Category: Elections

  • For the second time in 24 hours, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney struck down a Georgia election rule proposed by allies of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, with pro-democracy advocates applauding the decision for blocking the “administrative chaos” that, as one critic said, was “exactly the point” of the rule. The judge temporarily blocked a rule passed by the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In this year’s general election, independent socialist Khalid Sadur took on the Labour Party in Enfield. And while Labour won, he got 1,700 votes which, coming from a months-old campaign, probably surprised the winning party.

    Since the election, the movement around him has been waiting for Labour’s MP to resign from the council and preparing to mount a local challenge.

    Labour’s Nesil Caliskan has finally stepped down as a councillor, so a by-election will happen in November. And “following discussion with local community members”, it will be Sadur who will stand again as the independent socialist challenger.

    And speaking to the Canary, he revealed that he had already run into Labour canvassers out in the streets before the by-election was even official.

    Labour Enfield: canvassing before any election officially announced

    Sadur said this is a sign that Labour Enfield are not feeling too confident right now:

    With Keir Starmer’s popularity plummeting after the General Election, traditional Labour supporters are already complaining about the cut to the winter fuel allowance on the doorstep and the overall feeling of betrayal.

    Locally, Labour fare no better, with anger from all quarters over recent proposals to close several libraries in the Borough.

    It is no surprise, therefore, that I bumped into a Labour party canvassing team this past weekend even before the by-election had been called! A sign that there are real worries for the party in Enfield.

    He added that, in this context of Labour Enfield (and the party nationally’s) uselessness and resulting unpopularity, it’s essential that independent socialists step up to counter the resurgence of the right:

    With the decline of Labour, there remains the threat that Reform will look to exploit their fall. As Independent Socialists, we are committed to fill that void by providing real solutions to many of the social ills we see before our eyes today. A country which allows pensioners to freeze whilst billionaires get richer cannot be sustainable. A wealth tax on the ultra-rich is long overdue and will help fund the public services and local councils who desperately need the money.

    We call on all the voters in Jubilee ward to come out and support fellow residents in standing to reject the mainstream parties. We need elected officials in Enfield who will engage and listen to the community. For far too long we have been taken for granted.

    Support your own independent group, the Enfield Community Independents and helps us wrestle back control from Labour in Enfield.

    If you’re in the Enfield area on 20 October, you can support Sadur’s canvassing efforts:

    Featured image supplied

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Democrats are warning their base to temper their expectations for November, even as Harris maintains a national polling lead. These Democrats are afraid that the polls could be wildly off base and that Donald Trump could over perform the polls like he did in 2016 and 2020. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated […]

    The post Dems Worry Trump Could Make A Surprise Comeback In Polls appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • The Pentagon was so desperate to smear China during the COVID 19 pandemic that they ran a covert anti-vaccine campaign overseas to stop people from taking a Chinese vaccine to protect against the virus. Also, a new analysis has found that just 50 individuals and corporations have poured more than one and a half billion […]

    The post Pentagon Caught Pushing Anti China Propaganda & Megadonors Shower 2024 Candidates appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • A school district in New Jersey has been hit with a lawsuit alleging a pattern of anti-semitic behavior and hiring practices at public schools. Plus, Democrats are begging Kamala Harris to get out there and do more interviews before she runs out of time. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party […]

    The post NJ Mayor’s Antisemitic Behavior Exposed In Lawsuit & Dems Call For More Kamala Media Exposure appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • 2024 presidential candidates: Former President Donald Trump (left) and current Vice President Kamala Harris IMAGE/ABCNews

    When faced with two adverse unethical options, a person may try to avoid the more harmful immoral choice. This is ancient strategy people have talked and written about, and applied in various situations. In the US political parlance, the term “lesser of two evils,” is choosing the evil that will be less damaging.

    There is talk about voting for the “lesser of two evils.” The rationale behind this thinking is to prevent the greater “evil” from gaining power and thus causing more havoc. This is an intelligent thing to do especially in countries where million of peoples’ future is at stake — but when the United States is involved, the well being of the entire planet is at stake.

    In the US, it is understood by many that the greater evil is the Republican Party or the proverbial Charybdis. Noam Chomsky once said, “Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history.” The lesser evil’s title goes to the Democratic Party or the proverbial Scylla.

    In dire situations, one could accept voting for the lesser evil – Democrats. But when the Democrats don’t want to address the root causes then voting for them election after election turns into a futile exercise, while the sick state keeps on deteriorating. This is a serious problem. It’s like a person who has a tumor that in initial stages is ignored due to carelessness. However, a timely realization as to the consequences rushes in emergency for treatment as if he/she had not headed for the doctor, the malignancy would have proved fatal.

    The above example is equally applicable to the United States — a Sick Empire — physically, that is, in economic decline and mentally, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” to use Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s words spoken on April 4, 1967. The US has steadfastly held on to the title of “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” as if it doesn’t want to prove Dr King wrong in his assessment.

    The Republican Party openly supports the capitalist class by lowering taxes for the rich, opposing unions, resisting pay raises, waging foreign wars or domestic ones, such as “war against drugs,” etc. In return, they get favors and election campaign contributions.

    But there is something to be said about the lesser evil of the two choices.

    Democratic Party is not that naked — it uses a fig leaf to cover up its hypocrisy, it pretends to be what it is not; it claims it is working for the common folks, complains about rich not paying taxes (but does not do anything), and so on. In reality, they do very little for the general public because they too get lots of money from the big donors to contest elections. LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman (worth $2.5 billion), in 2024 gave $10 million to Biden-Harris campaign donated another $7 million to Kamala Harris (after Biden quit the presidential bid and nominated Harris as the Democratic candidate, without any intra-party election). Hoffman wants Harris to fire Lina Khan, the FTC chair who is fighting big corporate mergers and monopolistic corporate practices. This is what Hoffman said:

    “I do think that Lina Khan is a person who is not helping America in her job in what she’s doing. And so, I would hope that Vice President Harris would replace her.”

    Expedia Chairman Barry Diller (worth $4.5 billion) called Khan a “dope,” but then he said he misspoke; he wants her fired. Who knows, may be Harris would listen to her paymasters, as has been the custom.

    It is sad that people like Lina Khan, who are honest, incorruptible, and are working for the welfare of the majority, and are rare to find in government, have to face so much opposition from the billionaire class. Lina Khan and people like her are hated by the rich, like Hoffman because they try to enforce laws which assist most people rather than fattening the already obese (financially) like Hoffman and his ilk.

    The Young Turks put it rightly: “… we don’t have a democracy. We have an open auction 100%.

    Biden, when he was running for president, had told the wealthy donors:

    “I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.” “The truth of the matter is … nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

    One cannot not sympathize with the Democratic presidential candidates who are (or aiming to be) multimillionaires, who hobnob with billionaires, are mostly interviewed by anchors making millions of dollars, who have to feign they are for ordinary people, in order to get their vote.

    But the problem with this line of strategy is that it is simply prolonging the onset of the overdue implosion rather than trying to eliminate the rot in the system. If you watch or read the news and various commentaries or watch late night shows in the liberal news media, many a times they are making fun of Donald Trump, his wife and children and portray him as an evil person and thus imply Biden/Harris are virtuous people. (In the mid 1980s, then President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” hinting that the US is a sanctimonious entity.) These same people never accuse Biden or his cabinet, as bloodthirsty murderers.

    So why go for the lesser evil?

    The Democrats and the Republicans are almost twins,1 as far as warring against foreign countries or overthrowing their governments is concerned. It’s within the US, where the slight difference comes into play. Democrats would not want to go total fascist at home — they permit some freedom to maintain the facade of the US being “the greatest democracy.” On the other hand, the Republicans want to treat, actually mistreat, most people indiscriminately, within and without the US, in the same fascist manner. Many people in the US don’t mind foreign countries becoming victim of US imperialistic fascist policies, either due to their ignorance or indifference or are misled by Republicans’ and Democrats’ warmongering or news media’s and think tanks’ fear inducing presentation etc. On the other hand, many people are frightened now that, it seems if Trump wins, fascism is going to hit most people in the US. That’s why most people prefer the lesser evil.

    Mind you, fascism has never been absent in many people’s life in the US, such as incarcerating a huge segment of population, people who are victims of police violence (injured or killed), PTSD-(Post traumatic stress disorder) traumatized soldiers returning from fabricated bloody wars, homeless people, and so on. Most Democrats haven’t created meaningful improvement in the lives of these people.

    The Democrat and Republican led governments have overthrown many governments and are still trying to overthrow many more but Democrats don’t want Trump to do that in the US, such as the purported January 6, 2021 attempt.2 It was an unorganized, clumsily executed foolish attempt. Trump should have consulted the experienced hands from both parties and also the CIA before the January 6 attempt. He would have succeeded, for sure.

    Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?

    A: Because there’s no American embassy there.

    Is there a difference between Trump and Harris etc.?

    Without a second thought, one has to admit that Trump’s virile oral member is long and ejects idiocies and hate on a non-stop basis. Trump is a very cruel person, indeed. But the question is: are Biden, Harris, Anthony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Harris’ supporter greater evil Dick Cheney any less cruel?

    No.

    In fact, they are more cruel and have excessively more blood of innocents on their hands than Trump has, that is, until now. His next term will be full of vengeance and who knows, greater bloodshed. Isn’t Biden too full of hate for Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians or anyone fighting for their rights and want to go their separate ways? Biden, a grandfather, who still grieves for his son Beau Biden’s death in 2015 due to glioblastoma has neither shed a tear nor has grieved for the 42,511 Palestinians (including 16,660 children) plus 1974 [A Lancet article from 10 July 2024 reported a much higher estimate: “Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.” — DV ed.] (which includes 127 children) Lebanese killed by Israel with US encouragement, arms and ammunition, money, personnel, and intelligence –without which Israel could not have caused such incredible loss of lives. The opposition to war within the US is squashed by the Israel Lobby.

    At this juncture in human history, who deserves more loathing, Trump or Biden and Harris? Of course, today the answer is the Biden/Harris team.

