businesses from lawsuits over content posted by users. The legal shield has recently come under scrutiny from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers concerned about online content moderation decisions by technology companies. On July 28, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)and Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) will hold a hearing to examine the role of Section 230. The senators recently introduced legislation to reform the federal law.

    In May, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that seeks new regulatory oversight of tech firms’ content moderation decisions, and he backed legislation to scrap or weaken Section 230 in an attempt to regulate social media platforms. “Big Tech’s manipulative advertising regime comes with a massive hidden price tag for consumers while providing almost no return to anyone but themselves,” said Hawley, an outspoken critic of tech companies and a prominent Trump ally. “From privacy violations to harming children to suppression of speech, the ramifications are very real.” His recent legislation to ban federal employees from using Chinese social media app TikTok on their government-issued phones was passed unanimously by the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and will be taken up by the US Senate for a vote.

  • Trump Administration Rolls Back Fair Housing Provision Intended On Combatting Racial Segregation In Housing

    Trump Administration Rolls Back Fair Housing Provision Intended On Combatting Racial Segregation In Housing

    The Trump Administration moved on July 23 to eliminate an Obama-era program intended to combat racial segregation in suburban housing, saying it amounted to federal overreach into local communities. The rule, introduced in 2015, requires cities and towns to identify patterns of discrimination, implement corrective plans, and report results. The administration’s decision to complete a process of rescinding it culminates a yearslong campaign to gut the rule by conservative critics and members of the administration who claimed it overburdened communities with complicated regulations. A new rule, which removes the Obama administration’s requirements for localities, will become effective 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

    The move comes as President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign contends with waning support among white suburban voters, particularly suburban women. The decision to eliminate the rule echoes the President’s recent efforts to appeal to white grievances as he seeks to maintain support. Within hours of the announcement by Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, President Trump promoted his position on Twitter, posting a New York Post opinion article attacking the Obama housing rule and former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for supporting it. “The Suburban Housewives of America must read this article,” Trump said. “Biden will destroy your neighborhood and your American Dream. I will preserve it, and make it even better!”

    President Donald Trump had signaled last month that he was considering a full rollback of the rule. In a Twitter post, he wrote that the program had a “devastating impact on these once-thriving Suburban areas.” He added, “Corrupt Joe Biden wants to make them MUCH WORSE.” A spokesman for the Biden campaign called the elimination of the rule a distraction from the president’s handling of the Coronavirus. Biden has proposed a housing policy that some Republicans say would undercut traditional suburban neighborhoods of single-family homes.

    The Obama administration introduced its rule in 2015 to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination among housing providers. Failure to comply with the new rule jeopardized federal funds, and opponents claimed that it intruded upon the right of localities to make decisions about their own neighborhoods. Housing Secretary Ben Carson has been a vocal opponent of the rule since his 2016 presidential bid. After he became Housing Secretary, the former neurosurgeon announced plans to suspend the program in January 2018, citing concerns raised by cities that struggled to comply with its requirements. He claimed that he would delay its resumption until communities had the necessary tools. Two years later, the department published a proposal that would water down the original rule by eliminating the original mandate that cities and towns address housing discrimination. A study from researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that under the Obama rule, municipalities proposed more ambitious fair housing goals. Justin Steil, a co-author of the study, said that the program initially faced some difficulties, including complaints from localities that its requirements were onerous, but that those issues could have been resolved with time. 

    The elimination of the Obama-era rule is one of several efforts by the housing department to roll back housing regulations. It announced in August of 2019 a proposal that would make it more difficult to prove some discrimination cases, those known as disparate impact claims, under the Fair Housing Act by establishing a higher bar of proof. The new and final replacement for the Obama-era program, called Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice, broadly reinterpreted the meaning of “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” Now, it makes no mention of segregation. The housing department and the Office of Management and Budget waived the comment period for the new rule to speed its enactment, which raised concern among critics of the administration’s decision. They argued that the old rule’s elimination had killed the first effort in decades to ensure the protections afforded by the Fair Housing Act. 

    Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the Trump administration was exploiting the political ramifications of a racially motivated policy change to boost his re-election campaign. Shaun Donovan, the former housing secretary who created the Obama administration policy, was scathing in his criticism of the Trump administration’s move. “This is a blatantly racist appeal to and attempt to return us to an era when the federal government actively implemented racist policies based on the false notion that Black families moving to white communities brings down property values,” said Donovan, who is now running for mayor of New York City. The move to end the program also comes amid monthslong protests against racism spurred by the death of George Floyd. The disparity in homeownership between Black and white households is the highest it has been in 50 years. This new rule “will take us backwards,” said Debby Goldberg, a vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance. “If you’re looking to tackle the problem of segregation and widespread systemic discrimination — if you’re looking to create a prosperous country where that prosperity is shared by everybody — then adopting this rule is 100 percent the wrong move to make.”

  • Senate Republicans Introduced Coronavirus Relief Package

    Senate Republicans Introduced Coronavirus Relief Package

    Senate Republicans on July 27 proposed a $1 trillion Coronavirus aid package hammered out with the Trump administration, paving the way for talks with Democrats on how to help Americans as expanded unemployment benefits for millions of workers expire this week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the proposal a “tailored and targeted” plan focused on getting children back to school and employees back to work and protecting corporations from lawsuits while slashing the expiring supplemental unemployment benefits of $600 a week by two-thirds. The plan sparked immediate opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats decried it as too limited compared to their $3 trillion proposal that passed the House of Representatives in May, while some Republicans called it too expensive.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the package would include direct $1,200 payments to Americans, as well as incentives for the manufacture of personal protective equipment in the US, rather than China. It also includes $190 billion for loans to help small businesses, and $100 billion for loans to businesses that operate seasonally or in low-income areas. Republicans want to reduce the expanded unemployment benefit from the current $600 per week, which is in addition to state unemployment payments and expires on July 31, to $200 in addition to state unemployment. After two months, states would implement a new formula that replaces about 70% of lost wages. The supplemental unemployment has been a financial lifeline for laid-off workers and key support for consumer spending. The extra funds, exceeding the former wages of some workers, have been a sticking point for many Republicans, who say they encourage Americans to stay home rather than go back to work.

    Negotiations started immediately after the Republican package was introduced. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) met for nearly two hours with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Meadows said afterward that it was a “good meeting” and that he and Mnuchin would return to Capitol Hill on July 28. But Pelosi and Schumer, speaking to reporters, expressed frustration that items like rental and food assistance had been left out. “We hope that we would be able to reach an agreement. We clearly do not have shared values. Having said that, we just want to see if we can find some common ground to go forward. But we’re not at that place yet,” Pelosi said.

    The Republican-led Senate refused to consider the House coronavirus relief bill, known as the “HEROES Act,” that was passed in May. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the House bill a “socialist manifesto” and urged Democrats to work with Republicans on their plan, the “HEALS Act.” “We have one foot in the pandemic and one foot in the recovery,” McConnell said. “The American people need more help. They need it to be comprehensive, and they need it to be carefully tailored to this crossroads.” The proposal included “strong legal liability protection” for corporations, a top Republican priority. It includes nearly $30 billion for the military and defense industry, in addition to nearly $760 billion already enacted for defense this year, including more than $10 billion in previous coronavirus relief bills.

    Opposition from some of Mitch McConnell’s fellow Republicans, as well as from Democrats, signaled a tough road ahead. “The answer to these challenges will not simply be shoveling cash out of Washington. The answer to these challenges will be getting people back to work,” Republican Senator Ted Cruz told reporters. Some Republicans had complained about the high price tag. The federal government has already spent $3.7 trillion to cushion the economic blow from pandemic-forced shutdowns. On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Republican plan did too little, too slowly, to help Americans facing joblessness and eviction. “The Republican plan is weak tea, when our problems need a much stronger brew,” Schumer said. He said many states had warned they would have a hard time implementing unemployment changes. Many Americans waited weeks for previous coronavirus benefits, as outmoded state computer systems adjusted. The Republican proposal also includes measures not directly related to the Coronavirus pandemic, including $1.8 billion for construction of a new FBI headquarters in Washington, something championed by President Donald Trump, who owns a hotel across the street from the current building.

  • President Donald Trump Signs Memorandum Excluding Undocumented Immigrants From US Census Population Totals

    President Donald Trump Signs Memorandum Excluding Undocumented Immigrants From US Census Population Totals

    President Donald Trump signed a memorandum on July 21 instructing the US Census Bureau to exclude undocumented immigrants from the population totals that determine how many seats in Congress each state gets. It is an unprecedented move that seems to be an attempt to preserve white political power. The American Civil Liberties Union said immediately that it would sue and the action is likely to be met with a flood of legal challenges. The Trump administration appears to be on shaky legal ground, as the US constitution requires seats in Congress to be apportioned based on the “whole number of persons” counted in each state during each decennial census. The constitution vests Congress with power over the census, though Congress has since designated some of that authority to the executive. Republicans in recent years have been pushing to exclude non-citizens and other people ineligible to vote from the tally used to draw electoral districts. In 2015, Thomas Hofeller, a top Republican redistricting expert, explicitly wrote that such a change “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites”. The White House memo, titled “Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census,” argues that the term “person” in the constitution really means “inhabitant” and that the president has the discretion to define what that means. The memo also argues that allowing undocumented people to count rewards states with high numbers of undocumented people.

    “My administration will not support giving congressional representation to aliens who enter or remain in the country unlawfully, because doing so would create perverse incentives and undermine our system of government,” President Donald Trump said in a statement. “Just as we do not give political power to people who are here temporarily, we should not give political power to people who should not be here at all.” Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said the House of Representatives would “vigorously contest” the order. “By seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in the 2020 census, the president is violating the constitution and the rule of law,” Pelosi said in a statement.

    The Trump adminitration’s interpretation is likely to be strongly challenged in court. Experts have said that the idea of illegal immigration did not exist when the constitution was written. Immigration early in America was relatively “free and open”. US Customs and Immigration Services says on its website the federal government began to regulate it in the 19th century. “If those are the best arguments they have, they’re dead in the water,” said Thomas Wolf, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice who works on census issues. “There’s no way to get around the fundamental command of the constitution, on the plain text of the constitution, to count everyone.” The legal rationale for the memo is so specious, Wolf said the motivation behind the memo might not be to enact it. He speculated the Trump administration may be trying to create uncertainty or confusion among immigrants already wary of responding to the census.

  • President Donald Trump Announces Plan To Send Federal Agents To Chicago, Albuquerque To Crack Down On Violent Crime, Protests

    President Donald Trump Announces Plan To Send Federal Agents To Chicago, Albuquerque To Crack Down On Violent Crime, Protests

    President Donald Trump announced a plan on July 22 to send federal agents to the Democratic-run cities of Chicago and Albuquerque to crack down on violent crime in an escalation of his “law and order” theme heading into the final months before the presidential election. President Trump joined at a White House event by Attorney General William Barr, unveiled an expansion of the “Operation Legend” program to more cities in a further effort by federal officials to tackle violence. “Today I’m announcing a surge of federal law enforcement into American communities plagued by violent crime,” said Trump, who has accused Democratic mayors and governors of tolerating crime waves. “This bloodshed must end; this bloodshed will end,” he said. The program involves deploying federal law enforcement agents to assist local police in combating what the Justice Department has described as a “surge” of violent crime.

    Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, both Democrats, welcomed the federal help, so long as it was to assist local law enforcement with community policing and public safety. Both rejected the use of federal agents for the kind of protest crackdown seen in Portland, Oregon, saying such actions would be met with legal action. “If the Trump administration wishes to antagonize New Mexicans and Americans with authoritarian, unnecessary and unaccountable military-style ‘crackdowns,’ they have no business whatsoever in New Mexico,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

    Attorney General William Barr sought to differentiate the initiative from the use of federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to quell unrest in Portland, where local authorities have complained about the federal involvement. Barr said the law enforcement personnel from a variety of agencies will serve as “street” agents and investigators who will be working to “solve murders and take down violent gangs.” “This is different than the operations and tactical teams we use to defend against riots and mob violence,” Barr said. “We will continue to confront mob violence. But the operations we are discussing today are very different – they are classic crime fighting.” President Donald Trump hopes his “law and order” push will resonate with his political base as he trails Democrat Joe Biden in opinion polls ahead of the Presidential election. But the initiative risks inflaming tensions running high in many cities in the wake of the death in police custody of George Floyd, an African-American.

    Operation Legend involves federal agents from the FBI, US Marshals Service, and other agencies partnering with local law enforcement. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot said it was not unusual for federal law enforcement to work alongside local partners, but urged Chicagoans to watch for any sign that federal agents, especially DHS officers, were stepping “out of line.” “We don’t need federal troops, we don’t need unnamed, secret federal agents,” said Lightfoot, in reference to tactics used by federal personnel in Portland. President Donald Trump has emphasized a robust policing and military approach to the protests across the US about racial inequality after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis. The White House has sought to focus on city crime even as Trump’s approval numbers plummet in response to his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. “We are waiting for the mayor (Lightfoot), respectfully, and other mayors and governors to call us. We are ready, willing and able to go in there with great force,” President Trump told reporters later on July 22.

  • President Donald Trump Rolls Back Landmark Environmental Law To Speed Up Approval Of Federal Projects

    President Donald Trump Rolls Back Landmark Environmental Law To Speed Up Approval Of Federal Projects

    President Donald Trump announced regulatory changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on July 15, a change that will speed up approval of federal projects such as mines, highways, water infrastructure, and gas pipelines, effectively weakening what’s considered to be a landmark conservation law. President Trump announced the implementation of the newly revised regulations in Georgia at the UPS Hapeville Airport Hub, which is set to benefit from the expedited review of a highway expansion project that will allow the hub’s operations to be more efficient. Trump claimed that “mountains and mountains of red tape” slowed the approval and development of infrastructure projects, but added that “all of that ends today.” “Today’s action completely modernizes the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We are cutting the federal permitting timeline … for a major project from up to 20 years or more … down to two years or less,” Trump said, later adding that at “the same time, we’ll maintain America’s gold standard environmental protections.”

    President Donald Trump announced his administration’s plans to rewrite the NEPA regulations in January, saying at the time that the existing regulations “(led to) endless delays, waste money, keep projects from breaking ground and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers. The administration claims the change will speed up the process for getting environmental reviews approved that are required for major infrastructure projects. “You spend three, four, five years on the environmental review before you ever break ground. That’s a problem,” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler said in an interview with Gray TV. Environmental advocacy groups view the policy change as another example of the Trump administration dismantling important conservation safety guards that protect the environment and public health from pollution. The change “drastically curtails environmental reviews for thousands of federal agency projects nationwide, a move that will weaken safeguards for air, water, wildlife, and public lands,” the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group, said in a statement responding to the decision.

    NEPA, signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, is considered one of the foundational environmental laws formed at the beginning of the modern environmental movement. Rolling back this policy “may be the single biggest giveaway to polluters in the past 40 years,” according to Brett Hartl, Center for Biological Diversity government affairs director. “The Trump administration is turning back the clock to when rivers caught fire, our air was unbreathable, and our most beloved wildlife was spiraling toward extinction. The foundational law of the modern environmental movement has been turned into a rubber stamp to enrich for-profit corporations, and we doubt the courts will stand for that,” Hartl said in a statement. Environmental advocacy groups such as the National Resource Defense Council Inc. and the Sierra Club believe that the change will harm minority communities more than others. “NEPA gives a voice to communities whose health and safety would be threatened by destructive projects, and it is despicable that the Trump administration is seeking to silence them,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement. “As the country faces a global pandemic and grapples with persistent racial injustice, the last thing communities need is an attack on this bedrock environmental and civil rights law.” In contrast, Mike Sommers, the President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents America’s oil and natural gas industry, said in a statement that the regulatory changes are “essential to US energy leadership and environmental progress, providing more certainty to jumpstart not only the modernized pipeline infrastructure we need to deliver cleaner fuels but highways, bridges and renewable energy.”

  • Coronavirus Hospital Data To Now Be Sent To Trump Administration Instead Of CDC

    Coronavirus Hospital Data To Now Be Sent To Trump Administration Instead Of CDC

    Hospital data on Coronavirus patients will now be rerouted to the Trump administration instead of first being sent to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed on July 14. The move could make data less transparent to the public at a time when President Donald Trump is downplaying the spread of the pandemic, and threatens to undermine public confidence that medical data is being presented free of political interference. Michael Caputo, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the department, confirmed the change first reported by The New York Times earlier in the day, saying in a statement that the “new faster and complete data system is what our nation needs to defeat the coronavirus and the CDC, an operating division of HHS, will certainly participate in this streamlined all-of-government response. They will simply no longer control it.” “The CDC’s old hospital data gathering operation once worked well monitoring hospital information across the country, but it’s an inadequate system today,” Caputo said in the statement. The New York Times also said hospitals are to begin reporting the data to HHS on July 15, noting also that the “database that will receive new information is not open to the public, which could affect the work of scores of researchers, modelers and health officials who rely on C.D.C. data to make projections and crucial decisions.”

    Former CDC acting director Dr. Richard Besser on July 15 said rerouting hospital data is a “step backwards” for the country’s coronavirus response. “It’s another example of CDC being sidelined. Not only should the data be coming to CDC, but CDC should be talking to the public through the media every day,” Besser said in an interview. He worried that the data going directly to HHS could “be further politicized, and that’s the last thing you want.” “One of the nice things about CDC being in Atlanta — being away from Washington — is that we’re able to avoid a lot of political pressure that you get in when you’re in DC,” he said. Besser appeared to agree that systems needed to be modernized, but he added, “the answer to this isn’t bypassing CDC; it’s working to ensure that the flow is going faster, making sure that they’re getting the right data.”

    The Trump administration continues to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic, which has already claimed the lives of more than 136,000 Americans, in moves that are increasingly being seen as political. On July 14, four former CDC directors blasted the administration’s efforts to disregard and politicize guidelines from the agency in a scathing Washington Post op-ed. The four former CDC officials warned against what they called a “tragic indictment” of the CDC’s efforts as President Donald Trump and top coronavirus task force officials seek to reopen the nation’s schools. President Trump has said he will “pressure” governors to reopen schools, despite internal documents from the CDC separately obtained by the Times warning that reopening K-12 schools and universities would be the “highest risk” for the spread of the deadly virus. “Unfortunately, their sound science is being challenged with partisan potshots, sowing confusion and mistrust at a time when the American people need leadership, expertise and clarity. These efforts have even fueled a backlash against public health officials across the country. This is unconscionable and dangerous,” the former CDC officials wrote. Public health experts, they said: “Face two opponents: COVID-19, but also political leaders and others attempting to undermine” the CDC.

  • Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Trump Administration On Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

    Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Trump Administration On Obamacare Birth Control Mandate

    The Supreme Court ruled on July 8 that the Trump administration may allow employers and universities to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act requirement to provide contraceptive care because of religious or moral objections. The issue has been at the heart of an intense legal battle for nine years, first with the Obama administration sparring with religious organizations who said offering contraceptive care to their employees violated their beliefs, and then with the Trump administration broadening an exemption, angering women’s groups, health organizations, and Democratic-led states. July 8th’s decision greatly expands the ability of employers to claim the exception, and the government estimates that between 70,000 and 126,000 women could lose access to cost-free birth control as a result.

    The decision was one of several that has made the Supreme Court’s term strikingly successful for religious interests. By the same 7-to-2 vote as in the contraceptive cases, the court also ruled for the ability of religious organizations to hire and fire without offending some anti-discrimination laws. And last week religious groups achieved a longtime goal when the court ruled that states that provide support to private education must allow religious schools to participate. “It’s a big term,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. And the July 8 decisions showed that “broad agreement for religious interests and religious diversity.” The Supreme Court’s decisions will conclude on July 9th with what could be a blockbuster decision about whether President Trump may shield his private financial records and tax returns from congressional committees and a New York prosecutor. It will be a fitting finale to a term in which the court has left few politically controversial topics untouched: It said federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination, disappointed antiabortion activists and gun rights supporters, and stopped the Trump administration from ending the program that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

    The contraceptive case involves a long-running dispute over the Affordable Care Act (colloquial known as “Obamacare“), and a requirement that employers provide cost-free birth control for female employees. The law itself does not specify the rules, leaving it to federal agencies to determine how contraceptives fit into the mandate for cost-free “preventive care and screenings.” The Obama administration required contraceptives and had narrower exceptions for churches and other houses of worship. It created a system of “accommodations,” or workarounds, for religiously affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities. Those accommodations would provide contraceptive care but avoid having the objecting organizations directly cover the cost. The Trump administration moved in 2018 to expand the types of organizations that could opt-out to include religious groups and non-religious employers with moral and religious objections. Under the rules, the employers able to opt-out include essentially all nongovernmental workplaces, from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies. And the employer has the choice of whether to permit the workaround.

    The US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit had put the Trump administration exemptions on hold and said the agencies did not have the broad authority to grant them. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, said that was wrong. “We hold that the [administration] had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections,” wrote Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas reasoned that if an administration’s agencies have “virtually unbridled discretion to decide what counts as preventive care and screenings, he said, they must also have “the ability to identify and create exemptions” from those guidelines. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed with the court’s conservatives that the administration had the right to create an exemption, but they said lower courts should examine whether the administration’s rules were “consistent with reasoned judgment.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a blistering dissent, in which she said her colleagues had gone too far to appease religious conservatives. Until now, “this Court has taken a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote in a brief joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.” Ginsburg said Congress meant to provide “gainfully employed women comprehensive, seamless, no-cost insurance coverage for preventive care protective of their health and wellbeing.” The court’s action, she wrote, “leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.”

  • President Donald Trump Withdraws The US From The World Health Organization

    President Donald Trump Withdraws The US From The World Health Organization

    The US has formally notified the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the World Health Organization, following through on an announcement President Donald Trump made in late May. The move, however, would not be effective until July 6, 2021, officials said, leaving open the possibility that, should President Trump lose reelection, a Joe Biden administration could reverse the decision. The former vice president promptly indicated he would do so. “Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health. On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage,” Biden announced on Twitter.

    The withdrawal of the US would plunge global health governance into the unknown, creating questions about the economic viability of the WHO, the future of the polio eradication program, the system for reporting dangerous infectious disease outbreaks, and myriad other programs that are as pertinent to the health of Americans as they are to people from countries around the world, such as efforts to combat the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said the Geneva-based agency had been informed the official notice had been filed, but had no further information. But Jeremy Konyndyk, a fellow at the Center for Global Development, called the move “reckless and entirely unjustified.” “The disastrous state of the outbreak in the United States is not the result of following WHO guidance but rather is the result of ignoring the agency’s increasingly urgent warnings from late January onward,” he said in a statement. “Had the U.S. followed WHO’s advice on early preparedness, aggressive testing, contact tracing, and other response measures, we would be in a far better place today than we are.”

    The US is the WHO’s largest funder, contributing $426 million a year in the 2018-2019 budget period. The US currently owes the WHO $203 million for 2020 and previous years. The notice of withdrawal, signed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, made no mention of funds the country owes to the WHO and the State Department did not immediately reply to a question on whether the United States will pay the outstanding dues. The UN also appeared uncertain of the US intent. “The Secretary-General … is in the process of verifying with the World Health Organization whether all the conditions for such withdrawal are met,” Stephane Dujarric, a spokesman for Secretary-General António Guterres, said in an email. The Trump Administration has said it will work with other partners to achieve its global health goals. But experts have warned the country will lose influence internationally and its efforts may lose momentum, as other countries come to view the U.S. as an unreliable partner. “There will be no incentive to take U.S. needs into account,” said Jimmy Kolker, a longtime U.S. diplomat and former assistant secretary for global affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration. “It will be much harder than some might assume to find alternate channels for us to engage in global health activities,” Kolker warned. “Our investment will no longer leverage others’ and experts in other countries will have to diversify their partnerships away from the CDC, the NIH or USAID, as these may not be sustainable. Once deals are struck and arrangements made without U.S. involvement, it will be an uphill struggle to retrofit them if the U.S. has an interest in getting involved and decides (as we inevitably will) to halt our withdrawal or rejoin.”

