Category: republicans

  • People display signs during the Georgetown to Austin March for Democracy rally on July 31, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    While the big news from Texas this week was about the Supreme Court upholding the state’s ban on essentially all abortions in the state, a number of other restrictive laws that advance a far right Republican agenda also went into effect the same day.

    A total of 666 new laws were rolled out on Wednesday. Many of them, if they had been implemented individually, would have raised the alarm for Democrats and progressives. One law, for instance, criminalizes homelessness by disallowing people without homes from camping in a public location, making the act a misdemeanor with a $500 fine. Another law will make it illegal for people to hire workers for sex, which critics say will only exacerbate dangerous conditions for sex workers.

    Many of the laws that went into effect on September 1 were a direct backlash against the Movement for Black Lives that gained momentum across the country over the past year, along with the general movement for racial justice. One bill will create financial penalties for medium to large municipalities that decline their police departments’ budgets yearly.

    Another bill that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed in June bans the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. The scholarly theory, deliberately misinterpreted and politicized by the GOP, is not taught in grade schools. However, the intent of the law is to discourage educators from teaching American history without a white supremacist lens or talking about race in school. It bars teachers from giving “deference” to either side of a conflict while teaching about historical events.

    One bill, which again appears to be a backlash against last year’s mass uprisings for racial justice, makes it a felony for protestors to block a road while protesting. This will lead to harsher penalties for left-wing protesters who already face disproportionate punishment and violence from police when they demonstrate.

    A law that bans establishments from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine before entry also went into effect on Wednesday after having been signed by Abbott earlier this year. The punishment for requiring vaccinations is especially harsh on businesses: a business could be denied state contracts or even lose their license if they are found requiring customers to be vaccinated.

    And then, of course, Texas also implemented a law that essentially overturns Roe v. Wade in the state, outlawing abortions at a point so early in the pregnancy that most people don’t even realize that they are pregnant. It will do untold damage to the millions of people in the state that it affects — especially low-income people who don’t have the wherewithal to go out of state to seek abortion care

    Texas Republicans are working on yet more restrictive laws to come, many of them advancing a radical authoritarian agenda.

    Abbott called the current special legislative session just so Republicans could pass a number of radical bills that the legislature wasn’t able to pass during the regular session. One is a bill aimed at making it harder for non-white people and people with disabilities to vote. The legislature passed the bill Tuesday, and Abbott has pledged to sign it.

    Unsatisfied with just one bill scaring teachers from talking about race in schools, Republican legislators in the special session are advancing yet another supposed critical race theory bill that would remove required civil rights teachings from the curriculum, including writings from Martin Luther King, Jr. and lessons about slavery, white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan being “morally wrong.”

    Republicans are also hoping to pass a slate of hateful anti-trans bills that would limit health care access for transgender youth, bar them from participating in sports, and more. The Texas GOP is following a wave of anti-trans laws being passed by Republicans across the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Susan Collins listens during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on July 20, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a 2018 speech announcing her decisive vote in favor of confirming right-wing judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine insisted — despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary — that he would value legal precedent and not support efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    But less than three years later, Kavanaugh effectively did just that by joining four of his fellow conservative justices late Wednesday in voting to leave in place Texas’ six-week abortion ban, the most restrictive in the nation. While the court’s 5-4 majority claimed in a brief unsigned order that its decision “is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’ law,” analysts argued that the conservative justices’ move guts Roe v. Wade “under the cover of a procedural punt.”

    In the weeks ahead of her vote to confirm Kavanaugh — a Trump nominee who was accused of sexual assault — Collins repeatedly expressed her belief that the judge “reveres our Constitution” and would not approve of overturning Roe, a 1973 decision that established abortion as a constitutional right.

    A compilation of Collins’ remarks posted online in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Wednesday order offers a glimpse at some of the Maine senator’s past comments touting Kavanaugh’s expressed commitment to keeping Roe intact:

    Marie Follayttar, director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, told Common Dreams on Thursday that Collins “will forever be the U.S. senator who gaslit a nation and her constituents and voted to install Brett Kavanaugh, who cast a vote against a woman’s right to an abortion.”

    “This is Susan Collins’ court and her legacy,” said Follayttar. “Collins told us that Kavanaugh would respect precedent. Two hundred and thirty Maine attorneys wrote her that Kavanaugh would ‘cast the fifth vote, making a majority, to erode or eliminate federal protections for a woman’s right to choose.’”

    “We failed to defeat Susan Collins at the ballot box, but we will succeed in making sure her role in overturning Roe vs. Wade is remembered,” she continued. “It’s incumbent on the Biden administration and Democratic leadership to expand the court, abolish the filibuster, and protect our right to an abortion. Anything less is unacceptable.”

    The Texas law that the Supreme Court opted to uphold with its dead-of-night order empowers private individuals to sue abortion providers and anyone who “aids and abets” patients attempting to obtain the procedure after around six weeks of a pregnancy. Texas Republicans deliberately crafted the law — which amounts to a near-total ban on abortions in the state — to shield it from legal challenges, a maneuver that other GOP-controlled states are now likely to replicate.

    Slate court reporter Mark Joseph Stern wrote early Thursday that “although the majority did not say these words exactly, the upshot of Wednesday’s decision is undeniable: The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion. Roe is no longer good law.”

    “In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was ‘not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked,’” Stern noted. “Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators are gathered outside of the Texas State Capitol during a voting rights rally on the first day of the 87th Legislature's special session on July 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Despite weeks of protest by Democrats in the state, Texas Republicans succeeded this week in passing their sweeping voter suppression law, which will make it harder for voters with disabilities and non-white voters in the state to cast a balllot. It now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has vowed to sign it.

    The bill has long been decried by Democrats and advocates as a push by Republicans after the 2020 election to draw lines between who is and isn’t allowed to vote. It takes aim at measures that have historically driven turnout from Black and Latinx voters and other disenfranchised groups.

    The bill, S.B.1, outlaws drive-through voting, for instance — a method of voting widely used by non-white voters to cast a ballot last year. Drive-through voting, which some counties had rolled out for the 2020 election, was a popular method, with about 1 in 10 early voters in Harris County casting their ballot that way.

    Harris County, the state’s most populous county, had also implemented a 24-hour early voting program that officials offered for one day. Republicans also outlawed 24-hour voting in their bill, taking special issue with Harris county’s methods to increase turnout — perhaps partly because the county voted for President Joe Biden by a margin of nearly 30 points in 2020.

    The Texas GOP is also creating hurdles for disabled people to vote. Some people with disabilities need another person to assist them in filling out a ballot. But the new bill will create an application process for people assisting others in voting and anyone assisting a disabled voter could potentially face criminal penalties if they perform a misstep.

    S.B.1 contains a wide swath of other restrictions as well. For example, it makes it a felony for election officials to send out unsolicited mail-in ballot applications — another direct response to a Harris County initiative — and calls for stricter voter ID requirements for voting by mail. Further, the bill empowers partisan poll watchers who could intimidate voters when they go to cast a ballot and creates a monthly review system to check voter rolls for noncitizens. Though there are few to no documented cases of noncitizens voting in Texas, it did not stop Donald Trump from propagating the lie that it was a widespread problem.

    Democratic lawmakers in Texas had fled the state for over a month to deny the legislature quorum and block the bill. But enough lawmakers returned after Republicans voted to threaten them with arrest warrants for the GOP’s marquee bill to pass.

    Advocates, journalists and Democrats decried the passage of S.B.1. “The Texas legislature just passed its egregious voter suppression bill,” tweeted University of California, Berkeley professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Meanwhile, voting rights legislation languishes in the Senate because [Senators Joe] Manchin and [Kyrsten] Sinema refuse to work around the filibuster. This is how democracy dies.”

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo vowed to fight the legislation. “The voter suppression bill has passed the legislature in Texas. We won’t give up now. We will fight this in court,” she wrote on Twitter. “And we will work relentlessly so voters in Harris County, from both parties, can cast a ballot despite these shameless suppression efforts.”

    Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement shortly after the bill was passed that he is planning to sign S.B.1 into law, citing spurious concerns about so-called election integrity. Republicans have offered a variety of excuses to implement such widespread voting restrictions in what was already one of the hardest states in which to cast a vote.