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Is the “Lesser Evil” Really Less than the “Greater Evil?” first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    Just in this century, with the help of the Supreme Court, the greater evil George W. Bush got into White House and gave us Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the help of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and neocons. The lesser evil Barack Obama delivered a speech in Cairo, Egypt, received a Nobel Peace Prize, forgave the wealthy criminals for creating the 2000’s economic turmoil, and then waged war against seven Muslim countries and destroyed Libya. He was followed by the greater evil Donald Trump whose mishandling of Corona Virus killed hundreds of thousand people, enhanced Islamophobia, and created havoc in immigrant families by separating children from parents. Then we got Joe Biden who provoked Russia to fight Ukraine and let the world’s most dangerous man, Israel’s Netanyahu, run amok in Gaza, Palestine, and now in Lebanon. Seems like, very soon, he’ll open another front against Iran.
    2    By the beginning of 2024, 1,240 people had been arrested for the January 6, 2021, incident. Recently, Colorado county clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years. None of the US planners involved, covertly or overtly, has ever been charged, let alone sentenced to prison for a coup and killing of Chile’s Dr. Salvador Allende, ousting Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddegh, and so many others.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • At an August rally in Glendale, Arizona, the rowdiness of the crowd suggested a rockstar was about to take the stage. Instead, a booming voice welcomed the spectators with a full-throated endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris: “She is the right person at the right time to be our country’s 47th president!” The voice belonged to Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Stephen Roe Lewis, a tribal leader who helped resolve long overdue water rights in the state for the tribe last year. “Skoden!” 

    Later on, after a warm-up speech from running mate Tim Walz, Vice President Harris took the stage, saying she would “always honor tribal sovereignty and respect tribal self-determination,” (The 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona make an Indigenous voting block that proved essential to President Joe Biden’s win in the swing state in 2020.) On her campaign website, she maintains that she will work to secure America’s industrial future by investing in clean energy — but clean-energy development often negatively impacts sites on federal lands that are sacred to Indigenous peoples. 

    The Biden-Harris administration has been one of the most supportive of Native peoples, investing millions of dollars of federal funding for climate resilience and green energy initiatives. Still, the Indigenous vote for Harris in 2024 is far from assured. While the U.S. has big goals on its path to a clean-energy future, those plans have to compete against the preservation of tribal lands — an issue Harris has stumbled over in her political career, dating back to her time as California’s attorney general. 

    Almost 80 miles east of the Arizona rally, a sacred site is in danger. Oak Flat, a swath of national forest land in the high desert, has been an important spiritual site for tribes like the San Carlos Apache for centuries, and is used for ceremonies and gathering medicines like sage, bear root, and greasewood. Yet the area is under threat — Rio Tinto, an international mining company, has been fighting to put a copper mine there for more than a decade. Oak Flat is home to one of the planet’s largest undeveloped copper reserves, and the metal is critical to making the electric batteries necessary for the shift to cleaner energy sources. 

    Oak Flat and other sacred sites have not been given enough federal protections, activists say, despite intense advocacy from the tribal nations affected. Much of the U.S. has already been built and powered at the expense of tribal lands and peoples. To reach its goal of 80 percent renewable energy generation by 2030, and carbon-free electricity five years after that, the U.S. needs big investments and robust policy support. While Harris says she is the candidate in the best position to achieve those goals, there is a concern among Indigenous communities that doing so will continue to exploit tribal homelands — most of the minerals needed for the energy transition are located within 35 miles of away from tribal communities, on lands originally stolen from them. 

    “They definitely are hard to do at the same time. That’s the conflict,” said Dov Kroff-Korn, an attorney at Lakota People’s Law and Sacred Defense Fund, of the balance between extracting the minerals critical to the energy transition and protecting tribal lands where many such minerals are located. He mentioned that Harris has few environmental policies of her own to critique, and that, policy-wise, the broader Biden-Harris administration has been a mixed bag. “There’s been a lot of positive signs that should be recognized and applauded. But it’s also been a continuation of a lot of the same old extractive policies that have powered America for pretty much its entire history.”

    In a bid to protect some places from industry, President Biden flexed his ability to make national monuments out of sacred sites, such as the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument — or Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni — as well as to fully restore the boundaries of the Bears Ears monument in Utah from a Trump-era rollback. Biden also appointed the first-ever Native American to his Cabinet — Deb Haaland, Pueblo of Laguna — as the head of the Department of Interior. In her role, Haaland has instructed federal agencies to incorporate traditional knowledge in order to better protect Indigenous sacred sites on public land.

    During her tenure as vice president, Harris has been party to the administration’s push to produce more oil and gas than ever, despite promises to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Last year, the Biden administration also gave the green light to the Willow project, an $8 billion dollar drilling operation on Alaska’s North Slope that some, but not all, tribes were against. Throughout her presidential campaign, and in a reversal of her previous stance, Harris has showed support for fracking, a controversial drilling method that extracts oil and natural gas from deep within the ground. 

    Crystal Cavalier-Keck, a member of the Occoneechee Band of the Saponi Nation in South Carolina, is the cofounder of 7 Directions of Service, an Indigenous-led environmental justice organization. She’s concerned that the Mountain Valley Pipeline, currently a 303-mile system that runs through West Virginia and Virginia, will permanently damage the sacred Haw River where she has many memories with her family. Over the years, the beleaguered river has been polluted by chemicals and is now threatened by the pipeline, which began operations in June. 

    In 2020, Cavalier-Keck campaigned for Biden in South Carolina but didn’t see movement on the environmental protections she wanted after he got elected. She said she will still vote for Harris in November but feels like her concerns are not being talked about. “There’s not much at all on her environmental policies,” she said. “They’re saying the right buzzwords, like ‘clean, renewable, forward.’ But where’s the meat of it?” 

    She lives about a two-hour drive from where Hurricane Helene has claimed more than 100 lives in North Carolina, and she worries that the next big climate disaster will reach her community. Cavalier-Keck said that her tribe has had issues accessing the roughly $120 million in federal funding to help tribes build climate resilience. 

    During Harris’ time as attorney general of California, she argued against tribes putting land into trust, a process that can protect land as well as allow economic development like casinos where gambling might be banned, claiming the situation only applies if a tribe was “under federal jurisdiction” when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in the 1930s. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Harris and the state, but had she won the case, about 100 tribes in California would not have been allowed to benefit from trust lands. 

    Still, Lael Echo Hawk, who is Pawnee and an expert in tribal law, says Harris’ decisions as attorney general aren’t reflective of what she might be capable of as president. She pointed out that as attorney general, Harris helped pass a red flag law in California to take away firearms from people deemed dangerous. Plus, she called on the U.S. Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act — an issue important in Native communities, where women go missing and are the survivors of violence at a rate higher than the national average. Echo Hawk also knows of tribes concerned with border issues and immigration that are endorsing Harris. “These are important issues that I think better demonstrate her commitment to advancing and protecting tribal sovereignty,” Echo Hawk said. 

    But for Nick Estes, a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and a professor at the University of Minnesota, Harris might just be a continuation of the Biden administration, which he maintains has taken advantage of tribal lands. As it stands today, 1.6 million surface and subsurface acres of land within 83 reservations have non-Natives benefiting from oil, gas, and mining operations, among other extractive industries.

    “You can’t just have a vibes-based environmental policy. It actually needs to be concrete,” said Estes. “What we’ve seen is just service to industry at the expense of Native lands and livelihoods.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Indigenous voters worry a Harris presidency means endangering sacred lands on Oct 7, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • On October 1-2, the Committee to Protect Journalists joined eight partner organizations of the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists and members of the Media Freedom Rapid Response consortium on a fact-finding mission to Georgia, ahead of the country’s October 26 parliamentary elections.

    The mission met with civil society representatives and political and institutional leaders and heard the testimony of journalists who cited a growing climate of fear amid a deeply polarized environment, increasingly authoritarian governance, and escalating attacks against the press. Journalists expressed grave concern over their ability to continue operating in the country following the enactment of a Russian-style “foreign agents” law earlier this year.

    The mission concluded with a press briefing and will be followed by a detailed report with recommendations.

    Read the interim findings here.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • When Indigenous community organizer Jade Begay, Tesuque Pueblo and Diné, found out that Donald Trump had won the election in November 2016, she was en route to Standing Rock from New Mexico to protest the Dakota Access pipeline. 

    The underground oil pipeline snaking from North Dakota to Illinois had been the target of years of opposition by Indigenous activists like Begay, who had filed lawsuits against the pipeline and then withstood freezing temperatures and armed police to block its construction after their legal challenges failed. 

    The strength of their resistance had turned Standing Rock into an international symbol of Indigenous activism and resistance. It had inspired a new generation of Native American activists, and helped lead to a 2016 victory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the waning months of the Obama administration to delay the opening of the pipeline.

    But the moment Begay learned of Trump’s victory, sitting in a ramen shop in Colorado on her way north from New Mexico, she realized that win would be short-lived. 

    She was right. On January 24, 2017, just four days after his presidential inauguration, Donald Trump signed an executive order to speed up the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline and pave the way for the 1,172-mile pipeline to go online just five months later. The decision set the tone for the Republican presidency: Again and again, Indigenous peoples found themselves scrambling to block decisions by the Trump administration that upended decisions that had been made under Obama’s. 

    Native peoples achieved a few scattered wins: The Trump administration recognized seven tribes, repatriated Indigenous ancestral remains from Finland, and established a task force on missing and murdered Indigenous people. But his administration’s record on land and the environment was one in which Indigenous activists were often on the defense. 

    Trump rolled back the Bears Ears Monument by 85 percent to open up the area for drilling, prompting lawsuits from Indigenous-led groups. He pushed forward the Keystone XL pipeline, again ignoring Native opposition. He sought to open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling despite opposition from Indigenous groups such as the Gwich’in Steering Committee and Cultural Survival

    His border wall construction in Guadalupe Canyon, Arizona, harmed the Tohono O’odham Nation’s 10,000-year-old sacred burial ground. His administration sought to remove land from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe in New England, the first such move in several decades since the Termination Era during which the federal government sought to remove tribal lands and status.

    “Working to protect tribal communities or Indigenous communities during the Trump administration was extremely difficult because the attacks were continuous,” Begay said.

    Now that Trump is vying for a second term, this time with Ohio Senator J.D. Vance at his side, Native Americans who experienced his first presidency say they expect that a second one would mean more support for fossil fuel projects on reservations. 

    That might be good news for the small fraction of the more than 500 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. who choose to allow fossil fuel extraction on their lands. Daniel Cardenas from the National Tribal Energy Association said he appreciated the Trump administration’s support for tribes that wanted to pursue oil and gas production, and thought the Biden-Harris administration was too singularly focused on green energy. 