    President Donald Trump has moved to blame the WHO for the Coronavirus pandemic, insisting that had it been more aggressive with China in January the outbreak might have been averted. While analysts have acknowledged the agency’s lavish praise of China’s handling of the outbreak may have struck the wrong note, they also noted the WHO does not have the power to force a country to let inspectors visit to assess the situation on the ground, something President Trump insisted the agency should have done. Critics of the administration’s handling of the Coronavirus pandemic also note that in January and February, when the WHO was vociferously urging countries to prepare for the spread of the virus, President Trump himself was praising China’s handling of the outbreak and predicting the virus would stop spreading on its own. Even members of his own party have questioned the move and the timing of it, coming as the WHO leads the global response to Coronavirus, the worst health threat in a century. “Certainly, there needs to be a good, hard look at mistakes the World Health Organization might have made in connection with coronavirus, but the time to do that is after the crisis has been dealt with, not in the middle of it,” Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said after Trump’s announcement. “Withdrawing U.S. membership could, among other things, interfere with clinical trials that are essential to the development of vaccines, which citizens of the United States, as well as others in the world, need.”

  • US Economy Adds Record 4.8 Million Jobs In June

    US Economy Adds Record 4.8 Million Jobs In June

    The US economy added a record 4.8 million jobs in June, according to federal data released on July 2, but a surge in new Coronavirus infections and a spate of new closings threatens the nascent recovery. Two key federal measurements showed the precarious place the economy finds itself in three and a half months into the pandemic as the country struggles to hire back the more than 20 million workers who lost their jobs in March and April. While companies have continued to reopen, a large number of Americans are finding their jobs are no longer available. The unemployment rate in June was 11.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, down from a peak of 14.7 percent in April but still far above the 3.5 percent level notched in February. And another 1.4 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance for the first time last week and more than 19 million people are still receiving unemployment benefits, stubbornly high levels that show how many people are struggling to find or keep work. The Congressional Budget Office said the Coronavirus pandemic gave such a shock to the labor market that it would not fully recover for more than 10 years.

    President Donald Trump touted the jobs that were added at a news conference called shortly after they were released, saying they were a sign that “America’s economy is now roaring back to life like nobody has ever seen before.” “All of this incredible news is the result of historic actions my administration has taken,” President Trump said. But his top aides acknowledged there was still a long way to go. “There is still a lot of hardship, and a lot of heartbreak, in these numbers,” National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said. “I think we have a lot more work to do.” The stock market initially rose on the news, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 400 points, or 1.5 percent, before retreating. It closed up 92 points on the day.

    Economists called the 4.8 million jobs added encouraging, saying they were a sign that the massive financial incentives that Congress passed appeared to have succeeded at stanching even greater job loss. But the good news came with a couple of significant asterisks: It was gathered the week of June 12, when the country was reporting less than 25,000 new cases a day, not the current average of more than 40,000 that has sent new closures and shutdowns cascading across states and counties. “The pandemic pushed us into a very deep economic hole,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “We can certainly fall back.” The more than 14.7 million people who are still out of work have left the country with an unemployment rate higher than any point during the Great Recession. The unemployment insurance data, based on statewide claims that are separate from the survey that informs the jobs report, paints an even less sanguine picture: Last week was the 15th straight where unemployment claims exceeded 1 million, a sign that the economic recovery has not taken hold for many Americans.

    The data bring into sharper focus the turmoil facing the US economy after many businesses sent workers home in March during the beginning of the spike in deaths caused by the virus. Many companies began rehiring in May and June, but there are signs that some workers are getting laid off for the second time in just a few months. Many Americans remain employed but are working drastically reduced schedules, more than 9 million workers reported working part-time because of economic reasons, more than double the level in February before the pandemic. Still, a participation rate of 61.5 percent in June, slightly up from April and May but nearly a percentage point below February, indicates that others may be leaving the labor force altogether, an echo of the deep economic turbulence in the Great Recession. Economists said there are other reasons to be concerned as incentives for businesses to retain employees and some benefits that have allowed people out of work to stay afloat financially are winding down without more federal action.

    Federal and state officials struggled to time their reopening efforts in April and May, in some cases ignoring warnings from public health officials. Now, cases in some of the states that reopened the fastest, or with the loosest restrictions, are seeing the biggest spikes, such as Florida, Arizona, and South Carolina. In recent days, Texas shut down all bars just weeks after they had reopened. California announced the closure of bars and indoor dining in 19 counties, more than 70 percent of the state. And at least nine other states have slowed or reversed their reopenings. Restaurant bookings have begun to sink in hard-hit states such as Florida, Texas, and Arizona. Job postings on the Indeed website, though up from a low of 39 percent, are still down 24 percent from last year.

  • 2020 Election: Hundreds of George W. Bush administration officials to Endorse Joe Biden In Coming Weeks

    2020 Election: Hundreds of George W. Bush administration officials to Endorse Joe Biden In Coming Weeks

    Hundreds of officials who worked for former Republican President George W. Bush as a July 1 are set to endorse Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, people involved in the effort said, the latest Republican-led group coming out to oppose the re-election of Donald Trump. The officials, who include Cabinet secretaries and other senior members of the Bush administration, have formed a political action committee, 43 Alumni for Biden, to support former Vice President Joe Biden as opposed to President Donald Trump. The Super PAC will launch on July 1 with a website and Facebook page, they said. It plans to release “testimonial videos” praising Biden from high-profile Republicans and will hold get-out-the-vote efforts in the most competitive states.

    The group is the latest of many Republican organizations opposing President Donald Trump’s re-election, yet another sign that his radical policies relating to race, foreign policy, and the norms of governance have alienated many Republicans. “We know what is normal and what is abnormal, and what we are seeing is highly abnormal. The president is a danger,” said Jennifer Millikin, one of the 43 Alumni organizers, who worked on Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign and later in the General Services Administration. The other two members who spoke to Reuters are Karen Kirksey and Kristopher Purcell. Purcell worked as a communication official in the Bush White House. Kirksey was on the Bush 2000 campaign, and later in the Agriculture and Labor Departments. Millikin said the group was not yet ready to name all its members or its donors. It has to provide a list of initial donors to the Federal Election Commission by October.

    Former President George W. Bush, who is still admired by many moderate Republicans and has seen his overall legacy improve dramatically over the past few years, won praise for saying the death of George Floyd reflected a “shocking failure”, and urged that protesters be heard. Earlier, Bush released a video calling for Americans to unite in the face of the Coronavirus pandemic. Despite policy differences with Biden, “hundreds” of former Bush officials believe the Democrat has the integrity to meet America’s challenges, the 43 Alumni members said. “This November, we are choosing country over party,” said Kristopher Purcell. “We believe that a Biden administration will adhere to the rule of law… and restore dignity and integrity to the White House.” “We really have had overwhelming support for our efforts,” Karen Kirksey said.

    43 Alumni for Biden is backing the former Vice president as President Donald Trump’s support slips in the polls. Last month, a group of Republican operatives launched “Right Side PAC,” that, according to the group’s founder Matt Borges, will work to turn “that group of Republicans who feels that President Trump is an existential threat to the country and this party.”A group called Republican Voters Against Trump launched a $10 million ad campaign in May targeting Republican-leaning voters in top swing states to encourage them to support Biden. And a group of “Never Trump” Republicans formed the Lincoln Project in late 2019 and have run negative ads that have drawn the ire of Trump.

  • Mississippi Passes Resolution Removing Confederate Symbols From Its State Flag

    Mississippi Passes Resolution Removing Confederate Symbols From Its State Flag

    Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed a bill on June 30 abandoning the state’s flag and stripping the Confederate battle flag symbol from it, capping a remarkable turnaround on a banner that had flown over the state for more than a century. With Reeves’s move, Mississippi will take down one of the country’s most prominent Confederate tributes, withdrawing the only state flag that still bears such an emblem. The new flag’s design will be determined later, but lawmakers have barred it from including the most recognizable icon of the Confederacy, which many people associate with racism, slavery, and oppression. “This is not a political moment to me but a solemn occasion to lead our Mississippi family to come together and move on,” Reeves said at a ceremony at which he signed the measure. “A flag is a symbol of our past, our present and our future. For those reasons, we need a new symbol.” Reeves’s signature came two days after Mississippi lawmakers, facing a nationwide campaign for racial justice, passed the measure removing the state’s flag and calling for a replacement. 

    Lawmakers had debated the change over the weekend, with supporters of a change saying the flag had become a symbol of hatred. Opponents of jettisoning it said history would be abandoned and called instead for a statewide vote. When lawmakers voted to approve the move, loud applause broke out inside the state Capitol. “This is a new day for Mississippi,” state House Speaker Philip Gunn, who had backed a change for years, said in an interview with MSNBC, while standing in front of a man waving the state’s now-former flag. “We are not disregarding our heritage, we’re not ignoring the past, but we are embracing the future In the bill, lawmakers laid out two requirements for the flag’s eventual replacement: It cannot include the Confederate symbol and it must incorporate the phrase “In God We Trust.”

    In 2015, House Speaker Philip Gunn announced his support for changing the flag during efforts to wipe Confederate iconography from public spaces after an avowed white supremacist’s massacre of nine black parishioners at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The gunman in the Charleston shooting had posted a manifesto riddled with images of the Confederate battle flag, and in response, retailers vowed to stop selling items bearing that symbol and South Carolina took down a Confederate battle flag that had flown on its statehouse grounds. But the flag in Mississippi, a state where nearly 4 in 10 residents are black, stayed aloft until the more recent swell of activism after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The protests grew from an attack on policing tactics to a far broader campaign against racial injustice, and it has begun producing change in unexpected areas. NASCAR announced it would ban displays of the Confederate battle flag, while some demonstrators toppled or damaged Confederate memorials and other monuments, including those honoring Christopher Columbus, in cities across the country. 

    Opponents of Mississippi’s flag also began speaking out anew, with calls to remove it coming from a parade of powerful and high-profile voices that included college sports powerhouses, religious leaders, historical groups, and celebrities. Opponents of changing the flag had decried the move and said they felt the decision should be left up to residents. The Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans posted a statement telling lawmakers not to embark upon “some Legislative fiat, instead of allowing us to decide what our flag will be.” State Senator Chris McDaniel, who opposed altering the flag, said the legislature’s action came amid a “heavy-handed context of political correctness” in a video statement posted on Facebook. “The people of this state are incredibly frustrated,” he said in the message. “They should be incredibly frustrated. Not necessarily because the flag came down, but because [of] the way the flag came down. It came down in a manner, in a method and in a time that was completely wrongheaded.”

  • House of Representatives Passes Bill Granting Statehood For Washington DC

    House of Representatives Passes Bill Granting Statehood For Washington DC

    The House of Representatives voted nearly along party lines on June 28 to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., the first time a chamber of Congress has approved establishing the nation’s capital as a state. The legislation, which is unlikely to advance in the Republican-led Senate, would establish a 51st state, Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, named in honor of Frederick Douglass, and allow it two senators and a voting representative in the House. The National Mall, the White House, Capitol Hill, and some other federal property would remain under congressional jurisdiction, with the rest of the land becoming the new state. The vote was 232 to 180, with every Republican and one Democrat voting “no.” 

    Republicans have long opposed the move to give congressional representation to the District of Columbia, where more than three-quarters of voters are registered Democrats, but the long-suffering movement for statehood, led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the capital’s lone nonvoting delegate, has been pressing for a vote on the matter for years. When Democrats assumed the House majority last year, Congresswoman. Norton secured a promise from leaders to bring up the bill for the first time in more than a quarter-century. Anger over the Trump administration’s handling of racial justice protests, particularly the use of federal officers in the city and the violent removal of protesters from Lafayette Square outside the White House, further galvanized advocates of statehood and cast a national spotlight on how much control the federal government retains over more than 700,000 residents in the District of Columbia. “Over the last few months, the nation, and even the world, has witnessed the discriminatory and outrageous treatment of D.C. residents by the federal government,” Norton said on Friday on the House floor, where she was unable to cast a vote for the bill she championed. “The federal occupation of D.C. occurred solely because the president thought he could get away with it here. He was wrong.” 

    The bill, which passed along party lines, is not expected to become law. President Donald Trump issued a veto threat against it shortly before its passage, declaring the measure unconstitutional. Republicans in the Senate, where the legislation would have to meet a bipartisan 60-vote threshold to advance, have rejected the idea, arguing that if representation for its citizens was the sole issue, the District of Columbia should simply be absorbed into Maryland, another heavily Democratic state. “Retrocession wouldn’t give the Democrats their real aim: two Democratic senators in perpetuity to rubber-stamp the swamp’s agenda, so you won’t hear them talk about it,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), said in a lengthy diatribe on the floor. He declared that Wyoming, a state with a smaller population, was a “well-rounded, working-class state” superior to Washington, which would amount to “an appendage of the federal government” full of lobbyists and civil servants. Wyoming is more than 80 percent white, while the majority of the District of Columbia is composed of people of color.

    The arguments against statehood on the House floor barely shifted since the full chamber last debated the merits of granting statehood to Washington more than a quarter of a century ago. Opponents questioned the constitutional merits, arguing that the founding fathers intentionally did not establish the nation’s capital as a state. Others questioned whether the District of Columbia was geographically and economically viable to be a state. “Our nation’s founders made it clear that D.C. is not meant to be a state,” said Congressman Jody Hice (R-GA). “They thought about it, they debated it, and they rejected it.” Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) was the sole Democrat to join Republicans in opposing the measure. Top Democrats, several wearing masks with a symbol of the statehood movement, took to the floor to argue passionately for its passage, denouncing the disenfranchisement of Washington residents. Applause broke out on the floor as soon as the bill reached the necessary 218 thresholds to pass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at her weekly news conference in the Capitol, dismissed as shortsighted the Republican arguments that the new state would simply give Democrats a political advantage. Alaska and Hawaii, she pointed out, had entered the union as overwhelmingly Democratic and Republican states and then flipped politically. “What the state is, that can change over time,” Pelosi said. “But the fact is, people in the District of Columbia pay taxes, fight wars, risk their lives for our democracy — and yet in this place, they have no vote in the House and Senate.”

    The District of Columbia, where license plates read “Taxation without representation,” has long been burdened by a lack of federal representation. The capital first earned three electoral votes and the right to vote for President in 1961 with the passage of the 23rd Amendment. The right to elect a nonvoting delegate came a decade later, but lawmakers could not agree on whether to give that delegate the right to vote, and the statehood legislation never survived a floor vote. The disparity has gained renewed national attention during the coronavirus pandemic and the protests over racial injustice. In the $2.2 trillion stimulus law enacted in March, the District of Columbia received a small fraction of the funds doled out to states to help dull the economic effect of the virus because it was treated as a territory, despite customarily being granted funding as if it were a state. “Denying D.C. statehood to over 700,000 residents, the majority of them black and brown, is systemic racism,” said Stasha Rhodes, campaign director of the pro-statehood group 51 for 51. “D.C. statehood is one of the most urgent civil rights and racial justice issues of our time — and we know we are on the right side of history.”

  • Amid A Worsening Coronavirus Pandemic In US, President Donald Trump Announces Plan To Eliminate Federal Funding Of Coronavirus Testing Sites

    Amid A Worsening Coronavirus Pandemic In US, President Donald Trump Announces Plan To Eliminate Federal Funding Of Coronavirus Testing Sites

    As Coronavirus cases continue to spike across the US, the nation on June 24 saw its largest daily increase in confirmed new infections since the pandemic began, the Trump administration is reportedly planning to cut off federal funding for 13 coronavirus testing sites in five states at the end of the month, a move that is in keeping with the President’s vow to slow screenings for the virus. As reported by Politico on June 24, the federal government is ending its support for 13 drive-thru coronavirus testing sites on June 30, urging states to take over their operations, even as cases spike in several parts of the country. Seven of the sites set to lose federal funding and support are located in Texas, which has seen new Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations skyrocket during the reopening process, a spike that Texas Governor Greg Abbott (one of President Donald Trump’s strongest supporters at the state level) predicted last month in a private call that leaked to reporters. Texas was one of six states that saw a record increase in new infections on Wednesday. The other testing sites that will lose federal support next week are located in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey.

    Read More

    Texas lawmakers reacted with alarm to the administration’s plan, which was reported days after President Donald Trump said during a weekend rally in Oklahoma that he ordered a slowdown in coronavirus testing. White House officials claimed Trump’s comments were made “in jest,” but the President on June 23 doubled down and told reporters that he was not joking. “Texas continues to set records for the number of new cases and hospitalizations and Harris County leads the state in number of confirmed cases,” Texas Democratic Conrgressmembers Sylvia Garcia, Al Green, Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, and Sheila Jackson Lee wrote in letters this week to US Surgeon General Jerome Adams and to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administrator Pete Gaynor. Rocky Vaz, the director of emergency management for Dallas, told Talking Points Memo that the city asked for an extension of federal support for two testing sites in Dallas County but was denied by the Trump administration. “They told us very clearly that they are not going to extend it,” Vaz said. “We are not expecting it to continue beyond June 30, but things change.” On several occasions in recent weeks, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have falsely claimed that the recent surge in Coronavirus cases is the result of an expansion of testing rather than an actual spread of the virus. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, President Trump said coronavirus testing is “overrated” and “makes us look bad.”

    Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), demanded in a statement on June 24 that President Donald Trump immediately reverses the plan to end federal support for testing sites. “The pandemic is clearly getting worse in states nationwide—and instead of trying harder to stop it, President Trump is trying harder to hide it,” said Murray. “It’s completely unacceptable that while billions in federal dollars Congress passed to support testing sit unspent, this administration is closing testing sites in states where new Covid-19 cases are rapidly on the rise.” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) echoed Murray and urged Congress to intervene to ensure that the testing sites remain open and at full capacity. “Donald Trump can’t run from the facts: Covid-19 cases are still increasing and Americans are still dying,” Warren tweeted. “This is unacceptable—and Congress must act immediately to counter this reckless and inhumane measure.”

  • Senate Vote On Police Reform Bill Fails

    Senate Vote On Police Reform Bill Fails

    A Republican-sponsored bill meant to rein in police misconduct in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis failed in the US Senate on June 24, leaving congressional efforts to address racial inequities in American policing at an impasse. Democrats, denouncing the measure as irrevocably flawed, defeated a Republican push to move to final debate by a vote of 55-45, short of the 60 votes needed, a month after Floyd’s death in police custody set off weeks of worldwide protests against police brutality. The legislative fight over reform now moves to the House of Representatives, which plans to vote on a more sweeping Democratic bill on June 25. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats said they believed the June 24 vote makes it more likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican, will agree to negotiations on a stronger bipartisan measure. McConnell said he would schedule another vote if there was enough progress on closing Republican-Democratic differences. President Donald Trump said he would not accept Democratic reforms and suggested the issue could end in stalemate. “If nothing happens with it, it’s one of those things. We have different philosophies,” he told reporters.

    Read More

    George Floyd’s May 25 death in Minneapolis, after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, stirred strong public sentiment for stopping excessive force by police, especially against African Americans. Civil rights leaders and activist groups, who called on the Senate to reject the Republican bill, have urged lawmakers to take up stronger measures. Senate Democrats sought to seize the mantle of what they regard as a new US Civil Rights Movement to address the lingering issues of systemic racism and police brutality in the US. “This movement will not be deterred. This movement will not accept anything less than real, real, substantial, substantive solutions,” said Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) who helped craft the Democratic legislation. “And so let the beginning be today, of a real conversation,” she added. But Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chamber’s only African American Republican and author of the failed bill, cautioned that an impasse would leave African Americans vulnerable to police violence. “Do you know what’s going to happen? Something bad. And we’ll be right back here talking about what should have been done, what could have been done” to prevent it, Scott said.

    The Republican and Democratic bills address similar issues such as chokeholds, no-knock warrants, police body cameras, use of deadly force, and training to de-escalate confrontations with suspects and to encourage officer intervention against illegal conduct as it occurs. Democrats opposed the Republican bill because it relies on incentives to effect reforms and seeks data collection on issues such as no-knock warrants, rather than mandating changes as the Democratic bill does. Republicans warn that the Democratic bill could undermine law enforcement, in part because it would remove qualified immunity protections for police and allow victims of misconduct to sue for damages. Regarding the issue of qualified immunity protections for police officers, a June 22-23 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Americans favor removing the protections, 49% to 26%. Republicans were split on the issue, with 38% favoring removal and 37% opposing it.

  • President Donald Trump Announces Year-Long Suspension of Employment-Based Immigration Visas

    President Donald Trump Announces Year-Long Suspension of Employment-Based Immigration Visas

    President Donald Trump on June 22 issued a proclamation suspending some employment-based visas, including H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, through the end of the year as the US struggles to weather the widening coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration is touting the move as a way to protect American jobs amid the highest unemployment rate since 1939, but the decision has been panned by a broad range of companies who say they cannot access the labor they need in the US and who warn that the move could lead them to move operations abroad. The order is part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to severely limit immigration into the US during the pandemic. It suspends H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, most H-2B visas for non-agricultural guest workers, many J-1 visas for exchange visitors like teachers, interns, au pairs and camp counselors, and L-1 visas used by companies to transfer foreign workers to locations in the US, officials told reporters on June 22. Food supply chain workers are exempt, as are workers whom the government deems essential to the fight against coronavirus The order will also extend Trump’s April 2020 edict barring green cards for family members of US citizens. 

    An administration official estimated that the restrictions as a whole would prevent some 525,000 people from entering the US through the end of the year, though immigration analysts say they expect the number to be around half that figure. The ban will still be in place on October 1, the start of the government’s new fiscal year, when H-1B visas are typically issued. “American workers compete against foreign nationals for jobs in every sector of our economy, including against millions of aliens who enter the United States to perform temporary work,” President Donald Trump’s proclamation says. “Under ordinary circumstances, properly administered temporary worker programs can provide benefits to the economy. But under the extraordinary circumstances of the economic contraction resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, certain nonimmigrant visa programs authorizing such employment pose an unusual threat to the employment of American workers.”

    Immigration analysts and advocates have criticized the Trump administration for what they see as an effort to use the pandemic as cover to enact a number of restrictive immigration measures the administration has long wished to implement. Immigration hard-liners have pressured the administration for months to act to limit the number of foreign workers allowed into the US. The decision to temporarily suspend worker visas has even divided Congressional Republicans. In a May 27 letter addressed to President Trump, nine Republican senators, including close Trump ally Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, urged the president to reconsider limits on temporary foreign workers, saying that the move would hurt American businesses. “Guest workers are needed to boost American business, not take American jobs,” the letter read. But earlier in May, four Republican Senators wrote to President Donald Trump asking him to do the opposite and instead suspend temporary worker visas amid the pandemic.

