Category: Biden administration

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday slammed oil companies for raking in huge profits on the backs of U.S. consumers and reiterated his case for a windfall tax, a demand that came as President Joe Biden’s call for a federal gas tax holiday faced growing pushback from progressives and top officials in his own administration.

    “Corporate greed is destroying this economy. Right now, people all over the country are paying $5, $6 for a gallon of gas,” said Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee. “Meanwhile, in the first quarter of this year, oil company profits were $93 billion, and they’re going to spend $88 billion on dividends and stock buybacks for their wealthy stockholders.”

    “This is outrageous,” he added. “Corporate profits soar, working people can’t afford to fill up their gas tank. We need to pass a windfall profits tax now.”

    In March, Sanders led the introduction of a bill that would impose a 95% tax on the windfall profits of major companies, including oil giants that are taking advantage of Russia’s war on Ukraine to hike prices and pad their bottom lines, helping to push inflation to a four-decade high. The Vermont senator has also signed onto a separate measure that would specifically target Big Oil with a new tax and use the resulting revenue to pay out quarterly rebates to U.S. households.

    Price increases in the U.S. have only accelerated since Sanders unveiled his legislation, with the average cost of a gallon of gas reaching an unprecedented level earlier this month as oil majors such as Chevron and ExxonMobil tout their surging profits.

    “Gas is over $5 a gallon,” Sanders noted Thursday. “Why? Well, oil companies made $93 billion in profits in the first quarter and are spending $88 billion on stock buybacks and dividends to enrich their wealthy stockholders. Yes, it’s time for a windfall profits tax now.”

    Under mounting pressure to boldly confront corporate profiteering to rein in prices, Biden earlier this week pushed Congress to enact a three-month suspension of the federal gas tax of 18.3 cents per gallon and the diesel tax of 24.3 cents per gallon — a plan that, like the windfall profits tax, faces long odds in the Senate thanks in part to fossil fuel industry ally Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

    The president’s call for a gas tax holiday was immediately met with criticism from Democratic lawmakers and even top administration officials who — according to the Washington Post — “said privately that it would probably do little to significantly lower gas prices.”

    “I fully understand that a gas tax holiday alone is not going to fix the problem,” Biden acknowledged Wednesday. “But it will provide families some immediate relief, just a little bit of breathing room, as we continue working to bring down prices for the long haul.”

    But leading Democratic lawmakers, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), countered that a “gas tax holiday won’t make it down to consumers or stop the profiteering of oil and gas companies.”

    “It also robs the Highway Trust Fund of necessary infrastructure funds,” Jayapal added. “An excess profits tax on oil companies with a rebate to consumers is a better solution.”

    Sanders, too, has rejected the idea of a gas tax holiday, expressing agreement with former President Barack Obama that the proposal is a mere “gimmick.”

    “Barack Obama was right,” Sanders said in March. “A gas tax holiday was a bad idea in 2008 and it’s a bad idea today. If we’re serious about providing consumers relief at the gas pump, let’s take on the greed of Big Oil by enacting a windfall profits tax and ending OPEC’s illegal price-fixing cartel.”

    While Senate passage of a windfall profits tax is unlikely due to opposition from Manchin and the entire Republican caucus, the proposal is overwhelmingly popular with U.S. voters — which proponents say makes it both better policy and better politics than a gas tax holiday ahead of the November midterms.

    One recent poll showed that 80% of U.S. voters, including 73% of Republicans, back the idea of “placing a windfall profits tax on the extra profits oil companies are making from the higher gasoline prices they are charging because of the Russia-Ukraine situation.”

    “We need to get gas prices under control, but a gas tax holiday is not the answer,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) tweeted Thursday. “We can’t trust oil execs to pass the savings on to consumers — rebates and windfall taxes would be far more meaningful and wouldn’t rob infrastructure funds.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Biden’s formally announced plan to visit Saudi Arabia next month is a dramatic reversal of earlier promises to treat the Arab nation as a “pariah” in light of its repeated human rights violations. Calls are growing for Biden to hold the Saudi government accountable for the brutal murder and dismemberment of American resident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. But as he faces domestic anger over rising fuel prices, Biden seems to have declining leverage with one of the most oil-rich countries in the world and the top weapons client for the U.S. “The Biden administration has succumbed to the pressures of defense industries and the foreign government lobbyists to continue what are very profitable arms sales,” says Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, founded by Khashoggi.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    The White House has formally announced that President Biden will visit Saudi Arabia next month, as well as Israel and the occupied West Bank. Biden is expected to meet with both Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. As a candidate on the campaign trail, Biden pledged to make Saudi Arabia a pariah, following the brutal assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

    JOE BIDEN: And I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them. We were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.

    AMY GOODMAN: But Biden has taken a different stance in recent months as global gas prices soared. His talks in Saudi Arabia are expected to focus on oil production, the war in Yemen and other regional issues.

    For more, we’re joined by Sarah Leah Whitson, lawyer for Khashoggi’s fiancée in a lawsuit against the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Khashoggi’s murder, his dismemberment in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. She’s executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, or DAWN, which Jamal Khashoggi founded.

    Welcome back to Democracy Now! We only have five minutes, Sarah Leah, but I’m wondering if you can respond to this just complete reversal of President Biden, from saying they’re pariahs to going to meet with them.

    SARAH LEAH WHITSON: It’s a very dramatic capitulation to a very clear red line that President Biden had announced, perhaps off the cuff, but I think it is in response to a massive amount of pressure from the defense industry lobbies, from the Israeli, Saudi and Emirati lobbies, and the confluence of the war in Ukraine that has driven up oil prices, all of which have resulted in pressuring President Biden to do what he clearly didn’t want to do, which is go and kiss the ring of Mohammed bin Salman.

    I also want to note that the notion of whether or not Biden is going to meet with Mohammed bin Salman is a bit of a red herring, because the real concession here, what the Saudis and Emiratis have been demanding in order to continue to purchase American weapons, is a security agreement, a defense agreement, that will commit U.S. troops to defending the Saudi and Emirati monarchies. That is what President Biden is going to deliver in Riyadh. That is what we should all be very worried about.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the continuing massive weapon sales under the Biden administration, not only to Saudi Arabia, but to Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, as well?

    SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, I mean, the truth is in the pudding. Despite the promise from President Biden that you just heard, that he would end weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, it was very clear from the beginning of the administration that that was not going to happen. Saudi Arabia is America’s largest weapons client. It is the largest weapons client in the world. And number two behind it is the UAE. Everybody knows what the right thing to do is, and that is to end weapon sales to these heinous governments, given their atrocious war crimes for six years in Yemen.

    But, ultimately, the Biden administration has succumbed to the pressures of the defense industries and the foreign government lobbyists to continue what are very profitable arms sales for the defense industry. Certainly, this doesn’t suit or serve the interests of the American people, but it very much serves the interests of major donors to the Democratic Party, major donors to the Biden administration, and that is the lobbyists that represent the defense industries and the foreign governments.

    AMY GOODMAN: I was watching John Kirby, the spokesperson for the Pentagon, questioned about whether he’ll raise human rights, and he said, “Well, he does do that kind of thing. We kind of expect he will.” But what about — for example, is there pressure being brought to end your lawsuit on behalf of Khashoggi’s fiancée for the dismemberment of Khashoggi, the murder of Khashoggi? And we’re not only talking about one man here; also, the dismemberment of Yemen, the atrocity that is one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world, with U.S. weapons-backed Saudi Arabia bombing of Yemen.

    SARAH LEAH WHITSON: Well, just to be clear, the lawsuit is a lawsuit that DAWN has brought in its own capacity, and Hatice Cengiz, Jamal’s widow, is our co-plaintiff. We are joining together in this lawsuit for the murder and torture of Jamal Khashoggi. And we know that Mohammed bin Salman has demanded that the Biden administration interfere in our lawsuit to grant him immunity. That’s not going happen. It hasn’t happened so far. But if he ascends to become king, he will have sovereign immunity. The other defendants in the lawsuit will remain. And we are waiting for a verdict from the court on their motion to dismiss our lawsuit. We intend to prevail. We hope we will prevail.

    I should note that today we will be commemorating the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by Mohammed bin Salman by unveiling a new street sign in front of the Saudi Embassy at 1 p.m. That, I think, is the most important act of commemoration and accountability that exists to date, a permanent street sign in front of the Saudi Embassy reminding them and reminding the whole world who was responsible for this heinous crime.

    Very happy to see a truce in Yemen, but, let’s face it, this is a face-saving exit for the Saudi government from their catastrophic, futile war that has caused nothing but destruction and brought zero gain, even for the Saudis’ nefarious plot to contain and control Yemen.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, the Saudi Arabian Embassy will be on Jamal Khashoggi Way?

    SARAH LEAH WHITSON: That’s right. The new address of the Saudi Embassy — and we hope Google will adjust its maps to reflect that — is officially now Jamal Khashoggi Way. That is designated by the Washington, D.C., City Council, which unanimously approved —

    AMY GOODMAN: Three seconds.

    SARAH LEAH WHITSON: — our efforts to redesignate the street. And we hope you all watch the unveiling of the street sign today at 1 p.m. on DAWN’s Facebook page.

    AMY GOODMAN: Sarah Leah Whitson, we want to thank you for being with us, of DAWN. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Two years ago, I was afraid of going to the grocery store, lest I encounter COVID-19 lurking by the bananas or swirling around some unmasked dunderhead coughing purposefully beneath a MAGA hat. That fear remains ever-present, alas, but has recently been joined by an aisle-by-aisle sticker shock: This costs how much, now? As the Cambridge band Morphine once warned us, it’s murder out there, murder out there, sharks patrol these waters.

    The Republicans, on cue, have fanned out to all points on the compass. Their sole purpose: to blame the Biden administration for the inflation crisis that popped after the COVID stimulus packages saved the country from flying apart at the economic seams, back in the bleak times too many refuse to remember. For the Republicans, this economic crisis has arrived tied in a bright bow, just in time for the downhill run to the midterm elections in November.

    I remember: Millions of people were out of work, or couldn’t work, and thanks to the magic of capitalism, most of those millions had been living paycheck to paycheck with no savings to speak of. Without the stimulus bills, and the child credit the GOP let die last summer, well … we think we live in a dystopia now. While it definitely sucks, this right here is a long, luxurious back rub compared to where we’d be without that rescue money. The post-stimulus inflation burst feels like a dirty trick, true, but it’s certainly better than the Scroogy alternative.

    This is not to say the Biden administration is entirely free of culpability. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN to talk about the roiled state of the economy, and she dutifully fell upon her sword. “I think I was wrong then about the path that inflation would take,” she said. “There have been unanticipated and large shocks that have boosted energy and food prices, and supply bottlenecks that have affected our economy badly that I … at the time, didn’t fully understand.”

    Fair enough. It is a deeply weird economy we’re dealing with right now. “Employers are adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month,” reports The New York Times, “and would hire even more people if they could find them. Consumers are spending, businesses are investing, and wages are rising at their fastest pace in decades.” Yet because of inflation and the more-than-occasional dearth in necessary items (like baby formula, hey thanks, Abbott Labs), a lot of people think the economy is eating itself. Who knows, maybe it is. The old metrics no longer seem to apply.

    Russia’s putrid war in Ukraine owns a substantial slice of blame for this mess, to be sure. With one fell swoop, Vladimir Putin’s invasion and the subsequent sanctions against his country kicked the struts out from under the global food and global petroleum networks. Prices for everything from grain to gasoline are spiking, causing hunger and want to increase both here and abroad.