    But Indigenous environmental advocates, like Gussie Lord, a citizen of Oneida Nation and managing attorney of the Tribal Partnerships Program at Earthjustice, felt like they were overwhelmed during the Trump administration as they watched environmental regulations and commitments like the Paris Agreement fall one after the other. To Lord, Trump’s first term was packed with “real backwards-looking actions and a real backwards approach to tribal issues.” 

    In contrast, six days after taking office, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum requiring federal agencies to engage in meaningful consultation with tribal nations. Whereas Trump’s coronavirus relief funding initially delayed funding for tribes, the Biden-Harris administration incorporated them more fully into the creation of legislation and budgets, leading to a 50 percent increase in funding for tribal nations compared with the previous four years under Trump. 

    “The last four-year period was the most constructive in American history as it relates to the relationship between Native people and the United States government,” said Brian Schatz, the head of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, who helped usher the funding through Congress. 

    Larry Wright, the head of the National Congress of American Indians, hopes that whoever is elected in November continues some of the progress for Indian Country made under the Biden-Harris administration, such as incorporating Indigenous knowledge into environmental reviews; proactively advancing co-stewardship; and setting aside funding for tribes facing forced relocation due to climate change. 

    Trump hasn’t talked a lot about what specifically he’d do regarding tribes in his next presidency.  A spokesperson for his campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment. The 16-page summary of the Republican platform on Trump’s campaign website doesn’t include the words “tribe,” “Native,” or “Indigenous.” But it does lay out unambiguously how Trump stands on energy projects.

    “Common Sense tells us clearly that we must unleash American Energy if we want to destroy Inflation and rapidly bring down prices, build the Greatest Economy in History, revive our Defense Industrial Base, fuel Emerging Industries, and establish the United States as the Manufacturing Superpower of the World,” the platform says, capitalization included. “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again.”

    That commitment to fossil fuel production is sure to deepen the climate crisis, harming Indigenous peoples who are disproportionately likely to experience negative effects of climate change. Tribes living on reservations in the U.S. are more susceptible to heat waves, wildfires, and droughts than they would’ve been if they’d been allowed to remain on original lands.

    Yet despite the Biden-Harris administration’s climate justice rhetoric, it has pursued fossil fuel production even more successfully than Trump’s did, and oil and gas production has reached record highs

    Many Native Americans feel disillusioned by both parties. “It doesn’t matter who is president, if it’s a D or an R, they’re not our friends,” Cardenas said. 

    The Biden-Harris administration has also supported extractive renewable energy projects opposed by Indigenous peoples, providing a $2 billion loan for a lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada, that’s opposed by multiple tribal nations. 

    “There’s been a huge push for domestic sources of critical minerals, which was something that started under the Trump administration but has continued under the Biden administration, and the Biden administration has put a lot of money into it,” Lord from Earthjustice said, adding that that’s a concern given the proximity of such minerals to Native lands. 

    The vast majority of minerals that are key to the energy transition are found within 35 miles of federal reservation land, which means they’re likely to be on ancestral lands taken from Native peoples. 

    Still, Lord said she’s been happy with the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to incorporate tribal perspectives in their decision-making compared with the lack of input tribes had under the first Trump administration.

    Schatz from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee thinks that voters don’t have the luxury to vote third-party if they care about Native peoples. 

    “The difference is stark: One party wants to restore and cultivate self-determination, wants to provide resources for housing and education and health care and natural resource management. And the other party wants to, at best, ignore the tribes, and in many instances, through their right-wing legal machine, do violence to the very foundation of tribal sovereignty,” he said. 

    Wright from the National Congress of American Indians said he understands why some tribal citizens might feel disillusioned. He suggests that rather than voting by party or abstaining from voting, tribal citizens create a “sovereignty ticket” to support whichever candidates are more supportive of tribes.

    “Bad people get elected by Native people who don’t vote,” he said. 

    Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What a second Trump presidency could mean for Indigenous peoples on Oct 3, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Major colleges and universities receive huge federal grants to help develop prescription drugs that these colleges also get a cut of the drugs’ profits. Also, for the second time in three months, Donald Trump was the target of an assassination attempt, but this time the Secret Service was able to subdue the gunman before he […]

    The post Colleges Cash In On Pharma Price Gouging & Political Violence Is Getting Worse In America appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Vice presidential hopefuls Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, and J.D. Vance, the junior Republican senator from Ohio, faced off Tuesday night in New York. It was the first time the two men have debated, and likely the last debate of this year’s race to the White House. The evening began with a decidedly less awkward handshake than the one that kicked off the presidential debate a month ago, and quickly moved into a foreign policy question. One unknown at the outset, however, was to what extent the moderators or the candidates would bring up climate change. 

    At the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump last month, the climate question didn’t come until the tail end of the candidates’ sparring session. This time it was the second question that moderators asked, and both candidates tacked notably to the political center, with Walz endorsing “an all above energy policy” and Vance seeking to sidestep the question of whether human-caused climate change is happening. 

    The debate came amid a politically and climatically dramatic few months. Walz and Harris arrived to the race historically late and have been sprinting to make their views on a myriad of issues known, including climate change. And while climate ranks at the bottom of the list of voter concerns, climate change-fueled disasters have been battering the country, from flooding in Vermont to wildfires in California and, most recently, the tranches of devastation that Hurricane Helene wrought along the southeastern United States.

    CBS News moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan pegged their question to Helene and pointed to research showing that climate change makes hurricanes “larger, stronger, and more deadly,” as well as polling showing that 7 in 10 Americans favor taking steps to address climate change. 

    Both candidates responded by expressing their condolences to the victims of the hurricane, with Vance calling it an “unbelievable, unspeakable human tragedy.” They differed, however, on both the causes and the solutions to the broader climate question. 

    Vance, who answered first, endorsed a robust federal response to help disasters victims before turning to the bigger picture. He avoided acknowledging the reality of human-caused climate change, instead referring to “crazy weather patterns” and global warming as “weird science.” For the sake of argument, Vance started from the premise that carbon emissions drive climate change — “Let’s just say that’s true,” he said. Vance argued that bringing manufacturing back to the United States would reduce emissions, falsely claiming that America has “the cleanest economy in the entire world.” 

    In regard to solutions, Vance derided the Biden administration’s incentivization of solar panels because, he said, their components often come from abroad. He alluded to the potential for building new nuclear energy facilities and explicitly called for more energy production domestically, without specifically mentioning oil or natural gas. 

    A man with brown hair, a beard, and blue eyes, wearing a suit with a red tie, stands in front of a blue screen with his left arm extended
    J.D. Vance, the Republican Senator from Ohio, at the vice presidential debate. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

    If Vance hedged over the reality of climate change, Walz stated the problem emphatically. “Climate change is real. Reducing our impact is absolutely critical,” he said, touting the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest clean energy spending bill in history, which he said “has created jobs across the country.” In an awkward turn of phrase, Walz said, “We are seeing us becoming an energy superpower for the future, not just the current.” 

    He did not take the opportunity to highlight his own climate record, which is remarkably lengthy. As governor of Minnesota, he signed legislation that reformed clean energy permitting and requires the state’s utilities to get 100 percent of their energy from clean sources by 2040. Walz also failed to mention his support of the expansion of the Line 3 oil pipeline that runs through Minnesota, which is having the same climate impact as 50 new coal-fired power plants

    Ultimately, the climate consequences of this election could be enormous. It could, for instance, determine how close the U.S., which has emitted more greenhouse gases throughout history than any other country, comes to achieving the dramatic emissions cuts scientists say are needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. And even a casual debate viewer couldn’t miss the two candidates’ divergent views on America’s energy future. 

    The Democratic ticket has framed combating the climate crisis as a matter of protecting freedom, and has urged the continued investment in clean energy. The official GOP platform, on the other hand, includes a rollback of rules encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles and calls for the United States to become the world leader in oil, gas, and coal production. Some researchers have estimated that a second Trump term could add an extra 4 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere by 2030, compared to a Democratic presidency.

    Vance returned to the theme of domestic energy production throughout the debate, at one point saying that one of the quickest ways to address the housing crisis is to “drill, baby, drill.” His closing statement included an anecdote about how when he was growing up, his grandmother didn’t always have enough money to turn on the heat — and he argued that Biden and Harris’ energy policies are making it harder for everyday Americans to afford energy. (The Inflation Reduction Act is expected to save Americans $38 billion in electricity bills by 2030.) Climate and energy did not come up in Walz’s closing statement.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Climate was a top question at the VP debate. Both candidates actually answered — sort of. on Oct 2, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tik Root.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Is it acceptable for Israel to wipe Palestine and Palestinians off the map? On 5 November 2024, Americans have an opportunity to signal whether genocide is anathema for the majority of its citizens.

    So, how can Americans signal their abhorrence for genocide?

    Americans have been locked in a pattern of voting for the political duopoly: either wing of the business party. It is widely held that on most major matters there is little to separate the Democrats and Republicans. And this has led to many Americans voting based on whichever party is perceived to be the lesser evil.

    Despite this lesser evilest-inspired voting, the election results have resulted in the presidency and congressional majority rotating between the Democrats and Republicans with little change in the US trajectory. As far as the US economy is concerned, the country has continued to increase its debt burden. As far as US foreign policy is concerned, the US has continued to wage wars abroad. As far as support for democracy is concerned, the US has continued to initiate coups against governments it does not approve of. As far as Israel is concerned, it continues to enjoy steadfast support from the duopoly.

    One commonly heard refrain posits that continually resorting to the same action with expectation of a different result meets the definition of insanity. The expectation of lesser-evilist voting producing a significantly different outcome on the political scene given that such action has never brought about a change before speaks disparagingly to the strategy of lesser-evilist voting.

    Being considered insane, however, is less disparaging than being considered immoral. That would be shameful.

    Given the nugatory outcomes of lesser-evilist voting, another proposition comes to mind:

    Fool me once, shame on you;
    fool me twice, shame on me.

    There are two candidates seen as frontrunners for the presidency of the United States. However, the Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, and the Republican Party candidate, Donald Trump. Both stand solidly behind the Zionist entity dba as the state of Israel, and neither of these candidates will exert pressure on Israel to cease and desist in its commission of war crimes. In fact, the US funds Israel, arms Israel, and has situated its military and armaments in the region in support of Israel. This is despite Israeli officials openly calling for the eradication of Palestinians, causing a case to be brought against Israel charging it with genocide in the International Court of Justice.