    But the Texas GOP’s intentions, much like the intentions of Republicans across the country trying to implement similar restrictions, are transparent: They want to make it harder to vote, especially for populations that they perceive to be Democrats, so that they never lose an election again.

    After failing to manipulate and then overturn the 2020 election — including attempting to cover up a violent attempted coup — Republicans have all but outright said that their goal is to ensure Republican wins in presidential and down ballot elections.

    This statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) last year is just one example of countless others made by Republicans across the U.S.: “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”

    It’s not just voter restrictions that Republicans are pushing, however. Texas Republicans are prepared to pull off yet another gerrymandering session that will turn the tides even further in their favor, after having pulled off an extremely bold partisan gerrymandering map 10 years ago.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) (C) joined by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) (L) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks a news conference on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to reject two of Leader McCarthy’s selected members from serving on the committee investigating the January 6th riots on July 21, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) on Tuesday may have broken the law when he issued a threat to telecommunications companies that comply with a request by the January 6 committee to preserve and potentially turn over call records relating to the attack, including those of members of Congress.

    McCarthy called out Democrats like January 6 committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), claiming that the committee’s request was an attempt to “strong-arm” communications companies.

    He also dubiously claimed that it would be illegal for the companies to comply with the government request, leaving them with a threat. “[A] Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law,” he wrote. His office has failed to produce a specific law that the companies’ compliance would violate.

    Legal experts disagree with McCarthy’s claim. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen said Wednesday that “no, there is no law” that the telecommunications companies would be breaking. In fact, Eisen said, it would be illegal if the telecommunications companies destroyed the records or refused to turn them over, as McCarthy suggested they do.

    “This is absolutely unjustified by [the] law and it raises serious questions under the House ethics rules,” Eisen said. “It meets the elements of obstruction. It’s a threat. It’s an attempt to stop them, through that threat, from turning over documents. It’s self-motivated, it’s corrupt. McCarthy is worried about what may be in those records on him.”

    Democrats are also alarmed about McCarthy’s threat. “I see it as clear obstruction of justice,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California) told The Washington Post. Swalwell said that officials should consider referring McCarthy’s threat to the Department of Justice. “He’s telling the telecommunications companies to not honor a lawful subpoena, or there could be some penalty down the line,” Swalwell continued.

    While it is known that McCarthy had a call with President Donald Trump on January 6, there is little information on the content of that call. And though nearly eight months have passed since the attack, McCarthy has remained guarded about what he discussed with Trump that day.

    The records, which the committee began seeking last week, may shine a light on his fellow Republicans lawmakers too. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also had a phone call with Trump that day; other lawmakers like Representatives Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) have been accused of collaborating with members of the far right in planning the attack.

    A spokesperson for the committee said that the group is not fazed by McCarthy’s threat. “The Select Committee is investigating the violent attack on the Capitol and attempt to overturn the results of last year’s election,” the spokesperson said in a statement, per Politico. “We’ve asked companies not to destroy records that may help answer questions for the American people. The committee’s efforts won’t be deterred by those who want to whitewash or cover up the events of January 6th, or obstruct our investigation.”

    Republicans have spent the last several months downplaying the violent attempt — which resulted in the death of seven people — to get Congress to reinstate Trump against the will of the voters. The party’s motivations, meanwhile, have remained relatively clear: to obstruct the investigation by every means possible. Trump last week also tried to prevent communications logs related to January 6 from coming out after the committee requested documents from the White House.

    Earlier this year, Republicans struck down a bill that would have created a bipartisan January 6 commission, even after Democrats had made several concessions to get them on board. Then, McCarthy attempted to sabotage the House committee, picking questionable figures like avid Trump supporter Rep. Jordan who was fully behind the attempt to overthrow the election results to investigate the attack.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mike Rogers stands in front of a u.s. flag

    Just as the United States completed its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan on Monday after two decades of war and occupation, House Republicans announced plans to push for a $25 billion increase in annual military spending — a proposal that progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups swiftly rejected.

    Led by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, the GOP intends to pursue a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendment that would add $25 billion to President Joe Biden’s $753 billion topline military spending request for Fiscal Year 2022.

    The House Armed Services panel — which is awash in donations from weapons makers and other major industry players — is expected to begin marking up Biden’s request on Wednesday.

    “Rogers’ amendment would dole out $15 billion to address a spate of military unfunded priorities that weren’t included in the Pentagon’s budget request,” Politico reported Monday. “It would add $9.8 billion to weapons procurement accounts, including money for four more Navy ships, more planes and helicopters for the Navy, Marine Corps, and National Guard, and upgraded Army combat vehicles.”

    Approval of the GOP’s amendment would bring the House version of the NDAA — a sprawling annual defense policy bill that typically passes with overwhelming bipartisan support — into line with the Senate’s. Last month, as Common Dreams reported, the Senate Armed Services Committee agreed to pile $25 billion onto Biden’s proposal, which already calls for an increase over Trump-era Pentagon spending levels.

    The House GOP’s amendment would bring total U.S. military spending for FY2022 to $778 billion, a figure that progressives immediately condemned as unacceptable.

    “They want billions more for war even as we withdraw from Afghanistan,” tweeted Public Citizen, a government watchdog group. “We have to stop this amendment.”

    Progressive members of Congress, meanwhile, are calling on the House Armed Services Committee to block any effort to increase U.S. military spending beyond the level that Biden proposed in April.

    In a letter sent Monday to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the hawkish chair of the committee, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and 25 other House Democrats argued that “at a time when America’s largest national security threat is a global pandemic, our spending priorities should embrace efforts such as increased Covid vaccination efforts abroad instead of continually increased military spending.”

    “Surpassing the president’s request by such a large and unwarranted amount should not be the starting position of the House Armed Services Committee, particularly when current defense spending levels should already be reduced,” the lawmakers wrote. “America spends more on its military than the next 11 largest defense-spending nations combined. This will remain true if the president’s budget request were enacted, and the ratio will only increase under the Senate’s proposal.”

    The latest round of congressional debate over Pentagon spending came as the final U.S. military plane departed Kabul’s international airport on Monday, marking the close of a war and occupation that killed 241,000 people — including more than 47,000 Afghan civilians — and cost the U.S. $2.3 trillion. But while the U.S. may no longer have a troop presence in Afghanistan, military operations such as drone strikes are expected to continue.

    “As we watch the tragic humanitarian situation unfold in Afghanistan, we must reevaluate our priorities when it comes to cutting the bloated defense budget that has enabled 40 years of blank-check wars around the globe,” Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, said in a statement Monday. “Despite trillions of dollars poured into our endless military spending, this budget has failed to meet the greatest threats that our nation and our world faces today, including the Covid-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the needs of 140 million people living in poverty.”

    “Now is the time to shift our investments away from endless wars and toward addressing human needs,” Lee added.

    In an analysis released earlier this month, Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project estimated that the roughly $19 billion the Pentagon budgeted for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in 2020 alone would be enough to fund initial resettlement costs for 1.2 million refugees.

    “We’d face even lower costs to help resettle Afghans in countries closer to home — all the more reason after 20 years of war to step up with some serious resources and get it done,” Koshgarian wrote. “After twenty years, we owe the Afghan people at least that much.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trucks drive past leaning power lines and flaming smokestacks spewing black smoke into the air

    It is an understatement to say there is a lot going on right now. The two biggest stories over the weekend were the winding up of the dangerous airlift out of Afghanistan and the arrival of an epic hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

    Now is a dangerous time — but judging from the news coverage, I don’t think we’ve fully grasped just how much danger Americans are actually in.

    In a number of states, this latest COVID-19 surge, driven by the lethal Delta variant, has now surpassed the deadly surge of last winter. In two hard-hit states, the massive hurricane is coinciding with an equally massive surge in hospitalizations, making for an extremely volatile situation.

    According to LAIlluminator, which covers Louisiana state and local government, hospitals have been at capacity for weeks, as have all the other hospitals throughout the region, causing the authorities to make the frightening decision not to evacuate patients. There was nowhere for them to go. Temporary shelters had to be kept at lower numbers because of the COVID risk and nursing homes residents who would normally be transferred to hospitals due to serious medical conditions were told to shelter in place.