  • Supreme Court Blocks President Trump’s Efforts To Eliminate DACA Program

    Supreme Court Blocks President Trump’s Efforts To Eliminate DACA Program

    In a major rebuke to President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle a program implemented by President Barack Obama in 2012 that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion. Under the Obama-era program, qualified individuals brought to the US as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, President Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts, and now the Supreme Court. Roberts’ opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on ‘a reasoned explanation for its action.’ “

    In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply declared DACA illegal and unconstitutional. “Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch,” he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be rescinded because he said it was unlawful from the start. But, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed, the Attorney General offered no detailed justifications for canceling DACA. Nor did the acting secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Elaine Duke, who put out a memo announcing the rescission of DACA that relied entirely on Sessions’ opinion that the program was unlawful. As Roberts noted, Duke’s memo did not address the fact that thousands of young people had come to rely on the program, emerging from the shadows to enroll in degree programs, embark on careers, start businesses, buy homes and even marry and have 200,000 children of their own who are US citizens, not to mention that DACA recipients pay $60 billion in taxes each year. None of these concerns are “dispositive,” Roberts said, but they have to be addressed. The fact that they were not addressed made the decision to rescind DACA “arbitrary and capricious,” he wrote. And none of the justifications the administration offered after the fact sufficed either, including a memo issued by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. That memo, said Roberts, was essentially too little, too late. An agency must defend its action based on the reasons it gave at the time it acted, he said, instead of when the case is already in court.

    Chief Justice John Roberts also made clear that an administration can rescind a program like DACA, and indeed immigration experts do not disagree with that conclusion. The problem for the administration was that it never wanted to take responsibility for abolishing DACA and instead sought to blame the Obama administration for what it called an “illegal and unconstitutional” program. The Chief Justice did not address that issue. Instead, says immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag, the justices in the majority seemed to be saying, “Why should the court be the bad guy” when the administration “won’t take responsibility” for rescinding DACA by explaining clearly what the policy justifications for the revocation are? Joining the Roberts opinion were the court’s four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote separately in a concurrence to say that while she agreed that rescinding DACA violated the law for the procedural reasons outlined by the Chief Justice, she would have allowed the litigants to return to the lower courts and make the case that rescinding DACA also amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the principal dissent, accusing Roberts of writing a political rather than a legal opinion. Joining him were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, with separate dissents also filed by Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    In a Twitter post, President Donald Trump blasted the decision as one of the “horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.” President Trump also asked the question of if “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, on the other hand, celebrated the decision, saying in a statement, “The Supreme Court’s ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored.” In an interview with NPR, Ken Cuccinelli, the Trump administration senior official who oversees immigration and citizenship at the Department of Homeland Security, said President Trump is considering his options. “I do expect you will see some action out of the administration,” he said, adding: “He is not a man who sits on his hands.”

    While the decision gives DACA and its hundreds of thousands of recipients a lifeline, the issue is far from settled. The court decided that the way President Donald Trump went about canceling DACA was illegal, but all the justices seemed to agree that the president does have the authority to cancel the program if done properly. As for the immediate future of DACA, the consensus among immigration experts is that there is not enough time for President Donald Trump to try again to abolish the program before January. Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, the author of a 21-volume treatise on immigration law, says, “It’s not remotely possible before the election. But if [Trump] is reelected, he almost certainly will try again” to cancel DACA. For now, though, more individuals eligible for DACA status may be able to apply. Marisol Orihuela, co-director of the Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, notes that the administration has refused to accept new applications since 2017. But she thinks that will change now. “Our understanding is that the program is restored to what it was in 2012 when it went into effect,” she says. Guttentag, who teaches immigration law at Yale and Stanford University, says if President Trump is not reelected, a new administration could repair “much of the damage” that he says has been inflicted on immigrants during the Trump administration. But, he adds that the immigration system is “completely shattered” and needs “fundamental reform.”

  • Amid Rising Tensions With NATO, President Trump Announces US Troop Cutbacks In Germany

    Amid Rising Tensions With NATO, President Trump Announces US Troop Cutbacks In Germany

    President Donald Trump said on June 14 that he plans on cutting back the number of US troops in Germany to 25,000, faulting the close US ally for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accusing it of taking advantage of America on trade. The reduction of about 9,500 troops would be a remarkable rebuke to one of the closest US trading partners and could erode faith in a pillar of postwar European security: that U.S. forces would defend alliance members against Russian aggression. It was not clear whether Trump’s stated intent, which first emerged in media reports on June 5, would actually come to pass given criticism from some of the President’s fellow Republicans in Congress who have argued a cut would be a gift to Russia. Speaking to reporters, Trump accused Germany of being “delinquent” in its payments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and vowed to stick with the plan unless the German government changed course. “So we’re protecting Germany and they’re delinquent. That doesn’t make sense. So I said, we’re going to bring down the count to 25,000 soldiers,” Trump said, adding that “they treat us very badly on trade” but providing no details. NATO in 2014 set a target that each of its 30 members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Most, including Germany, do not.

    President Donald Trump’s remarks were the first official confirmation of the planned troop cut, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal (one of the few newspapers that endorsed President Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections) and later confirmed to Reuters by a senior US official who spoke on condition of anonymity. That official said it stemmed from months of work by the US military and had nothing to do with tensions between Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who thwarted his plan to host an in-person Group of Seven (G7) summit. Asked about Trump’s statement, German Ambassador to the United States Emily Haber said US troops were in Europe to defend transatlantic security and to help the US project its power in Africa and Asia. “This is about transatlantic security but also about American security,” she told a virtual think tank audience, saying US-German security cooperation would remain strong and that her government had been informed of the decision.

    Last week, sources told Reuters that German officials as well a number of US officials at the White House, State Department and Pentagon were surprised by the Wall Street Journal report and they offered explanations ranging from President Donald Trump’s pique over the G7 to the influence of Richard Grenell, the former US ambassador to Germany and a Trump loyalist. “There is sure to be significant bipartisan opposition to this move in Congress, so it is possible any actual moves are significantly delayed or even never implemented,” said Phil Gordon of the Council on Foreign Relations. “This move will further erode allies’ faith in NATO and U.S. defense guarantees,” Gordon added, saying it may also “weaken the deterrence of Russia or anyone else who might threaten a NATO member.

  • Supreme Court Rules That Federal Civil Rights Law Protects LGBTQ Workers From Discrimination

    Supreme Court Rules That Federal Civil Rights Law Protects LGBTQ Workers From Discrimination

    Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled on June 14. The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation. The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices. “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote. “There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking,” the opinion read.

    Speaking at a press conference, President Donald Trump called the decision “very powerful” and acknowledged it was surprising to some. “They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.” Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden called the ruling “a momentous step forward for our country.” “The Supreme Court has confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity. That everyone should be able to live openly, proudly, as their true selves without fear,” Biden said. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, wrote in his dissent that “even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination, the context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute’s terms were understood to mean at that time.” Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s second Supreme court appointee, acknowledged the social and political progress achieved by members of the LGBTQ community, but nonetheless dissented. “They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment,” Kavanaugh wrote.

    A number of LGBTQ groups celebrated the court’s ruling, including the Human Rights Campaign, whose president, Alphonso David, said in a tweet that the decision is a “landmark victory for #LGBTQ equality.” Sarah Kate Ellis, the president of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, said in a statement that the decision “is a step towards affirming the dignity of transgender people, and all LGBTQ people.” But the ruling was also sharply criticized by the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, whose president issued a blistering statement about Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards,” said Carrie Severino, a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas. “This was not judging, this was legislating — a brute force attack on our constitutional system.” Gorsuch grounded his opinion in the plain text of the law. He acknowledged that when the law was passed, Congress may not have been thinking of gay, lesbian and transgender rights. The conservative justice said Congress might not have “anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” but, he said, the “express terms of the statute give us one answer.” “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit,” he wrote in the ruling.

    The court’s ruling was on separate cases: one concerning whether the law encompasses claims of sexual orientation brought by Gerald Bostock, and the estate of Donald Zarda, and the other concerning a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, whose challenge marked the first time the court heard arguments regarding the civil rights of a transgender individual. Stephens, who died in May, mustered the courage back in 2013 to tell her co-workers about something that she had struggled with her entire life: her gender identity. Not long after, she was fired as the director of a funeral home. Stephens’ former boss, Thomas Rost, testified in the lower court that she was fired because she was “no longer going to represent himself as a man.” A lower court ruled in her favor, holding it is “analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” Aimee Stephens’ wife, Donna Stephens, also welcomed the court’s ruling, saying in a statement that Aimee was “a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people.” “I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Donna Stephens said.

  • President Donald Trump Signs Executive Order Outlining Better Police Practices

    President Donald Trump Signs Executive Order Outlining Better Police Practices

    Following weeks of national protests since the death of George Floyd, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on June 16 that he said would encourage better police practices. President Trump met privately with the families of several African-Americans killed in interactions with police before his Rose Garden signing ceremony and said he grieved for the lives lost and families devastated. But then he quickly shifted his tone and devoted most of his public remarks to a need to respect and support “the brave men and women in blue who police our streets and keep us safe.” He characterized the officers who have used excessive force as a “tiny” number of outliers among “trustworthy” police ranks. “Reducing crime and raising standards are not opposite goals,” he said before signing the order, flanked by police officials. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have been rushing to respond to the mass demonstrations against police brutality and racial prejudice that have raged for weeks across the country in response to the deaths of Floyd and other black Americans. It is a sudden shift that underscores how quickly the protests have changed the political conversation and pressured Congress to act. But President Trump, who has faced criticism for failing to acknowledge systemic racial bias and has advocated for rougher police treatment of suspects in the past as well as mass incarceration and the death penalty for even the most minor crimes, has continued to hold his ’law and order” line. At the signing event, he railed against those who committed violence during the largely peaceful protests while hailing the vast majority of officers as selfless public servants.

    President Donald Trump’s executive order would establish a database that tracks police officers with excessive use-of-force complaints in their records. Many officers who wind up involved in fatal incidents have long complaint histories, including Derek Chauvin, the white Minneapolis police officer who has been charged with murder in the death of George Floyd. Those records are often not made public, making it difficult to know if an officer has such a history. The order would also give police departments a financial incentive to adopt best practices and encourage co-responder programs, in which social workers join the police when they respond to nonviolent calls involving mental health, addiction, and homeless issues. President Trump said that, as part of the order, the use of chokeholds, which have become a symbol of police brutality, would be banned “except if an officer’s life is at risk.” The order instructs the Justice Department to push local police departments to be certified by a “reputable independent credentialing body” with use-of-force policies that prohibit the use of chokeholds, except when the use of deadly force is allowed by law.

    While President Donald Trump hailed his executive order as “historic,” Democrats and other critics said that the order does not go far enough overall. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “One modest inadequate executive order will not make up for his decades of inflammatory rhetoric and his recent policies designed to roll back the progress that we’ve made in previous years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the order “falls sadly and seriously short of what is required to combat the epidemic of racial injustice and police brutality that is murdering hundreds of Black Americans. Kristina Roth at Amnesty International USA said the order “amounts to a Band-Aid for a bullet wound.” In contrast, President Trump said that other efforts at police reform are overly broad. Trump framed his plan as an alternative to the “defund the police” movement to fully revamp departments that have emerged from the protests and which he slammed as “radical and dangerous.” “Americans know the truth: Without police there is chaos. Without law there is anarchy and without safety, there is a catastrophe,” he said.

    The Trump Administration’s action came as Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been rolling out their own packages of policing changes. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the sole African American Republican in the Senate, has been crafting the legislative package, which will include new restrictions on police chokeholds and greater use of police body cameras, among other provisions. While the emerging Republican proposal is not as extensive as sweeping Democratic proposals, which are headed for a House vote next week, it includes perhaps the most far-reaching proposed changes ever from a party that often echoes Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric. It remains unclear whether the parties will be able to find common ground. Though their proposals share many similar provisions, both would create a national database so officers cannot transfer from one department to another without public oversight of their records, for example, several key differences remain. The Republican bill does not go as far as the Democrats’ on the issue of eliminating qualified immunity, which would allow those injured by law enforcement personnel to sue for damages. The Trump Administration has said that is a step too far. As an alternative, Senator Scott has suggested a “decertification” process for officers involved in misconduct.

  • US Unemployment Rate Declines By 2.5 Million In May

    US Unemployment Rate Declines By 2.5 Million In May

    The American economy defied forecasts for a Depression-style surge in Unemployment this week, signaling the economy is picking up faster than anticipated from the coronavirus-inflicted recession amid reopenings and government stimulus. A broad gauge of payrolls rose by 2.5 million in May, trouncing forecasts for a sharp decline following a 20.7 million decrease during the prior month that was the largest in records back to 1939, according to Labor Department data released on June 5. The figures were so astonishing that President Donald Trump held a news conference, where he called the numbers “outstanding” and predicted further improvement before he is up for re-election in November. While the overall picture improved, there remain several underlying issues facing the economy. For example, 21 million Americans remain unemployed with a jobless rate higher than any other time since 1939, indicating a full recovery remains far off with many likely to suffer for some time. And the return to work is uneven, with unemployment ticking up among African Americans to 16.8%, matching the highest since 1984, even as unemployment rates declined among white and Hispanic Americans. That comes amid nationwide protests over police mistreatment of African-Americans, which have drawn renewed attention to race-based inequality.

    The latest figures may give a boost to President Donald Trump, who has siginficantly fallen behind Democratic challenger Joe Biden in polls amid dissatisfaction with his response to the pandemic and the death of George Floyd. The numbers could also reduce pressure on policy for another round of fiscal support, with Democrats and Republicans at odds over the timing and scope of new measures following record aid approved by Congress. “The only thing that can stop us is bad policy, like raising taxes and the Green New Deal,” President Trump said on June 5. He also said that he will ask Congress to pass more economic stimulus, including a payroll tax cut.

    One caution noted by the US Labor Department is that the unemployment rate “would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” so 16.3% if data were reported correctly, according to the agency’s statement. That refers to workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to other reasons, rather than unemployed on temporary layoff. The broader U-6, or underemployment rate, which includes those who have not searched for a job recently or want full-time employment, fell only slightly to 21.2% in May from 22.8%, which is its highest rate since 1982. In February, it was 7%, with the main unemployment rate at a half-century low of 3.5%.

  • Minneapolis City Council Announces Plan To Dispand Police Department In Wake Of George Floyd’s Killing

    Minneapolis City Council Announces Plan To Dispand Police Department In Wake Of George Floyd’s Killing

    The Minneapolis city council has pledged to disband the city’s police department and replace it with a new system of public safety, a historic move that comes as calls to defund law enforcement are sweeping the US. Speaking at a community rally on June 7, a veto-proof majority of council members declared their intent to “dismantle” and “abolish” the embattled police agency responsible for George Floyd’s death, and build an alternative model of community-led safety. The decision is a direct response to the massive protests that have taken over American cities in the last two weeks, and is a major victory for abolitionist activists who have long fought to disband police and prisons. “In Minneapolis and in cities across the US, it is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe,” said Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president, at the event. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period. Our commitment is to do what’s necessary to keep every single member of our community safe and to tell the truth: that the Minneapolis police are not doing that. Our commitment is to end policing as we know it and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.” Nine council members announced their support and represent a supermajority on the 12-person council, meaning the mayor, who earlier this weekend opposed disbanding the department, cannot override them. 

    The formal effort to abolish a major-city police department in America and replace it with a different model of safety would have been almost unthinkable even weeks ago and is a testament to the impact of the protests that began with George Floyd’s death on May 25. “This is a moment that’s going to go down in history as a landmark in the police and prison abolition movement,” said Tony Williams, a member of MPD150, a Minneapolis group whose literature on building a “police-free future” has been widely shared during the protests. “There’s a groundswell of support for this. People are grounded in the history of policing in a way that has never happened before. It’s visible that police are not able to create safety for communities.” The council members are expected to face opposition from law enforcement officials and the police union, though activists emphasize that the veto-proof majority has the authority to move forward regardless of opposition.  President Donald Trump tweeted his opposition to the Minneapolis move on June 8, stating “LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE POLICE. The Radical Left Democrats have gone Crazy!”

    While the effort in Minneapolis is the most radical, a number of other US mayors and local leaders have reversed their positions on police funding. The mayor of Los Angeles said he would look to cut as much as $150 million from the police this week, just days after he pushed forward a city budget that was increasing it by 7%. Following days of protests and widespread accounts of police misconduct in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on June 7 that some funding would be moved from the police to “youth initiatives and social services”. Some council members and others, however, have been pushing for a $1 billion divestment from the New York Police Department. “The details will be worked out in the budget process in the weeks ahead, but I want people to understand that we are committed to shifting resources to ensure that the focus is on our young people,” Mayor De Blasio said. “And I also will affirm while doing that, we will only do it in a way that we are certain continues to ensure that this city will be safe.” De Blasio also announced that enforcement of regulations involving street vendors – many of whom are persons of color and, or immigrants, should not be handled by police. “Civilian agencies can work on proper enforcement and that’s what we’ll do going forward,” he said. 

    For years, police abolitionist groups have advocated for governments to take money away from police and prisons and reinvesting the funds in other services. The basic principle is that government budgets and “public safety” spending should prioritize housing, employment, community health, education and other vital programs, instead of police officers. Advocates for defunding argue that recent police reform efforts have been unsuccessful, noting that de-escalation training, body cameras, and other moves have not stopped racist brutality and killings. Amid the current protests, abolitionist groups have put forward concrete steps toward dismantling police and prisons, arguing that defunding police is the first move and that cities need to remove police from schools, repeal laws that “criminalize survival” such as anti-homelessness policies, provide safe housing for people and more. Colleges, public school systems, museums, and other institutions have also increasingly announced plans to divest from the police.

  • Presumptive Democratic Nominee Joe Biden Denounces President Trump For Response To Protests Over Racism & Police Brutality

    Presumptive Democratic Nominee Joe Biden Denounces President Trump For Response To Protests Over Racism & Police Brutality

    Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden on June 2 blasted President Donald Trump’s response to US protests over racism and police misconduct, vowing to try to heal the country’s racial divide and not “fan the flames of hate.” Speaking in Philadelphia, a city rocked by sometimes violent demonstrations in recent days, the former Vice President sought to draw a vivid contrast between himself and President Trump, whom he will face in the general election. Biden, who served eight years as Vice President under Barack Obama, the first African-American US President, cast himself as the candidate who best understands the longstanding pain and grief in the country’s African-American communities. He said the killing of George Floyd, the African-American man who died at the hands of Minneapolis police last week, was a “wake-up call” for the nation that must force it to address the stain of systemic racism.“We can’t leave this moment thinking we can once again turn away and do nothing,” Biden said. “We can’t.” He accused Trump of turning the nation into “a battlefield riven by old resentments and fresh fears.” “Is this who we want to be?” he asked. “Is this what we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren? Fear, anger, finger-pointing, rather than the pursuit of happiness? Incompetence and anxiety, self-absorption, selfishness?” Biden pledged he would “not traffic in fear or division.”

    Joe Biden has been under pressure from young African-American voters and other progressives to aggressively address racial and economic inequities in the country, and he has been increasingly talking in terms of sweeping societal change. His long history in the Senate, where he authored alongside senior Democratic Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas a now-heavily criticized crime bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, has at times complicated that effort, sowing some mistrust among liberal activists. At the same time, he has been mindful of condemning the looting and violence that has marked some of the protests. In response to these allegations, Trump campaign senior adviser Katrina Pierson accused Biden in a statement after the speech of making “the crass political calculation that unrest in America is a benefit to his candidacy.”

    Joe Biden’s speech on June 2 at Philadelphia’s City Hall marked the first time he has left his home state of Delaware to campaign in person since mid-March when the outbreak of the Coronavirus forced him to halt in-person campaigning indefinitely. While Biden had made public appearances in Delaware in recent days and convened a virtual conference of big-city mayors on June 1, his most recent speech suggested he may soon begin to again move about the country as states slowly re-open. Biden formally launched his White House bid in Philadelphia last year, and it is also where his campaign headquarters, currently empty because of the pandemic, is located. The city was also the birthplace of the US Constitution, which Biden cited in his speech as support of the right to peacefully protest. “Our freedom to speak is the cherished knowledge that lives inside every American,” he said.

  • Senate Republicans Block Measure Condemning President Trump’s Response To Anti-Racism Protesters

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked a resolution proposed by Senate Democrats that would have censured President Trump’s response to protesters in Washington, D.C., on June 1, when federal law enforcement officers forcefully removed demonstrators from a park across from the White House. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), introduced the resolution on June 2, saying on the Senate floor that the removal of the protesters was “appalling” and “an abuse of presidential power.” Schumer attempted to pass the measure by unanimous consent, which does not require a vote by the whole Senate but can be blocked by any member. McConnell objected, accusing Democrats of pulling a political stunt in the middle of the crisis sparked by the death of George Floyd, who died after a Minneapolis police officer pinned his knee to his neck. 

    Speaking after the resolution was introduced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called George Floyd’s death a “heinous act of criminal violence,” and said that “there’s no doubt that residual racism continues to be a stain on our country.” But the Republican leader argued that peaceful protests had been “hijacked” by violent riots and looting, and said the Democratic resolution would do nothing to ease tensions. “Those are the two issues that Americans want to address: racial justice, and ending riots. Unfortunately, this resolution from my friend the Democratic leader does not address either one of them. Instead, it just indulges in the myopic obsession with President Trump that has come to define the Democratic side of the aisle,” McConnell said. McConnell also proposed a resolution affirming the right to peaceful protest and condemning riots which were then blocked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    The Democratic-sponsored resolution would have affirmed the constitutional rights of Americans to peacefully protest, as well as state that violence and looting are unacceptable. It also would have condemned President Donald Trump “for ordering Federal officers to use gas and rubber bullets against the Americans who were peaceably protesting in Lafayette Square in Washington, DC on the night of June 1, 2020, thereby violating the constitutional rights of those peaceful protestors.” A Justice Department official said in a statement that Attorney General William Barr was part of the decision to expand the perimeter around the White House, pushing protesters who were assembled there from the area before President Trump delivered remarks from the Rose Garden. Protesters had gathered for the fourth day of demonstrations in response to George Floyd’s death and other instances of police brutality. The protests were described as peaceful before law enforcement deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators and cleared them from the area. After walking across the cleared-out Lafayette Park, Trump posed for photographs in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church while holding the Bible, joined by several members of his cabinet, including Attorney General William Barr, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

    Senate Republicans largely shied away from criticizing President Donald Trump’s June 1 visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters he “didn’t see it” when asked about the President’s photo-op. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), one of President Trump’s strongest Congressional supporters, told reporters at the Capitol that he believed Trump’s visit was “needed.” “I thought what the president did in visiting the church was not only appropriate, it was needed, it sent a message to the American people that its government is going to protect the innocent,” Kennedy said. The church was damaged in a small basement fire set by protesters on Sunday. A handful of Republicans also criticized Trump’s behavior however. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) released a statement saying he was “against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop.” Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told reporters that “I did not think that what we saw last night was the America that I know.” Trump’s visit to the church was also condemned by Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, who oversees the church and the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C.

  • President Trump Threatens To Deploy Military In Response To Protests Against Police Brutality

    As the nation prepared for another series of violent protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, President Donald Trump on June 1 threatened to deploy the military if states and cities failed to quell the demonstrations. “I am mobilizing all federal and local resources, civilian and military, to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans,” President Trump said during a hastily arranged address at the White House. “Today I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming presence until the violence is quelled,” Trump said. “If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” said the president. Trump stopped short of invoking the Insurrection Act, an archaic law from 1807 that would allow Trump to deploy active-duty U.S. troops to respond to protests in cities across the country. “During his address, Trump said he was taking “swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington DC,” adding, “What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace.” “As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.” 

    As President Donald Trump spoke, riot police and military police outside the White House were using tear gas to clear protesters out of Lafayette Square, a public square in front of the president’s residence. Following his remarks, President Trump left the White House and walked through the square, and it appeared strongly as though the riot police had forcibly cleared the square for the sole purpose of clearing a path for the President. Once he reached the far side of the square, Trump raised a bible in front of St. John’s Church, which had been set on fire by protesters the night before. The President did not try to talk to any of the protesters, however, leaving little doubt as to where his sympathies lay. 