    The upshot of this is that a vote for either Harris or Trump must be considered as a vote for genocide. The only out for a voter to escape criticism for supporting genocide is, pathetic as it may be, ignorance.

    What can Americans do to avoid supporting genocide? One can always abstain from voting. That, however, would not be fighting against genocide. Moreover, abstaining would still allow the supporters of genocide to vote for a genocidaire as president.

    Strangely enough, many Americans seem oblivious to the existence of other presidential candidates that one can vote for. One can even cast a vote for a candidate opposed to Israeli crimes against Palestinians. To wit, there is candidate Cornel West who calls 7 October a “counter-terrorism response“; Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver has pledged to end the genocide; candidate Jill Stein has a platform Pledge to Stop Genocide.

    Unfortunately, in a winner-take-all voting system, one must consider how the strong individual desire to attain political office plays against a tactical and selfless decision to coalesce around one anti-genocide candidate to increase the chances of shutting down a genocide in progress.

    Voting in the US elections on 5 November 2024 is an opportunity to indicate one’s abhorrence to genocide. Elementary morality demands a vote for an opponent of genocide.

    The post A Moral Imperative for the 2024 US Elections first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Left-liberals plea every four years that this really is the most important election ever and time to hold our noses and send a Democrat to the White House. The manifest destiny of US world leadership, we are told, is at stake, as is our precious democracy which we have so generously been exporting abroad.

    Let’s leave aside the existential threats of climate change or nuclear war. However important, these issues are not on the November 5 ballot. Nor are they addressed in even minimally meaningful ways by the platforms of either of the major parties.

    The USA, with its first-strike policy and upgrading its nuclear war fighting capacity, bears responsibility for Armageddon risk.  And, in fact, the land-of-the-free has contributed more greenhouse gases to the world’s stockpile than any other country.

    But the US electorate never voted these conditions in, so is it realistic to think that we can vote them out? The electoral arena has its limits. Nevertheless, we are admonished, our vote is very important.

    But do the two major parties offer meaningful choices?

    Apparently, the 700 national security apparatchiks who signed a letter endorsing Kamala Harris think so. They fear that Trump is too soft on world domination. They find a comforting succor in Harris’s promise “to preserve the American military’s status as the most ‘lethal’ force in the world.” And oddly so do some left-liberals who welcome the security state, largely because they too don’t trust Trump with guiding the US empire.

    Although a major left-liberal talking point is the imminent threat of fascism, their fear is focused on Trump’s dysfunctionality and his “deplorable” working class minions; not on the security apparatus of the state, which they have learned to love.

    But fascism is not a personality disorder. The ruling class – whether its nominal head wears a red or blue hat – has no reason to impose a fascist dictatorship as long as left-liberals and their confederates embrace rather than oppose the security state.

    Not only were the left-liberals enamored with the FBI’s “Saint” Robert Mueller, but they have welcomed the likes of George W. Bush and now Dick Cheney, because these war criminals also see the danger of Trump.

    The Democratic Party has been captured by the foreign policy neoconservatives who are jumping the red ship for the blue one. It’s not that Donald Trump is in any way an anti-imperialist, but Kamala Harris is seen as a more effective imperialist and defender of elite rule.

    The ruling class is united in supporting US imperial hegemony, but needs to work out how best to achieve it. The blue team is confident that the empire has the capability to aim the canons full blast at both Russia and China at the same time. And they tend to take a more multilateral approach to empire building.

    The red team is a little more circumspect, concerned with imperial overreach. They advocate a staged strategy of China as the primary target and only secondarily against Russia. This suggests why Ukraine’s president-for-life, who is at war with Russia, in effect campaigned for Kamala in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

    The inauthenticity of the left-liberals

     While some left-liberals support a decisive Russian defeat in Ukraine, their overall concern is beating Trump.

    The Democratic Party was transformed some time ago by the Clintons’ now defunct but successful Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which advocated abandonment of its progressive constituencies in order to more effectively attract corporate support.  While both parties vie to serve the wealthy class, the Democrats are now by a significant margin the ones favored by big money.

    The triumph of the DLC signaled the demise of liberalism and the ascendency of neoliberalism. Much more could be said about that transition (viz the Democratic Party has always been capitalist with neoliberalism being its most recent expression), but suffice it to say the Democratic Party is the graveyard of progressive movements.

    Liberals no longer even pretend to have an agenda other than defeating Trump. Their neglect of economic issues that benefit working people has created a vacuum, which opens the political arena for faux populists like Trump.

    The now moribund liberal movement is thus relegated to two functions: (1) providing a bogus progressive patina to reactionary politics and (2) attacking those who still hold leftist principles. “Progressive Democrat,” sociologist James Petras argues, is an oxymoron.

    Left-liberals have the habit of prefacing their capitulations with a recitation of their former leftist credentials. But what makes them inauthentic is their abandonment of principles. No transgression by the Democrats, absolutely none – not even genocide – deters this inauthentic left from supporting the Democratic presidential candidate.

    We can respect, though disagree, with the right-wing for having principled red lines, such as abortion. In contrast, left-liberals not only find themselves bedfellows with Cheney, but they swallow anything and everything that the Democratic wing of the two-party duopoly feeds them.

    Consequences of supporting the lesser of the two evils

     Although today the Democratic Party is arguably the leading war party, we would have cold comfort with the Republicans in power. And domestically the Democrats talk a better line on some social wedge issues that don’t threaten elite rule, such as women’s reproductive rights, although – as will be argued – their walk is not as good as their talk.

    Getting back to “this year more than ever we have to support the Democratic presidential candidate,” the plea contains two truths. First, the “more than ever” part exposes a tendency to cry wolf in the past.

    Remember that the world did not fall apart with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. No lesser an authority than Noam Chomsky is nostalgic for Tricky Dick, who is now viewed as the last true liberal president. Nor did the planet stop spinning in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ascended to the Oval Office. Barack Obama now boasts that his policies differed little from the Gipper’s.

    Which brings us to the second truth revealed in the plea. The entire body politic has been staggering to the right regardless of which wing of the duopoly is in power. This is in spite of the fact that the voting public is well to the left of them on almost every issue, from universal public healthcare to opposition to endless war.

    Moreover, the left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting strategy itself bears some degree of responsibility for this reactionary tide.

    The genius of the Clintons’ DLC was that the progressive New Deal coalition of labor and minority groups that supported the Democratic Party could be thrown under the bus with impunity, while the party courts the right. As long as purported progressives support the Democrats no matter what, the party has an incentive to sell out its left-leaning “captured constituents.”

    Thus, we witnessed what passed for a presidential debate with both contestants competing to prove who was more in favor of genocide for Palestinians and an ever expanding military.

    The campaign for reproductive rights aborted

     But one may protest, let’s not let squeamishness about genocide blind us to the hope that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on at least the key issue of abortion.

    However, this is the exception that proves the rule. As Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report noted, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there were protests everywhere but at Barack Obama’s house, “the person who could have acted to protect the Roe decision.”

    When Obama ran in 2008, he made passage of a Freedom of Choice Act the centerpiece of his campaign. Once elected with majorities in Congress, he could have enshrined abortion rights into law and out of the purview of the Supreme Court. Instead, he never followed through on his promise.

    This was a direct outcome of the logic of lesser evilism in a two-party system. The folks who supported abortion rights had nowhere to go, so they were betrayed. Why embarrass Blue Dog Democrats and antagonize pro-lifers when the progressive dupes will always give the Democrats a pass?

    Angst is not a substitute for action

     The Republican and Democratic parties are part of the same corporate duopoly, both of which support the US empire. Given there are two wings, there will inevitably be a lesser and greater evil on every issue and even in every election.

    However, we need a less myopic view and to look beyond a given election to see the bigger picture of the historical reactionary trend exacerbated by lesser-evil voting. That is, to understand that the function of lesser-evil voting in the overarching two-party system is to allow the narrative to shift rightward.

    If one’s game plan for system change includes electoral engagement, which both Marx and Lenin advocated (through an independent working class party, not by supporting a bourgeois party), the pressure needs to be applied when it counts. And that might mean taking a tip from the Tea Party by withholding the vote if your candidate crosses a red line. But that requires principles, which left-liberals have failed to evidence. Angst, however heartfelt, is not a substitute for action.

    The left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting, which disregards third-parties with genuinely progressive politics, contributes to the rightward trajectory of US politics. It is not the only factor, but it is a step in the wrong direction. As for November 5, we already know who will win…the ruling class.

    The post The Most Important US Presidential Election of Our Lifetime first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 2024 Václav Havel Prize awarded to Venezuelan political figure and rights defender María Corina Machado

    The twelfth Václav Havel Human Rights Prize has been awarded to leading Venezuelan political figure and rights defender María Corina Machado.

    See https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/7A8B4A4A-0521-AA58-2BF0-DD1B71A25C8D

    Ms Machado is a co-founder and former leader of Venezuelan vote-monitoring and citizens’ rights group Súmate, a former member of Venezuela’s National Assembly and currently the National Co-ordinator of the Vente Venezuela political movement. Barred from running in Venezuela’s recent Presidential election, she went into hiding in August 2024, declaring that she feared for her life, her freedom, and that of her fellow citizens.

    Opening the award ceremony, PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos pointed out that today, 6 of the 11 previous winners of the Havel Prize are in prison, and urged their immediate release. “These individuals committed only one ‘crime’ – they simply wanted to make their voices heard, to share their vision of a just and free society.”

    Making the award to Ms Corina Machado’s daughter Ana, the President underlined that the Council of Europe “stands alongside those who risk their lives to make our societies more democratic and just”.

    Ms Corina Machado herself, addressing the Assembly remotely from Venezuela, said she was “deeply moved, honoured and grateful” to be the first Latin American to win the distinction. “I want to dedicate this recognition to the millions of Venezuelans who, every day, embody Havel’s values and ideas – some without even realising it.” Her movement had demonstrated “the victory of democrats over dictatorship” in Venezuela’s recent elections, she said, declaring: “Today our struggle continues, because the truth persists until it prevails.”

    The two other shortlisted nominees were Azerbaijani human rights defender and activist Akif Gurbanov, who is currently in pre-trial detention in Baku, and Georgian feminist activist and human rights lawyer Babutsa Pataraia, who was present at the ceremony.