    For the lucky ones, there is the existential economic angst of paying five bucks a gallon at the gas station, only to drive to a grocery store selling ground beef for ten bucks a pound. Interesting fact: A quasi-subterranean reason why everything is so damned pricey is because diesel fuel is more expensive than gas by a notable margin. That means running the trucks that carry the food everywhere now brings a back-breaking expense to the transport companies, which they pass along to those who pass it along to those who pass it along to us.

    Speaking of passing it along, no discussion of the current inflation crisis would be complete without a bright light shining on corporate price-gouging. CBS News reports:

    Over the past year, despite the extreme economic upheaval of the pandemic, after-tax corporate profits have soared to record levels as a share of economic output, according to the U.S. Commerce Department…

    Some corporate leaders have been blunt about their plans to pass companies’ higher supply-chain prices to consumers. For example, consumer goods giants Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble and Unilever have been able to raise prices without losing sales. Nearly two-thirds of publicly traded companies report fatter profit margins than before the pandemic, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Russia-gas-food, Russia-gas-food… flip on the news networks and you’ll hear about this unholy trinity until your flatscreen cracks, but there has been a hole in the reporting wider than Jupiter, one that the Biden administration has also comprehensively failed to mention enough: COVID.

    COVID! Come on, you can say it, the monster is still under the bed, no sense pretending otherwise. COVID fouled global supply lines way back in 2020 and they have not recovered, so that’s nothing new. When we reached that first lull in infections, and then when we reached another one after the spike that inevitably comes when we let down our guard, people went wild with their spending. Steak at a restaurant! Whiskey at a bar! Music at a concert! Stuff! Things! PUT THAT SHIT IN MY FACE, and it felt like life again, because around here, it was.

    Increased demand + lowered supply (due to COVID-caused shipping ills) is How To Have Inflation 101, basic stuff. People ran out and giddily cleared the shelves, and not nearly enough ships came in to restock them. Compounding this, COVID has all but shuttered China, which is the manufacturing hub of the world whether we like it or not. Empty factories don’t feed empty ships, which leads to empty stores on the other side of the ocean and people faced with spending way more than they’re used to for basic needs.

    This doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon. “After months of rolling lockdowns in scores of Chinese cities that have forced hundreds of millions of people to remain in their homes, it is clear that President Xi Jinping is prepared to pursue his policy of zero-Covid at the expense of all other concerns,” reports The Financial Times. “That includes the widespread damage the policy is wreaking on the world’s second-biggest economy and most important manufacturing engine, and the political risks it is creating by further limiting the freedom of 1.4bn people.”

    When I step back, I can’t help but be amazed at how much effort is going into keeping COVID out of the inflation conversation, even as it shuts down massive nations like China and still fouls the global supply lines. The Financial Times covers it because they really kind of have to, but the others? It’s all Russia’s fault, no it’s all Biden’s fault, no it was the free money you guys!

    It was, is, and will remain COVID, which turned the whole damned planet on its ear, killed a million people here, and is not nearly finished with us. Capitalism, of course, helps not at all. There may very well be a way out of this without confronting an economic cataclysm, but when all is said and done, complaints about the price of gasoline and ground chuck could be remembered as the good old days. We need to be honest with ourselves about why.

    Sharks patrol these waters. Don’t forget it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This April, the Biden administration approved the sale of 12 AH-1Z Attack Helicopters and other related military equipment to the Nigerian government for $997 million.

    U.S. officials claim the sale will support national security objectives by improving Nigeria’s ability to fight the extremist group Boko Haram. But sales of weapons like these come with major human rights risks for the Nigerian population — risks U.S. officials should be taking more seriously.

    U.S. lawmakers in Congress had a 30-day window, through May 14, to stop the administration from issuing a Letter of Offer and Acceptance. But they can still adopt legislation to block or modify the sale at any time up to the point of delivery of the military equipment.

    Last July, when details of the deal were first presented to lawmakers, they raised concerns about the Nigerian government’s human rights record, which delayed the deal. Now, before letting the sale go forward, Congress should be asking more questions about what assurances the Biden administration has that Nigerians’ rights will not be violated with this new influx of military equipment

    The United States says it has partnered militarily with Nigerian forces because it sees Nigeria’s legitimate and serious security concerns, including the Boko Haram insurgency in northeast Nigeria and the burgeoning banditry crisis in the northwest, as a priority for the U.S. as well.

    Several states in Nigeria’s northwest region are currently plagued by the activities of armed gangs. Many began as vigilante and militia groups formed to protect their communities during disputes between farmers and nomadic herdsmen over land and other resources, which often escalate quickly and violently, with authorities failing to respond.

    Over time, the groups, particularly those affiliated with nomadic herders, morphed into powerful criminal gangs with sophisticated weaponry that kill, pillage, torture, and kidnap people, including school children, for ransom.

    The gangs themselves abuse people’s rights. But in responding to them, Nigerian security forces have often violated human rights and killed civilians themselves.

    Indeed several incidents, including airstrikes on civilian communities, in February and last September, make clear that Nigerian security forces are not doing enough to minimize civilian casualties when engaging in security operations.

    The February airstrike near the country’s border with Niger, which the authorities claimed was an error, killed seven children and injured five more. The September incident killed nine and injured 23. Moreover, Human Rights Watch and other groups have documented Nigerian forces committing gross human rights violations such as arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings within and outside the context of the nation’s security crises.

    The harm Nigeria security forces were causing to Nigerians led then-U.S. President Barrack Obama to block the sale of military equipment to Nigeria in 2015. But President Donald Trump allowed sales to resume.

    U.S. authorities have said that the new sale will include training for the Nigerian military on the laws of armed conflict and human rights, and air-to-ground integration, to minimize civilian harm in air operations.

    Yet these training sessions have also been provided in the past and we continue to see Nigerian forces causing harm to civilians and violating international law. We continue to see those same Nigerian forces experience no consequences for their actions, which fosters more grievances and helps perpetuate the cycle of conflict.

    It’s hard to see the U.S. pledge to educate Nigerian forces on the dos and don’ts of military operations as anything more than a weak attempt to acknowledge human rights risks while going ahead with the arms sales. What’s needed instead is high-level policymaker engagement. Congress needs to be asking tough questions of the Biden administration.

    To start, are Nigerian forces doing more harm than good in the fight against Boko Haram by also harming ordinary Nigerians? What plans are in place to track where and how U.S. military equipment is used by Nigerian forces? How will Nigerian authorities hold their forces accountable for harm to civilians?

    U.S. policymakers are legally bound to ensure they are not equipping abusive militaries. At this moment, there are serious doubts that this military sale to Nigeria meets that basic standard. For the sake of Nigerians caught in the middle of conflict and insecurity, Congress should press the Biden administration to demonstrate it can do so.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Robb Elementary School, the site of the tragic shooting on May 24 where 19 children and two teachers were killed, may be demolished using federal grant money, according to Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin.

    “I don’t think anybody’s plans are but to tear that building down,” McLaughlin said in a quote to NBC. “I would never ask, expect, a child to ever have to walk in those doors ever, ever again. That building needs to be gone.”

    State Sen. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio, who oversees the Uvalde district, agrees with McLaughlin and when President Biden paid a visit to the school to pay his respects at a memorial service, the matter was discussed with him in an effort to gain federal assistance.

    “The president said we’re going to work on a grant,” Gutierrez said in an interview with MSNBC. “Here’s a sad state of affairs, we actually have a federal grant for schools that undergo this type of devastation, and it’s upwards to $45 million to raze these schools. What does that say about this problem in America?”

    On Wednesday, the Robb Elementary school district’s superintendent issued a statement saying the surviving staff and student body will not be returning to the school.

    “We are working through plans on how to serve students on other campuses and will provide that information as soon as it is finalized,” Superintendent Hal Harrell’s statement details. “We are also working with agencies to help us identify improvements on all UCISD campuses.”

    “We’re going to look to raze that school and build a new one,” President Biden is said to have told State Sen. Gutierrez during his visit to the school.

    The demolition of Robb Elementary will follow the precedent set by Sandy Hook Elementary, destroyed in 2013 in response to the mass shooting that took place there in 2012.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Last week, the Biden administration quietly reaffirmed its decision to enact the highest Medicare premium hikes in history right before this year’s midterm elections. At the same time, President Joe Biden is endorsing a plan to funnel significantly more Medicare money to insurance companies and further privatize the government insurance program for older Americans and those with disabilities.

    In effect, the higher premium increases will subsidize the larger payments to — and profits for — private insurance corporations. This comes after Biden raked in roughly $47 million from health care industry executives during his 2020 campaign.

    The Biden administration announced on May 27 that due to “legal and operational hurdles,” Medicare recipients won’t see their premiums lowered this year, even though that rate was originally hiked last November in large part due to the projected costs of paying for a controversial Alzheimer’s drug that Medicare now says it generally will not cover.

    The Biden administration announced on May 27 that due to “legal and operational hurdles,” Medicare recipients won’t see their premiums lowered this year, even though that rate was originally hiked last November in large part due to the projected costs of paying for a controversial Alzheimer’s drug that Medicare now says it generally will not cover.

    The post Biden Hikes Medicare Prices, Funnels Profits To Insurers appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • U.S. President Joe Biden is in trouble. The crisis of legitimacy afflicting his administration continues to worsen. A new AP-NORC poll suggests that Biden’s approval rating is now 39 percent, with the biggest drop coming from registered Democrats. Only two of ten adults believe that the United States is heading in the right direction, down from three of ten just one month ago. Rising inflation and shortages in basic needs such as baby formula have played a major role in Biden’s declining popularity, as has an undue focus on prolonging the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Biden administration is set to send $40 billion in military aid to Ukraine despite the fact that the war does not make the list of major issues of concern for voters, let alone the general population.

    The post The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and the Decline of the American Empire appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • When fish numbers are low, who gets to continue to harvest fish in rural Alaska? Federal agencies say only local, rural residents. The state of Alaska says all Alaskans.

    The Biden administration filed suit on May 17 against the Alaska Department of Fish and Game over fish openings on the Kuskokwim River during fish shortages.

    The lawsuit is part of a long-standing conflict between federal land management agencies and the state over subsistence, or the gathering of food from nature for nutrition and cultural practices.

    This latest tussle was prompted by the state ignoring federal authority on the Kuskokwim river, which passes through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. The state has been holding fish openings for all Alaskans on the same days the federal government had limited openings to local rural residents due to low fish numbers.

    Communications director for the U.S. Department of Interior Melissa Schwarts said in a prepared statement, “this week, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game announced harvest openings in violation of federal law and which would interfere with the priority for rural subsistence use provided by Title VIII of ANILCA (the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act).”

    She said the “predicted low number of returning Chinook and chum salmon require restrictions on the taking of salmon within the Refuge with limited openings to federally qualified rural residents.”

    In its court filings, the Department of Justice said the state had warned federal agencies of its intent to disregard both federal scientists’ estimations of when fish closures are needed and the federal agencies’ authority to set harvest limits. The filings said current Alaska Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang, in 2014 expressed “the state’s future intent to disregard federal closures and provide harvest openings for all Alaskans…”

    For its part, the state says it’s living up to its responsibility to uphold the state Constitution, which prohibits exclusive or special privileges to take fish and wildlife, and reserves them for common use.

    Temporary Media Liaison and Assistant Attorney General Grace Lee said, “Although we are still reviewing the complaint, the state stands by its management decisions. These decisions are based on a foundation of sound science guided by a management plan and metrics vetted through the Alaska Board of Fisheries with input from the local stakeholder working group. This ensures that there are adequate subsistence opportunities for Alaskans while adhering to the sustainability principle enshrined in the Alaska Constitution,” she said.

    “It is unfortunate that the federal government is choosing to litigate instead of working together with the State to meet the subsistence needs of all Alaskans who have not only a nutritional dependency on these fisheries but have close cultural and traditional ties as well,” Lee said.