    President Donald Trump’s address followed a weekend where he threatened the protesters gathered outside the gates of the White House with the promise of “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons.” During a teleconference with governors on June 1, President Trump berated them for not using harsher tactics to quell the protests that have lit up dozens of American cities since last week, when George Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, was killed by Minneapolis police. “You have to dominate if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you. You’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate,” the President told governors. Trump pressured the governors to mobilize more National Guard units, called for 10-year prison sentences for violent protesters, and effectively blamed the governors themselves for the racial unrest in their states. “The only time [violent protests are] successful is when you’re weak. And most of you are weak,” Trump can be heard saying on the audio recording. Trump also told the governors he was putting the nation’s highest-ranking military officer “in charge.” “General Milley is here who’s head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, a fighter, a warrior, and a lot of victories and no losses. And he hates to see the way it’s being handled in the various states. And I’ve just put him in charge,” Trump told the governors.

    As of June 1, 23 states and the District of Columbia have mobilized more than 17,000 National Guard personnel in support of state and local authorities. More than 45,000 members of the National Guard are already supporting Coronavirus response efforts at their governors’ direction. Inside the White House, there was little consensus over what President Donald Trump should do next. Some aides advised the president to deliver a formal address to the nation, urging calm and unity. Other advisers recommended that Trump take the opposite tack, and escalate the federal response, up to and including Trump invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to order federal troops into Washington D.C. Proponents of involving the Insurrection Act to quell the protests (the most notable of which being Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas) have pointed to the fact that Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy Lyndon Johnson, and George H.W. Bush invoked the Act in response to racial disturbances during their Presidencies. On the other hand, opponents of such measures argue that they will do little more than to inflame the racial tensions that have steadily increased since President Trump took office and may set negative precedence that may encourage future Presidents to utilize the military to crack down on their political opponents.

    On May 30, President Donald Trump had attempted to empathize with protesters and with George Floyd’s family during remarks he delivered at a SpaceX launch in Florida.“I understand the pain that people are feeling,” Trump said. “We support the right of peaceful protesters, and we hear their pleas. But what we are now seeing on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with justice or with peace. “The memory of George Floyd is being dishonored by rioters, looters, and anarchists. The violence and vandalism is being led by Antifa and other radical left-wing groups who are terrorizing the innocent, destroying jobs, hurting businesses, and burning down buildings.” But even in his scripted sympathy, Trump politicized the protests to a great extent by blaming “radical left-wing groups” as the main culprits behind the civil disturbances.

  • Congress Passes Bill Authorizing President Trump To Place Sanctions On China Regarding Human Rights Abuses Committed Against Uighur Muslims

    The House of Representatives on May 27 passed legislation calling on President Donald Trump’s administration to impose sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for the oppression of the country’s Uighur Muslim minority. The tally was 413 in favor, and just one opposed. Since the legislation has passed the Senate, approval sent the bill to the White House where congressional aides said they expected President Trump would sign it into law. The vote was historic, the first use of a new system allowing proxy voting because of the coronavirus pandemic.

    The bill calls for sanctions against those responsible for the repression of Uighurs and other Muslim groups in China’s Xinjiang province. It singles out the region’s Communist Party secretary, Chen Quanguo, a member of China’s powerful Politburo, as responsible for “gross human rights violations” against them. “Congress sent a clear message that the Chinese government cannot act with impunity,” said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who led the push for the legislation. The measure passed the Republican-led Senate by unanimous consent. The overwhelming majority in the Democratic-led House was far more than the two-thirds majority needed to override any veto. The bill also calls on American companies or individuals operating in the Xinjiang region to take steps to ensure their supply chains are not “compromised by forced labor” there. “Today, with this overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation, the United States Congress is taking a firm step to counter Beijing’s horrific human rights abuses against the Uighurs,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

    Since 2014, the Uighur Muslim community in China has been affected by extensive controls and restrictions upon their religious and cultural practices, as well as social life. In Xinjiang province, the Chinese government has expanded police surveillance to watch for signs of “religious extremism” that include owning books about Uighur, growing a beard, having a prayer rug, or quitting smoking or drinking. The government had also installed cameras in the homes of private citizens. Additionally, the United Nations estimates that close to 1 million Uighur Muslims have been detained in mass prison camps aimed at changing their political thinking, religious beliefs, and identities. The Chinese government has denied any mistreatment at these camps and has claimed that the camps provide vocational training.

    The increased efforts to place sanctions on the Chinese government for the human rights abuses carried out against the Uighur Muslim community comes at a time of heightened tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration. For example, President Donald Trump has escalated his ongoing trade war against China and has blamed the Chinese government (with little evidence) for planning out the Coronavirus pandemic as a form of biological warfare against the US. Additionally, President Donald Trump has publically floated the idea of launching military strikes against China as a form of retribution for the Coronavirus outbreak.


  • President Trump Threatens To Shut Down Social Media Sources Critical Of His Policies

    President Donald Trump on May 27 threatened to regulate or shut down social media companies for stifling conservative voices, a day after Twitter attached a warning to some of his tweets prompting readers to fact check the president’s claims. Without offering evidence, President Trump accused such platforms of bias, tweeting: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down before we can ever allow this to happen.” Trump, a heavy user of Twitter with more than 80 million followers, added: “Clean up your act, NOW!!!! Trump’s threat to shut down platforms such as Twitter and Facebook was his strongest yet within a broader conservative backlash against Big Tech.

    Twitter for the first time attached fact-check labels on President Donald Trump’s tweets after he made unsubstantiated claims on May 26 about mail-in voting. In a pair of early morning posts on May 27, the Republican president again blasted mail-in ballots. President Trump falsely claims that mail-in ballots lead to vote fraud and ineligible voters getting ballots. Twitter and Facebook declined to comment on Trump’s tweets. Asked during Twitter’s annual meeting why the company decided to affix the label to Trump’s mail-in ballot tweets, General Counsel Sean Edgett said decisions about handling misinformation are made as a group. “We have a group and committee of folks who take a look at these things and make decisions on what’s getting a lot of visibility and traction…,” he said. In recent years Twitter has tightened its policies amid criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive. Tech companies have been accused of anti-competitive practices and violating user privacy. Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon face antitrust probes by federal and state authorities and a US congressional panel. The Internet Association, which includes Twitter and Facebook among its members, said online platforms do not have a political bias and they offer “more people a chance to be heard than at any point in history.”

    It was not immediately clear whether President Donald Trump has the authority to shut down the companies. The American Civil Liberties Union said the First Amendment of the US Constitution limits any action President Trump could take to regulate social media platforms. Separately, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by a conservative group and right-wing YouTube personality against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple alleging they conspired to suppress conservative political views.

    Republican and Democratic lawmakers, along with the Justice Department, have been considering changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their user’s post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits. Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a frequent critic of Big Tech companies and strong supporter of President Donald Trump, sent a letter to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey asking why the company should continue to receive legal immunity after “choosing to editorialize on President Trump’s tweets.”

  • Study: Coronavirus Lockdowns Have Reduced Carbon Emissions To 14-Year Low

    The Coronavirus pandemic has forced countries around the world to enact strict lockdowns, seal borders, and scale back economic activities. Despite these negative effects of the coronavirus lockdown, a new study found that these measures contributed to an estimated 17 percent decline in daily global carbon dioxide emissions compared to daily global averages from 2019. It is a worldwide drop that scientists say could be the largest in recorded history. At the height of coronavirus confinements in early April, daily carbon dioxide emissions around the world decreased by roughly 18.7 million tons compared to average daily emissions last year, falling to levels that were last observed in 2006, according to the new study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

    Drastic changes in transportation, industrial activities, and air travel in nations under lockdowns could also fuel a decrease in this year’s annual carbon emissions of up to 7 percent, the study found. Though significant, scientists say these declines are unlikely to have a long-term impact once countries return to normal unless governments prioritize investments and infrastructure to reduce harmful emissions. “Globally, we haven’t seen a drop this big ever, and at the yearly level, you would have to go back to World War II to see such a big drop in emissions,” said Corinne Le Quéré, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in the UK, and the study’s lead author. “But this is not the way to tackle climate change, it’s not going to happen by forcing behavior changes on people. We need to tackle it by helping people move to more sustainable ways of living.” 

    The study found that the sharpest decline in carbon emissions, making up 43 percent of the total decrease, came from reduced traffic from cars, buses, and trucks. Emissions from industrial activities, which were ramped down substantially in the hardest-hit nations, fell by 19 percent. Emissions from air travel, which experienced a staggering 75 percent drop in daily activity in early April, fell by 60 percent. That decline, however, made up a much smaller portion of the overall decrease because air travel typically accounts for only 2.8 percent of yearly global carbon emissions. “Air traffic was down two-thirds, but surface transport — cars and trucks — is almost 10 times bigger in terms of emissions,” said Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and a co-author of the study. The pandemic will likely also cause this year’s annual carbon emissions to drop by between 4 percent to 7 percent, depending on how long strict social-distancing measures remain in effect and how quickly economies rebound. In early April, the deepest decreases in daily global carbon emissions, 17 percent declines compared to daily averages last year, lasted for about two weeks, according to Jackson. Individual countries saw an average drop in emissions of 26 percent at the peak of their lockdowns, which occurred earlier for several countries in Asia, where the coronavirus emerged in late December, and more recently for parts of Europe and North America.

    The study did not account for how global emissions could be affected by new outbreaks and a subsequent wave of infections, but such events could likely lead to steeper declines in emissions this year and possibly into 2021. “If the outbreak lasts longer, we’ll have more depressed economic activity in 2021,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved with the new study. “It’s likely at this point that 2021 emissions will be below 2019 emissions but higher than 2020, unless things take a turn for the worse.” In the new analysis, the researchers examined lockdown measures in 69 countries that are responsible for 97 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Since there is no way to measure carbon dioxide emissions in real-time, the scientists used data on how six key economic sectors, including industrial activities, ground transportation, and air travel, were affected in each country from January through April. They then calculated how emissions in these sectors, and their contribution to yearly emissions, changed based on the severity of each nation’s social-distancing restrictions.

    Though declining emissions make for unexpected good news against the backdrop of the pandemic, these reductions have come at a high societal cost. The changes are also unlikely to last once restrictions on people’s movements and daily lives are lifted. And though these declines are largely unparalleled in modern history, they also demonstrate how difficult it is to make significant dents in global emissions. “Despite all of the changes that are happening around the world to our lifestyle and consumption behaviors, we’re only going to see a reduction of 7 percent this year,” Zeke Hausfather said. “It goes to show just how big of a challenge decarbonization really is.” Before the pandemic, global carbon dioxide emissions had been increasing by approximately 1 percent a year over the past decade. A drop in emissions in one year is something, but it is not enough to slow the accelerated pace of climate change. “Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, so climate change is driven more by the total amount we’ve ever emitted than any amount we emit in a single year,” Hausfather said. “From a climate standpoint, what really matters is long-term systemic changes that can drive emission declines over decades.”

    Decreases from 4 percent to 7 percent are roughly in line with how much global emissions would need to fall each year to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees Celsius, as outlined under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “We would have to have the same speed of reduction that’s happening in 2020 every year for the next decade,” Zeke Hausfather said. But Corinne Le Quéré said she hopes the study’s findings will encourage countries to think about solutions that promote economic recovery without sacrificing climate action. “We’re at a crossroads,” she said. “It’s about governments having vision and being forward-thinking. What society do we need to build tomorrow to reduce the risks of more disasters?” There is cause to be optimistic, Rob Jackson said, because some of the environmental changes from the coronavirus pandemic could be readily seen or felt. “The most obvious change was the beautiful blue skies we saw from India to Indiana,” he said. “People can relate to that more than abstract discussions about greenhouse gas emissions — you could just see that skies were clear.”

  • House Of Representatives Approves New Coronavirus Stimulus Package

    House Of Representatives Approves New Coronavirus Stimulus Package

    On May 15, the House of Representatives passed a $3 trillion tax cut and spending bill aimed at addressing the devastating economic fallout from the growing Coronavirus outbreak by directing huge sums of money into all corners of the economy. The Trump Administration and Senate Republicans have decried the measure’s design and said they will cast it aside, leaving uncertain what steps policymakers might take as the economy continues to face severe strains. The sweeping legislation, dubbed the “Heroes Act, passed 208-199. Fourteen Democrats defected and opposed the bill, reflecting concerns voiced both by moderates and liberals in the House Democratic caucus about the bill’s content and the leadership-driven process that brought it to the floor. The bill won support from just one Republican, Congressman Peter King of New York, generally regarded as a relatively moderate Republican. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed forward despite the divisions in her caucus and Republican opposition, arguing that the legislation will put down a marker for Democrats’ priorities and set the stage for negotiations on the next bipartisan relief bill. Americans “are suffering so much, in so many ways. We want to lessen their pain,” Pelosi said during the House floor debate. “Not to act now is not only irresponsible in a humanitarian way, it is irresponsible because it’s only going to cost more, more in terms of lives, livelihood, cost to the budget, cost to our democracy.”

    As Washington scrambled to deal with the growing impact of the coronavirus pandemic earlier this year, the Trump administration, state governments, local officials, and businesses took steps to send many Americans home as a way to try to contain the contagion. This led to a mass wave of layoffs that began more than two months ago and has continued every week since, particularly as Americans have sharply pulled back spending. Congress has passed four bipartisan coronavirus relief bills that have already cost around $3 trillion to try to blunt the economic fallout. While Republicans and Trump administration officials agree that more action will be necessary at some point, many say it’s time to pause and see how the programs already funded are working before devoting even more federal funds to the crisis as deficits balloon. “The president has said he would talk about state and local aid, but it cannot become a pretext for bailing out blue states that have gotten themselves into financial trouble, so while he’s open to discussing it he has no immediate plans to move forward,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, adding, “The Pelosi bill has been entirely unacceptable.”

    In a reflection of clashing priorities that might make it difficult to come to an agreement on additional relief legislation, White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow floated slashing the 21 percent corporate tax rate in half for companies that return operations to the United States from overseas, a dramatic change that drew immediate opposition from Democrats. President Donald Trump has also called for a payroll tax cut and new legal liability protections for businesses in any future legislation, policies that have already been rejected by Democrats, and, in the case of the payroll tax cut, some Republicans as well. President Trump himself is pushing for the economy to reopen as quickly as possible and said recently that he’s in “no rush” to sign off on additional spending.

  • 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses Results

    2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses Results

    In an early Iowa Democratic caucus vote count, Senator Bernie Sander held a slight popular-vote lead, while former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg led in a measure of state delegates. With 62 percent of precincts counted, Sanders earned 26 percent of the popular vote; Buttigieg hit 25. By both measures, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was in third place with 20 percent of the vote, and former Vice President Joe Biden placed fourth at 13 percent. The results were released nearly a day after the caucuses were held, thanks to widespread reporting issues. The Iowa Democratic Party blamed inconsistencies in reporting for the delay. A New York Times analysis of the data, however, said that the results were “riddled with inconsistencies. Technical glitches in an app used to report caucus data delayed results typically released the night of the Iowa presidential caucuses, which took place on February 3. Candidates started to move on to New Hampshire on February 4 ahead of its February 11 primary, but not before they put a positive spin on the Hawkeye State outcome in the absence of official numbers.

    Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman Mandy McClure said this week that the party would “continue to release the results as we can.” The first set of data from more than half of the precincts came at about 5 p.m. on February 4, followed by more results just before midnight. New chunks of numbers came throughout the day on February 5. Adding to confusion and frustration, Iowa Democrats had to update one batch of data after acknowledging they needed to make a “minor correction.” The figures the party initially released showed Buttigieg jumping barely ahead of Sanders in one of its three data sets, reallocated preference. But Sanders once again had an edge in that category when the numbers were reissued. Just before the party released its first batch of data, its chairman, Troy Price, apologized for the botched reporting process. He called it “unacceptable.” Price said Iowa Democrats would undertake a “thorough, transparent and independent examination of what occurred.” Price said the party faced “multiple reporting challenges” including a “coding error” in the app used at caucus sites. He noted that Iowa Democrats have taken their time out of an “abundance of caution” to make sure the data is accurate. Price said the party has a paper trail to verify electronically reported data.

    Multiple Democratic campaigns criticized the delay in releasing results. The chaos fueled more calls from observers to do away with caucuses or Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status. In the absence of results, campaigns announced internal tallies, which can skew toward their candidates. The data suggested some combination of Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren were competing at the top of the caucus field. Buttigieg declared victory early on February 5, the only candidate to do so before the state party released any data. Speaking in New Hampshire after Iowa Democrats released results, he said a campaign that “some said should have no business even making this attempt has taken its place at the front of this race.” Speaking before results were released, Sanders said “we’re not declaring victory.” After the Iowa results started to come out, he said to reporters in New Hampshire, “I’m very proud to tell you that last night in Iowa we received more votes on the first and second round than any other candidate.” “For some reason in Iowa, they’re having a little bit of trouble counting votes,” he continued. “But I am confident that here in New Hampshire I know you’ll be able to count those votes on election night.”

  • Boris Johnson Promises To “get Brexit done” In 2020

    Boris Johnson Promises To “get Brexit done” In 2020

    UK prime minister Boris Johnson, secured a crushing victory in the December 12 UK general election as voters backed his promise to “get Brexit done” and take the country out of the European Union by the beginning of 2020. The Conservative Party captured 364 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, a comfortable majority of 80 seats and the party’s best showing in a parliamentary election since 1987. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will now move swiftly to ratify the Brexit deal he sealed with the European Union, allowing the UK to exit the bloc, more than 40 years after it originally joined, at the end of next month, nearly a year later than initially planned and three-and-a-half years after UK voters held a referendum on the issue. Prime Minister Boris Johnson must now negotiate a multi-part deal governing the UK’s future relationship with the world’s largest trading bloc, a process most experts think could take years, but he has promised can be completed during an 11-month transition period due to end in December 2020.

    The Labor Party, whose leader, the veteran socialist Jeremy Corbyn, had presented voters a manifesto offering a second Brexit referendum and a radical expansion of the state, was plunged into bitter recriminations after the party won just 203 seats, its worst result since 1935. Labour lost seats it had held for long decades in former industrial areas in the Midlands and north of the country England as voters who had overwhelmingly backed Brexit in the June 2016 referendum swung towards the Conservatives. His critics blamed the party’s losses on Corbyn’s ambiguity over Brexit and said voters had expressed antipathy to him during the campaign. Corbyn, who was elected leader in 2015, has alienated moderates by shifting the party firmly away from the center that brought Labour three successive election victories under Tony Blair.

    As well as promising to “get Brexit done”, Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to increase spending on health, education and the police and was handed a boost early in the campaign when arch-Eurosceptic Nigel Farage said his Brexit party, which failed to win any seats, would not compete in hundreds of seats to avoid splitting the pro-Brexit vote. His thumping majority should now allow him to ignore the threat of rebellion by Eurosceptics in his own party, possibly opening up the prospect of a softening in the hardline approach he has so far adopted towards Brexit.

    Click Here For Original Post

  • President Trump Announces Deal With Mexico to Forestall Planned Tariff Increases

    President Trump Announces Deal With Mexico to Forestall Planned Tariff Increases

    President Donald Trump backed off his plan to impose tariffs on all Mexican goods and announced through Twitter on June 7 that the US had reached an agreement with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants to the Southwestern border. President Trump tweeted the announcement only hours after returning from Europe and following several days of intense and sometimes difficult negotiations between American and Mexican officials. Trump’s threat that he would impose potentially crippling tariffs on the US’ largest trading partner and one of its closest allies brought both countries to the brink of an economic and diplomatic crisis, only to be yanked back from the precipice nine days later. The threat had rattled companies across North America, including automakers and agricultural firms, which have built supply chains across Mexico, the US, and Canada.

    Business leaders in the US, Mexico, and Canada had warned that the Trump Administration’s proposed tariffs would increase costs for American consumers, who import a whole host of goods ranging from automobiles to appliances from Mexico, and prompt retaliation from the Mexican government in the form of new trade barriers that would damage the US economy. But the trade war ended before it began, forestalling that economic reckoning and an intraparty war that President Donald Trump had created by threatening tariffs to leverage immigration policy changes. Trump’s tactic had drawn protests from Republicans, including many Senators who have long opposed tariffs and worried the measure would hurt American companies and consumers. In an unusual show of force against their own party’s President, Republican Senators had threatened to block the tariffs if President Trump moved ahead with them, and had demanded a face-to-face meeting with Trump before any action. For Mexico, Trump’s threat was a replay of past episodes in which he ranted about the country’s lack of immigration enforcement. This year, he threatened to shut down the entire Southwestern border, backing off only after aides showed him evidence that Mexican authorities were taking aggressive action to stop migrants.

    According to a US-Mexico Joint Declaration distributed late on June 7, Mexico agreed to, “take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US. The declaration, distributed by the State Department, said Mexico had also agreed to accept an expansion of a Trump administration program that makes some migrants wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are heard in the US. “The United States looks forward to working alongside Mexico to fulfill these commitments so that we can stem the tide of illegal migration across our southern border and to make our border strong and secure,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. But the declaration by the two countries included an ominous warning, as well, stating that if Mexico’s actions “do not have the expected results,” additional measures could be taken. The declaration said the two countries would continue talking about other steps that could be announced within 90 days to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of its national guard throughout the country to stop migrants from reaching the US.

  • President Trump Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes

    President Trump Preparing Pardons for Servicemen Accused of War Crimes

    3

    President Donald Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder, and desecration of a corpse, according to two US officials. The officials said that the Trump administration had made expedited requests this week for paperwork needed to pardon the troops on or around Memorial Day. One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, who is scheduled to stand trial in the coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said they had not seen a complete list, and did not know if other service members were included in the request for pardon paperwork.

    The White House sent requests on May 17 to the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which alerted the military branches, according to one senior military official. Pardon files include background information and details on criminal charges, and in many cases include letters describing how the person in question has made amends. The official said while assembling pardon files typically takes months, the Justice Department stressed that all data would have to be complete before Memorial Day weekend because President Donald Trump planned to pardon the men then.

    President Donald Trump has often bypassed traditional channels in granting pardons and wielded his power freely, sometimes in politically charged cases that resonate with him, such as the conviction of the former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. Earlier this month, Trump pardoned former Army First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, who had been convicted of killing an Iraqi civilian during an interrogation in 2008. While the requests for pardon files are a strong sign of the President’s plans, Trump has been known to change his mind and it is not clear what the impetus was for the requests. But most of the troops who are positioned for a pardon have been championed by conservative lawmakers and media organizations, such as Fox News, which have portrayed them as being unfairly punished for trying to do their job. Many have pushed for Trump to intervene. The White House declined to comment. Pardoning several accused and convicted war criminals at once, including some who have not yet gone to trial, has not been done in recent history, legal experts said. Some worried that it could erode the legitimacy of military law and undercut good order and discipline in the ranks.

  • Anti-Abortion Bill Reignites Debate Over Reproductive Freedom

    Anti-Abortion Bill Reignites Debate Over Reproductive Freedom


    On May 15, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law a controversial abortion bill that would punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison. “Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature,” said Ivey. “To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.” Governor Ivey noted in her statement that the new law might be unenforceable due to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But, the new law was passed with the aim of challenging that decision, Ivey said.

    The Alabama state Senate passed the bill by a 25-6 with little opportunity for debate. The law only allows exceptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.” Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote. Alabama lawmakers now lead the pack of legislators across several states who are producing measures to restrict abortion, such as Georgia’s recent fetal heartbeat bill. Many women do not yet know for sure that they are pregnant at six weeks into a pregnancy, the earliest a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Republican state senator Clyde Chambliss, who ushered the bill through the chamber, repeatedly referred on the Senate floor to a “window” of time between conception and when a woman knows for sure that she is pregnant. The state senator said he believed that time was between about seven and ten days.