    As part of the ceremony, the Assembly was also addressed by Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was being held in detention in Russia when he was awarded the Havel Prize in 2022. He was released in August of this year as part of a prisoner exchange.


    https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/2024-v%C3%A1clav-havel-prize-awarded-to-venezuelan-political-figure-and-rights-defender-mar%C3%ADa-corina-machado

    https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-opposition-figure-wins-top-european-rights-prize/a-70363263

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • There is little substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats; they are both corporate dominated and controlled parties. As futile as lesser evilism is, it is also futile to talk about there being a lesser evilism between the two utterly dominant political parties in the United States.

    — “Evilism: There Is No Lesser,” Dissident Voice.

    The post The Electoral Spectrum of Evil first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • After a decade of failed attempts to charge polluters for emitting carbon dioxide, Washington state’s landmark cap-and-trade program finally started up last year, raising billions of dollars for electric school buses, energy-efficient heat pumps, and free transit for young people, among other projects. But now the Climate Commitment Act’s entire existence is in question. Opponents of the law — namely, the hedge fund manager Brian Heywood — have argued that it amounts to a “hidden gas tax” and managed to get an initiative to repeal it on the November ballot. 

    As climate change has been dragged into the culture wars, a shift in the political winds can put established efforts to reduce emissions in peril. In Minnesota, a law to move the state to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040, signed last year by Governor Tim Walz — now the Democratic vice presidential candidate — could lose momentum. Democrats hold narrow majorities in the state legislature, and Republicans could gain enough seats to stall efforts to expand renewable power and derail plans to ensure that disadvantaged communities see the benefits of green projects.

    “There would be efforts to undo all of it,” said Patty Acomb, a Democratic state representative in Minnesota who chairs the House Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee. “And we don’t have time to waste for that. Even with the momentum that we have, you know, 2040 is coming pretty quickly.” 

    Unless Democrats somehow manage to take both chambers of Congress at the same time that Vice President Kamala Harris wins the White House, the best hope for climate action is likely to be at the state level. The November election could tilt state legislatures to the left, allowing Democrats to enact new policies to reduce emissions, or to the right, enabling Republicans to challenge established programs. 

    “With Congress in gridlock, meaningful climate policy is moving through state legislatures, making state legislative elections absolutely crucial this year for advancing climate action,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. In states such as Arizona and New Hampshire, Democratic legislators have been waiting for an opportunity to take control and pass their climate agenda. It would only take flipping two seats in each of Arizona’s chambers to give Democrats a majority, opening the door to enact Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs’ plan to address the state’s water crisis and expand clean energy.

    The work of eliminating carbon emissions will take decades of sustained political will no matter the country, but the fractured nature of U.S. politics makes this challenge even harder. Take the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, the landmark climate law signed by President Joe Biden in 2022, which has already put more than $360 billion toward clean energy and green technologies, like electric vehicle and battery projects. Republicans in Congress have tried to roll back provisions of the law dozens of times — even though most of its money is going to districts represented by Republicans, benefiting their constituents. Those threats have made some investors hesitant to put their weight behind cleantech projects. And if former President Donald Trump wins the presidential race in November, his administration could hamper the rollout of the funds, potentially making some projects unviable.

    At the state level, however, even narrow majorities can deliver a lot of legislation. Since the 2022 election, Minnesota Democrats have had a “trifecta” — holding the governor’s seat and both legislative chambers — paving the way for long-planned climate policies to pass after years of waiting. “We had been pushing forward initiatives over several years, but they were being blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate,” Acomb said. “And so there was a glut of things that had been vetted, that had been worked on, that were ready to pass.” 

    In the past two years, legislators created a program to help utilities and local governments secure IRA funding, established a “green bank” to provide financial assistance for clean energy projects along with another measure to speed up their permitting process, and allocated $38 million for weatherizing homes to improve energy efficiency.

    Democrats currently control the Minnesota state Senate by a single seat, and a special election in November will decide which party gets the majority. The Republican candidate for that Senate seat, Kathleen Fowke, is married to the former CEO of Xcel Energy, a utility and natural gas company. Fowke is facing off against former state senator Ann Johnson Stewart, whose platform calls for “comprehensive solutions to our climate crisis.” While Fowke also champions “clean, affordable energy solutions,” Acomb said that the heavily utility-funded candidate “probably wouldn’t be working toward the same [climate] goals” that Democrats would want.

    Another state that managed to pass meaningful climate legislation in the past two years is Michigan, where Democrats also got a trifecta in 2022 and soon passed a law requiring the state to get 100 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2040. “We’ve seen really just resounding and massive progress on clean energy and climate policy in Michigan,” said Nick Dodge, the communications director for the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. Similar to Minnesota, the state also passed measures to promote energy efficiency and streamline the process for approving large-scale renewable energy projects. According to a recent report from the consulting firm 5 Lakes Energy, these policies, in combination with federal IRA funding, are expected to save families almost $300 on energy bills per year by 2030, as well as slash the state’s greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 65 percent.

    In response to these efforts, Republicans in Michigan launched “immediate attacks,” according to Courtney Bourgoin, deputy director for the Midwest region with Evergreen Action, a climate advocacy organization. This spring, a campaign tied to the fossil fuel industry tried to muster support for a ballot initiative to reverse the state policy aimed at speeding up the process for approving new solar and wind projects, but failed to get enough signatures from voters.

    It’s a different story in Washington state, where an initiative to repeal the Climate Commitment Act got the hundreds of thousands of signatures it needed to make the November ballot. Heywood, the millionaire Republican behind the proposal, has been promoting the measure by temporarily taking over gas stations and offering discounted prices to drivers — a tactic that has drawn accusations of violating bribery and corruption laws.

    The “cap-and-invest” system establishes a statewide limit on greenhouse gas emissions that lowers over time and creates a market for businesses to buy pollution permits — a way to prod them to cut emissions and, at the same time, raise billions of dollars for installing EV chargers, improving air quality, and helping Native American tribes prepare for the effects of climate change. It requires the state to cut its emissions nearly in half by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

    Initiative 2117 would not only strike down the program — considered a model for New York and other states considering similar policies — but it would also bar Washington from capping carbon emissions in the future. 

    “It would hamstring leaders in the state for a generation,” said Mark Prentice, a spokesperson for the “No on 2117” campaign. Some 475 organizations across the state have joined “No on 2117,” including businesses, tribal nations, and faith groups, in addition to the usual environmentally friendly suspects. They’ve raised more than $14 million to protect the law, and have been urging voters to reject the measure by campaigning door-to-door, airing advertisements online and on TV, and showing up at events like music festivals around the state. 

    “We’ve always known this is going to be a really tough fight,” Prentice said, “and so we are communicating with voters however we can in every community.” 

    While previous polls suggested the vote would be close, one conducted earlier this month found that 46 percent of voters said they’d vote to keep the Climate Commitment Act, compared to 30 percent who said they’d vote to repeal it. Even though the political rhetoric around climate change is often divisive, policies to address the problem are broadly popular — much more so than most people realize. A poll from CNN last year found that almost three-quarters of the public, including half of Republicans, wanted the U.S. to cut emissions in half by 2030.

    “This isn’t just a red and blue issue. These are people’s lives,” Bourgoin said. “The politics around it just does not align with the way voters feel about these issues.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The states where climate progress is on the ballot on Oct 1, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Anura Kumara Dissanayake, known with convenient laziness as AKD, became Sri Lanka’s latest president after a runoff count focusing on preferential votes.  The very fact that it went to a second count with a voter turnout of 77% after a failure of any candidate to secure a majority was itself historic, the first since Sri Lankan independence in 1948.

    AKD’s presidential victory tickles and excites the election watchers for various reasons.  He does not hail from any of the dynastic families that have treated rule and the presidential office as electoral real estate and aristocratic privilege. The fall of the Rajapaksa family, propelled by mass protests against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s misrule in 2022, showed that the public had, at least for the time, tired of that tradition.

    Not only is the new president outside the traditional orbit of rule and favour; he heads a political grouping known as the National People’s Power (NPP), a colourfully motley combination of trade unions, civil society members, women’s groups and students.  But the throbbing core of the group is the Janatha Vimukhti Peramuna (JVP), which boasts a mere three members in the 225-member parliament.

    The resume of the JVP is colourfully cluttered and, in keeping with Sri Lankan political history, spattered with its fair share of blood.  It was founded in 1965 in the mould of a Marxist-Leninist party and led by Rohana Wijeweera.  It mounted, without success, two insurrections – in 1971 and between 1987 and 1989.  On both occasions, thousands died in the violence that followed, including Wijeweera and many party leaders, adding to the enormous toll that would follow in the civil war between the Sinhalese majority and the secessionist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

    It is also worth noting that the seduction of Marxism, just to add a level of complexity to matters, was not confined to the JVP.  The Tamil resistance had itself found it appealing.  A assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency from March 1986 offers the casual remark that “all major insurgent organizations claim allegiance to Marxism” with the qualification that “most active groups are motivated principally by ethnic rivalry with the majority Sinhalese.”  None had a clear political program “other than gaining Columbo’s recognition for a traditional homeland and a Tamil right to self-determination.”

    By the time Dissanayake was cutting his teeth in local politics, the JVP was another beast, having been reconstituted by Somawansa Amarasinghe as an organisation keen to move into the arena of ballots rather than the field of armed struggle.  Dissanayake is very much a product of that change.  “We need to establish a new clean political culture … We will do the utmost to win back the people’s respect and trust in the political system.”

    In a statement, Dissanayake was a picture of modest, if necessary, acknowledgment.  He praised the collective effort behind his victory, one being a consequence of the multitude.  “This achievement is not the result of any single person’s work, but the collective effort of hundreds of thousands of you.  Your commitment has brought us this far, and for that, I am deeply grateful.  This victory belongs to all of us.”

    The unavoidable issue of racial fractiousness in the country is also mentioned.  “The unity of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and all Sri Lankans is the bedrock of this new beginning.”  How the new administration navigates such traditionally poisoned waters will be a matter of interest and challenge, not least given the Sinhala nationalist rhetoric embraced by the JVP, notably towards the Tamil Tigers.