    The Illuminator reports that while Louisiana has had a rough go with this round of COVID, it was thought to be turning the corner last week. On Friday COVID hospitalization was below 2,700. That is 300 fewer than the week before but the positivity rate is still very high and people not able to follow precautions during the emergency will cause more of the virus to circulate, likely leading to another surge. Nobody knows what will happen to the inevitable victims of injuries and accidents in the aftermath.

    Louisiana’s Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, reintroduced an indoor mask mandate weeks ago and has been exhorting people to get vaccinated but many of his rural constituents have refused to comply. The state has only a 40% vaccination rate, much lower than the national average. Like many others, they managed to get most elderly patients the shot, but younger folks just haven’t seen the need. The cultural and political pressure among Republicans in the state to defy the health professionals, and their Democratic governor, is enormous.

    The Mississippi coast took a battering from the hurricane as well, but its COVID surge is far more life-threatening to many more people in the state. The New York Times reported that Mississippi was “uniquely unprepared” for this latest onslaught of COVID patients:

    The state has fewer active physicians per capita than any other. Five rural hospitals have closed in the past decade, and 35 more are at imminent risk of closing, according to an assessment from a nonprofit health care quality agency. There are 2,000 fewer nurses in Mississippi today than there were at the beginning of the year, according to the state hospital association.

    The Times characterizes this as a combination of “poverty and politics” but really, it’s just politics — that’s what’s at the heart of the poverty and everything else.

    The state is never very generous when it comes to benefits, which they tend to see as going to “the wrong people” (if you know what I mean). But by rejecting the Medicaid expansion that came with the Affordable Care Act, they willfully deprived themselves of the money that would have allowed them to alleviate many of the current deficiencies in their system. And Mississippi’s Republican governor has basically given up, the Mississippi Free Press reports:

    After Mississippi became the world’s No. 1 hotspot for COVID-19, Gov. Tate Reeves told attendees at a Republican Party fundraiser in Memphis, Tenn., on Thursday, Aug. 26, 2021, that Mississippians “are a little less scared” of COVID-19 than other Americans because most share Christian beliefs (about 70% of all Americans identify as Christian).

    “When you believe in eternal life—when you believe that living on this earth is but a blip on the screen, then you don’t have to be so scared of things,” Bill Dries reported the governor saying in the Daily Memphian.

    I’m no Biblical scholar but I do seem to recall something about the Lord helping those who help themselves.

    This summer’s Delta surge has hit all the states but has been particularly virulent in the Southern states, the epicenter of anti-vax activity.

    And yes, there are a number of reasons why people haven’t gotten vaccinated in the last few months when they’ve been (mostly) easily accessible, free and very effective. Many young people erroneously believe they aren’t in danger of serious illness and some people of color are just generally leery of government edicts to take vaccines because of America’s woeful history of using those populations for experimentation. But the largest cohort of people who are winding up in the hospital are those who are refusing for irrational political reasons. The vast majority of deaths could have been avoided if the victims had gotten vaccinated.

    And just as they did during the first surges, they are not only adamantly against vaccine mandates, they are protesting all mitigation measures such as requiring masks in schools despite the fact that children under 12 are unable to be vaccinated so there is also a surge of kids getting sick and being hospitalized. And following their leader, Donald Trump, they are still perversely willing to take dangerous, untried snake oil cures while refusing to take the vaccine which has been received by hundreds of millions of people all over the globe with only minor side effects.

    Even the COVID deaths of a spate of high-profile anti-mask protesters and flamboyantly anti-vax right-wing media stars don’t seem to have changed the minds of the hardest core, true believers. It seems that the only time any of them change their minds is when they are on their own deathbeds and it’s too late.

    There have been millions of words written about the American right-wing’s hostility to science over many decades. Cynical politicians in the pockets of wealthy interests have worked hard to exploit it. But this weekend has illustrated both the long and short-term threat of this insensate attitude. The ongoing rejection of the dangers of climate change and the resulting warming of ocean waters is fueling the new devastating pattern of monster storms that we are seeing more and more often. The hostility to public health measures and life-saving vaccines during this pandemic has extended this crisis to the point that we are now endangering children and killing thousands of people who didn’t have to die.

    In the states along the Gulf of Mexico this weekend two existential emergencies collided and it didn’t have to happen. It’s terrifying to contemplate but unless we are able to figure out a way to change the hearts and minds of the rigid and stubborn minority of science deniers in this country, this is just the beginning.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Speaker of the House Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, gavels in the 87th Legislature's special session in the House chamber at the State Capitol on July 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Texas’s Speaker of the House warned representatives in the Texas State House on Thursday night not to use the word “racism” when debating the Republicans’ voter suppression bill..

    Speaker Dade Phelan, a Republican, started debate on the bill by saying “the chair would appreciate members not using the word ‘racism’ this afternoon,” according to the Houston Chronicle. He insisted that it was a matter of respect.

    Republican legislators in Texas have been objecting to claims that their voter suppression bill, or S.B. 1, is racist. The bill has been slammed by voting rights advocates and Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) as the “Jim Crow 2.0” for its prohibitive voting requirements and overtly racist voting restrictions.

    In April, the Houston Chronicle reported that GOP Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said, “you’re in essence calling us racist, and that will not stand,” in response to these Democratic criticisms of the bill’s racist effects.

    The chamber advanced the bill 79 to 37, with only one Republican voting no. It is expected to pass in a floor vote on Friday, after which it goes back to the Texas State Senate, where senators can pass the new bill or reconcile differences between a similar bill previously passed by the chamber.

    If passed, the bill would ban 24-hour and drive-through voting, voting options that have been championed as expanding access in nonwhite communities. It would make it harder for people with disabilities to vote by restricting the ability of those who help them turn in their ballots. And, among a slate of other restrictions, it would also bar local election officials from sending unsolicited mail-in ballot applications, with the aim of restricting mail-in voting.

    Texas Democrats had fled the legislature in July to block a special session in which Texas Republicans planned to pass the voter suppression bill, anti-trans laws, and more. In an effort to force a vote on the voter suppression law, Texas House Republicans earlier this month voted to arrest their Democratic counterparts if they didn’t return to the state.

    Democratic lawmakers pointed out the bill’s implicit and explicit racist effects in debate on Thursday night.

    “The courts have pointed out over and over and over again: intentional discrimination against African Americans, intentional discrimination against Latinos, intentional discrimination against people of color. These are not my words. These are three federal courts across this country making 10 findings of that intentional discrimination,” said Rep. Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat.

    Hinojosa was referencing past court rulings against Texas election law, including a 2012 ruling finding that Texas lawmakers didn’t comply with the Voting Rights Act when drawing district maps that cycle. “Intentional discrimination against people of a different race…” Hinojosa said. “Is that racism?”

    Phelan interjected, saying, “we can talk about racial impacts with this legislation without accusing members of this body of being racist.” Hinojosa pointed out that she hadn’t accused any one lawmaker as being racist.

    Democrats expressed frustration and anger over Phelan’s attempted ban on discussing racism in the chamber. “Wow. The Speaker just asked us to not use the word ‘racism’ during debate today,” wrote Democratic Rep. Erin Zwiener on Twitter. “SB 1 will harm the freedom to vote for all Texans, but it will disproportionately impact people of color. That’s racist, no matter how you dress it up. Period.”

    “One Republican has already filed an amendment to put the ‘Souls to the Polls’ provision that would limit black churches voting on Sunday morning back in the bill. It’s racist,” Zwiener continued. “Coddling R legislators who are uncomfortable about how this bill hurts people of color is not our job.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) listens at a press event following the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, at the U.S. Capitol on August 24, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    The House passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Tuesday evening. The bill would empower nonwhite voters and enable the federal government to move against racial discrimination in voting.

    The bill, named for the late Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia and civil rights advocate who died last year, passed the House 219 to 212 along party lines. It now goes to the Senate, where it stands an exceedingly slim chance of passing.

    Democrats and progressives have been pushing for the bill’s passage for years. If signed into law, it would restore and strengthen a rule shot down by conservative Supreme Court justices in 2013 that weakened protections from the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Previously, jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to gain approval from the Justice Department if they were seeking to change their election rules, a process called preclearance.