    This conflict has been underway since at least 1989 when a court ruling said ANILCA and the state Constitution contradict one another. Congress and state legislators have since failed to amend either ANILCA or the state Constitution to resolve the clash.

    The Setting

    The Kuskokwim River delta features millions of migratory ducks, geese and other waterfowl as well as five species of salmon, brown and black bears, caribou, and moose. The refuge is home to a dozen villages of predominantly Yup’ik, Cupik, and Deg Xit’an Athabascan people.

    Subsistence is vitally important to those villages, as it is to the economy of all of rural Alaska. Store bought food is expensive due to the high transportation costs of bringing it in by barge or plane.

    For instance, in Akiak, a village of 400 on the Kuskokwim River, a dozen eggs cost $6.65 at the Kokarmiut general store. Hamburger is $7.30 a pound. Those kinds of prices are one reason why local harvests of fish and game are measured in the hundreds of pounds.

    Subsistence is also deeply ingrained in Indigenous cultures. John Active, a Yup’ik elder who has since passed on, told Cultural Survival in 1998, “Our subsistence lifestyle is our culture. Without subsistence we will not survive as a people. If our culture, our subsistence lifestyle should disappear, we will be no more.”

    Refuge managers have been working closely with the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission, which represents 33 tribes. In its court filings, the Interior department said it has also reached out to the state to coordinate fisheries management in the refuge.

    Kevin Woodworth, interim executive director of the commission, said fish populations on the Kuskokwim have plummeted to levels ranging from poor to disastrous.

    “For the past decade or so, king salmon runs have been very low. Here on the Kuskokwim, the past two years, chum salmon runs have been record low numbers – just a disaster. And there hasn’t been enough king salmon for several years for people’s needs…this year it’s not looking good for either species to be able to provide for local people’s needs.”

    Board chair for the commission Mike Williams, Yup’ik, who is also chief of the Akiak Tribal Council, said with gasoline for boats and snow machines in the $5 to $6 a gallon range, villagers want to harvest food as efficiently as possible but are having to turn to species that are harder to harvest in quantity.

    ”So we are catching more white fish and also are catching more shee fish and putting them to supplement that and with pike and with other species. Also we’re hunting more beaver and also making sure that you know, we have our moose. Our caribou (hunting seasons) have been closed as well over here, but we’ve been supplementing our salmon with other species. So it’s been a struggle and we’ve come short every winter,” Williams said.

    “We have to rely more on store bought foods. We have relatives in the Yukon (region) that we wanted to send (food to), but we’re just getting by with what we have on the Kuskokwim river,” he said.

    The Kuskokwim Inter-tribal Fish Commission is considering its options to enter the suit on the side of the federal government.

  • The Biden Administration says it will veto a global plan to allow countries to ignore patents and make their own Covid-19 vaccines unless the Chinese are specifically excluded, Bloomberg reported.

    The sudden move has jolted top health workers who were hoping that the long-promised patent waiver would enable them to make vaccines available to everyone, including in poor countries in Africa and Asia.

    But the US says it will scupper the whole deal unless China is explicitly excluded from the waiver. In response, China said that it did not wish to be excluded from the pact, but would voluntarily agree not to take advantage of it.

    The post Vaccine Patent Shock As Biden Demands China Exclusion appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Immigrant rights advocates on Friday denounced a federal judge’s injunction blocking the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden from lifting Title 42, a Trump-era public health order that both presidents have invoked to deport around two million asylum-seekers under the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Judge Robert Summerhays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana — an appointee of then-President Donald Trump — concurred with 24 Republican-controlled states’ assertion that the Biden administration’s decision to terminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rule “violates the Administrative Procedures Act” because it “failed to consider the effects of a Title 42 termination on immigration enforcement and the states.”

    Tami Goodlette, director of litigation at the immigrant legal aid group RAICES, called the judge’s decision “both infuriating and unlawful.”

    “President Biden could have ended Title 42 and all of Trump’s inhumane and immoral policies as soon as he took office in January 2021 with the flick of a pen,” she continued, “but instead, he surrounded himself with centrist advisers who coddled his fears on immigration reform and embraced deterrence as their central priority on immigration.”

    “Now, the anti-immigrant right-wing agenda continues to fly forward unchecked and immigrants seeking safety and asserting their legal right to asylum will continue to pay the price,” Goodlette added.

    The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling, citing the CDC’s “expert opinion that continued reliance” on Title 42 “is no longer warranted.”

    First implemented by the Trump administration in March 2020 at the pandemic’s onset, Title 42 — a provision of the Public Health Safety Act allowing the government to prohibit entry into the U.S. of people who could pose health risks — was continued by Biden.

    More Title 42 removals have occurred during Biden’s tenure than Trump’s, although rights groups welcomed a March announcement that the White House would end the policy on May 23.

    Opponents of the move responded last month by advancing a bill by Sen. James Lankford (D-Okla.) — and co-sponsored by right-wing Democrats including Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) — to codify Title 42.

    “If Congress locks Title 42 into law, what we’re really talking about is creating an asylum system that selectively doles out protection for certain groups, while keeping out Black and Brown people,” Helena Olea, associate director of programs at Alianza Americas, said in a statement.

    Human rights advocates say Title 42 forces people legally seeking asylum in the United States into perilous situations in Mexican border cities, where Human Rights First has identified nearly 10,000 violent attacks on migrants.

    “Beyond the devastating humanitarian impact of Title 42, the court’s ruling also fails to recognize well-established domestic and international law,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. “Seeking asylum is a legal right, and yet this bedrock of the American legal system is quickly eroding at a time of unprecedented need.”

    “The decision undermines the Biden administration’s efforts to implement what the vast majority of Americans support — a fair, humane, and orderly immigration system,” she added. “Instead, it maintains a status quo that has been wholly ineffective in establishing a secure border. Only the coyotes profiteering off of people seeking protection have reason to celebrate this ill-reasoned ruling.”

    Some activists have pointed to the government’s open arms to Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion as proof that Title 42 is motivated more by racism than by public health concerns, although Ukrainian refugees have also been denied entry into the United States under the rule.

    “The outpouring of support for Ukrainians shows that should the U.S. government muster the political will, it is possible to manage large numbers of asylum-seekers at the border in an orderly and humane way,” asserted Oscar Chacón, executive director of Alianza Americas. “Nonwhite asylum-seekers and migrants also need a humanitarian response. Instead, we are deporting them in chains.”

    Olea contended that “Title 42 was never about protecting public health. It was about eliminating the possibility of asylum for people who cross the border by foot, fleeing instability and violence resulting from multiple factors, including U.S. policies.”

    National Immigration Project executive director Sirene Shebaya warned that “by denying people their right to seek asylum, Title 42 will continue to subject thousands of people to harm every day that it remains in place.”

    “Nobody should be complicit in the violence and harm that this policy has produced — not the courts, and not our representatives in Congress,” she continued. “And a group of anti-immigrant states should certainly not be dictating our national border and immigration policy.”

    “Despite this devastating court decision, the fight to restore our asylum system is not over,” Shebaya vowed. “We will continue working relentlessly with our partners to bring an end to this unlawful policy and welcome everyone with dignity.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden of the United States has announced through the Department of Defense the redeployment of Pentagon troops to the Horn of Africa state of Somalia. 

    This is not the first time that U.S. troops have been sent into Somalia due to the strategic geopolitical significance of the country as an oil producer and oceanic gateway to critical trade routes within the world economic system.

    The redeployment in Somalia coincides with the escalation of a Washington-engineered war in Eastern Europe over the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and efforts designed to weaken the Russian Federation. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a surprise visit to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, on April 25, emphasized the objectives of Washington and Wall Street in the funding of a conventional war in the region. 

    The post Biden Redeploys Troops To Somalia While Humanitarian Crisis Looms appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Amazon Labor Union (ALU) organizer and former Amazon worker Chris Smalls testified in a Senate Banking Committee hearing called by Bernie Sanders on May 5th to investigate whether Amazon and other monopoly corporations that violate labor law should receive federal contracts. That Amazon would receive federal assistance despite accumulating record profits amid a global pandemic is bad enough. Worse yet is that it took months before so-called progressive Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez acknowledged the efforts of workers organizing a union within the corporate behemoth.

    The hearing proceedings went viral after Smalls replied to Republican Senator Lindsay Graham’s screed against the “demonization of companies” by reminding him that “the people are the ones who make these companies operate, and when we’re not protected, the process for when we hold these companies accountable is not working for us, then that’s the reason why we’re here today.”

    The post Joe Biden And The Democrats Have Nothing To Offer Organized Labor appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • As far as medical publications go, it doesn’t get much better than The Lancet. Founded in 1823, the journal has published many of the most important peer-reviewed studies, articles and case reviews in the field.

    Over the weekend, The Lancet dropped an editorial titled “COVID-19: the next phase and beyond.” It read:

    After living for more than 2 years with COVID-19—with over 6·2 million confirmed deaths (but probably many more, with an estimated 20 million excess deaths) and over 510 million confirmed cases—the world is at a critical point. The omicron wave, with its high transmissibility and milder course than previous variants, especially for people who are fully vaccinated and without comorbidities, is abating in many countries.

    Restrictions are being relaxed, and people are slowly returning to pre-pandemic activities, including gatherings, office-based working, and cultural events. Mask mandates are being lifted in many countries. Testing and surveillance have decreased and travelling is recommencing widely. People are understandably exhausted and want to forget about the pandemic. This would be a grave mistake.

    Now is not the time to turn away from COVID-19 or rewrite history. It is time to vigorously engage, redouble efforts to end the acute phase of the pandemic in 2022 for all, and lay strong sustainable foundations for a better future with clear accountabilities and honest acceptance of uncomfortable truths.

    The key phrase in this passage — “It is time to vigorously engage, redouble efforts to end the acute phase of the pandemic in 2022 for all” — cannot be overstated. A sort of passive haze has fallen across our collective approach to this ongoing — yes, ongoing — medical calamity. Brutal war in Ukraine dominates the headlines, but even the price of ground beef has managed to push aside the fact that more than 70,000 people were infected with COVID-19 yesterday in this country alone.

    That represents a full 50 percent increase in infections from two weeks ago. Although deaths and hospitalizations remain down, thankfully, the acute phase of infection has not ended. Yet our incredible short-sightedness has hamstrung our testing to the point that we could very well be in the midst of a full-blown surge and not have any idea how bad it is, or how bad it could get. That 70,000 number, thanks to our collapsed testing regime, is almost certainly a low estimate.

    U.S. Attorney General Antony Blinken, along with a slew of notables from various networks and publications, came down with COVID in the aftermath of the Correspondents’ Dinner, an apt metaphor for the age. “Jada Yuan, a reporter at The Washington Post who tested positive Wednesday after attending the dinner, had said at the time that the ballroom was ‘like a horror film,’” reported The New York Times. “’No exits. Literally getting trapped between tables,’ Yuan wrote on Twitter. ‘Fear of breathing near people but people are everywhere. Creeping sense that you’re the only one who know this is insane.’”

    Delta, then Omicron, then BA.1, then BA.2, then BA.2.12.1, and now BA.4 and BA.5 … all variants and subvariants from the original form, each inching closer to eviscerating the rapidly diminishing protections offered by multiple rounds of vaccine shots. “The virus that brought us COVID-19 is now going through accelerated evolution,” warns Eric J. Topol, professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research. “Our vaccines must do the same.”

    To that end, and to multiple other vital ends, the Biden administration is seeking $22.5 billion in emergency aid for continued pandemic response. These pleas, of course, are running straight into the teeth of congressional Republicans who want to slash that amount while tying it to the Title 42 brawl at the border. Short version: This vital funding appears prepared to go exactly as nowhere as the last White House request for COVID help.