    Pundits are also wondering where the new leader might position himself on foreign relations.  There is the matter of India’s unavoidably dominant role, a point that riles Dassanayake.  His preference, and a point he has repeatedly made, is self-sufficiency and economic sovereignty.  But India has a market worth US$6.7 billion whereas China, a more favoured country by the new president, comes in at US$2 billion.

    On economics, a traditional, if modest program of nationalisation is being put forth by the JVP within the NPP, notably on such areas as utilities.  A wealth redistribution policy is on the table, including progressive, efficient taxation while a production model to encourage self-sufficiency, notably on important food products, is envisaged.  Greater spending is proposed in education and health care.

    The issue of dealing with international lenders is particularly pressing, notably in dealing with the International Monetary Fund, which approved a US$2.9 billion bailout to the previous government on extracting the standard promises of austerity.  “We expect to discuss debt restructuring with the relevant parties and complete the process quickly and obtain the funds,” promises Dissanayake. That said, the governor of the Central Bank and the secretary to the ministry of finance, both important figures in implementing the austerity measures, have remained.

    In coming to power, AKD has eschewed demagogic self-confidence.  “I have said before that I am not a magician – I am an ordinary citizen.  There are things I know and don’t know.  My aim is to gather those with the knowledge and skills to help lift this country.”  In the febrile atmosphere that is Sri Lankan politics, that admission is a humble, if realistic one.

    The post Presidential Marxism: AKD and the Sri Lankan Elections first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • CNN came out with an explosive report late last week about Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for governor in the state of North Carolina. The information in the report is shocking – to put it mildly. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Republican’s “Black Nazi” Exposed In Scathing New Report appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Source: Contre-Attaque, September 5, 2024

    In 2017, Macron was marketed by the media as a new product. He was elected without a program, solely on the argument that he represented the “new world,” breaking away from the old political class. Seven years later, Macron is resurrecting the worst aspects of the old world, amidst increasing fascization and overt authoritarianism, having shattered the last illusions of representative democracy.

    Michel Barnier: A Political Dinosaur

    After a prolonged indecision over several candidates for Prime Minister, Macron ultimately chose Michel Barnier, thereby sidelining Bernard Cazeneuve and Xavier Bertrand, other contenders for the role. Michel Barnier epitomizes the political dinosaur: an old-school figure who has been entrenched in the circles of power for 50 years.

    Indeed, Michel Barnier has been in politics since the 1970s. At 73, he has been with the UDR, the RPR, the UMP, and finally Les Républicains. These acronyms might not mean much to you: they represent the names of French right-wing parties that have come and gone throughout the Fifth Republic. He has served as Minister for the Environment, European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Food, and has twice been a European Commissioner. He has served under Pompidou, Chirac, and Sarkozy — times so distant that most of our readers weren’t even born, with the average age of the French being around 41. Michel Barnier was a professional politician before most of the population was born!

    What’s even more amusing is that Barnier is a member of an endangered party, which garnered only 4.8% of the vote in the last presidential elections and came fourth in the legislative elections earlier this summer. His legitimacy is questionable at best.

    Clarification

    At least things are clear: Macron reiterated that Mélenchon’s Left-Wing Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP), with its 193 MPs, did not have an absolute majority and therefore could not form a government. Ultimately, he appointed the representative of an ultra-minority group with only 55 MPs, with the sole aim of continuing to govern with the right and far right, and pursuing his massively rejected policies. It’s a power grab.

    A few days ago, the newspaper L’Opinion revealed that Macron “wants to appoint the ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Armed Forces. But he also intends to choose the occupants of the Interior and Bercy.” On August 30, L’Humanité reported that Macron had said: “If I appoint NFP’s Lucie Castets, she will repeal the pension reform and raise the minimum wage to 1,600 euros…” That’s the crux of the issue: the ruling clan will do anything to prevent even the slightest social advancement.

    For its part, Le Parisien explained that Macron had been consulting with Sarkozy, the former right-wing president and convicted criminal, over the summer, seeking his advice on the choice of Prime Minister. On September 2, Le Monde reported that “the Élysée had already found a chief of staff for the next Prime Minister.” This is no longer cohabitation; it’s subletting. The real Prime Minister is Macron. The already tenuous separation of powers is officially abolished.

    So Much for That

    Recall that the President dissolved the Assembly in an emergency, gave it 15 days to vote, preventing a real campaign, only to wait 50 days and appoint a puppet Prime Minister. For over two months, the press has been complicit in the Macronist coup, never questioning the narrative. In mid-July, they announced: “Prime Minister after the Olympic truce.” On August 27, the headlines still read: “Macron will name a Prime Minister at the end of the week.” Today is September 5.

    The Far Right in Power

    Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) has made it clear that it will not censure this Prime Minister. Its spokesperson, Bardella, is even the first politician to respond to the power grab, soberly stating that he “takes note” of the appointment. Bardella announced that he would “judge by evidence,” meaning the far right will not oppose the new government.

    In fact, a coalition ranging from the RN to the Macronists is being officially formed before our very eyes. It’s a union of the right and far right against the left, to disregard electoral results, and above all, to continue favoring the rich while wreaking havoc on the lives of the poorest.

    In June, the Rassemblement National was the only party to call for dissolution, and Macron granted its wish. For months, Macronists had been holding secret dinners with the Le Pen clan. The current coup is thus a continuation of a process that began long ago.

    Now, the last masks have fallen. This pathetic appointment may be the final breath of an old world coming to an end. It is up to the streets to put an end to this dismal spectacle.

    Translation from French: Alain Marshal

    The post France: After Two Months without a Government, an Old Right-Winger is Appointed Prime Minister first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Democrats are begging Kamala Harris to get out there and do more interviews before she runs out of time. The public needs to hear directly from her, and her strategy of avoiding the media is no longer working. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse […]

    The post Dems Push Kamala Harris To Stop Avoiding The Media appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Here he goes again, cap in hand, begging for the alms of war.  Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been touring the United States, continuing his lengthy salesmanship for Ukraine’s ongoing military efforts against Russia.  The theme is familiar and constantly reiterated: the United States must continue to back Kyiv in its rearguard action for civilisation in the face of Russian barbarism.  By attempting, not always convincingly, to universalise his country’s plight, Zelenskyy hopes to keep some lustre on an increasingly fading project.

    The Ukrainian president has succeeded most brazenly in getting himself, and the war effort, into the innards of the US presidential election.  In doing so, he has become an unabashed campaigner for the Democrats and the Kamala Harris ticket while offering uncharitable views about the Republicans.  (Electoral interference, anyone?)  The Republican contender, Donald Trump, had good reason to make the following observation about Zelenskyy: “Every time he comes into the country he walks away with $60 billion … he wants them [the Democrats] to win this election so badly.”

    Even as a lame duck president, Joe Biden could still be wooed to advance another aid package.  This seemed to be done, as the White House records, on threadbare details about Zelenskyy’s “plan to achieve victory over Russia.”  According to the readout, diplomatic, economic and military aspects of the plan were discussed.  “President Biden is determined to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win.”

    Detail was also scarce in a briefing given by White House national security spokesperson John Kirby.  Zelenskyy’s plan to end the war “contains a series of initiatives and steps and objectives that [he] believes will be important”.

    In a statement, Biden announced that he had directed the Department of Defense to allocate the rest of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds by the end of the year along with US$5.5 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority.  The US$2.4 billion from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is intended to supply Ukraine “with additional air defense, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and air-to-ground ammunitions, as well as strengthen Ukraine’s defense industrial base and support its maintenance and sustainment requirements.”

    In terms of materiel, an additional Patriot air defence battery is to be furnished to Ukraine’s air defences, along with additional Patriot missiles. Training for Ukrainian F-16 pilots is to be expanded.  The air-to-ground Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), colloquially known as glide bombs, will also be supplied.

    Ukraine’s fate is being annexed to the US election campaign, with the Ukrainian president keen to make his own boisterous intervention in the election.  On September 22, Zelenskyy paid a visit to a military facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  It was calculated for maximum effect.  The facility is not only responsible for manufacturing some of the equipment being used in the war against Russia, notably 155-millimeter howitzer rounds, but is a crucial state for the presidential contenders.  On hand to join him was a full coterie of Democrats: Gov. Josh Shapiro, Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Representative Matt Cartwright (D-8th District)

    Harris is clear that any administration she leads will see no deviation from current policy.  Peace proposals were to be scoffed at, while prospects for a Ukrainian victory had to be seriously entertained.  Stopping shy of playing the treason card in remarks made on September 26, Harris claimed that there were those “in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations.”  And such types had endorsed “proposals” identical to “those of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

    That message of sanctimonious chest beating was also embraced by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who could only see Zelenskyy as a fighter “for freedom and the rule of law on behalf of democracies around the world” while “Trump and his craven MAGA followers side time and again with Vladimir Putin,” one responsible for a “filthy imperialist and irredentist invasion.”  Clearly, the Zelenskyy promotions tour has exercised some wizardry.

    The full soldering of Ukrainian matters to US electoral politics has received a frosty response from various Republicans.  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) demanded nothing less than Zelenskyy’s dismissal of the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova.  “Ambassador Markarova organised an event in which you toured an American manufacturing site.”  The tour took place “in a politically contested battleground state, was led by a top political surrogate for Kamala Harris, and failed to include a single Republican because – on purpose – no Republicans were invited.”

    Those on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, seething at Zelenskyy’s electoral caper, have launched an investigation into the possibility that taxpayer funds had been misused to the benefit of the Harris presidential campaign.  Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), in a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, noted that, as the Department of Justice was “highly focused on combatting electoral interference, the Committee requests DOJ review the Biden-Harris Administration’s coordination with the Ukrainian government regarding President Zelensky’s itinerary while in America.”

    Comer could not resist a pertinent reminder that the Democrats had made much the same charge against Trump while in office in 2019. That occasion also featured Zelenskyy, only that time, the accusation was that Trump had used him “to benefit his 2020 presidential campaign, despite a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump.”

    GOP dissatisfaction is far from unreasonable.  Zelenskyy’s sojourn is nothing less than a sustained effort at electoral meddling, the sort of thing that normally turns US exceptionalists into rabid hyenas complaining of virtue despoiled.  Only this time, there are politicians and officials in freedom’s land happy to tolerate and even endorse it.  At stake is a war to prolong.