    The Supreme Court shot down that part of the Voting Rights Act eight years ago when it ruled that the way that Congress was deciding which jurisdictions had to undergo preclearance was outdated. Law experts like Attorney General Merrick Garland argue that the original preclearance process was “enormously effective,” though the John Lewis Act would create updated rules for preclearance to fit with modern practices of discrimination.

    The bill also addresses another Supreme Court decision from earlier this year, from Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that also severely weakened the section of the Voting Rights Act that limited states’ abilities to create racist voter suppression laws.

    Voting rights advocates have lauded the bill for its potential to help tamp down racist voter suppression in the election process and stem the tide of voter suppression laws being passed by Republicans across the country.

    But, partially because of that very potential, the bill stands a very low chance of gaining any Republican approval in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — the outdated practice that progressives have called for abolishing.

    “The House passed the For the People Act AND the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) on Twitter. “We’re tackling the urgent voter suppression crisis happening across our nation. It’s time for the Senate to do the same. End the filibuster.”

    Other lawmakers called for the full passage of the For the People Act, or H.R.1, on top of the John Lewis Act to continue upholding voting rights in the U.S.

    “The House passed HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — restoring key voting provisions undone by the Supreme Court,” tweeted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). “But the work continues. And it must continue in the form of HR 1’s passage to bring about a new era in our multiracial democracy.”

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) echoed that sentiment, saying “The House just passed HR 4, restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But our work isn’t done. The Senate must also pass HR 1, which would enact automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail, and early voting in every state.”

    Both H.R.1 and H.R.4, however, face opposition not only from Republicans but also from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), who has said that he is in favor of the John Lewis Act, but with caveats, which significantly weaken the bill. Manchin also said he is supportive of some parts of the For the People Act — but the parts he does not support happen to be the most significant ones, such as the campaign finance transparency proposals.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Pro-Pandemic protesters display signs against vaccines and social distancing measures

    Not too long ago, there was a time when Republicans insisted that they were against Big Government and wanted to push it down as much as possible to local control. They extolled the virtues of town councils, school boards and community commissions for being close to the people and, therefore, more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Government officials were neighbors and co-workers and friends so they had a better chance of truly understanding the issues people care about.

    But it was always a bit of a con since there were plenty of things they wanted the much-hated “Big Government” to do, such as dictate others’ personal behaviors and impose their religious beliefs on them. And they have been positively giddy about supporting a gigantic military even as they have lately pretended to be isolationists only interested in fortress America, which certainly doesn’t require the bloated military budget they rubber stamp without question. Nonetheless, the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s old saying that conservatives wanted to make the federal government small enough to “drown in the bathtub” was generally understood to mean that the national government should devolve to allow as much local control as possible.

    And then came the pandemic.

    From the beginning, governors of Republican states have done everything they could to undermine local leaders in their states, from public health officials to school boards to mayors, as they tried to battle this deadly virus by putting in place mitigation strategies to keep their constituents from dying. And it continues to this day. It started with former President Donald Trump, of course, when he turned the pandemic response into another ideological war back in the spring of 2020 to try to salvage his presidency. His only concern was that the economy would be roaring when it came time to vote in the fall so he sent a strong signal to his GOP allies that this would be the priority. They were happy to oblige.

    GOP governors quickly took up Trump’s negative message about masks and public health warnings about super-spreader events were boldly disregarded. Some quickly filed lawsuits, later upheld by the Supreme Court, which said there could be no restrictions on religious gatherings. With some exceptions, the GOP leadership opportunistically reacted to the pandemic as if it were a liberal plot to deprive them of their freedoms as a political strategy.

    Trump eventually left office presiding over the third surge of the virus and it was the worst by far. Obsessed as he was with The Big Lie and having survived COVID himself, he was no longer interested despite the fact that the vaccines were coming online and had the potential to end the pandemic in America in a matter of months. He made some flaccid attempts to claim credit for the development of the vaccines but didn’t even bother to make it public that he and his family had received their shots until months later. Trump’s legacy on the pandemic is solid: he was a massive failure.

    President Biden, on the other hand, assumed office and focused immediately on the vaccine rollout, getting hundreds of millions of people vaccinated in record time, sending FEMA and the military around the country to help out, and pushing the states in every way possible to make the vaccines accessible. For a few months, it looked as if we might have gotten through the worst of it and could all go back to living our lives as before. Unfortunately, all that Republican caterwauling about the mitigation strategies had been extended to the vaccines and tens of millions of GOP voters have refused to save their own lives and the lives of those around them out of a determination to believe conspiracy theories, misinformation and the not so subtle signals from the GOP elite.

    Now we are in what President Biden has called “the pandemic of the unvaccinated” with the Delta variant having swept the country and hospitalizing thousands of people just as we are confronting the prospect of sending kids back to school. Children under 12, who are unable to be vaccinated are at the mercy of these ideologically indoctrinated zealots who refuse to protect their own children and the children of others from this strain that is making many of them sick.

    The “mask wars” are back, this time with angry parents demanding that their kids not be required to protect themselves and others in crowded classrooms and defiant customers refusing to adhere to local mandates for masks inside public places. And while vaccinations have picked up in the last couple of weeks, there remain at least 70-80 million eligible people who are still not protected. According to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Republicans make up the vast majority of people who refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks or otherwise accept the reality that we are dealing with a deadly virus. And they are acting out all over the country.

    And once again, GOP governors are coddling them by banning mask requirements in schools, vaccine mandates for employers and any other means of getting enough people vaccinated to stop the progress of this virus. Right-wing media is pushing snake oil cures like an anti-parasite treatment for horses and cows, as Tucker Carlson did last week on his highly-rated Fox News broadcast. (The FDA had to send out a warning that humans should not take this drug after numerous reports from poison control centers around the country.) The results are shocking.

    In Republican states, hospitals are filling up with unvaccinated COVID patients, many of them younger than 50. In Mississippi, they are putting patients in parking garages, and in Texas, they have to medevac aortic dissection victims to other states because they don’t have any ICU beds. Hundreds of patients are unable to find hospital beds. And local officials are having to battle their state governments in Texas, Florida and South Carolina to allow them to do something about it while in Arkansas and Tennessee, the Republican governors are fighting with their own GOP legislatures to allow local officials to enact life-saving regulations.

    This is just one more example of the rot at the heart of what we once called the conservative movement. They never cared about small government and local control. They just pretended to. When push comes to shove they are always ready to squash anyone who disagrees with them using any means necessary, all the while calling it “freedom.” If people die because of it, well, that’s just politics.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bernie Sanders

    With both the Democrats’ policy priorities and the upcoming 2022 elections in mind, Sen. Bernie Sanders will travel next week to Republican districts in Indiana and Iowa to speak with voters about the $3.5 trillion spending plan that he’s hailed as the boldest federal budget proposal since the New Deal.

    The Vermont Independent will talk with constituents about how the spending plan, on which he led negotiations as the Senate Budget Committee chairman and which he and Democrats unveiled earlier this month, will improve the lives of working people across the country while demanding that wealthy households and corporations pay their fair share.

    The National Republican Senatorial Committee claimed Sanders’ leadership on the spending plan is proof of a “Socialist takeover of the Democrat Party.” The senator said Thursday that he believes voters across the political spectrum in Indiana and Iowa will find themselves agreeing with the Democrats’ plan for federal spending.

    “Within the next several months Congress will be voting on the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal of the 1930s,” Sanders said in a statement. “While it will have no Republican support in Washington, Democrats, Independents, and working-class Republicans all over the country support our plan to finally invest in the long-neglected needs of working families. I very much look forward to hearing from some of them.”

    The town halls will be held in West Lafayette, Indiana, on August 27 and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on August 29.

    Cedar Rapids lies in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, which was represented from 2018 until 2020 by moderate Democrat Abby Finkenauer, who lost her seat last year to Republican Ashley Hinson.

    Former President Donald Trump also increased his vote total in both districts between 2016 and 2020.

    The framework for the spending plan includes an expansion of Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care; funding for a Civilian Climate Corps; an expansion of this year’s increased Child Tax Credit; subsidies to ensure no family pays more than 7% of their income for child care; paid family and medical leave; universal pre-K for three- and four-year-olds; and tuition-free community college.

    Recent polls by Quinnipiac University and the progressive think tank Data for Progress (pdf) have found that large majorities of Americans — between 62% and 66% — support the spending plan.