    “The Biden administration is preparing for the possibility that 100 million Americans — roughly 30 percent of the population — will get infected with the coronavirus this fall and winter,” reports The New York Times. “The 100 million figure, which the official described as a median of what could be expected, also assumes a lack of federal resources if Congress does not approve any more money for tests, therapeutics and vaccines, and that many vaccinated and previously infected people would become infected again.”

    In November of 2020, Uri Friedman wrote for The Atlantic, “The United States — with its diversified economy, cutting-edge scientific innovation, and numerous other resilience-oriented attributes — might have been expected to cope particularly well with a pandemic. But COVID-19 has exposed the country’s vulnerabilities: all-encompassing political polarization; debilitating economic and health-care inequality; a president who has downplayed the threat of the virus and rejected scientific guidance; a decades-long drive to optimize the economy and society for efficiency, not resilience; and a national creed of individualism, optimism, and exceptionalism that has rendered the U.S. resistant to learning from other countries.”

    Seventeen months later, The Lancet along with vaccine experts and the Biden White House are warning at top voice that we have, to date, failed to adequately cope with the challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The virus is changing every day, yet we continue to react to it with half-measures and foggy assumptions that “the worst is behind us.” We are one cruel variant away from falling back into a terrifying surge of hospitalizations. That’s not just here in the U.S. That’s everywhere; COVID does love to travel, and the first thing we seem to do when we catch a whiff of progress is to tear off our masks and blow open the borders. “Learning the hard way” already has a million-person body count. How many more will we tolerate before getting this right?

    Let’s get ready for real this time.

  • During Donald Trump’s years in office, the media focused largely on the former president’s fixation with the giant border wall he was trying to have built, a xenophobic symbol so filled with racism that it was far easier to find people offended by it than towers like this one. From where I stood, the closest stretch of border wall was 10 miles to the south in Nogales, a structure made of 20-foot-high steel bollards and covered with coiled razor wire. (That stretch of wall, in fact, had been built long before Trump took office.)

    What I was now witnessing, however, could be called Biden’s wall. I’m speaking about a modern, high-tech border barrier of a different sort, an increasingly autonomous surveillance apparatus fueled by “public-private partnerships.” The technology for this “virtual wall” had been in the works for years, but the Biden administration has focused on it as if it were a humane alternative to Trump’s project.

    The post The Border-Industrial Complex In The Biden Era appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Antiwar libertarian hero Scott Horton has a viral tweet going around which reads simply, “Biden’s refusal to attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine is the greatest scandal in American political history.”

    Kind of smacks you in the face, doesn’t it? I’ve never seen anyone put it quite like that before, but if you think about it, how could it not be true?

    It’s just a simple fact that the Biden administration is actually hindering diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to this war, and that it has refused to provide Ukraine with any kind of diplomatic negotiating power regarding the possible rollback of sanctions and other US measures to help secure peace. Washington’s top diplomats have consistently been conspicuously absent from any kind of dialogue with their counterparts in Moscow.

    Statements from the administration in fact indicate that they expect this war to drag on for a long time, making it abundantly clear that a swift end to minimize the death and destruction is not just uninteresting but undesirable for the US empire.

    And this isn’t just another war. This is a proxy war being waged by one of the world’s two top nuclear forces against the world’s other top nuclear force. This is more serious than Iraq. It is more serious than Vietnam. It is more serious than any US war that has happened in the lifetime of anyone likely to be reading these words, because Russia has increasingly valid reasons to believe its very existence as a nation is being threatened. This is therefore a war that could very easily result in the death of everyone on earth.

    The US Secretary of “Defense” has openly said that America’s goal is to “weaken” Russia in this war. Biden himself has made statements which can only be interpreted as calls for regime change in Moscow. US officials have been leaking to the press claims that US intelligence has directly facilitated the killing of Russian generals and the sinking of a Russian war ship.

    The imperial political/media class are not even denying that this is a US proxy war anymore. In an alarmingly rapid pivot from the mass media’s earlier position that calling this a proxy war is merely an “accusation” promoted solely by Russia, we’re now seeing the use of that term becoming more and more common in authorized news outlets. The New Yorker came right out and declared that the US is in “a full proxy war with Russia” the other day, and US congressman Seth Moulton recently told Fox News that the US is at war with Russia through a proxy.

    “At the end of the day, we’ve got to realize we’re at war, and we’re not just at war to support the Ukrainians,” Moulton said. “We’re fundamentally at war, although it’s somewhat through proxy, with Russia. And it’s important that we win.”

    How fast did that happen? How fast were we paced from “It’s Russian propaganda to call this a proxy war” to “Obviously this is a proxy war and we need to make sure we win”? Fast enough to make your head spin, that’s for sure.

    And it’s not just a proxy war, it’s a proxy war the US knowingly provoked. We know now that the US intelligence cartel had clear vision into Russia’s plans to launch this invasion, which means they also knew how to prevent it. A few low-cost maneuvers like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO as well as promising Zelensky that the US would protect him and his government from the violent fascist factions who were threatening to kill him if he honored the Minsk agreements and made peace with Russia as Ukrainians elected him to do. That’s all it would have taken.

    Many, many western experts warned for many years that the actions of the US and NATO would lead to the confrontation we’re now being menaced with. There was every opportunity to turn away from this war, and instead the US-centralized empire hit the accelerator and drove right into it. Knowingly.

    The whole thing was premeditated. All with the goal of weakening Russia and effecting regime change in Moscow in order to secure US unipolar hegemony.

    https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592

    The Biden administration was the last in a long line of decision makers to choose this world-threatening confrontation over peace. There was an opportunity to avert this horror, and that opportunity wasn’t taken.

    Allowing the world to come this close to nuclear war already makes Biden the worst US president since Bush. At least. History may well show his to be the single most depraved presidency of all time.

    Preventing nuclear war is a US president’s single most important job. It’s so important you shouldn’t even really have to talk about it, because it’s so self-evidently the number one priority. And this administration is just rolling the dice on nuclear conflict with increasing frequency every day.

    Even if humanity survives this standoff (and the one with China that’s next in line), Biden will still have been an unforgivably depraved president for allowing it to get this close. There’s no excuse whatsoever for just casually rolling the dice on all terrestrial life like this.

    Just seriously meditating on what nuclear war is and what it means should be enough to show anyone that any flirtation with the remotest possibility of inflicting it on our world is unforgivable. It’s the worst crime anyone could possibly commit short of actual nuclear war.

    Now all we can do is hope some small spark of sanity ignites deep within our species before we snuff ourselves out for good.

    _________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Feature image via Wikimedia commons.

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s repeated calls for dialogue with the U.S. in order to normalize relations seem to be paying off.

    His openness to rapprochement contrasts with the Biden administration’s nebulousness regarding the degree to which Washington is willing to recognize Maduro as president (full diplomatic recognition is out of the question).

    Biden’s use of sanctions as a bargaining chip to wrest concessions from Caracas is a harder sell than former President Donald Trump’s regime-change narrative on the basis of the preposterous Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, sometimes referred to as “humanitarian intervention.”

    Over the last two months, the flip flops and timidity of the Biden administration have been put on full display.

    The post Biden Vacillates As Venezuela’s Maduro Gains Ground appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Two right-wing Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Kelly of Arizona, crossed the aisle Wednesday to help Republicans approve a motion aimed at barring President Joe Biden from declaring a climate emergency, a step that green groups have been pressuring him to take since his first day in office.

    The nonbinding motion, sponsored by Sen. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.) and approved by a vote of 49-47, states that Biden “cannot use climate change as the basis to declare a national emergency.” House and Senate lawmakers will consider the motion as part of their efforts to finalize legislation packed with subsidies to profitable microchip corporations.

    It’s unclear whether lawmakers will ultimately include the climate emergency language in the final bill, but environmentalists voiced outrage at the motion’s passage as Manchin and Republicans continue to obstruct desperately needed congressional action to slash greenhouse gas emissions and bolster renewable energy production.

    A separate motion instructing lawmakers to reject provisions that “prohibit development of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio” — which would include oil and gas production — also sailed through Wednesday by voice vote.

    “Our political leadership is out to kill most of us,” Basav Sen, director of the Climate Justice Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, said in response to the vote. “Every branch of [the federal government] (executive, Congress, courts) is rotten to the core.”

    “Manchin shouldn’t be voting on climate/energy issues, based on his glaring and obvious conflict of interest,” Sen added, alluding to the West Virginia Democrat’s stake in his family’s coal empire. “If we had a civilized system of government, he would be investigated for corruption, not heading the Senate energy committee.”

    Kai Newkirk, a progressive activist based in Arizona, focused his ire on Kelly, who was a NASA astronaut before entering politics.

    “An astronaut who’s seen the planet from outer space voting to remove one of the only tools we have to confront the climate crisis that isn’t blocked by the filibuster and Manchin’s corruption?” Newkirk wrote on Twitter. “This is an outrageous betrayal, Sen. Kelly. Shame on you.”

    As the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a February report, a climate emergency declaration would empower Biden to take a number of steps to combat the planetary crisis without needing the approval of Congress, including immediately halting crude oil exports and boosting green energy manufacturing.

    “Congress enacted emergency powers to allow the executive branch greater flexibility to respond to extraordinary events,” the report states. “The climate emergency is the pinnacle of extraordinary events faced in our lifetimes. Biden should lawfully use emergency powers to address this existential threat.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • First, it was the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicles speeding along on the road in front of our campsite. Then it was the Border Patrol’s all-terrain vehicles moving swiftly on a ridge above us. I was about 10 miles north of the border with Mexico, near Peña Blanca Lake in southern Arizona, camping with my six-year-old son and some other families. Like fire trucks racing to a blaze, the Border Patrol mobilization around me was growing so large I could only imagine an emergency situation developing.

    I started climbing to get a better look and soon found myself alone on a golden hill dotted with alligator junipers and mesquite. Brilliant vermilion flycatchers fluttered between the branches. The road, though, was Border Patrol all the way. Atop the hill opposite mine stood a surveillance tower. Since it loomed over our campsite, I’d been looking at it all weekend. It felt strangely like part of French philosopher Michel Foucault’s panopticon — in other words, I wasn’t sure whether I was being watched or not. But I suspected I was.

    After all, that tower’s cameras could see for seven miles at night and its ground-sweeping radar operated in a 13-mile radius, a capability, one Border Patrol officer told me in 2019, worth “100 agents.” In the term of the trade, the technology was a “force multiplier.” I had first seen that tower freshly built in 2015 after CBP awarded a hefty contract to the Israeli company Elbit Systems. In other words, on top of that hill, I wasn’t just watching some unknown event developing; I was also in the middle of the border-industrial complex.

    During Donald Trump’s years in office, the media focused largely on the former president’s fixation with the giant border wall he was trying to have built, a xenophobic symbol so filled with racism that it was far easier to find people offended by it than towers like this one. From where I stood, the closest stretch of border wall was 10 miles to the south in Nogales, a structure made of 20-foot-high steel bollards and covered with coiled razor wire. (That stretch of wall, in fact, had been built long before Trump took office.)

    What I was now witnessing, however, could be called Biden’s wall. I’m speaking about a modern, high-tech border barrier of a different sort, an increasingly autonomous surveillance apparatus fueled by “public-private partnerships.” The technology for this “virtual wall” had been in the works for years, but the Biden administration has focused on it as if it were a humane alternative to Trump’s project.

    In reality, for the Border Patrol, the “border-wall system,” as it’s called, is equal parts barrier, technology, and personnel. While the Biden administration has ditched the racist justifications that went with it, its officials continue to zealously promote the building of a border-wall system that’s increasingly profitable and ever more like something out of a science-fiction movie.