    Overall, the reaction to the Alabama abortion law has been mixed, with pro-life activists praising its passage and pro-choice groups similarly condemning it. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician at the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives who provides abortion services, said the law would have a “devastating impact” on patients. She said that she was unclear under what circumstances the law would allow an abortion based on “reasonable medical judgment” and health of the mother. Additionally, 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand denounced the legislation as unconstitutional and as “the greatest threat to reproductive freedom in our lifetimes.” On the other hand, anti-abortion organizations groups such as Americans United for Life praised the bill, stating that the Alabama legislature has recognized that abortion is “the extinguishing of a unique human life.” Additionally, President Donald Trump similarly endorsed the law and urged the Republican Party to remain united on the issue of abortion rights.

  • Supreme Court Holds Hearings On Congressional Gerrymandering Case

    The Supreme Court returned to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on March 26, appearing divided along ideological lines as it considered for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power ever violates the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court’s newest member and the one who may possess the decisive vote, expressed uneasiness about the practice. “Extreme partisan gerrymandering is a real problem for our democracy,” he said. “I’m not going to dispute that.” He added, though, that recent developments around the nation, including state ballot initiatives establishing independent redistricting commissions, proposed legislation in Congress and State Supreme Court rulings, may take action from the US Supreme Court less necessary. “Have we really reached the moment, even though it would be a big lift for this court to get involved, where the other actors can’t do it?” he asked.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh was an exceptionally active participant in March 26’s arguments, asking probing questions of both sides and displaying particularly detailed familiarity with the geography and voting districts of Maryland, his home state. But his record as an appeals court judge provides few hints about how he will approach the issue. The other justices seemed largely split along the usual lines, with the more conservative ones wary of announcing constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering and the more liberal ones prepared to try. There was certainly no consensus on how to fashion a legal standard that would separate acceptable partisanship from the kind that is unconstitutional. Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a numerical test, but it did not seem to gain traction with his colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch, on hearing one lawyer’s proposed standard, said it amounted to “I know it when I see it.”

    Last year’s cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, raised the possibility that the court might decide, for the first time, that some election maps were so warped by politics that they crossed a constitutional line. Challengers had pinned their hopes on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had expressed ambivalence on the subject, but he and his colleagues appeared unable to identify a workable constitutional test. The justices instead sidestepped the central questions in the two cases. When Justice Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy, many election lawyers said the prospects of a decision limiting partisan gerrymandering dropped sharply. Justice Kavanaugh’s questioning on March 26 complicated that assessment.

    The North Carolina case, Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, was an appeal from a decision in August by a three-judge panel of a Federal District Court in North Carolina. The ruling found that Republican legislators there had violated the Constitution by drawing the districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates. The Maryland case, Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, was brought by Republican voters who said Democratic state lawmakers had in 2011 redrawn a district to retaliate against citizens who supported its longtime incumbent, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican. That retaliation, the plaintiffs said, violated the First Amendment by diluting their voting power.

    Overall, the striking down of the tactic of partisan gerrymandering by the Supreme Court would have significant results going forward and would help to equalize the American political system. For example, gerrymandering is the primary factor that prevented the Democrats from regaining control of Congressional seats in competitive states and reduced their chances to have a substantial House majority. Additionally, gerrymandering has prevented the Republican Party from remaining competitive in states that lean towards the Democratic Party. If gerrymandering is overturned, it is hoped that the American political system will stabilize and the hyper-partisan rhetoric on both sides of the aisle will subside.

  • Will They Impeach? Part Three

    Will They Impeach? Part Three

    What Does The Release of the Mueller Report Mean For The Trump Presidency

    The two-year long investigation led by Robert Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on March 24. Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating Russia’s effort to sabotage the 2016 Presidential Election, found no conspiracy “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Barr wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice, Barr said, so he made his own decision. The Attorney General and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense. Attorney General Barr cautioned, however, that Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.

    The release of the findings was a significant political victory for President Donald Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his Presidency since before he took the oath of office. It is also likely to alter discussion in Congress about the fate of the Trump presidency, as some Democrats had pledged to wait until the special counsel finished his work before deciding whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. President Trump and his supporters trumpeted the news almost immediately, even as they mischaracterized the special counsel’s findings. “It was a complete and total exoneration,” Trump told reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One. “It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this.” Trump added, “This was an illegal takedown that failed.”

    Attorney General William Barr’s letter was the culmination of a tense two days since Robert Mueller delivered his report to the Justice Department. Barr spent the weekend poring over the special counsel’s work, as President Donald Trump strategized with lawyers and political aides. Hours later, Barr delivered his letter describing the special counsel’s findings to Congress. Barr’s letter said that his “goal and intent” was to release as much of the Mueller report as possible, but warned that some of the reports were based on grand jury material that “by law cannot be made public.” Barr planned at a later date to send lawmakers the detailed summary of Mueller’s full report that the attorney general is required under law to deliver to Capitol Hill. Despite the comprehensive nature of the report on the Mueller investigation, many Congressional Democrats expressed concern regarding its findings. For example, shortly after the release of the Mueller findings, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a Twitter post that he planned to call Barr to testify about what he said were “very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department.”

    It can be argued that the release of the Mueller report is beneficial for President Donald Trump going into the 2020 Election.

    Overall, the findings of the Mueller report will have a significant impact on American politics going forward. The biggest takeaway from the report is that there is no tangible evidence explicitly connecting President Donald Trump to Russian efforts to sway the 2016 Presidential Election in his favor. The lack of evidence in this area weakens the efforts to impeach President Trump. While there is ample evidence that Trump committed serious financial crimes prior to his Presidency and was involved in White Supremacist hate groups such as the KKK since at least the 1970s, the US Consitution makes it difficult at best to indict a sitting President. The only area that Trump can potentially be indicted on is his attempt to cover up his affair with Stormy Daniels and violate campaign finance laws by doing so, though there is little will on the part of Congress to pursue these charges.

    Additionally, it can be argued that the partial exoneration of President Donald Trump will have a positive effect on his poll numbers going into 2020. For example, President Trump’s approval rating has hovered between 42-48% over the past few months. Many observers note that the President’s approval ratings remained in this range due to the ongoing Mueller investigation. With the Mueller investigation behind him, it is likely that Trump’s approval ratings will increase over the coming months assuming that the economy remains strong and no major foreign policy issues will emerge. These higher approval ratings may linger into 2020 and might be enough to (unfortunately) carry Trump to a second term in office.

  • Why President Donald Trump’s Rhetoric Caused the New Zealand Mosque Shooting

    Why President Donald Trump’s Rhetoric Caused the New Zealand Mosque Shooting

    On March 15, 2019, at least 49 people were killed in mass shootings at two New Zealand mosques full of worshippers attending Friday prayers in a terrorist attack broadcast in a horrific, live video by an immigrant-hating, far-right, white supremacist wielding at least two rifles. One man was arrested and charged with murder, and two other armed suspects were taken into custody while police tried to determine what role they played. “It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, noting that many of the victims could be migrants or refugees. She pronounced it “one of New Zealand’s darkest days.” The attack shocked people across the nation of 5 million people, a country that has relatively loose gun laws but is so peaceful even police officers rarely carry firearms.

    https://youtu.be/TPWxqhO00OM

    The gunman behind at least one of the mosque shootings left a 74-page manifesto (in which he cited US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as inspirations for his hatred of Muslims) that he posted on social media under the name Brenton Tarrant, identifying himself as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe. Using what may have been a Go-Pro helmet camera, he live-streamed to the world in graphic detail his assault on worshippers at Christchurch’s Masjid Al Noor (a predominantly Shi’a Mosque), where at least 41 people were killed. An attack on a second mosque in the city not long after killed several more. Police did not identify those taken into custody and gave no details except to say that none of them had been on any watch list. They did not immediately say whether the same person was responsible for both shootings. Prime Minister Ardern alluded to anti-immigrant sentiment as the possible motive, saying that immigrants and refugees “have chosen to make New Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us.” As for the suspects, Ardern said, “these are people who I would describe as having extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand.”

    A Syrian refugee, a Pakistani academic, and their sons were among the 49 people killed. Syrian refugee Khaled Mustafa and his family moved to New Zealand in 2018 because they saw it as a safe haven, Syrian Solidarity New Zealand said on its Facebook page. His older son, Hamza Mustafa, was killed and his younger son was wounded. Victims hailed from around the world. Naeem Rashid and his son Talha were among six Pakistanis who were killed in the mosques, according to Mohammad Faisal, spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”He used to teach at a university,” Dr. Khurshid Alam said of his brother. “My nephew (Talha) was a student.”Shah Mahmood Qureshi, foreign minister of Pakistan, confirmed the deaths and offered his sympathies to the families as well as a “promise to facilitate them to the best of our abilities.” Additionally, several worshippers from Iran, Palestine, and Jordan were among those killed as well.

    The terrorist attack sparked much horror and revulsion throughout the world. Pope Francis denounced the “senseless acts of violence” and said he was praying for the Muslim community and all New Zealanders. Additionally, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull similarly condemned the attack, stating that “Today our love, prayers and solidarity are with the people of New Zealand whose compassion, humanity and diversity will triumph over this hateful crime.”

    On the other hand, US President Donald Trump has been criticized for his poor response to the terror attack. While President Trump did express his condolences for the attack in a Twitter post, he discounted the fact that the perpetrator of the attack cited him as an influence on his views and that white nationalism is a growing threat throughout the world. In contrast to President Trump’s implicit endorsement of white nationalism and discrimination against Muslims (mostly in the Shi’a sect), New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has called for a global fight to root out racist right-wing ideology in the wake of the attack. “What New Zealand experienced here was violence brought against us by someone who grew up and learned their ideology somewhere else. If we want to make sure globally that we are a safe and tolerant and inclusive world we cannot think about this in terms of boundaries,” said Aldern.

    US President Donald Trump has a long history of Islamophobic rhetoric and policies that many feel directly contributed to the New Zealand Mosque attack.

    Overall, the case can be made that President Donald Trump’s destructive and xenophobic policies directly resulted in the shooting from taking place. President Trump has long established a reputation as an Islamophobe going back at least a decade. For example, Trump repeatedly insisted that President Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim back in 2011 and 2012, and promoted this belief on far-right websites such as Breitbart. At a September 2015 campaign rally, Trump nodded along as a supporter claimed that “we have a problem in this country; it’s called Muslims.” Trump continued nodding, saying “right,” and “we need this question!” as the supporter then proceeded to ask Trump “when can we get rid of them?” In response, Trump said that “We’re going to be looking at a lot of different things. In November 2015, Trump indicated that he would “certainly implement” a database to track Muslims in the US and falsely claimed that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims cheered in New Jersey when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11. Additionally, Trump falsely claimed on March 9, 2016 that “Islam hates us.”As President, Donald Trump doubled down on this hatred towards Islam through many of his policies, the most notable of which was an executive order that banned (mostly Shi’a) Muslims from six different countries from entering into the US. Additionally, President Trump surrounded with advisors with known histories of anti-Muslim statements.

    Based on all of these factors, the case can be made that President Donald Trump’s vile and bigoted rhetoric directly resulted in the brutal terrorist attack in New Zealand. The world community has a resonsibility to stand against oppression and bigotry and work together to put an end to the politics of white supremacy and fascism promoted by the Trump Administration.

  • Will They Impeach? Part Two

    Will They Impeach? Part Two

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Rules Out Impeaching President Trump

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi annouced this week that she would not support the impeachment of President Donald Trump, arguing that such a position will divide the country and directly play into the hands of the President

    That thinking among Democrats has shifted in part because of the possibility that Mueller’s report will not be decisive and because his investigation is more narrowly focused. Instead, House Democrats are pursuing their own broad, high-profile investigations that will keep the focus on Trump’s business dealings and relationship with Russia, exerting congressional oversight without having to broach the subject of Impeachment. Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), one of the lawmakers leading those investigations, said he agrees with Pelosi and Congress needs “to do our homework.” Congressman Cummings said impeachment “has to be a bipartisan effort, and right now it’s not there.” “I get the impression this matter will only be resolved at the polls,” Cummings said.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set a high bar for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her own party clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post on March 11 that she would not be in favor of impeaching Trump. “Unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said. While she has made similar comments before, Pelosi is making clear to her caucus and to voters that Democrats will not move forward quickly with trying to remove Trump from office. And it is a departure from her previous comments that Democrats are waiting on special counsel Robert Mueller to lay out findings from his Russia investigation before considering impeachment.

    Some new freshman Democrats who hail from solidly liberal districts have not shied away from the subject of impeaching President Trump. For example, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) used a vulgarity in calling for Trump’s impeachment the day she was sworn in. Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who is bankrolling a campaign pushing for Trump’s impeachment, shot back at Pelosi on Monday: “Speaker Pelosi thinks ‘he’s just not worth it?’ Well, is defending our legal system ‘worth it?’ Is holding the president accountable for his crimes and cover-ups ‘worth it?’ Is doing what’s right ‘worth it?’ Or shall America stop fighting for our principles and do what’s politically convenient.” Other lawmakers who have called for impeachment looked at Pelosi’s comments more practically. Congresman Brad Sherman (D-CA), who filed articles of impeachment against Trump on the first day of the new Congress in January, acknowledged that there is not yet public support for impeachment, but noted that Pelosi “didn’t say ‘I am against it if the public is clamoring for it.’”

    Republicans alternately praised Pelosi and were skeptical. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said “I agree” in response to Pelosi’s words. Sanders added of impeachment, “I don’t think it should have ever been on the table.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said it was a “smart thing for her to say,” but Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he does not think it’s “going to fly” with some of Pelosi’s members. “I do believe what Speaker Pelosi understands is that what they want to do is going to require far more than what they have now, so I think they are hedging their bet on it,” Collins said. Freshman Democrats who are from more moderate districts and will have to win re-election again in two years have been fully supportive of Pelosi’s caution. “When we have something that’s very concrete, and we have something that is compelling enough to get a strong majority of Americans, then we’ll do it,” said Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-CA). “But if it’s going to be a political disaster for us, then we’re not going to do it.”

    At this time, the possibility of impeachment is:

    <1%

    Click here for Part Three of Will They Impeach?

  • Analysis Of President Donald Trump’s 2020 Fiscal Year Budget

    On March 11, President Donald Trump sent to Congress a record $4.75 trillion budget plan that calls for increased military spending and sharp cuts to domestic programs like education and environmental protection for the 2020 fiscal year. President Trump’s budget, the largest in federal history, includes a nearly 5% increase in military spending and an additional $8.6 billion for construction of a wall along the border with Mexico. It also contains what White House officials called a total of $1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs, like Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health care programs for the elderly and the poor. The budget is not likely to have much effect on actual spending levels, which are controlled by Congress. Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate pronounced the budget dead on arrival and President Trump’s budgets largely failed to gain traction over the previous two years, when fellow Republicans controlled both chambers. Here is are the main takeaways from the budget:

    Despite proposing the “most spending reductions ever sent to Congress,” as one of President Donald Trump’s top aides stated, the budget deficit is expected to hit at least $1 trillion this year and stay above $1 trillion every year until at least 2024. This budget deficit is unprecedented in a time of economic growth and resulted from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which reduced revenues by as much as $1.5 trillion. Additionally, the budget predicts no economic recession for at least another decade and 3% economic growth each year for the foreseeable future, an extremely optimistic picture considering that the US is nearly a decade into its current economic expansion. To meet this goal, the US economy would have to grow at a 3% rate for the next few years with no economic recession, something that the US economy has never achieved before.

    Arguably the departments that have seen their biggest boost in funding this year are the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, which have all received a nearly 10% increase this year. The increased funding for the Defense Department will likely be used to help the Pentagon prepare for potential military conflicts with Iran and Venezuela (two countries that President Trump and members of his administration have repeatedly expressed interest in attacking). Additionally, President Trump’s budget also requests a slight increase in funding for NASA, with the goal of fully funding the proposed “Space Force” as well as a manned mission to Mars by the late 2030s. Under Trump’s budget proposal, ten major departments and agencies would see their budgets slashed by 10% (or more) in the next year alone, including Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State, Transportation, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In particular, the EPA and HHS will see their funding cut by as much as 1/3 over the next year.

    President Trump’s budget also includes nearly $9 billion for the border wall and draconian cuts to entitlement programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled such as Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security, and Housing Vouchers. Trump also wants to implement controversial policies to require more people receiving such benefits to find work or actively search for jobs. Many advocates for the poor say stringent regulations are already in place, but the Trump administration wants to go further, and it is calculating it can save a lot of money by doing so. The budget also includes a $845 billion cut to Medicare over the next decade. Trump wants to “reduce wasteful spending” on Medicare by expanding the list of treatments that require prior authorization before the procedure can be done and putting medical providers on notice who charge more than others. The administration argues these cost savings are bipartisan ideas that will help ensure Medicare can last for many years to come, but some claim it will result in people who need treatment having it delayed or not receiving it because of extra paperwork and hurdles.

    Under President Trump’s plan, state governments would play a larger role in crafting policies. For example, much of Medicaid would become “block grants” so states get a lump sum amount from the government and then have to figure out how to spend it effectively. The net result would be a $241 billion reduction in Medicaid spending over the next decade for the federal government. Trump also wants to do away with the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that pays off student loans for people who enter various government jobs. His budget calls for streamlining the student loan repayment system and having colleges and universities “share a portion of the financial responsibility associated with student loans.” The details are thin on how all of that would work, but Trump banks on his various changes to student loans saving the federal government $207 billion over the next decade.

  • Why the Michael Cohen Testimony Spell Serious Trouble for President Trump

    Why the Michael Cohen Testimony Spell Serious Trouble for President Trump

    On February 27, 2019, Michael Cohen, who acted as President Donald Trump’s attorney from 2006 to 2018, appeared before the House Oversight Committee for questioning regarding the President’s alleged crimes. Although his testimony did not point to any direct evidence of President Trump directly colluding with the Russian government to influence the results of the 2016 Presidential Election or the 2018 Midterm Elections, Cohen’s testimony painted a scathing picture of the Trump Administration overall. Through his testimony, Cohen alleged that Trump approved a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2017, had knowledge of the 2016 WikiLeaks email dump in advance, and wanted Congress to receive misleading testimony about his close ties to Russia. Cohen expressed remorse for his actions and his loyalty to Trump during a blockbuster hearing before the House Oversight Committee that lasted more than seven hours.

    In the hearing, Michael Cohen described President Trump as an “intoxicating” presence. “It seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were wrong.”I regret the day I said ‘yes’ to Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way,” said Cohen in a 20-page opening statement. “I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore.” In his closing remarks, Cohen addressed the President head-on, ticking off items on a lengthy list of criticism of Trump’s behavior in office, ranging from his weather-based decision to skip a ceremony honoring veterans to his attacks on law enforcement, the media, and others. “You don’t use the power of your bully pulpit to destroy the credibility of those who speak out against you. You don’t separate families from one another or demonize those looking to America for a better life. You don’t slander people based on the god they pray to, and you don’t cuddle up to our adversaries at the expense of our allies,” he said. “And finally, you don’t shut down the government before Christmas and New Year’s to appease your base. This behavior is churlish, it denigrates the office of the president, and it’s un-American, and it’s not you.” Cohen also used the hearings to make new claims that contradicted Trump’s previous statements regarding his ties to Russia, though he said that he knew of no direct evidence that Trump or his Presidential campaign colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Michael Cohen also provided the committee with a series of documents, including letters he authored threatening Trump’s high school, college and the College Board from releasing his grades and SAT scores, according to Cohen’s prepared opening statement. Cohen also presented a pair of reimbursement checks he received for the $130,000 hush payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels weeks before the 2016 presidential election to keep her quiet about her allegation of a 2006 affair with Trump, an affair Trump says did not happen. Cohen’s documentation and testimony said Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), “raises grave questions about the legality of President Trump’s conduct and the truthfulness of his statements while he was president.”

    Over the course of the hearings, Democrats sought to ask Michael Cohen substantive questions and generally respected his time, whereas the Republican members on the committee largely sought to discredit and delegitimize Cohen’s testimony, with one lawmaker describing him as a “pathological liar” due to his previous false statements to Congress. Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC), two of President Donald Trump’s strongest Congressional allies, claimed that the Democrats are merely using Michael Cohen to “try to remove the president from office because Tom Steyer told them to.” Additionally, Congressman Meadows correctly pointed out during the hearing that Cohen acted in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(3) (which governs Attorney-Client Privilege) by recording his conversations with President Trump and revealing confidential information that was discussed with the President. Moreover, President Trump predictably responded to the hearings by stating that Cohen “lied a lot” and stated that the hearings were “fake” and a partisan tool used by the Democrats.

    OurResponse

    Despite the fact that nothing entirely substantive was revealed during Cohen’s questioning, the information that was revealed indicated a pattern of deceit and misinformation on the part of President Trump. While there is yet to be found any compellint evidence tying the Trump campaign to the Russian government’s effort to alter the results of the 2016 Presidential Election and the 2018 Midterm elections, it is likely that President Trump is complicit in some form of a cover-up of his associate’s wrongdoings. This revelation may ultimately result in the end of the Trump Presidency.

  • Why the Trump National Emergency Creates a Mixed Precedence

    Why the Trump National Emergency Creates a Mixed Precedence

    #StateofEmergency #BorderWall

    On February 15, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency on the border with Mexico to access billions of dollars that Congress refused to give him to build his proposed border wall. “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, and we’re going to do it one way or the other,” President Trump said in a televised statement in the Rose Garden 13 hours after Congress passed a spending measure without the money he had sought. “It’s an invasion,” he added. “We have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country.” President Trump’s announcement came during a bizarre, 50-minute press conference in which he ping-ponged from topic to topic, touching on the economy, China trade talks, his summit meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, and the reasons why he deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize. President Trump also explained his failure to secure wall funding during his first two years in office when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress by saying, “I was a little new to the job.”

    The decision by President Donald Trump immediately incited condemnation by Democrats, who call the move unconstitutional, as well as from some Republicans who view it as setting a negative precedent. “This is a power grab by a disappointed president, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schummer (D-NY) in a joint statement. Additionally, Governors Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) similarly condemned the President’s actions and stated that their states will file suit over the issue. President Trump acknowledged that his declaration of a national emergency would be litigated in the courts and even predicted a rough road for his side. “Look, I expect to be sued,” he said, launching into a mocking riff about how he anticipated lower court rulings against him. “And we’ll win in the Supreme Court,” he predicted.

  • “Geopolitical analysis for 2019: Americas” Video Response

    This video by CaspianReport discusses the political, economic, and trends in the Americas for the year 2019. Home to one of the worlds most powerful countries, the two continents that make up the Western Hemisphere are contrasts to each other. Whereas North America will be preoccupied with internal political matters, the events in South America will be highly influenced by the ongoing crisis in Venezuela that reached its boiling point last month with the Trump Administration’s recognition of Juan Guaido as the country’s President.

    In the US, President Donald Trump faces a complicated political climate, with the Democrats holding the House of Representatives, and the Republicans having a decent-sized majority in the Senate. Due to this divided Congressional make-up, President Trump will have a difficult time at best with pushing through parts of his agenda such as tax cuts and immigration policy changes. Additionally, this difficult political climate may result in Trump increasingly using executive powers to implement controversial policies, which he may then use as a bargaining chip to convince a reluctant Congress to go along with him, as well as a tool to rally his rabid, ignorant supporters. Furthermore, the ongoing US economic expansion will likely be nearing its end in 2019, with the stock market, unemployment, and energy prices near historic lows. While the next economic recession is several years away, its impact will likely be felt throughout the globe.