    The party will need all Democrats in the Senate to support the budget proposal in order to pass the spending plan through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) prepares for a news conference outside the Capitol on Thursday, July 29, 2021.

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) failed to disclose her husband’s large energy company earnings during her congressional campaign as required by law, according to a report by The Associated Press.

    Boebert’s husband made $478,000 last year and $460,000 in 2019 while consulting for Terra Energy Productions, according to the disclosure. The lawmaker, who filed the 2020 earnings this week, should have reported the income last year during her run for office, as campaign and congressional finance laws require lawmakers to disclose all sources of income, including investments.

    AP reported that, while there is no Terra Energy Productions in Colorado, there is a Houston, Texas-based company called Terra Energy Partners that claims to be “one of the largest producers of natural gas in Colorado.”

    The late disclosure raises ethical questions for transparency advocates.

    “Voters have a right to know what financial interest their elected officials might be beholden to,” Kedric Payne, Campaign Legal Center senior ethics director and former deputy chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, told The Washington Post. The Office of Congressional Ethics should investigate the lawmaker for what “could be [a] criminal” failure to disclose, if it was done intentionally.

    Boebert now serves on the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees energy and land management in the U.S., including fossil fuel extraction inland and offshore. She has also introduced legislation that could have benefited her husband financially or professionally, as Terra Energy’s focus is on oil and gas exploration, according to its website.

    Since January, when Boebert was sworn in, she has introduced several pro-fossil fuel bills and made statements aimed at bolstering the industry or taking down its detractors, the American Independent reported.

    In her first month in office, the Colorado representative introduced a bill that would have barred the U.S. from reentering the 2015 Paris Agreement, a nonbinding international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The next month, she introduced a bill that would keep the U.S. from banning oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reverse Joe Biden’s decision to axe the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Boebert criticized the Green New Deal after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) reintroduced the resolution earlier this year. In her statement, Boebert said that the proposal calls for a reduction in fossil fuel use that would throw the country into “a literal energy dark age.”

    Boebert is not the only lawmaker defending fossil fuels who has close ties to the industry. The oil and gas industry contributes millions to lawmakers, influencing Republicans and Democrats alike to continue legislating in their favor. The most recent and high profile example of this is the infrastructure bill, which was stripped of its climate provisions by lawmakers under the influence of oil giant Exxon.

    The Colorado Republican also faces scrutiny over other potentially illegal actions involving campaign funds, including questions from the Federal Election Commission over an “apparent personal use of thousands of dollars in campaign funds.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A unique but critical conversation on Israel and Palestine is taking place outside the traditional discourse of Israeli colonialism and the Palestinian quest for liberation. It is an awkward and difficult – but overdue – discussion concerning American Jews’ relation to Israel and their commitment to its Zionist ideology.

    For many years, Israel has conveniently dubbed Jews who do not support Israel, or worse, advocate Palestinian freedom, as ‘self-hating Jews’. This term, designated to describe dissident anti-Zionist Jews, is similar to the accusation of ‘antisemitism’ made against non-Jews, which includes Semitic Arabs, for daring to criticize Israel. This approach, however, is no longer as effective as it once was.

    Recent years have unequivocally demonstrated that there is a quiet anti-Israel rebellion within the American Jewish community. This rebellion has been brewing for long, but only fairly recently did numbers begin reflecting the rise of a new phenomenon where US Jews, especially younger generations, are openly dissenting from the typical Jewish conformity on Israel and supposedly undying love for Zionism.

    In the last decade or so, this new reality has sounded the alarm within various Zionist institutions, whether in the US or in Israel itself.

    Several opinion polls and surveys are all pointing to an inescapable conclusion that the emotional and political rapport between Israel and US Jews is rapidly weakening. A poll published by the Laszlo Strategies for Jerusalem U in August 2013, for example, concluded that 87 percent of American Jews over the age of 50 strongly agreed that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,” while only 66 percent of young Jews between the ages of 18 to 29 felt the same.

    Other polls reached similar conclusions, where the number of young Jews strongly supportive of Israel continues to decline. A particularly telling and important survey was that of the American Jewish Committee in June 2018. That was the time when the US-Israeli alliance reached its zenith under the administrations of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Though 77 percent of all Israelis approved of the US government’s handling of US-Israeli relations, only 34 percent of American Jews did. In fact, 57 percent of US Jews outright disapproved of Trump’s policies, which practically granted Israel all of its demands and wishes.

    The downward trajectory continued unabated. A May 2021 Pew research indicated that one in five US Jews believes that the US is “too supportive of Israel”. Those who hold such a belief, 22 percent of the US Jewish population, have doubled in number since an earlier poll released in 2013.

    Data gathering for the above poll, though released during the deadly Israeli onslaught on Gaza (May 10-21), was, in fact, conducted in 2019 and 2020. The numbers of unsupportive US Jews must have risen since then, as if there is a clear correlation between Israeli wars resulting in massive civilian casualties, and the ongoing split between US Jews and Israel.

    Libby Lenkinski, Vice President for public engagement at the New Israel Fund, told Rolling Stone magazine that she sees a “noticeable shift in American perception” on Palestine and Israel since the deadly Israeli war on Gaza in 2014, a war that killed over 2,200 Palestinians. For Lenkinski, US Jewish perception should follow an ethical paradigm. “It’s a moral issue. It’s right or wrong,” she said.

    Similar sentiments emerged after the May 2021 war, where over 260 Palestinians were killed. In a recent article, American Jewish writer, Marisa Kabas, explains the dilemma felt by many in the US Jewish community regarding Israel. “Because the conflict has so often been boiled down to a binary – you either support Israel or you support its destruction – for many of us it felt like a betrayal to even consider the other side.”  Because of the likes of Kabas and Lenkinski and numerous others, the ‘other side’ is finally visible, resulting in the obvious shift in American Jewish perception of and relations to Israel.

    While more space for dissenting US Jews is opening up, the discussion in Israel remains confined and is hardly concerned with ethics and morality.

    Recently, the understanding that Israel is losing the support of US Jews has been accepted by the country’s main political parties, with disagreement largely focused on who is to blame for this seismic shift. Netanyahu was often held responsible for making Israel a partisan American political issue through his alliance with Trump and the Republican Party, at the expense of Israel’s relation with the Democrats.

    However, the Netanyahu-Trump love affair was not as uncomplicated as Netanyahu’s critics would like to believe. Indeed, the idea of Israel has changed in American society. The notion that Israel is a supposedly vulnerable little state, facing existential threats by Arab enemies, which flourished in the past, has become almost entirely irrelevant. The new concept of Israel, which is Tel Aviv’s main selling point in America, is that of a biblical Israel, a place of prophecies and spiritual salvation, which appeals mostly to right-wing Evangelical Christian groups. Young US Jews, many of whom support the Black Lives Matter and even the Palestinian boycott movements, have little in common with Israel’s zealot American backers.

    Israel is now at a crossroads. It can only win back the support of US Jews if it behaves in such a way that is consistent with their moral frame of reference. Hence, it would have to end its military occupation, dismantle its apartheid regime and reverse its racist laws. Specifically, abandon Zionism altogether, or abandon US Jews in favor of complete reliance on the Evangelicals. In fact, some top Israeli officials are already advocating the latter.

    On May 9, former Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, argued that, since Evangelical Christians are the “backbone of Israel’s support in the United States”, Israel should prioritize their “passionate and unequivocal” backing of Israel over American Jews who are “disproportionately among our critics.”

    If Israel officially opts for this choice, perhaps with no other viable option, then a breakdown between Israel and US Jews becomes inevitable. As far as justice and freedom for the Palestinian people are concerned, that would be a good thing.

    The post The Quiet Rebellion: Why US Jews Turning against Israel is Good for Palestinians     first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A girl in a yellow shirt holds a sign reading "PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE" during an outdoor protest

    The United States saw unprecedented growth in diversity over the past decade as the white population declined for the first time in history, new census data showed on Thursday. But despite population growth among nonwhite and urban voters, which have been key Democratic voting blocs, Republicans are still expected to hold a decisive edge in the congressional redistricting process.

    The Census Bureau released data used by states to redraw congressional and legislative districts, showing that while the white non-Hispanic population declined by more than 8% amid the slowest national population growth the country has seen since the 1930s, the Hispanic, Black and Asian-American populations continued to grow. For the first time in U.S. history, the white population has fallen to below 60% of the total.