    As March ended, one week before my camping trip, I saw it up close and personal at the annual Border Security Expo in San Antonio, Texas.

    “Robots That Feel the World”

    The golden chrome robotic dog trotted right up to me on the blue carpet at the convention center hall. At my feet, it looked up as if it were a real dog expecting me to lean over and pet it. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate, this “dog” will someday patrol our southern border. Its vendor was undoubtedly trying to be cute when he made the dog move its butt back and forth as if wagging its tail (in reality, two thin, black antennae). Behind the vendor was a large sign with the company’s name in giant letters: Ghost Robotics. Below that was “Robots That Feel the World,” a company slogan right out of the dystopian imagination.

    According to its organizers, this was the most well-attended Border Security Expo in its 15-year history. About 200 companies crowded the hall, trying to lure officials from CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, border sheriffs’ departments, and international border forces into buying their technologies, sensors, robots, detectors, and guns. As I stood staring at that surreal dog, behind me the company Teledyne Flir was showing off its video surveillance system: a giant retractable mast sitting in the bed of a black pickup truck. On the side of the truck were the words “Any Threat. Anywhere.”

    Another company, Saxon Aerospace (its slogan: “Actionable Intelligence, Anytime, Anywhere”), had a slick, white, medium-sized drone on display. One vendor assured me that the drone market had simply exploded in recent years. “Do you know why?” I asked. His reply: “It’s like when a dog eats blood and gets carnivorous.”

    Elsewhere, the red Verizon Frontline mobile command-and-control truck looked like it could keep perfect company with any Border Patrol all-terrain vehicle unit; while Dell, the Texas-based computer firm, displayed its own frontline mobile vehicle, promising that “whether you’re providing critical citizen services, innovating for the next generation, or securing the nation, we bring the right technology… and far-reaching vision to help guide your journey.”

    And don’t forget 3M, which has moved well beyond its most famous product, Scotch tape, to provide “rugged and reliable equipment across DoD [Department of Defense], DoJ [Department of Justice], DHS [Department of Homeland Security], and U.S. state and local agencies.” Top defense contractors like Airbus (with a shiny black helicopter on display in the center of the expo hall) were also present, along with top border contractors like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Elbit Systems.

    Just the day before the expo opened, the Biden administration put out its fiscal year 2023 budget, which proposed $97.3 billion for the DHS, that agency’s largest in its two-decade history. The Customs and Border Protection part of that, $17.5 billion, would similarly be the most money that agency has ever received, nearly $1.5 billion more than last year. Although Immigration and Customs Enforcement received just a marginal increase, it will still get $8.5 billion. Combine just those two and that $26 billion would be the highest sum ever dedicated to border and immigration enforcement, significantly more than the $20 billion that the Trump administration started out with in 2017. As DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas put it, such a budget will help secure our “values.” (And in an ironic sense, at least, how true that is!)

    “Notably,” Mayorkas added, “the budget makes smart investments in technology to keep our borders secure and includes funding that will allow us to process asylum claims more efficiently as we build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system.”

    What Mayorkas didn’t mention was that his border plans involve ever more contracts doled out to private industry. That’s been the case since 9/11 when money began to pour into border and immigration enforcement, especially after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. With ever-growing budgets, the process of privatizing the oversight of our southern border increased significantly during the administration of President George W. Bush. (The first Border Security Expo was, tellingly enough, in 2005.) The process, however, soared in the Obama era. During the first four years of his presidency, 60,405 contracts (including a massive $766 million to weapons-maker Lockheed Martin) were issued to the tune of $15 billion. From 2013 to 2016, another 81,500 contracts were issued for a total of $13.2 billion.

    In other words, despite his wall, it’s a misconception to think that Donald Trump stood alone in his urge to crack down on migration at the border. It’s true, however, that his administration did up the ante by issuing 87,293 border-protection contracts totaling $20.9 billion. For Biden, the tally so far is 10,612 contracts for $8 billion. If he keeps up that pace, he could rack up nearly $24 billion in contracts by the end of his first term, which would leave Trump’s numbers and those of every other recent president in the dust.

    If so, the contracts of the Trump and Biden administrations would total nearly $45 billion, slightly surpassing the $44.3 billion spent on border and immigration enforcement from 1980 to 2002. In the media, border and immigration issues are normally framed in terms of a partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans. While there is certainly some truth to that, there are a surprising number of ways in which both parties have reached a kind of grim border consensus.

    As Maryland Democratic Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, a member of the House appropriations committee, said ever so beamingly on a screen at that Expo conference, “I have literally put my money where my mouth is, championing funding for fencing, additional Border Patrol agents, and state-of-the-art surveillance equipment.” And as Clint McDonald, a member of the Border Sheriff’s Association, said at its opening panel, the border is “not a red issue, it’s not a blue issue. It’s a red, white, and blue issue.”

    When I asked the Ghost Robotics vendor if his robo-dog had a name, he replied that his daughter “likes to call it Tank.” He then added, “We let our customers name them as they get them.” While we were chatting, a prospective customer asked, “What about weapons mountable?” (That is, could buyers weaponize that dog?) The vendor immediately assured him that they were already working with other companies to make that happen.

    Later, when I asked Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz about the surveillance dogs, he downplayed their significance, stressing the media hype around them, and saying that no robo-dogs were yet deployed anywhere on the border. Nonetheless, it was hard not to wander that hall and think, This, much more than a wall, could be our border future. In fact, if the “big, beautiful” wall was the emblem of Donald Trump’s border policy, then for the Biden moment, think robo-dogs.

    Border Security Is Not a “Pipe Dream”

    The night before I stood on that hill in Arizona, I had heard people passing through the campsite where my son and I were sleeping in a tent. Their footsteps were soft and I felt no fear, no danger. That people were coming through should hardly have been a surprise. Enforcement at our southern border has been designed to push such border-crossing migrants into just the sort of desert lands we were camping in, often under the cover of night.

    The remains of at least 8,000 people have been found in those landscapes since the mid-1990s and many more undoubtedly died since thousands of families continue to search for lost loved ones who disappeared in the borderlands. Those soft footsteps I heard could have been from asylum seekers fleeing violence in their lands or facing the disaster of accelerating climate change — wilted crops and flooded fields — or economic dispossession in countries where foreign corporations and local oligarchies rule the day. Or all of that combined.

    For years, I’ve been talking to migrants who crossed isolated and hazardous parts of the Arizona desert to bypass the walls and guns of the Border Patrol.

    I thought of them when, on the last day of that Border Security Expo, I watched Palmer Luckey, the CEO of Anduril, a new border surveillance company, step up to the podium to introduce a panel on “The Digital Transformation of the Border.” The 20-something Luckey, already worth $700 million, had floppy brown hair and wore a Hawaiian shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops. He told the audience of border industry and Homeland Security officials that he was wearing shades because of recent laser surgery, not an urge to look cool.

    He did look cool, though, as if he were at the beach. And he does represent the next generation of border tech. Since 2020, his company has received nearly $100 million in contracts from Customs and Border Protection.

    His introduction to the panel, which sounded to me more like a pitch for financing, offered a glimpse of how the border-industrial complex now works. It was like listening to a rehearsal for the lobbying appearances he and his company would undoubtedly make in Congress for the 2023 budget. In 2021, Anduril spent $930,000 lobbying on issues that mattered to its executives. It also gifted political candidates with nearly $2 million in campaign contributions.

    Luckey’s message was: fund me and you’ll create a “durable industrial base,” while ensuring that border security will not be a “pipe dream.” Indeed, in his vision, the new border-surveillance infrastructure he represents will instead be an autonomous “pipeline,” delivering endlessly actionable information and intelligence directly to the cell phones of Border Patrol agents.

    I was thinking about his pitch again as I stood atop that hill watching the border apparatus quickly mobilize. I was, in fact, looking at yet another Border Patrol vehicle driving by when I suddenly heard a mechanical buzzing overhead that made me think a drone might be nearby. At our southern border, the CBP not only operates the sizeable Predator Bs (once used in U.S. military and CIA operations abroad), but small and medium-sized drones.

    I could see nothing in the sky, but something was certainly happening. It was as if I were at the Expo again, but now it was real life. I was, in fact, in the middle of the very surveillance-infrastructure pipeline Luckey had described, where towers talk to each other, signal to drones, to the all-terrain vehicle unit, and to roving Border Patrol cars.

    Then the buzzing sound abruptly stopped as a CBP helicopter lifted into the air, its loud propellers roaring.

    The Real Crisis

    After that dramatic helicopter exit, I wondered if there was indeed a border emergency and finally decided to get in my car and see what I could find out, leaving my son with our friends. As I rounded a corner, I came across Border Patrol agents and vehicles at the side of the road with a large group of people who, I assumed, were migrants. About four individuals had already been put in the back of a green-striped Border Patrol pickup truck, handcuffed and arrested. They had the tired look I knew so well of people who had walked an entire night in an unknown, hazardous landscape, had failed, and were now about to be deported. The agents of the ATV detail were lounging around in their green jumpsuits as their quads idled, as if this were all in a day’s (or night’s) work, which indeed it was.

    I remembered then hearing those footsteps as my son slept soundly and thought: The border is not in crisis. That’s impossible. The border’s inanimate. It’s the people walking through the desert — the ones who crept past us and those in the back of that truck or soon to be put in other trucks like it, arrested so far from home — who are actually in crisis. And it’s a crisis almost beyond the ability of anyone who hasn’t been displaced to imagine. Otherwise, why would they be here in the first place?

    The ongoing border-crisis story is another example of what Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano once would have called an “upside down” world, so twisted in its telling that the victim becomes the victimizer and the oppressor, the oppressed. If only there were a way we could turn that story — and how so many in this country think about it — right-side up.

    As I was mulling all of that over, I suddenly noticed the omnipresent “eye” of the Elbit Systems tower “staring” at me again. Its superpower cameras were catching the whole scene. Perhaps its radar had detected this group to begin with. After all, the company’s website says, “From the darkest of nights to the thickest of brush, our border solutions help predict, detect, identify, and classify items of interest.” Not people, mind you, but the handcuffed “items of interest” in the back of that truck.

    As I watched the scene unfold, I remembered a moment at that Expo when a man from the Rio Grande Valley asked a panel of Department of Homeland Security officials a rare and pointed question. Gesturing toward the hall where all the companies were hawking their wares, he wondered why, if there was so much money to be made in border security, “would you even want a solution?”

    The long uncomfortable silence that followed told me all I needed to know about the real border crisis in this country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Shortly after taking office, Joe Biden sought to cancel the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy (formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP). Under the policy, asylum seekers who leave a third country and travel through Mexico to the U.S. border are forced to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court hearing on their asylum petitions. Many of the tens of thousands who have been compelled to wait in Mexico have become victims of kidnapping, sexual assault and torture as they wait in crude encampments.

    On April 27, Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Homeland Security Committee that under Trump’s Remain in Mexico program, 1,500 people were murdered, tortured, raped or were victims of other serious crimes.

    The Remain in Mexico program is basically a “sham,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!. “Less than 1% of people put into the program who were forced to have their cases heard at the border ever won, ever won their case, compared to 15 to 20% of people inside the United States.”

    But in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge issued a nationwide injunction forbidding Biden from ending the Remain in Mexico program. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district judge’s ruling, saying the Biden administration’s initial rationale for ending the program was inadequate. In August, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court refused to suspend the injunction while it reviewed the case.

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Biden v. Texas on April 26. Several members of the court seemed torn about whether the Biden administration could end the program. Some said they doubted that Congress meant to permit the release of large numbers of asylum seekers into the United States. Others expressed skepticism that a federal judge could require the Biden administration to continue the program since it requires the agreement of Mexico and the Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch.