    Despite having a relatively quiet domestic policy scene, the Trump Adinistration will have its hands full regarding foreign policy in 2019. Some of the major issues the Trump Administration will face in the coming year include a renewed arms race with Russia, potential retailiation by China due to the implementation of new tariffs, and tensisions in the Middle East regarding President Trump’s hardline anti-Iran and pro-Israel/Sunni policy. Perhaps the biggest challenge Trump Administration currently faces in the foreign policy realm is the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

    Although domestic in origin, the ramifications of the political crisis in Venezuela will have a global reach. The desperate need for revenue has forced the Maduro government to seek revenue from illicit sources including illegal mining, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. These activities have spread beyond Venezuela’s borders into countries such as Colombia and Brazil and threaten to destabilize the entire region. Additionally, some 3 million Venezuelans have fled their country, thus placing an enormous strain on many countries in the region. In response to these challenges, the Trump Administration has developed a policy meant to isolate the Maduro government and bring about “regime change.” in Venezuela. Thus far, President Trump has implemented stringent sanctions against the Venezuela government and is also considering placing Venezuela on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list as well as intervening militarily in the country. All three of these policies are ill-advised at best and will make an already difficult situation within the country much worse. Additionally, the crisis in Venezuela is further complicated due to Venezuela’s close military alliances with Russia, Iran, and China, who may intervene militarily in response to US pressures on the country.

    In contrast to the US, Mexico and Canada are likely to experience a relatively active year in terms of domestic policy changes. Mexican Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is planning in fulfilling his campaign promises of reducing corruption, poverty, and crime within the country, as well as eliminating the ban on legally binding referendums, which many critics view as a way to for AMLO to increase his own political power. In Canada, Prime Minsiter Justin Trudeau us up for re-election in October of 2019 and is expected to face off against a resurgent Conservative Party led by Andrew Scheer. Additionally, the leadership of both Canada and Mexico have pledged to work with President Donald Trump to implement the new NAFTA agreement and work together to promote poitical stability within the Americas.

    Overall, 2019 is already shaping up to be an interesting year in terms of politics in the Americas, with the crisis in Venezuela expected to be a focal point of most foreign policy decisions. Here is the link to the full video:

  • Bowing into Pressure, President Trump Ends Government Shutdown

    Bowing into Pressure, President Trump Ends Government Shutdown

    President Donald Trump agreed on January 24 to reopen the federal government for three weeks while negotiations continued over how to secure the nation’s southwestern border, backing down after a monthlong standoff failed to force Democrats to give him billions of dollars for his long-promised wall. The President’s concession paved the way for the House and the Senate to pass a stopgap spending bill by voice vote. President Trump signed the stopgap measure immediately after its passage, restoring normal operations at a series of federal agencies for three weeks and opening the way to paying the 800,000 federal workers who have been furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days.

    Despite not including any of the money for his proposed “border wall” President Donald Trump presented the agreement with congressional leaders as a victory anyway, and indicated in a speech in the Rose Garden that his cease-fire may only be temporary: If Republicans and Democrats cannot reach agreement on wall money by the February deadline, he said that he was ready to renew the confrontation or declare a national emergency to bypass Congress altogether. “We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier,” President Trump said. “If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reacted positively to President Trump’s decision to reopen the government. Schumer praised Democratic unity during the shutdown and Pelosi weighed in on the State of the Union date.

    The surprise announcement was a remarkable surrender for a president who made the wall his nonnegotiable condition for reopening the government and a centerpiece of his political platform. Some immigration hard-liners that make up a key part of his political base were incensed by the capitulation. “Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States,” the commentator Ann Coulter, who has aggressively pushed Mr. Trump to keep his campaign promise on the wall, wrote on Twitter.

    President Donald Trump relented as the effects of the shutdown were rippling with ever greater force across the economy, with fallout far beyond paychecks. On January 24, air traffic controllers calling in sick slowed air traffic across the Northeast, hundreds of workers at the Internal Revenue Service also did not show up, and the FBI director said he was as angry as he had ever been over his agents not being paid. “None of us are willing to go through this again,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who despite representing a state where President Donald Trump is very popular in, voted alongside a half-dozen Republicans for a Democratic measure to reopen the government for two weeks. “And it’s not just a few of us. There are a great many in our conference that feels pretty strongly.” Democrats, who declined to revel in their clear victory, said they would work in good faith to strike a deal on border security. They have raised their offer on border security funding considerably and toughened their rhetoric on stopping illegal immigration.

  • Trump Administration Authored Report Says that Climate Change Damage is “Intensifying Across the Country”

    Trump Administration Authored Report Says that Climate Change Damage is “Intensifying Across the Country”

    On November 23, the US government released a long-awaited report stating the effects of global warming and climate change in the US are worsening and that the potential for irreversible environmental damage is steadily increasing. The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans’ health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire.

    The Congressionally mandated document, the first of its kind issued during the Trump administration, details how climate-fueled disasters and other types of worrisome changes are becoming more commonplace throughout the country and how much worse they could become in the absence of efforts to combat global warming. The report notes that Western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida and the Pacific territories administered by the US are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever-larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras.

    The National Climate Assessment’s publication marks the government’s fourth comprehensive look at climate change impacts on the US since 2000. The last came in 2014. Produced by 13 federal departments and agencies and overseen by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the report stretches well over 1,000 pages and draws more definitive, and in some cases more startling, conclusions than earlier versions. The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.” “The impacts we’ve seen the last 15 years have continued to get stronger, and that will only continue,” said Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the report. “We have wasted 15 years of response time. If we waste another five years of response time, the story gets worse. The longer you wait, the faster you have to respond and the more expensive it will be.”

    That urgency is at odds with the stance of the Trump administration, which has rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations and incentivized the production of fossil fuels. President Trump also has said he plans to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate accord and questioned the science of climate change just last month, saying on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that “I don’t know that it’s man-made” and that the warming trend “could very well go back.” Furthermore, as the Northeast faced a cold spell this week, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” This shows a misunderstanding that climate scientists have repeatedly tried to correct, a confusion between daily weather fluctuations and long-term climate trends. President Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday’s report. However, the administration last year downplayed a separate government report calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, saying in a statement that “the climate has changed and is always changing.”

  • President Donald Trump Reportedly Said He Wanted Justice Department to Prosecute His Political Opponents 

    President Donald Trump Reportedly Said He Wanted Justice Department to Prosecute His Political Opponents 

    According to a New York Times article published on November 20, President Donald Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political opponents: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former FBI director James Comey. Donald McGahn, a Justice Department lawyer, rebuffed the President, saying that he had no authority to order prosecution. McGahn noted that while he could request an investigation, that could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for President Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

    A White House spokesman declined to comment on the allegations, stating that they are false and without any factual basis. A spokeswoman for the FBI declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing James Comey. “Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality.  McGahn would point out, though, that the President never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

    It is not clear which accusations President Donald Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Former FBI director James Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Comey wrote about his interactions with the President. The document contained no classified information. President Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation.

    In his conversation with McGahn, President Trump asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate James Comey and Hillary Clinton. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, McGahn said but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the President’s authorities in terms of investigating political opponents. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned President Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone. The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm. If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the President’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings. Ultimately, the lawyers warned, President Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.

  • Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration’s New Immigration Policy

    A Federal Judge in California ruled against President Trump’s recent immigration executive order this week.

    A federal judge on November 20 ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter how they entered the US, dealing a temporary setback to the President’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border. Judge Jon Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Judge Tigar wrote in his order.

    As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest part of the US border, President Donald Trump signed an executive order two weeks ago that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, Trump said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the US borders. Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment. But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the US, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

    After the judge’s ruling on Monday, Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said, “The court made clear that the administration does not have the power to override Congress and that, absent judicial intervention, real harm will occur.” “This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump’s war on asylum seekers,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the other organizations that brought the case, said in a statement. “While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand.”

    President Donald Trump, when asked by reporters about the court ruling on Tuesday, criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court where the case will likely land, calling it a “disgrace.” He labeled Judge Tigar an “Obama judge.” Trump Administration officials signaled that they would continue to defend the policy as it moved through the courts. “Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” Katie Waldman, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, and Steve Stafford, the Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement. They said the president has broad authority to stop the entry of migrants into the country. “It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled,” they said. “We look forward to continuing to defend the executive branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

  • Soldiers: Desertion, Rebellion, and the Philosophy of the Refusal to Fight

    Soldiers: Desertion, Rebellion, and the Philosophy of the Refusal to Fight

    Throughout human history, war has often been a method for different governments, nation-states, as well as organizations, to control resources. These wars have become bloodier and more collectivized over the last 150 years. What do I mean by collectivized? The entire population is gearing up to destroy another nation and now legitimately the enemy of another “nation.” Carl Von Clausewitz’s theory of “Total War” reshaped warfare starting in the 1800s. Total war is defined as “war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.” The concept of “total war” has lead to extreme policies by nations such as strategic bombings, commerce raiding, collective punishment, forced labor for military, targeting of agriculture, Scorched Earth policy, Ethnic Cleansing,  prolonged sieges that starved cities and nations, use of nuclear weapons, chemical warfare, Free Fire Zones and many more. These extreme policies carried out resulted in the idea that soldiers have a “moral duty” to resist, disobey and refuse to join the military of a nation, usually a draft. The paper will examine the actions of Soldiers who refused to fight wars, deserted the military, and in some cases turn on command, during the Vietnam War.

    What was the goal of the Vietnam War carried out largely through the United States?

    The Vietnam War was primarily fought over Vietnamese Independence from the “West” (Britain, France, the United States and other “allies” of the United States). After World War II, the Vietnamese wanted independence from France, because it had largely remained a French colony prior to the war and during the war under the Japanese who further devastated the country. The Vietnamese had fought off the Japanese with US support and had planned a constitution modeled after the US constitution. The country was split by a UN mandate in 1954 which split Vietnam into North and South regions. In 1955, the planned democratic elections were halted in the South over fears they would vote to unify with North Vietnam and that the so-called ‘communist” Ho Chi Minh would win. The US, in turn, installed a puppet dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, a wealthy business owner, staunchly anti-communist, and a Catholic in charge of a largely Buddhist nation. Diem brutally persecuted Buddhists and become so unpopular that he was assassinated by the CIA in October of 1963 and replaced by his brother. From 1950 to 1975, the US waged a war to control formerly French Indochina via, military aid (up to 90% of French fighting with US dollars until they lost in 1954), also during and after with “military advisors”, constantly increasing until the US openly intervened in Vietnam in 1964, in which it consistently increased troop deployments until 1975, when the war finally came to an end.

    Nearly three million Americans would ultimately serve in Vietnam over the next 20 years (Wardog). Many Americans did not agree or even understand why the US was involved in Vietnam. The US lied about the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident in July of 1964, where a US ship was falsely attacked so President Lyndon B. Johnson could gain more war powers and the result had been a major escalation of the war. The Americans did not find out about this event until nearly ten years later. David Duncan, formerly a Green Beret in Vietnam, was one of the first military trainers in Vietnam. After his tour of duty, he came back and told people the war was a lie. “I was really proud of what I thought I was doing. The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right but I wasn’t doing right” (Sir!NoSir!). He took a stand openly against the war and resigned from the military. The war took a long time to end, it was pushed with starch anti-communism and what Einstein calls the “measles of mankind”, nationalism.

    Other soldiers such as Dr. Howard Levy refused to perform their military duties to help the war effort. The ideas of personal responsibility made many people not only question the war, hate the war, but also actively try to stop it or refuse to participate in it. Soldiers created underground newspapers in military barracks, ships and cafes across the country to spread the anti-war news. These would often become ban by the military officers and that banning of it would ironically arouse interests by more troops in what was being printed, almost a metaphor in a way for the drug war. Troops on aircraft carriers were literally signing petitions not to go to Vietnam, over 1,200 sailors signed it.

    From April 18 to April 23, 1971, some 900 Vietnam veterans were involved in a massive anti-war rally in Washington, DC. The events included lobbying Congress, “Guerilla Theater” in the streets and keep in mind this was during the 1971 investigation into war crimes, with “150 vets testifying from firsthand experience” (VVAW). This helped the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War, formed in 1967, became a national organization. The April events were considered one of “the most powerful anti-war demonstration held up to that time”(VVAW). It scared President Richard Nixon so much that he received hourly reports on the demonstration (VVAW). 50 veterans even took over the office of Senator James Buckley (R-NY) after he refused to meet with them. The last day of the demonstration the veterans each individual made a statement against the war and then threw their medals over the White House fence protesting against the war. One Veteran from the demonstration famously stated that “If we have to fight again, it will be to take these steps.”

    The famous May Day Protests in 1971 saw, according to Chief Jerry V. Wilson, some 12,000 to 15,000 protestors block streets, throw “chicken shit” to mock the colonels, block government buildings and marching in protest of the war (Halloran). Most of the protesters were a mix of students and veterans. These people believed that serving the war effort was deeply wrong and that the war would end when soldiers refused to fight the wars. In the 1980s, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, much of this history of the anti-war movement was swept under the carpet and myths of the “hippies” who spat on soldiers started.

    Many sailors, pilots, and San Diego residents even joined the anti-war movement. Sailors on the USS Coral Sea, at first signed hundreds of petitions then thousands of them signed it. On Sept. 13, 1971, they wrote a petition to Congress stating that a majority of the sailors do not believe in the Vietnam War and asking that their ship not return to Southeast Asia. Before the petitions could be sent to Congress they were ripped off by the lifers and are now being held by the ship’s executive officer. He said the petition was legal but ignored attempts by the crew to get it back. So the crew ignored the executive officer and started a new petition. Over 300 men signed the first one and were pissed off when it was ripped up (Good Times/Vol. IV No. 29/OCT. 1, 1971). When the ship sailed out the Golden Gate on Monday for a two-week trial run, there were thousands of leaflets with the text of the petition and places for signatures.

    The naval carriers and pilot crews often had little combat casualties and dealt severe damage to the civilians across Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, especially when President Richard Nixon started slowly withdrawing troops in 1969, it meant more bombing and higher civilian deaths. Veterans started focusing on actively persuading people that the war was wrong. Saying things like I was there, I did terrible things and we shouldn’t be there, things like that are a lot more persuasive when you can say you fought in that war. Soldiers also did symbolic things like wear black armbands to say they support a protest at home. The Vietnam War is also where you see the “black power” movement start to emerge and groups like the black panthers. Where are legitimate questions asked why are black people fighting for a country that doesn’t provide them with equal rights? Famous athletes like Muhammad Ali refused to fight the war, perhaps modern day Kaepernick could be said as a mini Ali.

    Soon after their return home from Vietnam in 1971, a group of 236 GI’s from the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the following statement: “Throughout our time in the service we’ve seen minority group GI’s discriminated against. In Vietnam, that’s been evidenced by higher casualty rates. Other times it takes the form of slower promotions, higher penalties for rules violations, and the worst job assignments. We feel that the Army fosters racism and has purposely avoided dealing with the day-to-day problems of minority groups”(Boyle).

    To briefly address it I will reference what’s in Richard Boyle article not far below the previous quote,
    “Many white officers and NCO’s made a practice of harassing Black GI’s about their Afros which didn’t conform to “military regulations.” While right-wing soldiers were allowed to fly confederate flags on Martin Luther King’s birthday and could generally count on getting away with making open racial slurs, Black GI’s were given sentences of up to 6 months for giving the clenched fist salute and “dapping” (a brotherly greeting)”(Boyle).

    During the 10 years of the Vietnam War according to figures by the Pentagon, 500,000 deserted (Woolf). A large anti-war movement actively protesting, the Vietcong (a “determined enemy”), a military on collapse, Nixon announced the policy of “Vietnamization” making the Vietnamese takeover the efforts which completely failed and people knew it would fail in the 1970s.

    “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous”(Heinl).
    THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
    By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
    North American Newspaper Alliance
    Armed Forces Journal, 7 June 1971

    The US military had become almost self-governing in a way, even outside of its officers. Soldiers refusing to go on missions, people on drugs everywhere, especially heroin, officers being killed for given orders; to put it bluntly it was a circus. Because of the drug addiction and disapproval of the military, there was now an “epidemic of barracks theft”. This theft is even more devastating for moral where you have soldiers unable to trust each other, especially when in combat.

    “Soldier muggings and holdups are on the rise everywhere. Ft. Dix, N.J., has a higher rate of on-post crime than any base on the East Coast. Soldier muggings are reported to average one a night, with a big upsurge every pay-day. Despite 450 MP’s (one for every 55 soldiers stationed there – one of the highest such ratios in the country) no solution appears in sight (Heinl). Armed Forces Journal

    There are more military police than ever and still, the situation cannot be dealt with. The military was in a state of active revolt.

    “Crimes are so intense and violent in the vicinity of an open-gate “honor system” detention facility at Ft. Dix that, according to press reports, units on the base are unwilling to detail armed sentinels to man posts nearby, for fear of assault and robbery”(Heinl). Armed Forces Journal

    So bad that the military can’t even protect a gate so they have to have a bullshit system to protect themselves from looking weak. These issues are some of many that build up an identity of the military at war with itself that can’t maintain itself, in a war it doesn’t want to fight, unrest at home and a country trying to find itself. Toward the end of the war things got so bad a term “fragging” was given to the time when US soldier in Vietnam would attack their commanders for giving those orders to fight or go on missions.
    “Shortly after the costly assault on Hamburger Hill in mid-1969, the GI underground newspaper in Vietnam, “G.I. Says”, publicly offered a $10,000 bounty on Lt. Col. Weldon Honeycutt, the officer who ordered(and led) the attack”(Heinl).

    Several attempts were made on that soldier’s life although he went home alive. But even the brashness to publish something about killing an officer in a newspaper with a bounty shows how bad the situations were. This did affect judgments by leaders, “Another Hamburger Hill is definitely out “said one Major (Heinl). The problem of soldiers refusing to fight is evident throughout the end of the war, notable by two examples, the entire units of 196th Light Infantry Brigade publicly sat down on the battlefield and 1st Air Cavalry Division refused going down a dangerous trail (Heinl). When soldiers actively don’t believe in the “value” of the war serious consequences happen to the nation’s military.

    Briefly, I will talk about the problems of historically armies in World War 1, World War 2, Iraq, Afghanistan 1980s and Modern, while touching back to Vietnam. During WW1, over 240,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were court-martialed (Hinke). World War II saw 1.7 million US courts-martial, “one-third of all American prosecutions”, and around 21,000 desertions (Hinke). During the Afghan War, 60,000-80,000 ethnic Soviet border troops from the Muslim Central Asian regions deserted (Hinke). 85,000 Afghan national troops also deserted during this period (Hinke).

    2001 to Today
    “Pentagon estimates more than 40,000 troops have deserted from all branches of military service. In 2001 alone, 7,978 deserted” (Hinke).

    All these problems of desertion relate to poor morale, belief in conflict, in some instances pay, the requirements of troops and length of the conflict. These conflicts are all about domination of regions, resources and/or competing for national interests. The Vietnam War adds up to a cumulative discontent with soldiers disbelief in the value of the conflict and actively trying to end the war. This dislike by the US soldiers does not mean that the Vietcong were just in their actions, who often killed, tortured, overtaxed and committed numerous atrocities, but as the song For What it’s Worth says, “Noboy is right if everybody’s wrong”.

    Examine the Vietnam War
    Examine the Opposition to the War in the Military(Army)
    – How they applied refusing to fight philosophy
    -Social Problems of the time (small)
    -US Military on verge of Collapse?

    Presentation
    Present – Stop video at 5:23 mins (https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C1786515/sir-no-sir)
    (Ask Questions
    Question 1: What do you think about the idea “if people refuse to fight the wars can’t continue”?
    – Quick Facts:
    More than 21,000 American soldiers were convicted of desertion in World War Two
    Since 2000 estimate of more than 40,000 troops deserted from all branches of the military.
    In 2001 alone, 8,000 deserted the US military.
    More than 5,500 desertions 2003-2004
    Any guesses to how many deserted during the Vietnam War 10 year period? 500,000!
    -Question 2
    Was what they did right for refusing to fight what they perceived as an unjust war?
    -Quick Facts
    How many people if there was a draft implemented tomorrow and require you to show up at your local town hall would do so, to prepare for a military conflict against China and North Korea?

    Images and further Readings

    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-news-photo/526094756#viet-nam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate-against-the-war-in-picture-id526094756 ( March in DC Arlington Cemetery)

    24 May 1969: Senior US officers say the strategic location of Hill 937 – ‘Hamburger Hill’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/24/troops-count-cost-vietnam-hamburger-hill-archive-1969

    http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=6379

    Film

    References
    (2009). From US War Dogs : http://www.uswardogs.org/new_page_18.htm
    Between Hitler and Stalin . (n.d.). From UCRDC: http://www.ucrdc.org/HI-SCORCHED_EARTH_POLICY.html
    Boyle, R. (1973). GI Revolts The Breakdown of the US Army in Vietnam. From Richard Gibson : http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm
    Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. North American Newspaper Alliance. From https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
    Col. Robert D. Heinl, J. (1971, June 7). THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES. From Montclair University : https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
    Drooling on the Vietnam Vets. (2000, May 2). From Slate : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
    Halloran, R. (1972). 7,000 Arrested in Capital War Protest; 150 Are Hurt as Clashes Disrupt Traffic. From http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0503.html
    Turse, N. (2017, September 28 ). The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary. From The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/the-ken-burns-vietnam-war-documentary-glosses-over-devastating-civilian-toll/
    United Nations Office of Genocide Prevnetion and The Resposiblity to Protect . (2017). Ethnic Cleansing . From United Nations : http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.html
    VVAW. (1977, Apirl ). Vets’ History: Operation “Dewey Canyon III”. From Vietnam Veterans Against the War: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1656
    Woolf, C. (2015, March 26). From the Revolution to Bowe Bergdahl, desertion has a long history in the US. From PRI: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-26/revolution-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-has-long-history-us
    Zeiger, D. (Director). (2005 ). Sir!No Sir! [Motion Picture].

    Links if need be
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/total_war

    The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary Glosses Over Devastating Civilian Toll


    http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.html
    http://www.ucrdc.org/HI-SCORCHED_EARTH_POLICY.html
    http://www.uswardogs.org/new_page_18.htm

    https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C1786515/sir-no-sir
    https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/heinl.html
    http://richgibson.com/girevolts.htm
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Students-for-a-Democratic-Society
    http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Anti-Vietnam_war
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2000/05/drooling_on_the_vietnam_vets.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0503.html
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-26/revolution-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-has-long-history-us

  • Theories of Democratic Transitions: “The Civic Culture”

    Theories of Democratic Transitions: “The Civic Culture”

    In the book “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study,” Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba present a study of the political culture of democracy and discuss the social structures and processes that help to improve its overall stability. A common concern among political scientists is the future of democracy at the global level. In the years following World War II, events such as de-colonialization have raised some questions about the long-term stability of Democratic political systems and placed the issue into the broader context of the world’s culture. Despite the fact that Almond and Verba feel that the direction of political change at the global level is unclear, they argue that a political culture based upon individual participation will emerge due to demands by ordinary citizens. Additionally, Almond and Verba propose that the emerging nations will be presented with two different models of the participatory state, the democratic and totalitarian models of participation. The democratic model of participation offers the ordinary man the opportunity to take part in the political decision-making process as an influential citizen, whereas the totalitarian offers him the role of the “participant subject.” Both the democratic and totalitarian models of participation have appealed to emerging nations, but it is unclear which one will ultimately win.