    “These changes reveal that the U.S. population is much more multiracial, and more racially and ethnically diverse, than what we measured in the past,” Nicholas Jones, the director of race, ethnicity, research and outreach for the Census Bureau’s Population Division, said during a news conference. He cautioned, however, that some of the changes may be the result of improvements the bureau has made to the survey.

    The population also continued to become more urbanized. A majority of counties in the U.S. (52%) saw population declines, particularly among rural counties with fewer than 10,000 people. The population growth over the past decade was “almost entirely” in metropolitan areas, said Marc Perry, senior demographer at the Census Bureau’s Population Division.

    Metro areas grew by 8.7% while micro areas grew by just 0.8% and the population in rural areas declined by 2.8%. All 10 of the biggest cities in the United States, led by New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, saw population growth.

    Perry highlighted the case of Texas, where the Hispanic population is now roughly equal to the number of non-Hispanic whites in the state, as a perfect example of the trend.

    “Parts of the Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Midland and Odessa metro areas had population growth, whereas many of the state’s other counties had population declines,” he said.

    The Asian-American population grew the fastest over the last 10 years, rising by 35%. The Hispanic population increased by 23% and the Black population grew by 5.6%. Nearly half of all children in the country are nonwhite. The number of people reporting two or more races or “other race” also significantly increased, suggesting that some of the trends may be the result of changes to how respondents self-identify.

    It will take several weeks for states to sort through the data, which they will later use to draw new district maps. That process has frequently been described as politicians picking their own voters, rather than the other way around.

    It would be reasonable to conclude that a more diverse population that is increasingly concentrated in urban centers would give Democrats an edge over Republicans, whose base of voters has grown increasingly white and rural in recent election cycles. In theory, that would still be the case even as red states like Texas and Florida are set to gain congressional seats, while blue states like New York and California will lose seats, given that the population increases in Texas and Florida are largely in those states’ large metropolitan areas.

    But that’s not likely to be how it plays out in reality. Republicans have aggressively (and sometimes illegally) gerrymandered congressional districts in previous cycles, and hold total control over the redistricting process in 20 states, representing 187 congressional districts. Democrats have control of the process in 11 states, including just 84 districts. Other states have split governments or independent redistricting commissions, which offer some protection against partisan gerrymanders.

    Although the 2010 census showed similar trends to those seen in the new data, Republican gerrymanders allowed the party to hold decade-long majorities in many congressional delegations and state legislatures, even as Democrats began to consistently win larger shares of the vote. That has resulted in massive partisan gains for the GOP, according to a recent Associated Press analysis. Ohio Republicans have won 75% of the state’s congressional seats, for instance despite never winning more than 58% of the vote. “The Republican advantage in Michigan’s state House districts was so large after the GOP drew the maps that it could have played a role in determining control of the chamber in every election this past decade,” the AP reported.

    This cycle could be even more perilous for Democrats. Republicans aggressively sought to counter their presidential and Senate losses in 2020 by rolling out hundreds of bills to restrict voting access, especially in states where voters of color drove record-high turnout last year. Some Republican-led state legislatures are already looking to “crack” cities, where Democrats have typically won seats, by dividing them into multiple districts that also include far-flung suburban or rural areas, in hopes of guaranteeing further victories.

    Democrats have seen some success in lawsuits over overtly partisan gerrymanders, the Supreme Court in 2019 delivered a critical blow to that process, effectively barring federal courts from ruling on partisan gerrymanders.

    With Democrats holding just a five-seat majority in the House right now, it’s entirely possible Republicans could win control of the chamber in 2022 through gerrymandering alone. A recent study found that Republicans could gain up to 13 seats through gerrymandered districts in just four states: Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia. That analysis did not include potential Democratic gains, such as in New York, where Democrats are likely to eliminate or flip a Republican seat for example. But opportunities for such Democratic pickups appear limited.

    Instead, Democrats have increasingly pushed to implement independent redistricting commissions to create fair maps, or, as in the case of Oregon, have cut deals with Republicans, offering an equal number of congressional seats in exchange for an end to relentless GOP obstruction in the state legislature.

    As a result, Democrats may have shot themselves in the foot: Republicans are ready and eager to redraw legislative maps aggressively, while their opponents seek to model good governance, perhaps at the expense of their own political fortunes. In fact, population trends showing migration flows from rural areas to urban centers, where Democrats typically predominate, could actually work against them in states like Michigan with independent redistricting panels, because Republican voters are more geographically dispersed.

    “Even if you’re not trying to gerrymander on behalf of Republicans,” Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, told the AP, “the fact that Democrats are concentrated in cities and in the inner-ring suburbs means that it is easier to accidentally gerrymander on behalf of Republicans.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) speaks on the bipartisan infrastructure bill during a press conference with fellow Republican senators at U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is attempting to take conservatives’ latest culture war topics, ranging from spurious to dangerous, to Congress, announcing a number of amendments to the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation package that he plans to introduce as the Senate takes up debate on the resolution.

    Hawley unveiled his planned amendments on Monday that were reflective of a far right extremist agenda. He includes proposals like barring critical race theory in federal diversity training, prohibiting the federal government from establishing universal pre-kindergarten, which Democrats have proposed, and restricting funding from schools taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    Other amendments would promote “patriotic education” to “teach students to love America,” pull U.S. funding from the World Trade Organization and, ghoulishly, bar health care workers from providing gender affirming care for transgender people.

    The amendments, covering a wide swath of topics that many Republicans have taken up in state governments, are a show of the priorities on the right to endanger adults’ and children’s mental and physical health while indoctrinating children through barring the teaching of topics related to race and equity. They have little to do with the Democrats’ reconciliation bill, which is aimed at addressing the climate crisis, strengthening the safety net for Americans and expanding Medicare coverage.

    The proposals are especially ironic as Republicans have complained for months that the bipartisan bill is “not really an infrastructure bill,” as Hawley claimed last week. “This is a woke politics bill that is being paid for with hundreds of billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending,” he said, complaining, too, about the deficit that Republicans had a huge hand in creating.

    What Hawley was complaining about was a single line in the bill, which said that a program expanding broadband access for disadvantaged people couldn’t discriminate based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or otherwise. He implied that trans people shouldn’t be a protected class and went on to extrapolate that the infrastructure bill, which has already been watered down massively by Republicans, was a “far-left” bill with proposals that aren’t related to infrastructure.

    Besides the fact that the infrastructure bill is a far cry from what progressives and even Joe Biden himself have proposed, Hawley’s view of issues he thinks are politicized in the infrastructure bill is dwarfed by his own budget reconciliation amendments.

    Assuming that they were morally equal, proposing that all people should have an equal opportunity to access broadband assistance from the federal government is a much less consequential idea than disincentivizing schools from preventing the spread of COVID-19 — and that’s just one of his proposals.

    But, while the goal of equal access within one part of the infrastructure bill is arguably a noble cause, Hawley’s proposals have the potential to be incredibly destructive. Right now, as schools reopen and children under 12 still can’t be vaccinated, children account for 15 percent of COVID cases in the U.S., a recent report has found. And adopting a law barring trans people from accessing health care, for instance, would have monumentally detrimental consequences for trans people and their families and is a direct attack on the LGBTQ community’s health.

    Further, Hawley’s amendments have less to do with the reconciliation package than the clauses in the bipartisan bill he says aren’t related to infrastructure. While he complained about climate provisions in the infrastructure bill — of which there are very few — many of his proposals have almost nothing to do with the budget reconciliation process. Climate, as advocates have pointed out time and again, has everything to do with infrastructure, while promoting a “patriotic education” has nothing to do with the federal budget.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), joined by fellow Republican Senators, speaks on a proposed Democratic tax plan during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, DC.

    As amendments to the bipartisan infrastructure bill were being debated in the Senate, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Thursday that only about half of the $550 billion in new spending proposed by the bill will be paid for and the rest will add to the deficit.

    The CBO announced that the bill would add about $256 billion to the deficit over the next ten years despite the fact that the bipartisan group working on the bill had promised the entire bill would be paid for.