    The post Zelenskyy Joins the US Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A new study out of the United Kingdom has found that the chemicals in vaping fluid are causing a cascade of problems in the human body. Then, Vice President Harris recently received endorsements from some of the worst human beings in the country – a list that includes Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss […]

    The post A.I. Simulates Dangers Of Vaping Chemicals & War Criminals Endorse Kamala For President appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Turning Point USA is pushing to transform itself from a right-wing campus activism organization into an incubator for Republican candidates, with a slate of Turning Point-affiliated candidates seeking public office in the 2024 elections. In Michigan’s 27th state House District, Rylee Linting, the youth vice chair of the state GOP, is running in the hopes of flipping a seat in the state’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Nathan Ryder raises livestock and grows vegetables on 10 acres of pasture in Golconda, Illinois with his wife and three kids. They also live in a food desert; the local grocery store closed a few months ago, and the closest farmers market is at least 45 miles away, leaving their community struggling to access nutritious food. 

    Opening another supermarket isn’t the answer. The U.S. government has spent the last decade investing millions to establish them in similar areas, with mixed results. Ryder thinks it would be better to expand federal assistance programs to make them more available to those in need, allowing more people to use those benefits at local farms like his own. 

    Expanding the reach of the nation’s small growers and producers could be a way to address growing food insecurity, he said, a problem augmented by inflation and supply chains strained by climate change. “It’s a great opportunity, not only to help the bottom-line of local farmers, instead of some of these giant commodity food corporations … but to [help people] buy healthy, wholesome foods,” said Ryder.

    That is just one of the solutions that could be codified into the 2024 farm bill, but it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. The deadline to finalize the omnibus bill arrives Monday, and with lawmakers deadlocked along partisan lines, it appears likely that they will simply extend the current law for at least another year. 

    Congress has been here before. Although the farm bill is supposed to be renewed every five years, legislators passed a one-year extension of the 2018 policy last November after struggling to agree on key nutrition and conservation facets of the $1.5 trillion-dollar spending package. 

    Extensions and delays have grave implications, because the farm bill governs many aspects of America’s food and agricultural systems. It covers everything from food assistance programs and crop subsidies to international food aid and even conservation measures. Some of them, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning any hiccups in the reauthorization timeline do not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within the law. Without a new appropriation or an extension of the existing one, some would shut down until the bill is reauthorized. If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, several  programs would even revert to 1940s-era policies with considerable impacts on consumer prices for commodities like milk.

    After nearly a century of bipartisanship, negotiations over recent farm bills have been punctuated by partisan stalemates. The main difference this time around is that a new piece is dominating the Hill’s political chessboard: The election. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen before the election, which puts a lot of teeth-gnashing and hair-wringing into hand,” said Ryder. He is worried that a new administration and a new Congress could result in a farm bill that further disadvantages small farmers and producers. “It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure novel right now. Which way is this farm bill going to go?”

    A combine harvests wheat in an expansive hillside field in rural Washington.
    The Farm Bill covers everything from crop subsidies to food assistance programs and even conservation measures. Typically a bipartisan effort, it has of late been bogged down by politics.
    Rick Dalton for Design Pics Editorial / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    The new president will bring their own agricultural policy agenda to the job, which could influence aspects of the bill. And, of course, whoever sits in the Oval Office can veto whatever emerges from Congress. (President Obama threatened to nix the bill House Republicans put forward in 2013 because it proposed up to $39 billion in cuts to food benefits.) Of even greater consequence is the potential for a dramatically different Congress. Of the 535 seats in the House and Senate, 468 are up for election. That will likely lead to renewed negotiations among a new slate of lawmakers, a process further complicated by the pending retirement of Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Although representatives are ramping up pressure on Congressional leadership to enact a new farm bill before this Congress reaches the end of its term, there is a high chance all of this will result in added delays, if not require an entirely new bill to be written.

    That has profound implications for consumers already struggling with rising prices and farmers facing the compounding pressures of consolidation, not to mention efforts to remake U.S. food systems to mitigate, and adapt to, a warming world, said Rebecca Wolf, a senior food policy analyst with Food & Water Watch. (The nonprofit advocates for policies that ensure access to safe food, clean water, and a livable climate.) “The farm bill has a really big impact on changing the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” said Wolf. 

    Still, Monday’s looming deadline is somewhat arbitrary — lawmakers have until the end of the calendar year to pass a bill, because most key programs have already been extended through the appropriations cycle. But DeShawn Blanding, who analyzes food and environment policy for the science nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists, finds the likelihood of that happening low. He expects to see negotiations stretch into next year, and perhaps into 2026. “Congress is much more divided now,” he said. 

    The House Agriculture committee passed a draft bill in May, but the proposal has not reached the floor for a vote because of negotiating hang-ups. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture committee has yet to introduce a bill, although the chamber’s Democrats and Republicans have introduced frameworks that reflect their agendas. Given the forthcoming election and higher legislative priorities, like funding the government before December 20, the last legislative day on the congressional calendar, “it’s a likelihood that this could be one of the longest farm bills that we’ve had,” Blanding said.

    As is often the case, food assistance funding is among the biggest points of contention. SNAP and the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines how much a household receives through SNAP, have remained two of the biggest sticking points, with Democrats and Republicans largely divided over how the program is structured and funded. The Republican-controlled House Agriculture committee’s draft bill proposed the equivalent of nearly $30 billion in cuts to SNAP by limiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ability to adjust the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, used to set SNAP benefits. The provision, supported by Republicans, met staunch opposition from Democrats who have criticized the plan for limiting benefits during an escalating food insecurity crisis

    The farm bill “was supposed to be designed to help address food insecurity and the food system at large and should boost and expand programs like SNAP that help do that,” said Blanding, which becomes all the more vital as climate change continues to dwindle food access for many Americans. Without a new farm bill, “we’re stuck with what [food insecurity] looked like in 2018, which is not what it looks like today in 2024.” 

    Nutrition programs governed by the current law were designed to address pre-pandemic levels of hunger in a world that had not yet crossed key climate thresholds. As the crisis of planetary warming deepens, fueling crises that tend to deepen existing barriers to food access in areas affected, food programs authorized in the farm bill are “an extraordinarily important part of disaster response,” said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer at the nonprofit Feeding America. “The number of disasters that Feeding America food banks are asked to respond to each year is only increasing with extreme weather fueled by climate change.” 

    That strain is making it more critical than ever that Congress increase funding for programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. Its Farm to Food Bank Project Grants, established under the 2018 law, underwrites projects that enable the nation’s food banks to have a supply of fresh food produced by local farmers and growers. It must be written into the new bill or risk being phased out. 

    David Toledo, an urban farmer in Chicago, used to work with a local food pantry and community garden that supplies fresh produce to neighborhoods that need it. To Toledo, the farm bill is a gateway to solutions to the impacts of climate change on the accessibility of food in the U.S. He wants to see lawmakers put aside politics and pass a bill for the good of the people they serve.

    “With the farm bill, what is at stake is a healthy nation, healthy communities, engagements from farmers and rising farmers. And I mean, God forbid, but the potential of seeing a lot more hunger,” Toledo said. “It needs to pass. It needs to pass with bipartisan support. There’s so much at the table right now.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The election could shape the future of America’s food system on Sep 27, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • America’s Lawyer E116: Mark Robinson – the Republican candidate for governor in North Carolina – recently had his entire online history exposed to the world, and it looks like his campaign could be beyond fixing at this point. Hillary Clinton is back in the news, and as usual, it isn’t because she did something good. […]

    The post CNN Unleashes Shocking Report On GOP’s “Black Nazi” appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Both the Harris and Trump campaigns are planning a mad dash to the finish line, but the real race only comes down to just a handful of swing states. Also, the American public is hugely divided on every issue – according to the media. But the truth is that the public actually agrees on MOST […]

    The post Polls Show Swing State Votes Are Still Up For Grabs & Corporate Media Is Loving U.S. Division appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a new lawsuit accusing them of fraudulently using bankruptcy to avoid paying the victims who got cancer from their deadly products. Plus, a college professor named Allan Lichtman has been called the Nostradamus of American politics for accurately predicting nearly every presidential race for 20 years. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. […]

    The post J&J Continues To Dodge Talc Liability & Psychics And Bookies Cash In On 2024 Predictions appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • The decision last week by the Georgia State Election Board to require a statewide hand count of ballots in the 2024 election has sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with commentators noting that it will likely create unnecessary delays and uncertainty regarding the accuracy of several key races, including potentially the presidential election. One of Georgia’s U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This story is part of State of Emergency, a Grist series exploring how climate disasters are impacting voting and politics. It is published with support from the CO2 Foundation.

    During the presidential debate earlier this month, Vice President Kamala Harris was asked about her plan to fight climate change. Her response didn’t focus on the dangers of drought or rising sea levels, or unveil an ambitious plan to reign in fossil fuel emissions. Instead, her answer focused on home insurance. “It is very real,” Harris said. “You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or it’s being jacked up.”

    Just a few years ago, Harris’ insurance comments may have been considered wonky or boring to voters. But since 2020, the increasing number and severity of natural disasters like wildfires and hurricanes have cast home insurance markets into turmoil, leading to an explosive rise in premiums. 

    Unaffordable premiums now represent one of the most tangible ways that climate change is affecting everyday Americans. And this election season, insurance commissioners — the state officials in charge of overseeing these markets — are suddenly in the hot seat. 

    These officials have historically operated outside of the spotlight, steeped in financial statements and wonky regulations. In the 11 states that elect their commissioners — the rest appoint them — these races have rarely received much interest. In some elections, incumbents don’t even face a challenger. In others, state data shows that as many as 17 percent of voters simply skip over that section of their ballots. 

    “It’s just not something [voters] pay attention to until things go wrong,” said Dave Jones, who served as California’s insurance commissioner from 2011 to 2019. “Right now, things are going wrong.”

    In recent years, insurance companies have found themselves increasingly on the hook for homes hit by wildfires and severe storms. In Louisiana, a parade of back-to-back hurricanes and extreme storms in 2020 and 2021 caused insurers to pay out well over twice as much money as they brought in. Similarly, in Colorado, where the state has experienced over 40 billion-dollar disasters in the past decade, insurers lost money in eight of the past 11 years. 

    To pay for all this damage, premiums have been skyrocketing nationwide. According to a 2024 study of insurance rates, the average home premium rose 33 percent between 2020 and 2023. In disaster-prone areas like Florida, the Gulf Coast, and California, rates have increased even more, with some insurers pulling out of markets entirely. 