    U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that Mayorkas had decided to end the Remain in Mexico program after concluding that its benefits “were outweighed by its domestic, humanitarian, and foreign policy costs.” Prelogar said Mayorkas exercised “his statutory discretion to make a policy judgment.”

    The members of the court tried to reconcile language in three different sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that were enacted at different times. One section says the Department of Homeland Security “shall detain” undocumented people (with some narrow exemptions). Another section states that the Department of Homeland Security “may” return asylum seekers to Mexico or Canada (if they arrived by land) while they wait for the processing of their asylum claim. And a third section provides for parole and bond for asylum seekers on a case-by-case basis who would be temporarily released into the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or if there is a “significant public benefit.”

    Neither Texas nor the Biden administration disputed the fact that no administration has ever complied with the congressional mandate to detain all undocumented immigrants — due to a shortage of beds in detention facilities. As Prelogar told the court, 220,000 migrants were apprehended near the U.S. border in March but there were only 32,000 beds in the detention facilities. “No one disputes that the [Department of Homeland Security] does not have sufficient detention capacity” for all the migrants, she said.

    Some right-wing members of the court appeared to lean against allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. Clarence Thomas said the “shall detain” provision creates a presumption in favor of detention, meaning that the administration should detain asylum seekers rather than release them on parole or send them to Mexico. Samuel Alito pointed out that the government had argued in another case that “shall be detained” created a mandate for detention. Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical that Congress anticipated that hundreds of thousands of undocumented people would be released into the United States.

    But Kavanaugh asserted that the Department of Homeland Security has determined that permitting noncitizens who are “not too dangerous” into the U.S. to free up detention space for those with criminal records constitutes a significant public benefit. Amy Coney Barrett appeared to echo Kavanaugh’s sentiments. She told Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone that if the administration is correct in saying that the need to prioritize bed spaces in detention centers constitutes a significant public benefit, “you lose, right?”

    Sonia Sotomayor observed that the “shall detain” language had been in effect for more than a century and that no administration had ever “attempted to detain every single illegal immigrant.” She suggested that “we should accept what the practices have been through generations of presidents.”

    Elena Kagan also appeared to favor allowing the administration to end the Remain in Mexico program. She said that requiring the continuation of the program would be “to basically tell the executive how to implement its foreign and immigration policy.” Kagan told Stone, “You’re putting the secretary’s immigration decisions in the hands of Mexico” because the U.S. can only return asylum seekers to Mexico with the cooperation of the Mexican government. “What do you mean it doesn’t require negotiation with the foreign power?” Kagan asked Stone. “What are we supposed to do? Just drive truckloads of people into Mexico and leave them without negotiating with Mexico?”

    Chief Justice John Roberts did not signal how he might vote in this case. But when Stone said that requiring the continuation of the Remain in Mexico program would mean there would be fewer violations of federal immigration law, Roberts retorted, “I think it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the secretary and say that you may want to terminate this, but you have to keep it because it will reduce to a slight extent your violations of the law.”

    In her rebuttal, Prelogar commented on the “extraordinary nature of the district court’s injunction in this case and particularly with respect to its effects on foreign relations.” To return asylum seekers to Mexico pursuant to the Remain in Mexico program necessitates a “massive cross-border program,” requiring housing, work authorization, protection against predatory gang and cartel violence, and access to lawyers, she noted. “The idea that there is a single district court in Texas that is mandating those results … shows that something has powerfully gone awry here. This is not how our constitutional structure is supposed to operate and this is not the statute that Congress drafted.”

    We will know the court’s decision by the end of June.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Less than 24 hours after news broke that President Biden is seriously considering canceling tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, organizers mobilized.

    Students from the Washington, D.C. area joined advocates from Move On, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and other groups in chants of “cancel student debt” at a rally in front of the White House on April 27.

    An all-star cast of Democratic members of Congress also attended the rally to pressure the Biden administration to take action on student loan debt, which now totals over $1.7 trillion.

    “The U.S. Department of Education currently holds so much student loan debt that it’s now the nation’s largest consumer bank,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). “That’s ridiculous.”

    “At this point you’re not even paying off your loan, you are paying off the interest on that loan,” Tlaib added. “The system is broken.”

    At the start of the pandemic in spring 2020, the Trump administration paused student loan payments. Since then, the pause has been extended six times, allowing debtors to use scarce funds to meet basic needs rather than paying down their debts. Before the pause, monthly student loan payments averaged $460.

    But simply delaying these payments is not enough to address the crisis.

    “We have 45 million people in this country who are shackled with student debt,” said. Rep. Ihan Omar (D-MN). “You have to realize, that’s 45 million people who are putting off the opportunity to start that business they want to start. That is 45 million people who are putting off the family they want to start. That is 45 million people who go to sleep every night, wake up every morning, stressed with the anxiety of having that massive student debt holding them back.”

    “We have sold the idea that education is the great equalizer and in order for them to get ahead, that requires higher education,” Omar added. “But we have not created the opportunity and resources for them to do that.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    Rightists have spent the last couple of days freaking out and invoking Orwell’s 1984 in response to something their political enemies are doing in America, and for once it’s for a pretty good reason. The Department of Homeland Security has secretly set up a “Disinformation Governance Board“, only informing the public about its plans for the institution after it had already been established.

    The disinformation board, which critics have understandably been calling a “Ministry of Truth“, purportedly exists to fight disinformation coming out of Russia as well as misleading messages about the US-Mexico border. We may be certain that the emphasis in the board’s establishment has been on the Russia angle, however.

    White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in her patented “You’re such a crazy idiot for questioning me about the White House” manner, dismissed alarmed questions about what specific functions this strange new DHS entity was going to be performing and what its authority will look like.

    “It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,” Psaki said. “I’m not sure who opposes that effort.”

    The answer to the question of “who opposes that effort” is of course “anyone with functioning gray matter between their ears.” No government entity has any business appointing itself the authority to sort information from disinformation on behalf of the public, because government entities are not impartial and omniscient deities who can be entrusted to serve the public as objective arbiters of absolute reality. They would with absolute certainty wind up drawing distinctions between information, misinformation and disinformation in whatever way serves their interests, regardless of what’s true, exactly as any authoritarian regime would do.

    I mean, is anyone honestly more afraid of Russian disinformation than they are of their own government appointing itself the authority to decide what counts as disinformation?

    This important point has gotten a bit lost in the shuffle due to the utterly hypnotic ridiculousness of the person who has been appointed to run the Disinformation Governance Board. Nina Jankowicz, a carefully groomed swamp creature who has worked in Kyiv as a communications advisor to the Ukrainian government as part of a Fulbright fellowship, is being widely criticized by pundits and social media users for her virulent Russiagating and whatever the hell this is:

    https://twitter.com/wiczipedia/status/1362153807879303171

    Because of this person’s embarrassing cartoonishness, a lot more commentary lately has been going into discussing the fact that the Department of Homeland Security’s Ministry of Truth is run by a kooky liberal than the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has a fucking Ministry of Truth.

    Which is really to miss the forest for the trees, in my opinion. Would it really be any better if the “Disinformation Governance Board” was run by a chill dude you wouldn’t mind having a beer with? Especially when we know the ideological leanings of this department are going to bounce back and forth between elections and will always act in service of US empire narrative control regardless of who is in office? I don’t think so.

    The real issue at hand is the fact that this new institution will almost certainly play a role in bridging the ever-narrowing gap between government censorship and Silicon Valley censorship. The creation of the DHS disinformation board is a far more shocking and frightening development than last year’s scandalous revelation that the White House was advising social media platforms about accounts it determined were circulating censorship-worthy Covid misinformation, which was itself a drastic leap in the direction toward direct government censorship from what had previously been considered normal.

    We should probably talk more about how as soon as people accepted that it was fine for government, media and Silicon Valley institutions to work together to censor misinformation and rally public support around an Official Narrative about a virus, the ruling power establishment immediately took that as license to do that with a war and a foreign government as well.

    Like, immediately immediately. We went from a massive narrative control campaign about a virus, which people accepted because they wanted to contain a deadly pandemic, straight into a massive narrative control campaign about Russia and Ukraine. Without skipping a beat. Like openly manipulating everyone’s understanding of world events is just what we do now. Now we’re seeing increasingly brazen censorship of political dissent about a fucking war that could easily end up getting us all killed in a nuclear holocaust, and a portion of the Biden administration’s whopping $33 billion Ukraine package is going toward funding “independent media” (read: war propaganda).

    We should probably talk more about this. We should probably talk more about how insane it is that all mainstream western institutions immediately accepted it as a given that World War II levels of censorship and propaganda must be implemented over a faraway war that our governments are not even officially a part of.

    It started as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine, without any public discussion whatsoever. Like the groundwork had already been laid and everyone had already agreed that that’s what would happen. The public had no say in whether we want to be propagandized and censored to help the US win some kind of weird infowar to ensure its continued unipolar domination of the planet. It just happened.

    No reason was given to the public as to why this must occur, and there was no public debate as to whether it should. This was by design, because propaganda only works when you don’t know it’s happening to you.

    The choice was made for us that information is too important to be left in the hands of the people. It became set in stone that we are to be a propaganda-based society rather than a truth-based society. No discussion was offered, and no debate was allowed.

    And as bad as it is, it’s on track to get much, much worse. They’re already setting up “disinformation” regulation in the government which presides over Silicon Valley, the proxy war between the US and Ukraine is escalating by the day, and aggressions are ramping up against China over both the Solomon Islands and Taiwan. If you think imperial narrative management is intense now, wait until the US empire’s struggle to secure global hegemony really gets going.

    Do you consent to this? Do you? It’s something you kind of have to take a position on, because its implications have a direct effect on our lives as individuals and on our trajectory as a society. How much are we willing to sacrifice to help the US win an infowar against Russia?

    The question of whether we should abandon all hope of ever becoming a truth-based society and committing instead to winning propaganda wars for a globe-spanning empire is perhaps the most consequential decision we’ve ever had to make as a species. Which is why we weren’t given a choice. It’s just been foisted upon us.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. By taking our control of information out of our hands without asking our permission and determining for us that we are to be a propaganda-based civilization for the foreseeable future, they have stolen something sacred from us. Something they had no right to take.

    Nothing about the state of the world tells us that the people who run things are doing a good job. Nothing about our current situation suggests they should be given more control, rather than having control taken away from them and given to the people. We are going in exactly the wrong direction.

    ____________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Indigenous women leaders and more than 200 advocacy organizations sent a letter Wednesday demanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers block federal permits for an expansion of Enbridge’s Line 5, a 645-mile-long pipeline that currently transports millions of gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids per day from Wisconsin to Ontario, Canada.

    The proposed expansion, Indigenous leaders and environmentalists warn, would route the pipeline through hundreds of waterways and further threaten tribal lands in Wisconsin and Michigan. Over the past 50 years, Line 5 has spilled at least 1.1 million gallons of oil in 29 separate incidents.

    “Both the current Line 5 and the proposed Line 5 expansion threaten to irreversibly damage our drinking water, our ecosystems, and manoomin,” the new letter reads. “Both the existing and proposed pipelines violate our tribal usufructuary rights. They endanger the Great Lakes’ waters and fisheries important to many people. They exacerbate the climate crisis that affects the whole planet.”

    Enbridge’s pipeline has been a source of heated disputes in the state of Michigan in recent months as Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer attempts to shut Line 5 down, citing the “very real threat of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes.” Whitmer’s efforts have sparked pushback from Enbridge — headquartered in Calgary — and the Canadian government, as well as Republican lawmakers.

    A state-level court battle over the pipeline is ongoing.