    Republicans have warned for weeks that they may not support the bill if it wasn’t fully funded. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said in June that might not support a bill that added to the deficit. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told The Hill on Thursday that, despite the good provisions in the bill, he believes half of the “pay-fors” in the bill are “fake.”

    Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has evidently been warning his colleagues for weeks that the bill would likely not be fully covered. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) and Portman circulated a statement saying that the CBO score may not be fully accurate and that the bill would still be fully funded, in an attempt to assuage concerns for now.

    Still, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee) is hesitant after the CBO report, falling in step with McConnell’s announcement in June that GOP lawmakers wouldn’t vote for a bill that added to the deficit. A spokesperson for Hagerty told Politico that the senator “cannot in good conscience agree to expedite a process immediately after the CBO confirmed that the bill would add over a quarter of a trillion dollars to the deficit.”

    Senators, mostly Republicans, introduced a flurry of amendments on Thursday evening but Hagerty’s opposition held up a vote to end debate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has rescheduled the vote for Saturday. The bill must receive at least 60 votes to advance, thanks to the Senate filibuster.

    Though Republican opposition to adding to the deficit — and thus potential opposition to the entire infrastructure bill — is unsurprising, it comes after months of negotiations in which the GOP has rejected a wide swath of Democratic proposals that could have prevented any deficit issues at all.

    President Joe Biden had originally proposed a modest tax increase on corporations and wealthy people to pay for his $4 trillion package. Republicans categorically rejected this proposal, not wanting to undo Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. Instead, they offered to pay for the bill with user fees, a proposal that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pointed out was really a tax on the middle and lower classes.

    Republicans also rejected a proposal to enforce existing tax law on the rich. This pay-for would fund the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after rich tax dodgers — many who often donate handsomely to the Republican Party. The IRS funding proposal in the bipartisan bill would have raised an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

    The GOP, then, has created its own catch-22 on the infrastructure bill. They won’t agree to a bill that would add to the deficit, but they also won’t agree to any of the pay-fors that would cover additional spending. It’s unclear if Hagerty or other Republicans could be swayed to support the bill — but as Republicans have been delaying the bill for months, Democrats and progressives are growing more impatient.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A screenshot depicting a pre-checked recurring donation box on donaldjtrump.com's donation page, taken on August 6, 2021.

    Earlier this year, The New York Times revealed that Donald Trump’s campaign had extracted tens of millions of dollars in extra contributions from his supporters by surreptitiously signing them up for recurring donations, mostly by using pre-checked boxes in online forms. That practice was widely criticized and drew the attention of federal election officials, but it definitely hasn’t stopped. Trump’s fundraising appeals still appear to be automatically opting in donors for multiple contributions, which may partly account for $100 million-plus war chest the former president has accumulated since losing last year’s election. Other Republican candidates and elected officials have followed along, embracing Trump’s dubious fundraising practices just as they have embraced his politics.

    Concerns around Trump’s donation scheme first emerged in April, when a Times investigation found that the former president’s campaign operation had routinely been signing up contributors for monthly — or even weekly — recurring contributions, through deliberately bewildering online forms and pre-checked authorizations. In the weeks before Election Day last fall, the Trump campaign rolled out an increasingly opaque array of these boxes, which featured huge blocks of boldface or all-caps text, full of aggressive phrasing, evidently intended to distract donors from the opt-out language in smaller, fainter type below.

    This tactic, the Times reported, “ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars.”

    Trump’s campaign was forced to refund $122.7 million as a result of 200,000 disputed transactions in 2020. Refunds to donors who exceed legal limits are not infrequent in political campaigns, but that was a vastly higher sum than the amount refunded by Joe Biden’s campaign. This captured the attention of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which in May sent a formal recommendation to Congress, asking for an outright ban on pre-checked recurring donation boxes.

    That doesn’t appear to have had made any meaningful impact on Trump’s fundraising effort. In fact, Salon’s reporting reveals that dozens of other Republican candidates and organizations now rely on pre-checked boxes to keep the money flowing, so much so that it can essentially be regarded as standard operating procedure on conservative fundrasing.

    On donaldjtrump.com, where the former president is collecting funds for his Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, the website’s contribution page automatically signs donors up for both monthly recurring donations and an additional mid-month donation — both of which match whatever contribution amount is initially specified by the donor.

    “The Left is putting AMERICA LAST,” one box reads in bold letters. “I need all hands on deck if we’re going to SAVE AMERICA! My team is handing me an updated Donor List soon — will I see your name? Step up NOW to increase your impact by 400%!”

    Below that paragraph is smaller, lighter text that reads: “Donate an additional [amount specified] automatically on 8/13.” In both paragraphs, the separation between the pre-checked box, the boldface message and the line that authorizes a donation appears constructed to be intentionally confusing.

    A number of experts on political fundraising said they viewed the pre-checked boxes as unethical or worse, noting their obvious potential to dupe potential donors who are less technologically savvy.

    Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, called the Trump campaign’s continued reliance on recurring donations “outrageous,” saying in an email exchange with Salon that such pre-checked boxes “have been shown to lead to consumer complaints and unhappy supporters.” He continued, “Giving donors the choice to opt in to recurring donations is a much better business practice than stealthily signing people up for recurring donations.”

    The FEC’s recommendation to Congress, Beckel added, “should be a clear sign to all candidates to cease this practice.”

    Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an assistant professor in the College of Law at Stetson University, also said by email that it was “outrageous that donaldjtrump.com is still running the pre-checked box gambit on their donors.” She added, “It shows contempt for their financial supporters. If any donor wants to make a recurring donation, just have them opt in. Don’t trick them into it.”

    Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, called the pre-checked boxes “ripoffs” in an interview with Salon. He noted that such tactics “invariably hit elderly people the most, because they are the ones who are more likely to contribute without knowing the ramifications of checkboxes or any similar kinds of gimmicks.”

    Salon reached out to Trump’s team, which declined to respond to questions on whether the use of pre-checked boxes was a sound fundraising practice. The former president’s director of communications, Taylor Budowich, sent a statement by email that did not address that issue:

    With the help of millions of American Patriots, President Trump has raised a record-setting amount of money to help elect America First conservatives and win back the House and Senate for Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections. The liberals hate this, as they should, because their days of ruinous leadership are numbered.

    Though Trump’s messaging remains distinctive in terms of strident, overheated rhetoric, Salon’s reporting makes clear that he is far from the only Republican to rely on pre-checked boxes in fundraising appeals.

    In fact, a significant number of high-profile Republican senators employ the tactic, ranging across the GOP spectrum from loyal Trump supporters like Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin to Trump skeptics like Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Three of the most prominent Trump backers in the House, Devin Nunes of California, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Matt Gaetz of Florida, also use pre-checked boxes.

    Salon reached out to all of the lawmakers mentioned above for comment. Only Gaetz responded, writing by email: “While Democrats and Republicans alike ‘check the box’ for lobbyists and PACs on K street, I’m the only Republican in Congress who totally refuses their dirty money.”

    “I hope Salon criticizes me daily for funding my campaign only and directly from regular folks,” the scandal-plagued Florida congressman added, without comment on his use of pre-checked boxes.

    The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee all use pre-checked donation boxes to solicit contributions for the upcoming election. None of those organizations responded to Salon’s request for comment.

    As things stand, campaign finance law does not address deceptively-structured payment schemes such as pre-checked donation boxes.

    “This is an unfair, misleading, and predatory practice, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in an interview with Salon. “But at the moment, it’s a legal one.”

    Bookbinder continued, “You would hope that after the kind of attention this received four months ago, campaigns and parties would just stop doing it. But where that doesn’t seem to be the case, I think there would need to be agency or legal action.”

    Republican lawmakers, Bookbinder suggested, are taking cues from Trump’s open disregard for fundraising ethics. “You have the tone being set by organizations that are working for Donald Trump, who has shown this kind of contempt for any type of rules or traditions meant to make things more fair,” he said. “This seems to be a natural outgrowth of that.”

    On campaign finance ethics, the FEC has been described as “notoriously dysfunctional” by one of its commissioners. The agency has frequently bogged down in partisan bickering that stalls or kills efforts to crack down on violations of the law. In fact, from July to December of 2020, under the Trump administration, the FEC lacked a quorum sufficient even to hold meetings, generating a massive backlog of 446 unresolved cases.