    According to Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, the democratic model of participation will require more than the introduction of formal institutions of democracy such as freedom of speech, an elected legislature, and universal suffrage. A participatory democratic system also requires a consistent political culture. On the other hand, Almond and Verba argue that there are several problems with transferring democratic political culture to emerging nations. The first issue is that many of the leaders in developing states have little experience with the working principles of democratic policy and civic cultures such as political parties, interest groups, and electoral systems. As a result, the idea of democratic policy as conveyed to the leaders of new countries is incomplete and heavily stresses ideology and legal norms as opposed to conveying the actual feeling and attitude towards democratic ideals. A further reason why the diffusion of democracy to new nations is difficult is that they are confronted with structural problems. For example, many of the new nations are entering the global stage at a time in which they have not fully developed industrially. As a result, individual leaders may be drawn to a policy in which authoritarian bureaucracy promotes industrial development and technological advancement, and where political organization becomes a device for human and social engineering.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the idea of the civic culture. The civic culture is a mixed set of values that contains attributes from both modern and traditional cultures and allows them to interact and interchange without polarizing and destroying each other. Additionally, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as pluralistic and based on communication and persuasion, consensus, diversity, and accessibility to gradual political change. Almond and Verba then explore the development of civic culture in Great Britain. One of the circumstances that resulted in the creation of a modern society in Britain was the emergence of a thriving merchant class and the involvement of the court and aristocracy in economic decisions. Moreover, the English Reformation and the increasing prevalence of religious diversity resulted in a higher level of secularization within British society, leading to greater modernization. As a consequence of both factors, Britain entered the 18th Century with independent merchants and aristocrats who established a parliamentary system that made it possible to assimilate rapid social changes without any sharp discontinuities. By establishing a civic culture, ordinary people were able to enter into the political process and develop British democratic structures.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba describe several different types of political cultures. According to Almond and Verba, political culture refers to the overall attitudes that individuals have regarding the political system and their attitudes toward their respective roles in the system. The term political culture is used because it allows Almond and Verba to separate the non-political concepts from their study and allows them to employ an interdisciplinary approach to their analysis of mass attitudes towards democracy. In classifying objects of political orientation, Almond and Verba start with the general political system, which deals with the organization as a whole. In explaining the components of the political system, Almond and Verba distinguish the specific roles or structures, the functions of incumbents, and particular public policies, decisions, or enforcement of decisions. These structures, incumbents, and decisions are then classified by involvement either in the political (input) process, or in the administrative (output) process.

    In their study of mass attitudes and values, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba have identified three distinct types of political cultures. The first type of political culture mentioned by Almond and Verba is the parochial political culture. A parochial political culture emerges when the citizens of a particular nation have no understanding of the national political system, do not possess any tendency to participate in the input processes and have no consciousness of the output operations. Additionally, there are no specialized political roles within a parochial political culture, and the leadership roles are not separated from their religious and social orientations. Examples of parochial political cultures include African and Native American tribes and indigenous communities within particular nations. A subjective political culture is when people are aware of the mechanism of government and the political process, but are not taught to or are not allowed to participate in the system. Examples of subjective political cultures include traditional monarchies or authoritarian government systems. In a participant political culture, the populace is involved in the decision-making process and more or less has a say in public policy decisions. Examples of participant political cultures include the United States, Great Britain, and many other countries throughout the world. The three different classifications of political culture described by Almond and Verba does not assume that one classification replaces the other. On the other hand, the introduction of new classifications serves as a way to encourage previous political orientations to adapt.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also mention that a number of political cultures are systematically mixed. A systematically mixed political culture occurs when there are elements of more simple and more complex patterns of political orientations. The first example of a systematically mixed political culture is the parochial-subject culture, which occurs when a majority of the population has rejected the exclusive claims of diffuse tribal, village, or feudal authority and has developed allegiance towards more complex political systems. Examples of parochial-subject political cultures include the Ottoman Empire and the loosely articulated African kingdoms. In a subject-participant culture, a substantial part of the population has acquired the ability and desire to become more engaged in governmental decisions, whereas the rest of the population continue to be oriented toward an authoritarian political structure and have a relatively little desire to get involved in critical public policy decisions. Additionally, a successful shift from a subject to a participant culture requires the diffusion of positive orientations toward a democratic infrastructure, the acceptance of norms of civic obligation, and the development of a sense of civic competence among a substantial proportion of the population. France during the 19th Century and Germany during the early 20th Century are examples of subject-participant political cultures. A parochial-participant political culture occurs when elements of a participatory system are introduced to a traditionally parochial society. As a result of the lack of structure and experiences with democracy, parochial-participant political cultures have the most experiences with instability and teeter back and forth between democracy and authoritarianism.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba focus on the political cultures of five different countries in their study: The United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. Almond and Verba selected these countries because they have experienced a wide range of historical and political experiences and have gone through a number of events that influenced their political systems. The United States and Great Britain both represent relatively successful experiments in democratic governance despite the fact that the rationale behind their acceptance of democratic values is different. For example, the political culture in Great Britain combines deference toward authority with a lively sense of the rights of citizen initiatives, whereas the political culture of the United States is based on political competence and participation rather than obedience to legitimate authority. Germany is included because its experiments in democratic governance during the late 19th and early 20th Century never resulted in the development of a participatory political culture necessary to legitimize democratic institutions of government. Almond and Verba include Italy and Mexico in their study because both represent less developed societies with transitional political systems.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then go on to discuss the feelings towards government and politics that are prevalent in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. The first metric that they measured was the national factors in which the resident of all five countries were most proud of. A majority (85%) of American respondents cited their political system as the greatest source of pride they feel towards their country. In contrast, only 46% of British, 30% of Mexican, 7% of German, and 3% of Italian respondents cited their governmental institutions as their greatest source of national pride. Moreover, American and British respondents were more likely to refer to public policy accomplishments than the respondents from other countries. The Italian respondents cited their countries contributions to the arts and its cultural treasures, whereas the German respondents cited their countries economic system as the greatest source of national pride. Additionally, Mexican pride was distributed equally between the political and economic systems and the physical attributes of their country.

    The findings show that the Americans and British express great pride in their political institutions and thus feel the least alienated towards their political systems. On the other hand, the Germans and Italian respondents express a low level of pride in their political institutions and feel more alienated towards their governments. The results from the Mexican respondents show that they have a keen interest in political involvement despite the fact that their political culture is largely parochial. The fact that Mexican respondents expressed an interest in politics is due to past feelings associated by the populace with events such as the Mexican Revolution. The continued connection to the Mexican Revolution shows that the Mexican people believe that the revolution did not accomplish its stated political goals and that the process of political change is ongoing. When broken down by educational level, a majority of American, British, and Mexican respondents with higher levels of education expressed more pride in their respective political systems. Additionally, the fact that educational attainment does no influence the levels of national pride among the German and Italian respondents further suggests alienation from the political system as opposed to a lack of awareness of the system.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba also go on to explore the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities among the respondents from all five countries. Both Almond and Verba hypothesized that if the respondents expected fair treatment by governmental authorities, they would, in turn, express more support for legitimate authority. The respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany expected a higher level of treatment by governmental authorities than the respondents from Italy and Mexico. Additionally, the expectation of treatment by governmental authorities varies by educational attainment. For example, respondents from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany with higher educational levels expect more equitable treatment by political authorities than respondents with lower levels of education. Even though the number of Italian and Mexican respondents expecting fair and equal treatment in government were relatively low, the differences between the advantaged and less advantaged groups regarding education were larger than in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Such findings show that there is a connection between expectations regarding treatment by governmental authorities and alienation from the political system.

    The attitudes towards political communication are also discussed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. A key component of democratic governments is the willingness for ordinary men and women to get involved in the political process. The main factor that influences such willingness is the level of comfort with discussing political issues. Respondents from the United States and Great Britain expressed the highest level of willingness to discuss politics. Additionally, even though German respondents expressed the highest frequency of following reports about public affairs, the number of people who discuss politics on a regular basis was lower than in the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, the Mexican and Italian respondents expressed a relatively low willingness to discuss political affairs. With regards to the percent of respondents who refused to report their voting decision, the American, British, and Mexican respondents expressed little reluctance when revealing their political choice, whereas the German and Italian respondents expressed the highest level of reluctance. The reluctance on the part of the German and Italian respondents to reveal their voting choices shows that they feel that identifying with a political party is unsafe and inadvisable. Additionally, their unwillingness to reveal their voting choices indicates that there is a higher level of alienation from the political system on the part of the German and Italian respondents when compared to the American, British, and Mexican respondents.

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba then discuss the relationship between the civic culture and democratic stability and the impact of political culture on the political system that it belongs to. One view that Almond and Verba discuss is the rationality-activist model, which stipulates that a stable democracy involves the population to be informed and active in politics. Additionally, the rationality-activist model requires the citizens to base their voting choices on careful evaluation and carefully weighing in the alternatives. On the other hand, Almond and Verba mention that current research shows that most citizens in democratic nations rarely live up to the rationality-activist model. As such, Almond and Verba feel that the rationality-activist model is only a part of the civic culture and does not make up its entirety. Moreover, Almond and Verba describe the civic culture as a mixed political culture that involves both citizens who are informed and take an active role in politics and citizens who take a less active role in politics. The diverse nature of the civic culture also implies that the different roles in political such as parochial, subject, and participant do not replace each other and instead build upon each other.

    In conclusion, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba discuss the idea of the political culture and its relationship to democracy in “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, An Analytic Study.” A major concern among political scientists is what factors result in the establishment of a political culture that allows for the stability of democracy within a particular country. In their study of political culture, Almond and Verba looked at several factors such as citizen views on government, views on treatment by governmental authorities, and the willingness of people to discuss political issues and the views that respondents from five different democracies have regarding them. The results of their study determined that countries with a long-term history of democratic governance were more likely to have political cultures that foster democratic ideas than countries with a shorter history of democratic government. Additionally, Almond and Verba discuss the relationship between political culture and the long-term stability of democratic political systems.

  • “10 Minutes: Trump One Year President” Video Response

    “10 Minutes: Trump One Year President” Video Response

    This video by PressTV presents a review of President Donald Trump’s first full year in office. One year has passed since Donald Trump has been elected US President. Since then, the world has seen a US President unlike any other. One that is aggressive, impulsive, uninterested in politics, and egotistical. Despite coming into office with a grand series of promises to change American politics for the better, the case can be made that the policies pursued by the Trump Administration have changed American politics for the worst. Trump has thus far failed to realize any of his campaign promises, fanned the conspiracy flames regarding his relationship with Russia, contradicted and insulted his staff, and made enemies of allies throughout the world. Additionally, President Trump has attacked the governmental institutions he oversees, threatened to use his powers to ruin the lives of his political opponents, waged war against members of his own party, and engaged in race-baiting, sexism, ableism, and religious bigotry when pursuing his destructive agenda.

    One such area in which President Donald Trump left his mark during his first year was his immigration executive order banning (mostly Shi’a Muslim) immigrants, travelers, and refugees from seven majority-Muslim countries (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya). This action ignited a firestorm of protest and revealed the bigoted, white supremacist agenda underlying the Trump Administration’s policies. President Trump also rattled the nuclear-saber more than any other President in US history with his incitement of North Korea, going as far to threaten the North Korean government with “fire and fury.” Many politicians on both sides of the aisle worry that Trump has misused the moral authority surrounding the office of the Presidency through such statements and actions.

    President Donald Trump claimed during his first year in office that he has the unilateral authority to order the Justice Department to open or close investigations into his political opponents. Such rhetoric threatens to set a negative precedent in future Administrations that goes directly against the principles of separation of power spelled out in the US Constitution. President Trump’s outreach to autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel further characterized his first year in office. By backing the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, President Trump has given the green light for Saudi Arabia to escalate its three-year-long intervention in Yemen, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people and has encouraged hatred towards Shi’a Muslims throughout the world.  Additionally, President Trump’s choice to recognize Jerusalem (“al-Quds” in Arabic) as the capital of Israel has encouraged the Israeli regime to expand its crusade against the Palestinian people.

    President Donald Trump also left a negative mark within the realm of international politics and has adopted a firm, neoconservative view regarding the role of the US in the world. President Trump has repeatedly denounced the Iranian nuclear deal, calling it the “worst deal ever negotiated” despite the fact that it was upheld by numerous organizations, most notably the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Additionally, President Trump has proposed a hardliner stance towards Iran, calling it a “terrorist nation” and calling for US military action to remove the current Iranian government from power.  These actions on the part of the President have led to many European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron to rethink their reliance on US political and diplomatic leadership on the world stage.

    In terms of domestic policy, President Donald Trump generally has had an abysmal first year in office. Trump failed to follow through on repealing The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) despite the fact that his party controls both houses of Congress, and has relied on Executive Orders more often than any other first-year President in US history. The only true legislative achievements of President Trump’s first year in office are his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Many critics argue that the presence of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will move the Judicial branch far to the right and have a profound (and what many view as a negative) impact on decisions such as drug policy, women’s rights, abortion, gay rights, and electoral reform. Additionally, nearly all economic organizations point out that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a clear giveaway to the wealthiest 1% and only serve to further the widening income gap between the wealthy and the poor.

    Here is the link to the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLDqJqcBbI&index=12&list=LL1B7oixItfvf2Uqvx7886Vw&t=28s

  • Seven Must-Know Facts For Planning College Political Events

    Seven Must-Know Facts For Planning College Political Events

    Have you ever tried to organize a college event? Did you get frustrated by issues of planning and attendance?

    College is a stressful environment often characterized by heavy workloads and important deadlines to meet. Planning a successful college event can be most successful by following certain guidelines to maximize your potential. Finals/Midterms times and prior to are the worst time to hold events. Here are some tips to help you set up a successful event:

    1. Early Bird gets the worm
    First-time Political leaning or educational events, in my opinion, are always best to be done in the first 2-3 weeks of school. Before Midterms and before homework starts getting overwhelming.

    2.Time Time Time
    Make sure the event isn’t at a time when most people are in class but perhaps “college hour,” or a time when people want to have some pizza after class.

    3. Who’s Who?
    Figure out who are the Demographic most likely to attend. Figure out how to attract them, like LGBTQ attract them by telling them about the issue and how it’s important in their life. How they should come and will benefit. Then figure out how to attract large segments of the student or other population.

    4. Monopoly MOFO
    Making sure your event has a monopoly over the time/date is important so other events don’t drain from your audience. If a more “liberal” socially- (not economically that word is misused today), then figure out what other events that draw people in that realm may be happening or run by and inform them of your event beforehand to make sure you have a leg up on them. Something as simple as saying “hey come to my event” and “save the date.” Informing the faculty who are “experts” in that field your event is on can help spread the word as well.

    5. Art Bitches
    Make sure you have an attractive flyer to catch someone’s eye to the event. This should also include online postings like on Instagram/Facebook which are drawing more attention these days. A picture is worth a thousand words so keep it relative to the event.

    6. Munchies!
    Having Pizza at the event can go a long way where people who aren’t generally as interested now come to the event and want a piece of that action. So food is a way to lure people just make sure you try to gauge the attendance with food supply otherwise it will take away from an event. Refillable cups is advised along with water to reduce plastic use and make your event more environmentally friendly.

    7. Songs of the time (EXTRA)
    Having a musician play relevant music at the end of the event can lure more people- his or her friends to attend- and ends an element that there will be a musician playing at the end. Try to keep the music almost relevant to the event. For example, if the event discusses healthcare policy, include a song that talks about health care or if the event is about immigration feature a song about immigration. Try to keep the music it a genre you think people will like. Solidarity Singers in NJ are known for political songs and is a good source for political events.

    Early in Semester
    During a right day of week/Time
    Figuring out the target group
    Making sure the target group has only your event to attend
    Posters that are well designed
    Some food at the event
    (Extra)Perhaps music performance at the end or start
    (These are lessons I have learned from my failed events-XOXO )

  • History of the Republican Party

    History of the Republican Party

    The Republican Party is one of the two main political parties currently active in the United States. Founded by anti-slavery activists, economic modernizers, and liberal Whigs and Democrats in 1854, the Republicans dominated politics nationally and was the majority political party in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains for most of the period between 1854 and 1932. The Republican party has won 24 of the last 40 U.S. presidential elections, and there has been a total of 19 Republican Presidents between 1860 and 2016, the most from any political party.

    Liberal Republicans & The  Civil War

    The Republican Party was founded in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 and soon became the main anti-slavery political party within the US.

    The Republican Party was officially formed in the small town of Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, as a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats opposed to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus repealing the 34-year prohibition on slavery in territories north of the Mason–Dixon line. This change was viewed anti-slavery members of Congress as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South. In addition to supporting an anti-slavery platform, the Republican Party followed a platform based on economic modernization, a more open interpretation of the constitution, expanded banking, openness to new immigrants, and giving free western land to farmers as a way to discourage the spread of slavery to the Western territories. Most of the support for the new political party came from New England (particularly Vermont, Maine, and parts of Upstate New York),  the Midwest, and certain areas in the Upper South such as Eastern Tennessee, Southeastern Kentucky, and Western Virginia (regions where slavery was non-existent).

    The Republican Party almost immediately made a mark on American politics and soon superseded the Whig Party as the chief opposition party. The first Republican Presidential nominee was John Frémont, a former general during the Mexican-American War and a strong opponent of the spread slavery. In the 1856 Presidential Election, Frémont scored 33% of the vote and came very close to defeating Democratic candidate James Buchanan in the Electoral College. The strong performance of the Republican Party was an impressive feat despite the fact that the party lacked a strong organizational structure and was not on the ballot in all states. The Republican Party built upon their successes by winning control of both House of Congress in the 1858 midterm elections.

    The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War led to the first era of Republican domination of the American political system.

    The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the subsequent start of the Civil War opened a new era of Republican dominance at the federal level known as the Third-Party System. President Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union. Most of the remaining Democrats at first were War Democrats and supportive of the Union war effort until late 1862. When in the Fall of 1862 Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as one of the leading war goals, many War Democrats became “Peace Democrats” and thus became more sympathetic to the cause of the Confederacy. The Republicans condemned the peace-oriented Democrats as disloyal and won enough War Democrats to maintain their Congressional majority in 1862. In 1864, the Republicans formed a coalition with many War Democrats (such as Tennessee military governor Andrew Johnson) as the National Union Party which reelected Lincoln in a landslide.

    Nearly all of the state Republican parties accepted the idea of the abolition of slavery except Kentucky. In Congress, the Republicans established legislation to promote rapid modernization, the creation of national banking system, high tariffs, the first income tax, paper money issued without backing (“greenbacks”), a large national debt, homestead laws, federal infrastructure spending (particularly on the railroads and industries), and federal aid for education and agriculture. These legislative efforts added to the perception that the Republican Party was the more liberal of the two main political parties.

    Post Civil-War Republicans

    After the successful conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the Republican Party leadership was faced with the challenge of Reconstruction. The Republican Party soon became split between the moderates (who favored a lenient approach to Reconstruction) and the Radical Republicans (who demanded aggressive action against slavery and vengeance toward former Confederates). By 1864, a majority of Republicans in Congress were part of the Radical branch of the party. These tensions reached their boiling point after President Lincoln’s assassination in April of 1865. The Radical Republicans at first welcomed President Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s second Vice President and a Southern Democrat who supported the Union), believing that he would take a hard line in punishing the South and enforce the rights of former slaves. However, Johnson denounced the Radicals and attempted to ally with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing laws over President Johnson’s veto. President Johnson was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1868 but was acquitted by the Senate by only one vote.

    The Republican Party of the 1870s sought to establish a viable political coalition based on the ideas of racial equality and progressive public policy.

    With the election of Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party structure, and the army and sought to build a Republican base in the South using the votes of Freedmen, Scalawags, and Carpetbaggers, supported directly by the US army. Republicans all throughout the South formed clubs called Union Leagues that mobilized the voters, discussed policy issues and fought off white supremacist attacks. President Grant strongly supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth Amendment and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Despite President Grant’s popularity and devotion to the cause of racial and social equality, his tolerance for corruption led to increased factionalism in the Republican Party. The economic depression of 1873 energized the Democrats at the Congressional level. The Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in 1874 and formed “Redeemer” coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state. Reconstruction came to an end when an electoral commission awarded the contested election of 1876 to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who promised through the unofficial Compromise of 1877 to withdraw federal troops from the control of the last three southern states (Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana). The South then became known as the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats for the next century.

    Economic Conservatism

    The Republican Party by and large remained the dominant political party at the Presidential level for the next five decades, with the Democrats only winning the Presidency in 1884, 1892, 1912, and 1916.  Starting in the mid-1890s, both of the political parties began to shift on economic policy due to events such as the 1893-1897 economic depression. During the 1896 Presidential Election, the Democrats nominated former Congressman William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, whereas the Republicans nominated Governor William McKinley of Ohio. In contrast to previous Democratic nominees, Bryan followed a platform aligned with contemporary liberalism. Some of the main components of Bryan’s platform included increased federal aid to farmers and factory workers, opposition to the gold standard, a federal income tax, opposition to the wealthy elite, and economic populism. In contrast, Republican William McKinley took an entirely opposite position, arguing that the application of classically liberal economic policies, the continuation of the gold standard, and protectionism would lead to widespread prosperity. Ultimately, McKinley defeated Bryan by a comfortable margin, but the political shifts from this election would have ramifications moving forward. Even though the Republican Party moved towards the left-wing of the political spectrum once more under the Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, the conservative branch would win out by 1920 with the nomination and subsequent election of Warren Harding to the Presidency.

    A Party in Decline & Flux

    Senator Robert Taft of Ohio led the conservative wing of the Republican Party from the late 1930s to the early 1950s and advocated for the party to support fiscally conservative principles.

    The initial era of Republican domination at the Presidential level would come to an end with the start of the Great Depression in 1929. President Hoover attempted to alleviate the widespread suffering caused by the Depression, but his strict adherence to Republican principles precluded him from establishing relief directly from the federal government. Additionally, President Hoover became the first Republican President to openly-endorse white supremacy and supported the removal of blacks from state-level Republican parties, which alienated black support for the Republican Party. The Depression cost Hoover the presidency with the 1932 landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and allowed the Democrats to gain a substantial Congressional majority for the first time since the 1850s. The Roosevelt Administration implemented a legislative program known as the “New Deal,” which expanded the role of the federal government in the economy as a way to alleviate the suffering caused by the economic decline and to prevent another economic decline on the scale of the Great Depression from occurring again. Additionally, President Roosevelt sought to gain the support of voter groups that typically voted Republican such as African-Americans, ethnic minorities, and rural farmers. Roosevelt’s efforts were ultimately successful and led to strong victories for the Democratic Party at the ballot box for the next three decades. During this period, the Democratic Party retained control of Congress for every year except 1946 and 1952 and won the Presidency in all elections except 1952 and 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower, a liberal Republican, defeated a fractured Democratic Party.

    In response to the New Deal and the policies of the national Democratic Party, the Republicans split into two factions. The first wing was the liberal faction, which favored expanding the New Deal social programs, but felt that such programs would be managed better by Republican administrations. Additionally, the liberal faction of the Republican Party firmly favored civil rights legislation and worked closely with Northern Democrats to push forward positive legislative changes in that arena. The other group was the conservative faction, which advocated a return to laissez-faire economics and fiscal conservatism. Even though the conservative faction of the Republican Party also supported civil rights reforms, they started to form alliances with conservative Southern Democrats in the late 1930s as a way to prevent progressive laws from passing. After the 1938 midterm election, the “Conservative Coalition” formed a majority in Congress and prevented successive Democratic administrations from expanding the New Deal and other associated social programs. It can be argued that the “Conservative Coalition” controlled Congress until 1958, when a large group of liberal Democrats was elected to the Senate and House of Representatives.