    In their letter on Wednesday, the Indigenous leaders and advocacy organizations implored the Biden administration to step in and “reject permits for the expansion of Line 5 in northern Wisconsin”:

    This plan places massive risk squarely upon the Bad River Tribe and the Red Cliff Tribe against their will. Furthermore, we consider the pipeline construction an act of cultural genocide. Damage to the land and water destroys food and cultural lifeways that are core to our identity and survival. The pipeline would cut through more than 900 waterways upstream of the Bad River Reservation. The U.S. EPA determined that the plan “may result in substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts” to the Kakagon and Bad River slough complex. This is unacceptable…

    We don’t trust Enbridge, and with good reason. Just look to the west to see Enbridge’s troubling permit violations during Line 3 construction though northern Minnesota.

    In 2020, during the final months of the Trump administration, the Army Corps approved the final federal permit for Enbridge Line 3 expansion project. Despite massive public pressure, the Biden administration has defended the permits in court.

    The Army Corps is currently reviewing Enbridge’s application for the expansion of Line 5, which has been operating since 1953.

    “When it comes to extractive industry, the Army Corps has historically chosen not to use every tool at their disposal to ensure meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations occurs and to listen when Tribes say ‘no,’” Jaime Arsenault, tribal historic preservation officer with the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, said in a statement. “We saw a multitude of preventable environmental tragedies occur in Minnesota with the destruction brought by Line 3.”

    “As a result, wild rice, watersheds, traditional lifeways, and the wellbeing of Indigenous communities are still under constant threat,” Arsenault added. “And so, what will the Army Corps do about that? Right now, the Army Corps has the opportunity to protect waterways, rice, and lands in the destructive pathway of the Line 5 pipeline.”

    Jannan Cornstalk, citizen of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, warned that “our very lifeways and cultures hang in the balance as pipelines like Line 5 get rammed through our territories and water.”

    “The Army Corps and Biden administration must put people over profits,” said Cornstalk. “Allowing Line 5 to proceed is cultural genocide. The disturbances go deeper than you are hearing. That water is our relative, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our water.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders demanded Tuesday that President Joe Biden cancel Amazon’s federal contracts over the e-commerce giant’s aggressive and unlawful union-busting efforts in New York, Alabama, and elsewhere, a call that came as union voting kicked off at a second Amazon facility in Staten Island.

    In a letter to Biden, Sanders (I-Vt.) pointed to the president’s campaign promise to “institute a multi-year federal debarment for all employers who illegally oppose unions” and “ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union campaigns.”

    “The essence of your plan for strengthening union organizing was to make sure that federal dollars do not flow into the hands of unscrupulous employers who engage in union-busting, participate in wage theft, or violate labor law,” the Vermont senator wrote. “In order to implement that plan, I urge you to sign an executive order preventing companies that violate federal labor laws from contracting with the federal government.”

    “As you may know, Amazon, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, is the poster child as to why this anti-union busting executive order is needed now more than ever,” Sanders added.

    In a floor speech Tuesday evening, the Vermont senator declared that “no government — not the federal government, not the state government, and not the city government — should be handing out corporate welfare to union busters and labor law violators.”

    “So today I say to President Biden: You promised to prevent union busters like Amazon from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government,” said Sanders. “Please keep that promise.”

    Federal agencies have fined Amazon dozens of times over the past two decades for a range of offenses related to workers’ rights, including wage, hour, and workplace safety violations. A report released earlier this month estimated that the injury rate among Amazon’s warehouse workers rose 20% in 2021, a year in which the company spent $4.3 million on anti-union consultants.

    In recent weeks, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has sued Amazon for unlawfully retaliating against union organizers and other “flagrant unfair labor practices.”

    In January, ahead of the historic union victory at JFK8 that Amazon is working to overturn, the NLRB alleged in a formal complaint that the company “repeatedly broke the law by threatening, surveilling, and interrogating their Staten Island warehouse workers who are engaged in a union organizing campaign.”

    Despite its repeated and ongoing transgressions, the powerful company continues to benefit from federal contracts. The National Security Agency, for instance, has quietly awarded Amazon Web Services a cloud contract worth up to $10 billion.

    Sanders, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, argued in his letter to Biden that Amazon “should not receive” the federal contract as long as it continues to engage in “illegal anti-union activity.” Next week, Sanders is expected to preside over a hearing examining how many federal contracts flow to companies, including Amazon, that are fighting unionization efforts.

    “Since 2004, Amazon has received thousands of federal contracts worth billions of dollars,” Sanders wrote Tuesday. “Mr. President: Taxpayer dollars should not go to companies like Amazon and multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos who repeatedly break the law.”

    The Vermont senator’s demand comes as unions and lawmakers are pushing the New York attorney general to investigate whether Amazon has invalidated its eligibility for state-level taxpayer subsidies by violating labor laws. According to Good Jobs First, Amazon has received at least $4.18 billion in state and local taxpayer subsidies since 2000.

    “If we do not stop subsidizing Amazon’s warehouses, New York state becomes complicit in subsidizing union-busting practices with taxpayer money,” New York Assemblyman Ron Kim (D-40) told The Lever last week.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden’s new appointee as arms czar for Ukraine, Terry Wolff, has a lot of blood on his hands.

    The three-star general’s new job is to coordinate arms shipments to Ukraine that are designed to bog down the Russians, including a new $800 million weapons package that President Biden authorized last Thursday.

    The post Biden’s New Arms Czar For Ukraine Has A Lot Of Blood On His Hands – They Are Likely To Get Even Bloodier appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On March 28th, the Biden administration released its budget proposal for 2023: a $5.7 trillion dollar proposal including surprising elements, such as a proposal for a new tax on billionaires and funds for a 4.6% pay increase for federal employees. Buried within the massive proposal was a key item for labor advocates: a significant increase in funding for the National Labor Relations Board, from $274 million to $319.4 million.

    The NLRB has been one of the few bright spots of the floundering Biden administration. General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a former attorney for the Communications Workers of America, has moved aggressively to reshape American labor law and redefine the role of the NLRB from an ostensibly neutral agency to a protector of the right to organize. Her most recent initiatives — moving toward a ban “captive audience” meetings and a return to the Joy Silk standard — would dramatically curb the ability of employers to intimidate workers during organizing drives.

    That the NLRB has proven so effective is all the more shocking given its lack of resources. Over the past decade, the NLRB has suffered through repeated rounds of flat funding frozen at approximately $274 million. Between inflation and increased benefits costs, the net impact is a significant decrease in actual funding and capacity. According to the union representing NLRB employees, the agency has lost over 30% of its staff since 2010, and last had a budget increase in 2014.

    Given this, the White House proposal for $319.4 million dollars — which betters the House proposal from the 2022 budget — is positive. It’s higher than the White House’s 2022 budget proposal of $301.17 million, and would provide significant resources for a crucial, effective, but underfunded and understaffed agency. Based on the NLRB 2022 budget request, even a more modest increase to $301.17 million would add nearly 150 staff, dramatically expanding the Board’s capacity.

    NLRB funding has a crucial impact on the rights of workers and directly impacts whether the law is enforced or not. Underfunding and understaffing results in delays in case handling — which, in the case of elections, gives employers additional time to campaign against the union. According to the NLRB Union, lack of funding and increased organizing activity is already stretching their capacity, raising the question of whether a dramatic surge in workplace organizing is partially constrained by Board resources. Delays have stark consequences, clearly demonstrated by the current Starbucks firing spree aimed at containing Starbucks Workers United and the slow processing of requested injunction: a subject of recent complaint by Workers United leaders.

    More funding — not just in fiscal year 2023, but right now — is necessary to defend the right to organize and enforce labor law against increasingly hostile employers. But despite the White House’s proposal, there’s no reason to believe that it’s anything but posturing for one simple reason: Democrats made promises and failed to deliver in the 2022 budget.

    Both the White House and Congress proposed increases for 2022, but they disappeared in the final omnibus spending bill. Although the House passed an aggressive proposal for $317 million dollars, the Senate version passed by the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions committee pared it down to $301 million, matching the White House request for a more modest increase. Proposed increases survived committee markup and seemed on track for final inclusion in the omnibus spending bill until they were removed through a massive amendment introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee. In her floor remarks, DeLauro cited Frances Perkins and said that Americans “deserve a government that, instead of catering to the wealthy and big corporations, bends over backwards to support them” — a laudable sentiment that rings hollow alongside abandoned funding increases for key agencies like the NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

    In the deal-making to reach an omnibus spending bill that could secure Republican votes, Democratic leadership made their priorities clear: and they didn’t include defending the right to organize. Congressional leadership and the White House have both demonstrated a willingness to take a victory lap for proposing increased funding while quietly continuing austerity for the sole federal agency tasked with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. With a critical midterm election approaching, they’ll no doubt line up to ask for union support, with little, save confirming Abruzzo, to show.

    Congressional leaders need to be held accountable to increasing NLRB funding by Congressional progressives and organized labor. With a surge in organizing activity and worker interest in organizing, ensuring the right to organize requires providing adequate resources for the NLRB: additional staff to support outreach and education initiatives, and additional field staff to support the agency’s casework. Added funding will ensure employers are held in check and that the right to organize is aggressively protected, and where necessary, expanded.

    Securing shorter term increases and ensuring that the 2023 spending bill includes added NLRB funding means making an issue of the agency’s funding: one that Democratic leaders can’t ignore in backroom horsetrading. Absent that, it’s entirely likely that the NLRB will once again suffer a round of flat funding. If Republicans secure a majority in November, the agency will likely reach a full ten years without a budget increase, with dramatic consequences for workers’ rights.

    Starbucks workers and the stunning Amazon victory in Staten Island are demonstrating that more is possible, and that through worker-led organizing, unions can reverse decades of decline. We need to meet the call to action issued by Starbucks and Amazon workers: and that means fighting on every front to defend and expand the right and ability of workers to organize. Workers want unions. They deserve an NLRB that can defend the right to form them.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On April 11, the Biden administration announced a $1 billion effort to accelerate conservation and restoration efforts at the local level that will further the president’s goal of protecting at least 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030 (known as “30×30”). Much of the initial funding for the new “America the Beautiful Challenge” will come from the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by Congress in 2021.

    Biden initiated the 30×30 plan by signing a January 2021 Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. Polling shows that the plan is incredibly popular, with support from four out of five voters.

    But that won’t stop Republicans, climate deniers, and ranchers from gathering on Earth Day, Apr. 22, for a “Stop 30×30 Summit” in Lincoln, Nebraska. The event is hosted by Gov. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and presented by the American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting private property rights, fighting the “radical environmental movement,” and delisting endangered species.

    Ricketts was the first governor to publicly oppose 30×30 through an executive order in June 2021, and also spearheaded a letter he signed with 14 fellow Republican governors informing Biden that they will resist implementing 30×30 measures.

    Sponsors of the summit include the climate change deniers Center for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation, along with several ranching and agriculture groups.

    Agenda Features Republicans United Against Environmental Action

    In addition to serving as host, Ricketts will deliver the summit keynote, which discusses his own executive order. That talk will be followed by a panel discussion among Nebraska state officials who “will explain the actions they have taken as a result” of the governor’s order.

    Also on the agenda are Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who introduced the 30 x 30 Termination Act in May 2021 in their respective congressional chambers. The bill, which would further restrict federal government efforts to conserve and protect the environment, stands little chance of passing while Democrats retain control of Congress. However, if Republicans regain control of the House and Senate following this year’s midterms, the bill is highly likely to pass.

    David Bernhardt, the former Secretary of the Interior under Trump, is also scheduled to speak at the summit. As secretary, he issued a policy requiring consent from states and counties to federal land acquisitions, but it was overturned by the Biden administration. The current Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, joined Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) in introducing 30×30 resolutions in 2020 when she was a member of the House.

    Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory (R) will speak at the summit on how the 30×30 plan will impact energy security and will facilitate another panel on “state policy solutions.” A politician active with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Ivory leads the secretive Functional Federalism Working Group at ALEC that is charged with producing state solutions to counter the Biden administration’s efforts to address the climate crisis.

    Call records from one of the working group’s meetings obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and reported on by Grist detail three strategies Ivory shared with ALEC state lawmakers for blocking the Biden administration’s climate agenda:

    nullification, or passing state legislation to invalidate federal actions that states believe are unconstitutional; the initiation of a constitutional convention that would pass amendments giving states more power; and the passage of non-binding resolutions reaffirming the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which declares that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states, in state legislatures.

    ALEC is a major climate denier and purveyor of misinformation related to the climate emergency. Charles Koch’s political network and Koch Industries are significant supporters of the pay-to-play bill mill and are heavily involved, as are Marathon Petroleum and other Big Polluters. (See CMD’s ALEC Exposed for the most up-to-date list of ALEC corporations.)

    At the April 22 summit, a panel of county commissioners and ranchers will discuss “Issues Across America.” American Stewards of Liberty has prepared various model resolutions for counties to introduce as part of their activism to fight 30×30. According to its tracker, 114 resolutions have already been passed by counties in 13 states opposing Biden’s conservation and restoration plan.

    Becky Norton Dunlop, who served in the Reagan administration as deputy undersecretary of the Interior Department and as assistant interior secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and is now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, will speak on “Property Rights, Stewardship, & Liberty.” Her colleague at Heritage, Senior Fellow Rob Gordon, will also present on “The True State of America’s Land and Habitat.”

    Heartland Institute President James Taylor is scheduled to discuss “The Climate Agenda Driving 30 x 30.”

    Margaret Byfield, executive director for American Stewards of Liberty, will conclude the daylong summit with remarks titled “Stop 30×30 Action Plan.” Her presentation may be pulled from a “Guide to Fight 30 X 30 Land Grab” document that was circulated among anti-environmental groups this spring.

    This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate story.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the termination of the harmful Title 42 expulsion policy on April 1, but immigration advocates are frustrated that the implementation won’t begin until May 23. According to the CDC website, the extra time is meant to implement COVID-19 mitigation protocols, including COVID-19 vaccinations for migrants and preparing for the resumption of regular migration under Title 8, which lists an extensive series of reasons why a person could be deported, including having committed a crime within five years of being admitted into the U.S., violating a protective order, and being found in possession of drugs. It was a welcome announcement for immigration advocates who have been fighting for the end of what they say is a racist policy. But advocates say many questions remain with regards to implementing the end of the policy and, most importantly, that migrants seeking safety cannot wait almost two months for help.

    “The announcement to terminate Title 42 is long overdue,” said Haddy Gassama, the UndocuBlack Network’s national director of policy and advocacy. “Organizations such as UndocuBlack and Haitian Bridge Alliance and many others have been pushing for the end of this policy for pretty much the two years since its inception. But, we weren’t able to celebrate immediately because there were so many questions around the implementation of that termination and what it would look like. There’s still quite a bit of advocacy, but it’s certainly a welcomed first step.”

    Title 42 is a 76-year-old, World War II-era public health law that allows the CDC to bar certain individuals from entering the U.S. if it fears the spread of diseases or viruses. In March 2020, former President Donald Trump enacted the policy, despite the CDC’s scientists saying there was no evidence it would slow the spread of the coronavirus. Since then, President Joe Biden has continued the illegal policy of denying lawful asylum and turning away the vast majority of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under the policy, the U.S. has expelled over 1.7 million people at the Southern border without due process, with recidivism rates soaring immediately after the policy was enacted.

    Advocates say the policy exposes migrants to violence in Mexico, deprives them of their right to seek lawful asylum, forces them to return to the dangerous and unstable conditions they were trying to flee in the first place, and disproportionately impacts Black and brown migrants. According to Witness at the Border, there have been 175 ICE Air removal flights to Haiti since September 2021, returning around 19,000 Haitian migrants. Since January 2021, there have been 212 ICE Air return flights to Haiti, returning about 21,000 Haitian migrants. As the clock continues to tick until May 23, migrants will continue to be expelled under the policy.

    “The harm that Title 42 is inflicting is still happening,” said Ronald Claude, the director of policy and advocacy for Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI). “There is a lot of concern about what is to come and how that is going to negatively impact Black migrants.”

    Claude and other advocates are concerned the termination of Title 42 will result in more enforcement of “Remain in Mexico,” another policy that deters migrants and asylum-seekers from safely entering the U.S. “Remain in Mexico,” or “Migrant Protection Protocols,” makes them wait in Mexico during their immigration proceedings.

    “We can’t switch one evil for the other,” said Cynthia Garcia, United We Dream’s national campaigns manager for community protection. “We have to continue to build out an infrastructure that advances racial justice in the immigration lens.”

    Claude said there should be a community-oriented approach to welcoming migrants into the country that collaborates with advocates for the Black migrant community to create a “fair, just, compassionate, and dignified system that was promised from the onset of this administration and that has not been reciprocated.”

    Garcia said the Biden administration should support border community groups that are already supporting migrants by connecting them with health care, secure housing, and the ability to provide for their families.

    “Instead of falling for the false choice of increasing the budget for ICE and CBP, or increasing the number of detention centers, we should actually increase funding for community centers, for relief for folks to have access to health care,” Garcia said. “That doesn’t just impact immigrants, it impacts the community at large.”

    The news follows the Biden administration’s national messaging that the COVID-19 pandemic is in decline and the public can return to normal life. In March, the breadth of Title 42’s implementation was also limited. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the administration could not send migrants to countries where they would face persecution or torture. Separately, the CDC terminated the policy for unaccompanied minors altogether. Advocates say the termination should apply to all migrants, regardless of demographics, including single adults.

    “Prioritizing family units over single adults could result again in disproportionately harming and endangering not only Black migrants, but also migrants who identify as LGBTQ+ who oftentimes present at the southern border as single adults,” Gassama said. “This interim period is one that is very dangerous. We hope that between now and May 23, while the administration is getting their ducks in a row, that there shouldn’t be any expulsion flights.”

    Since the CDC made its announcement, Republican lawmakers have been trying to pass a coronavirus relief bill with a Title 42 amendment by the end of this week. Additionally, three Republican-led states (Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana) have already sued the Biden administration over the decision to lift Title 42.

    “We need to be able to push back against that harmful narrative that Republicans are driving,” Garcia said. “We need to continue to push against the fearmongering and lean into the Biden administration to continue to open up the asylum process.”

    Until May 23, Claude, Garcia, and Gassama say they want to see the complete end of Title 42 immediately, for the Biden administration to fully restore the asylum system, and to create a process for addressing the millions of migrants who were unjustly deported under the policy.

    “This decision is the result of the hard work and fighting of almost two years from Black immigrants rights organizations and local community members,” Gassama said. “But we know the fight is far from over.”

    Prism is an independent and nonprofit newsroom led by journalists of color. We report from the ground up and at the intersections of injustice.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Activists condemned Friday’s announcement by the Biden administration that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management will resume oil and gas lease sales on public lands as yet another betrayal of President Joe Biden’s promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle the climate emergency.

    The U.S. Interior Department explained Friday afternoon that the lease sale resumption is in compliance with a 2021 federal injunction blocking the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary pause on new leases for oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters.

    The department described the onshore oil and gas lease sales as “significantly reformed,” while announcing a “first-ever increase in the royalty rate for new competitive leases to 18.75%,” up from the 12.5% minimum rate required by law.

    While the progressive watchdog Accountable.US applauded the administration’s decision to raise the royalty rate, most climate campaigners decried the resumption of the fossil fuel lease sales amid a worsening planetary emergency.

    “It is never a good sign when the president announces something at 5:00 pm on a Friday. But President Biden can’t get away with this disastrous climate decision,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement. “The fact of the matter is that more drilling won’t solve high gas prices right now — so why is Biden breaking his campaign promise to stop drilling on public lands?”

    The Western Environmental Law Center noted that “the communities most at risk from new fossil fuel extraction are primarily Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples, people of the global majority, and those on the frontlines of fossil fuel industry expansion. These are the same communities that turned out in record numbers to get Biden elected in 2020 and who have since been urging Biden to use his executive authority to fulfill his campaign promise and ban new federal fossil fuel projects.”

    Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that “the Biden administration’s claim that it must hold these lease sales is pure fiction and a reckless failure of climate leadership.”

    “It’s as if they’re ignoring the horror of firestorms, floods, and megadroughts, and accepting climate catastrophes as business as usual,” she added. “These so-called reforms are 20 years too late and will only continue to fuel the climate emergency. These lease sales should be shelved and the climate-destroying federal fossil fuel programs brought to an end.”

    Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International, asserted that “in the midst of a climate emergency and a fossil-fueled war that has exposed the dangers of fossil fuel dependency, President Biden’s decision to double down on leasing new public lands for fossil fuel development is a disastrous choice.”

    Rees continued:

    There’s no amount of regulation that can change the facts—”significantly reformed” oil and gas lease sales will still result in selling off our public lands for deadly extraction that’s hurting communities and driving the climate crisis. Increasing royalty rates may even result in furthering state and federal reliance on oil and gas leasing revenue, just as the science is clear that we need to be stopping all expansion of fossil fuel extraction.

    This is an ugly betrayal of Joe Biden’s campaign promises and his administration’s rhetoric on environmental justice and climate action. Biden is choosing to stand with polluters over people at the expense of frontline communities and the future of the planet.

    True energy independence means rejecting fossil fuel expansion and ending Big Oil’s greed while rapidly building out renewable energy on public lands and beyond.

    Nicole Ghio, senior fossil fuels program manager at Friends of the Earth, recalled that as a presidential candidate, “Biden promised to end new oil and gas leasing on public lands,” but now he is “prioritizing oil executive profits over future generations.”

    “Biden’s Interior Department has even issued permits to drill at a rate faster than the Trump administration,” she added. “Now, the Bureau of Land Management is preparing to hold its first public lands lease sale, despite having no legal obligation to do so. If Biden wants to be a climate leader, he must stop auctioning off our public lands to Big Oil.”

    Sunrise Movement’s Prakash warned of electoral consequences for Biden’s failure to fulfill his climate promises, which included a pledge that there would be “no more drilling on federal lands, period, period, period, period.”

    The president has already come under fire from climate and environmental campaigners for his plan to auction more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to fossil fuel companies—an effort that was blocked by a federal judge in January.

    “This is why young people are doubting the political process altogether,” she said. “If Biden wants to solve for voter turnout in 2022, he should actually deliver on the things he promised, not move farther away from them. On November 8, 2022 we don’t want to hear anyone asking why young people didn’t vote. Biden is actively turning voters away. If we’re going to combat fascism and win in 2022, he must be a leader and course-correct. This election and our futures depend on it.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In it I reveal that the Biden Administration and others have broken from the past and literally admitted they are “manipulating” or inventing various aspects of the war in Ukraine. I’m not kidding. They admitted it. I am one of the most censored comedians in America.

    The post They Actually Admitted They’re Lying To You! appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The DPA is the wrong instrument for increasing domestic supplies of minerals for clean energy development. In the U.S., a new mine will take an average of 10 years to receive its permits because of the extensive investigations needed to prove safety. Even if minerals are extracted, they need to be shipped abroad for processing since there are no facilities in the U.S. to process these minerals. New mines and processing facilities simply cannot come online fast enough to address an urgent need for minerals. And, the Biden Administration has already supported the mining industry through the recent infrastructure law. The 2020 Energy Act also directed the Department of Energy to invest $740 million in research and development for the industry.

    The post Invoking the Defense Production Act is the wrong solution to mineral shortages appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.