    Chart showing the average U.S. homeowners insurance premiums from 2014-2023


    “The insurance crisis that people and businesses are experiencing — not just in California, but across the United States — is the price that we’re paying for failure to more aggressively transition from a fossil fuel-based economy,” Jones said.

    These rising costs are prompting voters to take a closer look at elected commissioners that regulate the industry in their home states — and it is forcing candidates to more thoroughly consider insurance shifts and climate change in their platforms.

    States have been regulating their insurance markets for more than 150 years, with New Hampshire appointing the nation’s first commissioner in 1851. These regulators are tasked with setting reasonable limits on how much insurance companies can charge for home, car, health, and life insurance. They also oversee how insurers manage their money, so they have enough to pay their bills when disaster strikes. For the vast majority of their history, insurance commissioners haven’t thought much about climate change.

    “When I came in, climate change was kind of a footnote,” said Mike Kreidler, Washington’s outgoing insurance commissioner, who was first elected to the office in 2000. “That was something that bothered me a lot, because I saw the risks.”

    Kreidler’s early attempts at climate action were met with fierce resistance. As an early member of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ climate working group, he recalled some of his peers asking him to remove the word “climate change” from his proposals. “I took a lot of abuse back then on these issues,” Kreidler said. “It’s not something that a number of commissioners wanted to talk about.”

    Even in progressive states, climate change was often overshadowed by flashier issues. In California, Jones first ran for office in the wake of the newly passed Affordable Care Act. He and his 2010 opponent both campaigned almost entirely on health care issues. 

    But by Jones’ second term, it was clear things were changing. California was starting to see a worrying trend of expensive wildfires: Starting in 2015, California was hit with billion-dollar wildfires every year until 2023. One of the most tragic examples came in 2018, when the Camp Fire devastated the Northern California town of Paradise, leveling entire neighborhoods and displacing more than 50,000 residents. Jones spent his final year in office making sure fire victims received the claims they were owed, and writing recommendations to protect the system against future disasters. 

    Former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones holds up a copy of a report during a news conference about the costs of wildfires in 2018, in San Francisco.
    AP Photo/Eric Risberg

    Soon, other states joined California in starting to feel the effects of climate change on the insurance market. In 2021, home premiums — which had remained relatively stable until then — dramatically started to spike nationwide. Insurance commissioners could no longer afford to ignore the impacts of worsening extreme weather. Some candidates, like Delaware’s incumbent insurance commissioner Trinidad Navarro, have called climate change one of the most concerning issues going forward. It’s “become a number one issue for insurance regulators across the United States,” Jones said.

    It has become an important issue for voters as well. Over the last few years, major insurance companies have started backing out of high-risk parts of the country. California’s largest insurer, State Farm, stopped accepting new customers, and will not renew policies for roughly 30,000 homeowners and renters living in certain risky parts of the state. Meanwhile, in Florida, so many homeowners have been denied coverage that the government-created “last-resort” program is now the largest insurance provider in the state. This trend — of fewer and more expensive options — is leading some frustrated voters to turn their attention toward their elected leaders. 

    This year, North Carolina has become the battleground of one of the nation’s first insurance commissioner races centered largely around climate impacts. Coastal storms and hurricanes are taking a worsening toll on the state — like Hurricane Florence, which caused over $16 billion in property damage in 2018. In response, North Carolina insurers requested a 42 percent increase in home insurance rates. In certain coastal neighborhoods, they asked for a rate increase of 99 percent. 

    This proposal was met with fury: Insurance commissioner Mike Causey, a Republican, received more than 24,000 emails, and a public comment session held earlier this year was filled with roughly seven hours of angry testimony, from small town mayors to ordinary homeowners. Senior citizens feared that their social security income wouldn’t cover their new premiums, and local military families worried that their housing allowances would also fall short. Realtors worried the new rates would deal a devastating blow to the state’s housing market. Causey eventually rejected the initial proposal, calling them “excessive and unfairly discriminatory,” but has yet to settle on new insurance rates. Causey did not respond to multiple interview requests.

    For Natasha Marcus, a Democratic state senator challenging Causey in the election this year, this public outcry has brought a lot of attention to the commissioner race. According to an August poll from the group Carolina Forward, Marcus and Causey are currently neck-and-neck. “It’s the sexiest race on the ballot,” Marcus said, half jokingly. “As soon as people realize how directly it impacts their wallets, they take an interest.”

    Marcus is hoping for more transparency in the rate-setting process, to give customers a better sense of whether premium hikes are truly justified. Her vision is for a courtroom-like procedure, where insurers can make their case to the public, and her office can cross-examine their arguments.

    Democratic candidate for North Carolina’s Commissioner of Insurance, Natasha Marcus, speaks at a primary election night party in Raleigh on March 5.
    AP Photo/Karl B DeBlaker

    While Marcus acknowledges the threat of climate change, she feels that North Carolina insurers are using extreme weather as a pretext to ask for unreasonably high rates, pointing to a New York Times investigation that shows the state’s insurers have made profits 10 of the past 11 years. She worries that large insurance companies are seeking easy profits from North Carolina to make up for the money they’re losing in other states.

    A 2022 Federal Reserve analysis found that insurers are indeed quicker to ask for rate hikes in states with looser insurance regulations, and more hesitant in highly regulated states like California — even if those states experience frequent disasters. 

    However, Ben Keys, an economist and professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, says that this trend does not explain the recent hike in insurance costs. He and a colleague recently analyzed premiums from 47 million homeowners across the country, revealing an unprecedented view into the causes of the insurance crisis.

    Over the past 40 years, Americans have been moving to more disaster-prone regions of the U.S. South and West. “A hurricane cutting the Gulf side of Florida now just encounters way more houses, way more businesses, way more roads, way more infrastructure than it did 40 years ago,” Keys said.

    At the same time, climate change has been increasing the frequency and severity of extreme storms and wildfires in those fast-growing regions. Finally, when disaster strikes, inflation and labor shortages have driven up the cost of rebuilding. 

    All of these factors have made disasters more expensive, and contributed to the rise in premiums. But the biggest factor behind the rise, according to Keys, is the way that climate change is reshaping a fundamental pillar of the insurance industry.

    Insurance is built around the assumption that disaster doesn’t strike everyone at the same time. For many types of insurance, that assumption is mostly true — a car insurer, for example, knows that it’s unlikely that every driver will get into a fender bender on the exact same day. But when it comes to home insurance, climate change is causing this assumption to crumble. A major wildfire could easily burn down an entire town, or a hurricane could easily rip the roofs off all the homes in a neighborhood. For this reason, insurance companies in disaster-prone regions end up purchasing their own insurance policies, known as “reinsurance.” 


    Reinsurance protects regular insurance companies from going bankrupt from a string of major disasters. Since reinsurance companies cover the epicenters of extreme weather, they’ve recently become extremely sensitive to climate risk. Since 2020, premiums for reinsurance have doubled, and will likely continue to rise. In states that experience frequent extreme weather disasters — like Louisiana, Texas, and Florida — insurance companies end up purchasing a lot of expensive reinsurance, and those costs get passed down to customers. 

    This is the biggest factor behind the recent surge in home insurance premiums, and Keys doesn’t expect it to stop anytime soon. In a recent interview with Bloomberg, Jacques de Vaucleroy, the chairman of the major reinsurance firm Swiss Re, said that reinsurance premiums will continue to rise until people stop building in dangerous areas. 

    This puts candidates like Marcus in a difficult position. Voters may hate high insurance rates, but they also love their state’s beautiful coastline. “It is not a solution to say, ‘Well, there will just be no houses on the coast anymore,’” Marcus said. “Nobody wants that.” 

    Mike Pollack searches for a drain in the yard of his flooded waterfront home in Wilmington, North Carolina, a day after Hurricane Florence in 2018.
    Mark Wilson/Getty Images

    Keys thinks that insurance commissioners will have to make some difficult and unpopular decisions going forward. He worries that elected commissioners might choose to please voters in the short term, instead of addressing the root causes.

    “It’s very fraught to have an elected official in charge of regulating this market,” Keys said. “If you set prices too low, then you make voters happy — but at the cost of not reflecting the true risk. That’s going to encourage people to build more in risky areas.”

    While Marcus believes the rate hikes proposed earlier this year in North Carolina were unjustified, she acknowledges that climate change will inevitably cause rates to increase in the future. “I never promise that I will never raise your rates if you elect me,” Marcus said. “It sounds really good on the campaign trail, but I tell the truth. And the truth is, sometimes rates do need to go up.”

    Instead, Marcus hopes that more transparency would keep insurers honest, and her campaign pledges to push for more adaptation and resilience. For example, North Carolina’s high-risk insurance program offers grants to policyholders to storm-proof their roofs. Marcus would like to see more resources devoted to that program. “If the hurricane comes through and your roof stays on, you’re going to have a lot less damage,” Marcus said. “That helps reduce insurance costs for everybody.” 

    This is something that insurance commissioner candidates in other states are pushing for as well. In Montana, a state that over the past decade has averaged 7.2 million acres burned annually, Republican candidate James Brown has called for insurance incentives for homeowners who implement fire resilience measures to their homes. In Washington, Democratic candidate Patty Kuderer has called for similar plans in her state.

    This combination of photos shows a house on a hillside near Cle Elum, Washington, surrounded by wildfire flames on August 14, 2012, top, and a day later, bottom. The house survived because of fire resilience measures, including the placement of the driveway and the lack of trees and brush up against the house.
    AP Photo/Elaine Thompson


    Jones, now the director of the Climate Risk Initiative at the University of California, Berkeley, has been advocating for similar reforms in California since leaving office. In recent years, the state and local governments have been spending millions on prescribed burning and thinning in order to make forests and communities more resilient to wildfires. Jones has been working with lawmakers to make sure California insurers take those investments into account when writing and pricing policies. 

    In this way, insurance could serve as both a carrot and a stick, discouraging people from building in risky areas, and also rewarding people for making their homes and communities more resilient. But Jones also hopes that voters will put the pieces together.

    “If the voters are connecting the dots, they should understand that what they’re experiencing — in terms of increased price and lack of availability of insurance — is driven by climate change, ” Jones said. “They should look to elect an insurance commissioner who’s going to be a leader in addressing the underlying driver of the problem, which is climate change.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Climate impacts put insurance commissioner races in the spotlight on Sep 24, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.