    The Southern Strategy & The Republican Resurgence

    The political parties began to shift again in the 1960s due to policy changes within the Democratic Party. The main split in the Democratic Party came about due to the struggle for civil rights. Since the late 1930s, the Democratic Party experienced a major split between the liberal and moderate factions, which favored civil rights, and the Southern faction, which was steadfast in its opposition to federal civil rights legislation. These tensions came to a head when Lyndon Johnson became President after John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Despite being a Southerner, Johnson had a record in support of civil rights since the mid-1950s and felt that civil rights represented a major political opportunity for the Democratic Party. Over the course of his Presidency, major civil rights legislation was passed in 1964, 1965, and 1968 and the Democrats soon became associated with civil rights reform. In response to these changes, the Republican Party began to appeal to white Southerners opposed to the changes to their way of life. These appeals first became apparent in the 1962 Alabama Senate Election between Democrat Lister Hill and Republican James Martin. Despite being a supporter of segregation, Hill was targeted relentlessly by Martin as a covert supporter of federal civil rights legislation. Ultimately Hill won the race, but by only a 1% margin. The Hill-Martin Senate race served as a prelude to the 1964 Presidential Election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater lost in every region of the country except the Deep South due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Modern Republicans look up to President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the main political leader to emulate.

    The Republican Party began to see a resurgence at the federal level during the late 1960s that continue to this day. As a result of the aforementioned civil rights reform, the ongoing Vietnam War, and the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to reform the party structure, the Republican Party regained control of the Presidency in 1968 and retained control of this office in each election except 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012. On the other hand, the Republican Party did not regain control of the Senate until 1980 and the House of Representatives until 1994. The growth of the Republican Party over the past 50 years can be attributed to the implementation of a conservative platform on both economics and foreign policy as well as the rise of the Christian Right political movement in the late 1970s. The modern Republican Party considers President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) as the political leader to look up to, much like how Democrats view Franklin Roosevelt as their political idol. During his Presidency, Reagan implemented neoliberal economic policies, expressed strong support for socially conservative values, increased defense spending and advocated an internationalist foreign policy that some credit with contributing to the end the Cold War.

    Contemporary Republican Party

    Today, the Republican Party is at its highest level of support since the late 1920s. The Republicans control both House of Congress and have gained total control over historically Democratic areas such as the Appalachian and Ozark regions of the South since 2010 and are increasingly becoming dominant in the industrial Midwest. On the other hand, the Republican Party has lost nearly all of their historic support in the Northeast and West Coast due to their adopting of a socially conservative and xenophobic platform over the past decade.

    In the 2016 Presidential Election, Republican Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton with 304 Electoral Votes but lost the popular vote by 3 million. Trump performed strongly in the Midwest, Appalachia, Ozarks, and some states in the Northeast such as Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Additionally, Trump performed very poorly in several typically Republican states such as Texas, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, and Utah. Perhaps the 2016 Presidential Election signals a new realignment for both political parties. Future elections may see the Republican Party cementing their gains in the Midwest, Appalachia, and Ozarks, and the Democratic Party continuing to grow in support along both coasts of the US and picking up parts of the cosmopolitan Southern states and the Southwest.

  • Grassroots Organizations for Collective Policies

    Grassroots Organizations for Collective Policies

    Organizations and Links helpful to good Grassroots policy idea and website links.Along with Information

    General + Organizations 
    Eventbrite  -Post Events on here to get more people showing up
    League of Women Voters
    Our Revolution
    Progressive Democrats
    Food and Water Watch (Environmental Organization mostly against Climate Change/Pollution and supportive of efforts to expand Clean Water/AHealthy Foods)

    American Immigration Council
    Environment New Jersey
    Organization For Fair Drug Laws
    Bus for Progress –
    New Jersey Citizen Action (Citizen advocacy group- beware somewhat corporate aligned)
    Justice Democrats

    AdLibbing– Social Good Marketing Organization

    Fighting Corruption

    https://represent.us/about/ (passing city wide anti-corruption laws)

    https://volunteer.represent.us/chapters

    Wolf PAC  (Money out of Politics) via constitutional amendment

    https://vimeo.com/278195786

    https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/11/19283/here-are-interests-lobbying-every-statehouse -COVANTA HOLDING CORP. FIRSTENERGY CORP. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP.) Top Industries lobbying NJ(2014)!

    https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2011/09/13/nj-election-cover/

    Books on NJ Corruption

    The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corruption
    by Bob Ingle, Sandy McClure (2006)

    Soft Corruption: How Unethical Conduct Undermines Good Government and What To Do About It
    by William E. Schluter

    Health Care
    Health Over Profit (Universal Health Care)
    Physicians for a National Health Program (Universal Health Care)

    http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/ – Nurses for  Universal Healthcare

    https://www.kff.org/statedata/

    http://universalhealthcarenj.org/index.html – For putting NJ on Medicare

    https://www.njsaferatios.com/ For a ratio of patient/nurse number for healthcare

    http://universalhealthcarenj.org/Top_Tools_Tactics_Notes_Links_SMT.pdf

    Environmental, Sustainability

    Environment New Jersey

    http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/solargardens – Solar Gardens

    Home

    https://www.njlcv.org/

    http://asbcouncil.org/nj#.WeU1gmhSxPY – American Sustainable Business Council NJ

    Food and Water Watch

    http://www.arboraesthetics.com/blog/category/tree-planting
    http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/aesthetic.htm
    http://www.gardenaesthetics.com/
    http://gardenpool.org/diy-projects – creating sustainable living in US and Abroad
    http://phe.rockefeller.edu/ -Research focuses on long-term trends relevant to the environment, including changes in population,
    http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html – Getting lead out of drinking water

    https://www.nrdc.org/ – Protecting US Environment

    http://www.vrg.org/- Vegetarian resource group

    (From NJ Future Website)-http://designyourtown.org/places/ – Can look at town designs

    https://www.institut.veolia.org/en/nos-publications/la-revue-de-linstitut-facts-reports/reinventing-plastics

    Peace & International Conflict Resolution 
    Humanitarian Law Project (Fight for Human Rights)
    Veterans for Peace (For International Peace and Nuclear Disarmament)
    https://www.peacecoalition.org/ – For International Peace and Nuclear Disarm

    http://worldbeyondwar.org/who/ -World Beyond War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.

    The Cost to End World Hunger

    Peace Voter

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114294746

    http://gunsandbutter.org/ten-topicsten-shows.htm

    http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/meiklejohn/meik-peacelaw/meik-peacelaw-10.html

    Women, Womens rights, Womens Issues
    http://www.nownj.net/about-us/about-now-nj – NJ State-wide women’s rights activist organization

    http://www.wpcnj.org/ – Womens Political Caucus of New Jersey – getting women elected/voting

    https://girlswhocode.com/ – Helps Young Women Learn to Code

    League of Women Voters

    https://www.plannedparenthood.org/

    Internet Issues, Cyber Security, Freedom of Information 

    https://civic.mit.edu/ – Goal :sign, create, deploy, and assess tools and processes that support and foster civic participation and the flow of information between and within communities.

    http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/Troops-Trolls-and-Troublemakers.pdf

    https://libraryfreedomproject.org/ – Liberty Freedom Project – Cyber Security for the People

    https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_website

    Home

    https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017 – Rating Companies and Privacy

    -https://www.defcon201.org/  – There New Jersey Branch in Jersey City

    https://muninetworks.org/communitymap – Creating your own internet! Maps of who has done it!

    http://www.toolboxfored.org/ – Creates games/programs for justice

    https://law.duke.edu/cspd/ – Center for the Study The Public Domain Duke University

    https://www.cleargov.com/products/civic – Gov Transparency

    https://dci.mit.edu/decentralizedweb/- Push for Decentralized Web

    Economic, Housing, Wage Issues, 

    (site below)

    Housing/Development

    Homepage

    Home is NJ Future, they do smart growth on public policy.

    http://designyourtown.org/places/ – Can look at town designs and building styles (From NJ Future)

    https://centerforpartnership.org/mission-and-history/ – Cooperative Partnerships in all aspects of life

    http://www.affordablehousingalliance.com/ – Affordable Housing- Monmouth/Ocean/Middle-sex Counties

    https://www.unitedwayalice.org/new-jersey- Affordable Housing (ALICE)

    http://nlihc.org/about – Nation Local Income Housing Coalition

    http://ahpnj.org/resources/affordable-housing – Affordable Housing Professional of New Jersey

    Important Housing Notes: http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/codes/publications/guide.html

    https://homesforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Communities-Over-Commodities_Full-Report.pdf

    About

    https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

    https://evictionlab.org/map/#/2016?geography=states-Map of evictions state level numbers

    Economic

    https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/-Tracking Subsidies,
    Promoting Accountability in Economic Development

    http://www.antipovertynetwork.org/

    https://ilsr.org/-Self reliance institute

    http://www.ideaeconomics.org/ -Micheal Hudson Economics

    http://freakonomics.com/ -Steven Levitt

    http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/ – Public Banks

    About NEC

    https://www.census.gov/mycd/

    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/about/ (Progressive Think Tank)

    http://www.greenworker.coop/ourcoops

    Home

    https://institute.coop/about-dawi/mission-vision

    Home

    https://thenextsystem.org/principles – Gar Alperovitz

    http://www.toolboxfored.org/ – Interactive toolbox to make games for social change

    https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/-Think Tank for Progressive Econ

    Homepage

    Freedom of Speech

    Home

    Political Action/Planning/ Tools for organizing 

    http://thecitizenscampaign.org/about/

    • Running for office and citizen tools

    https://ourrevolution.com/2017-elections-results/ – OUR REVOLUTION Election Results

    https://democraticautopsy.org/democratic-party-in-crisis/ -Democratic Autopsy Report

    http://thecitizenscampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/How-to-run-for-a-political-party-committee-seat.pdf

    https://www.standcnj.org/education/six-levels-government/ -Understanding Local Government

    Political Communication

    http://nationbuilder.com/ – used to map voters/communicate/ planning

    https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/hustle-app-bernie-sanders-texting/ – Texting App

    Political Planning/Must reads

    Shows Political score if an Area leans Democrat or Republican (PVI) +

    http://cookpolitical.com/pvi-map-and-district-list

    https://openstates.org/nj/legislators/  – Good but needs updating

    https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/ – Understanding Logic

    Showing influence

    https://ballotpedia.org/Influencers_in_New_Jersey

    Ideology Rating Sites(A-B + %)

    http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2015/senate/ideology

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html – Talks about fragmented communities need to understand to get into modern US politics especially NJ

    Advocacy 

    https://www.indivisibleguide.com/guide/advocacy-tactics/

    Figuring Out Influence/ Who’s in charge

    https://movetoamend.org/toolkit/guide-power-mapping

    US Spending Data/State Spending/ Programs Spending

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2018bH0C

    Open Source Data Software

    https://towardsdatascience.com/setup-a-data-science-environment-on-your-personal-computer-6ce931113914

    Hosting Events- Post Here to Attract People+ Find Events

    https://www.eventbrite.com-  Find events

    Texting App for Communication in newly formed/forming group or outreach 

    https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/hustle-app-bernie-sanders-texting/ – texting app

    Understanding Vulnerabilities of Large Corporations and Brand

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxExkIVw-c –

    Shows Political Funding

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000781

    Why Civic Education is important 

    http://civiced.org/papers/articles_role.html

    Small City Beating Corporate Giants

    Immigration

    http://www.njimmigrantjustice.org/

    Higher Education/School Board (learning without college tuition)

    https://www.facebook.com/pg/NJUnitedStudents/about/?ref=page_internal

    https://www.edx.org/school/harvardx – Getting very cheap Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics…etc

    https://www.coursera.org/- Getting Free Education for high level information like government/peace/science topics..etc

    https://www.khanacademy.org/ – Mostly free highschool

    http://www.njamistadcurriculum.net/about – Teach about African American Historyhttps://www.njsba.org/about/membership/membership-school-board-members/school-board-candidacy/- Run for School Board

    Names
    Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority

    List of NJ Credit Unions
    Credit Unions Online

    http://www.njcul.org/- New Jersey League of Credit Unions

    List of Labor Unions
    https://www.manta.com/mb_44_F0277_31/labor_unions_and_similar_labor_organizations/new_jersey
    Information on Area to help make decisions
    https://datausa.io/
    http://www.bestplaces.net/state/new_jersey

    Alliance Map
    Stand Central NJ

    Reliable News Organizations
    https://centerforcooperativemedia.org/ – Montclair NJ- Help start new state wide local media coverage via coop model

    https://hudsoncountyview.com/ -Hudson County NJ News

    (Intro)Film the Myth of the Liberal Media by Noam Chomsky : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo&feature=share
    WikiLeaks – Truth to Power
    AirWars – Military news
    Democracy Now! – World/ US News
    DC Reporting – US News- Washington- Big Shots
    The Real News Network – World/US News

    https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2017%E2%80%932018 – Has Rule of Law Report(global decline of law)

    https://www.projectcensored.org/- News Stories that the media misses

    https://usawatchdog.com/bio/ – US news and Corruption
    The Intercept – In-depth News, mostly foreign Policy, in depth on domestic issues
    Chapo Trap House – Young People on Policy

    About

  • Socio-political Inequalities in the Middle East: How to Address Them

    Socio-political Inequalities in the Middle East: How to Address Them

    A major issue facing the Middle East is the continued struggle to address the limited level of political freedom and high level of socioeconomic inequalities that characterize the region. Much of the Middle East suffer from elevated rates of unemployment, rampant poverty, and an unequal distribution of wealth and social services. Additionally, many of the Middle Eastern nations lack robust and efficient governmental institutions and mechanisms that allow their citizens to express their demands and hold their leaders accountable. Some of the factors that have contributed to such regional inequalities include the legacy of Western imperialism, the role of religion, and the dominance of oil in the economies of the Middle East. Lust concludes her analysis by exploring the possibilities to bring about political and societal change in the region to reduce the high levels of inequalities.

    One of the main factors influencing the overall political and economic status of the Middle East is the fact that many of the governments in the region remain relatively weak. Recent global rankings indicate that a clear majority of the nations in the Middle East are either weak or fragile states and several countries in the region such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Sudan are on the cusp of becoming failed states due to the continued instability that came about due to their ongoing civil wars. Both international and domestic factors have undermined the sovereignty of many nations in the Middle East by challenging their legitimate right to rule and different social groups, either sectarian, ethnic, or religious based, often gained control of governmental institutions throughout the region, seeking to use them for their personal benefit. The legacy of colonialism and the intervention of external powers into regional political systems has also negatively impacted the creation of formal governmental institutions and prevented the development of robust and efficient states in the Middle East.

    The presence of authoritarian political systems also contributes to the limited political freedoms region. Much of the Middle East is characterized by “resilient authoritarianism” that has endured despite increases in democratization in recent decades. There are several reasons why authoritarian political rule continues to persist in the Middle East. One such factor is the strategic location of the Middle East. Because of the strategic role of the Middle East, international forces have invested much of their resources into building up dependable leaders by giving them the support to remain in power without creating stable democratic societies. The dynamic between Islamist political parties and secular political leaders also contributes to continued authoritarianism in the region. For example, secular authoritarian leaders in the Middle East advantage of the fears that the populace has regarding Islamist political parties as an excuse to place limits on political freedom. Often, these efforts backfired and ultimately resulted in religiously-affiliated political groups coming into power due to the fact that secular democratic movements were suppressed, thus making religious movements the only viable opposition movement that the population could hook onto.

    Economic factors also serve to exacerbate inequalities in the Middle East. The role of oil in the regional economies tends to undermine political and economic reform in the Middle East and compound the problems of state-building. The reliance on oil production provides countries with a relatively easy source of revenue but also prevents the creation of more diverse economic systems that will improve the stability of individual states. High dependence on oil production gives authoritarian leaders little incentive to support political reforms and serves to allow them to retain their power. The prevalence of resource-based economic systems also reduces the incentives for leaders to establish efficient taxation structures meant to create a more equitable distribution of wealth, thus contributing to an increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth in the region.

    Despite the multitude of challenges facing the Middle East, there are several ways to address both the lack of political freedoms and high level of social inequality in the Middle East. One such way to address the political inequalities in the region is to establish an independent mass media and an independent judicial system. By reducing government control over the media and improving the judiciary, governmental accountability will improve. Additionally, increasing the influence of political parties and shifting the role of the legislature away from a service organization will allow people to become more engaged in the political process, enabling them to encourage change in the political systems of their respective countries. The final way to address the structural challenges in the Middle East is to implement effective development programs, and civil society initiatives focused on empowering the individual to work towards bringing about change and promoting effective governance and state-building at the grassroots level.

  • TrumpCare – Developing Slogans with the Donald

    TrumpCare – Developing Slogans with the Donald

    TrumpCare- Killing poor people, was never so easy

    TrumpCare- Poor or Black? Not our problem.

    TrumpCare- Rich people stay rich and the poor get less medicine, it’s win-win folks

    TrumpCare- Fixing everything you thought was wrong with the healthcare system without doing a damn thing to address it

    TrumpCare- Taxes are too high! Give me a break!

    TrumpCare- Make America Sick Again.

    TrumpCare- T Trump, who build hotels and makes lots of money! R is for repeal- R is for replace ObamaCare!!! WHo HA! WHO HA! U is for uninsured! M is for major disaster for the sick!!Unless you’re rich like me!! P is for penalty when you’re sick, which means you go bankrupt! C is for critical which means you’ll die!Unless you are rich like me! A is for affluence which I’ll gain through Tax cuts Tax cuts! Hora! R is for Repeal and R is for Replace! E is for everyone!!Everyone getting F-U-C-K fucked! Unless you’re rich like me! 1% Hey! 1% Ho! Screwing Americans out of Healthcare lets go go go!

    Medicare For All- People Have Value

    TrumpCare would cut 800 billion to Medicaid which delivers health to millions of low-income Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-TxsUDmFao

  • Legalization of Marijuana in New Jersey: Recent Policy Proposals

    Although Governor Chris Christie (R) is strongly opposed to legalizing Marijuana (arguing that it is a “gateway” drug despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven that Marijuana usage has health benefits) the State Senate has begun discussions on how to regulate the Marijuana industry in New Jersey provided that it is legalized. State Senator Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) has recently sponsored a bill that legalizes marijuana possession and sale by adults 21 and older. Scutari’s bill includes several other provisions such as decriminalizing Marijuana possession of up to 50 grams immediately, creates a Division of Marijuana Enforcement in the state Attorney General’s Office which would create the rules used to govern the legal market of growers and sellers, and imposes a tax on Marijuana sales at 7% for the first year.

    Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy is a supporter of efforts to legalize Marijuana in New Jersey.
    Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy is a supporter of efforts to legalize Marijuana in New Jersey.

    Thus far, the bill legalizing Marijuana has attracted its share of both supporters and opponents. Organizations supporting the bill include New Jersey United for Marijuana Reform and various civil rights leaders who argue that existing drug enforcement laws are draconian and disproportionately affect minorities and the most vulnerable members of society. Additionally, Democratic Gubernatorial nominee Phil Murphy supports legalization of Marijuana. Opponents to the change in New Jersey drug policy have been relatively silent, though it is expected that most opposition comes from the pharmaceutical industry and drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers. Because of the fact that a majority of New Jersey residents support the legalization of Marijuana, it is expected that the Senate bill will likely be passed and signed into law assuming that the Democratic Party wins this year’s gubernatorial election.

  • Universal Basic Income a Conservative Idea?

    Universal Basic Income a Conservative Idea?


    What is Universal Basic Income?
    The idea that every citizen of a state should receive a basic income to survive. Instead of work 9-5 regular job, you would only need to if you want extra then bear minimum in society.

    Who is proposing Universal Basic Income?
    Right now many people see a future of automation as a destroyer of “jobs” for people to survive in the current monetary society. Major captains of industry have come out supporting it. Like who? Elon Musk -Mark Zukeburg Sam Altman, Andrew Ng, Bill Gross, Ray Kurzweil and more. You can find an introduction to the people on a link below.

    The How, What and Why?

                     As robots replace human labor what is to become of the workforce? How will society coop with men not operating jobs that maintain and produce capital? Well as the narrative goes, they are supposed to be good little workers and accept what society hands them. If people fight for the Universal basic income then it can become their right to have it. If they don’t get it, they have to accept it. But is universal basic income anything but to keep the fundamental restructuring of society and to keep the management of “production” out of the hands of the average man? The leaders of industry clearly see a time where the work is 95% machine driven and people really won’t have a place in the type of society it will create. It is saying there are no losers just above the tide people and people above the floor of desuetude. But it neglects to address the fundamental arguments of inequality, power, and egalitarianism. Who gets a say in what gets done? Who gets a say in what’s made? Who gets a say in how we do things? Fundamentally a society with and or without Universal basic income still presents a serious dilemma. Wealth in most societies like the US, influence, determines and often changes elections against the “popular” consensus of society. So Elon Musk is willing to give you a basic house, with solar panels and probably other essentials but it should not be mistaken men like him do this to keep his big house, expensive car and the mob off his company. Jean Ziegler a former UNO Special Rapporteur said it best when he said,

    “The agriculture of the world could feed 12 billion people with no problem. A child that starves to death today is murdered.”

    The human potential to feed everyone is possible, it’s the governments and large companies that prevent them from doing so because they would lose money-“capital”. Proposing that we feed everyone is a good start but asking why they are hungry is a better one.

    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” Dom Helder Camara, a Brazilian Archbishop

    The quote by the Brazilian Archbishop echoes a truth, the reason people starve is because we let them. The reason people let it happen is because small groups of generally wealthy American men find it immoral to lose a profit even though someone loses a life. Distribution of resources is a key area here that is not well discussed in Universal Basic Income. Yes, everyone in the state would theoretically receive an income to survive, but what they would not receive is real opportunities to climb out of that zone, lets call it climbing the ladder. With wealth concentration, monopolization of industry, patenting of technology it would become increasingly difficult for individuals to climb up to a substantially higher level of “wealth” or up the ladder.Currently, economic mobility is at its lowest point in a very long time in the US and around the world. Could UBI fix this? It remains to be scene with it not addressing the monopolization of wealth and industry. Why should one man own more than 90 or 100 million? There is no good answer to that, especially with the result of it, the concentration of power. Regardless of your stance on any political issue, who argues that one man should be a king when he has no right to be a king?It is not divinely ordained. It is not because of merit or intelligence, its is largely the result of being born at the right place at the right time to the right circumstances.  Under an increasing non-competitive, low labor society we could see worse inequality rise. I am not applying that historically competition was strong because it has usually been the opposite, but it will likely become worse. You have 400 families controlling half the world’s wealth today. Under Universal basic income will that change? I am not sure. But a great doubt hovers the minds of many on the issue.

    Dangers
    What could evolve is an exacerbation of the current problem, dumb, bullshit pass time crap. I am talking about wasting 3 hours a day watching sports when it has no “value” whatsoever. In the days of the Romans, they built Colosseum’s like the Circus Maximus, not just because they wanted to see people cut each other heads off for fun, but to keep people entertained and not thinking too much. It is important to constantly question the hierarchy and establishments of power in current human civilizations. Fuck apes. Society has the potentially to become an even more trapped and detached human consciousness with the increase of technologically development in virtual reality. Today we have an intense focus on entertainment while the world falls apart, environmental destruction, the potential for nuclear holocaust, drug epidemics, disease, famine, deep poverty and more. Many of these things will not be addressed by simply giving a “citizenry” Universal Basic Income. Be Weary my friends and stay thirsty for knowledge. For without the thirst we lose our humanity.

    “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” Socrates

    Introduction
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/these-entrepreneurs-have-endorsed-universal-basic-income

    Jean Zieglar
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve

    Circus Maximus
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_Maximus

    Said something about Apes?But here is some fun aside from it
    http://www.consumepopculture.com/#/make-america-apes-again/
    Why will Universal Basic Income become the future? Understanding Automation, video somewhat neo-liberal perspective

    More
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income