    “The usual situation has been that the Democratic FEC commissioners have tried to enforce campaign finance law against both Democrats and Republicans, have tried to enforce it somewhat stringently,” a senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center told NPR last year. “And the Republican commissioners have generally opposed enforcement of the law, regardless of whether the law-breaker was a Republican group or a Democratic group.”

    On the subject of pre-checked donation boxes, however, the FEC’s recommendation to Congress was unanimous. Democratic commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub was principal author of the letter released in May, urging Congress to set rules for those soliciting political contributions:

    (1) receive affirmative consent of contributors when setting up recurring contributions, not to include implied consent through such means as pre-checked boxes; (2) provide a receipt and clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of recurring contributions to contributors at the time the contributions are set up and at the time of each individual contribution; (3) in each communication with the contributor regarding a recurring contribution, provide information needed to cancel the recurring contribution; and (4) immediately cancel recurring contributions upon the request of contributors. The same requirements should apply to those seeking recurring donations to fund electioneering communications.

    To a considerable degree, the pre-checked box tactic was pioneered by WinRed, a for-profit company that serves as the RNC’s designated fundraising platform. In April, four state attorneys generals opened a probe into multiple platforms’ donation tactics, including those of WinRed and its Democratic counterpart, ActBlue, over their use of pre-checked boxes. ActBlue later told the Times it had begun phasing pre-checked boxes out of its platform. This appears to be true: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee do not automatically opt donors into recurring donations.

    WinRed has accused the attorneys general of “exploiting their positions of power for partisan gain.”

    “​​Only when Republicans began challenging the Democrats’ long-held advantage in online fund-raising did these Democrat Attorneys General activate,” WinRed told The Washington Examiner in July. “It’s troubling to see these AGs attempt to use the power of their offices for the purpose of helping the Democrat Party.”

    WinRed CEO Gerrit Lansing did not respond to Salon’s request for a comment.

    A legislative push against this tactic has also begun on Capitol Hill. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., recently announced the introduction of a bill that would prohibit the use of pre-checked recurring donation boxes once and for all. “Following the FEC’s unanimous vote,” Klobuchar wrote, “it’s clear we should take action to ban this practice and ensure contributors are fully informed. This legislation will do just that.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Emblematic of our times, the Berniecrat organization Our Revolution – never remotely revolutionary – has rebranded itself as “pragmatic progressive.” This innovation is based on the realization that progressive reforms will never be enacted unless they are fought for.  And, since they are not about to fight President Biden, then it is only programmatic to accept that these reforms won’t happen.

    Our Revolution surrenders

    Good bye, Medicare-for-All, now that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and even Bernie Sanders have abandoned the cause. Never mind that a majority of the electorate still favors the proposal. But to get Medicare-for-All, progressives would have to stand up to the Democratic Party. And that would entail a fight and therefore is not pragmatic.

    A major reason for the Democrat’s obstruction of Medicare-for-All is that the health insurance industry and big pharma bought them off plus the entrenchment of corporate interests more broadly in the party. However, another factor is at work. Access to healthcare free-at-the-point-of-service would make working people more secure. For the exploiting class, it is better to forego a small gain in profits as the tradeoff for keeping workers precarious and thus less demanding. The people who run the Democratic Party know which side of the class barricades they are on; unfortunately, some progressives do not.

    Some of the dump-Trump veterans, who are now AWOL in the battle against the current leader of the imperialist camp, proclaim Joe Biden is the political incarnate of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Lost in the fog of war is the fact that, for over forty years, Biden has been among the architects of the neoliberal project associated with the Democratic Leadership Group to bury FDR’s New Deal.

    The New Deal was an experiment in a mild form of social democracy, where the capitalist ruling class allowed a degree of social welfare state functions in return for labor peace. Ever since Carter, gaining steam with Reagan and Clinton, and continuing now with Biden, neoliberal reform has entailed privatization of education, health, and other state enterprises, economic austerity for working people, and deregulation and tax relief for the corporations, while augmenting the coercive apparatus of the state. In short, since the 1970s, neoliberalism has been the form of contemporary capitalism.

    This is what democracy looks like

    In the run-up to the US 2020 presidential election, some erstwhile progressives told us to hold our noses and get on the Biden bandwagon. Then, as they worked alongside the decadent Democrats, they became desensitized to the redolence of being in proximity to power. And now some counsel us to stand down to the powerful and join in attacking the official enemies of Washington.

    However, some Berniecrats have resisted the succor of the Democrat’s big tent and are still fighting the good fight under the banner of the Movement for a People’s Party. They have had the temerity to picket Squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to hold her feet to the fire on her campaign promises.

    This is what democracy looks like. Politicians can hardly be blamed for gravitating to the rewards of party orthodoxy, if their constituents fail to demand that they follow through on the platform that got them elected. But for demanding that politicians that talk progressive also walk progressive, those who speak truth to power are attacked by those who no longer consistently do so.

    So, we often see the following progression. After shirking from criticizing the powerful, the next career move is to find legitimacy by criticizing those who do. For example, the Young Turks show accused anti-imperialist Grayzone reporter Aaron Mate falsely and without evidence of being “paid by the Russians.”

    This is symptomatic of elements of progressivism who have become ever more comfortable with the Democrats as the only alternative to what they perceive as the greater evil of the Republicans. Since they now eschew criticizing those actually in power, they are relegated to attacking the genuine left. Rather than “battling Biden” as they promised after “dumping Trump,” some progressives have descended the slippery slope into providing left cover for the Democrats both on domestic and, as argued below, international fronts.

    Covering for imperialism

    The domestic capitulation of some self-identified progressives also translates into a deafening silence about opposing the imperialism of the Democratic Party. Shortly after the dawn of the new millennium, the US anti-war movement experienced a resurgence against Republican President George W. Bush’s Iraq war. But soon as Democrat Barack Obama took office, with Bush’s Secretary of Defense Gates still in charge, the anti-war movement collapsed and has been since largely quiescent.

    More recently, imperialist ventures have been greeted with more than silence. There are now, unfortunately, full-throated echoes of the imperialist’s talking points by former anti-war activists and intellectuals.

    Take the arguably once progressive NACLA (North American Congress on Latin America) in a recent article specifically calling for “taking off the cloak of silence.” NACLA reports on the “long-standing totalitarian Cuban government.” According to the author, an expert on “social and cultural entrepreneurship” (i.e., promotion of capitalism), the US blockade of Cuba “isn’t responsible for the island’s economic downfall. Instead that is a result of the powerful [Cuban government] elite’s iron grip and stockpiling.” Of course, if that were anywhere near the truth, the US would have no need for the blockade.

    This takes place in the context of President Biden doubling down on a regime-change offensive, reversing campaign promises to reverse Trump’s illegal sanctions on Cuba. Washington now believes Cuba is close to falling due to the deprivation caused by the ever-tightening US blockade exacerbated by the COVID pandemic.

    Further, NACLA tells us that the view of Cuba as a “model for many anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements” is not only wrong but that the Cuban’s attempt at socialism is based on “an economic model that is inherently ineffective.” Unfortunately, that verdict has a perverse element of truth. As long as the US can impose suffocating unilateral coercive measures on Cuba and other small nations striving for an alternative to neoliberalism, the socialist model will not be allowed to succeed.

    Socialism is supposed to satisfy people’s needs, while capitalism is inherently a system that creates unlimited perceived needs without the means for their fulfillment. That is, under capitalism, a system driven by individual greed, one cannot ever accumulate too much. The carrot on a stick, perpetually dangled out of reach, is the essence of what the author of the NACLA article proudly calls “entrepreneurship.”

    But what happens when – as the NACLA article admonishes – the nation striving for socialism can no longer “cover the basic necessities to make daily life worth living”? Apparently, solidarity with the Cubans against attacks by the world’s superpower is not paramount for some self-identified progressives who issued a recent petition to the Cuban government.

    Their Change.org petition, quoting Rosa Luxemburg on freedom from a repressive state, demanded the release of Frank García Hernández arrested by the Cuban government on July 11. However, the Mr. García had already been released the following day, while the petition was still being circulated.

    Whatever the intentions of the individual signatories of the petition, its actual impact had nothing to do with freeing someone who was already free and everything to do with providing a left cover for imperialism. Had the signatories been genuinely concerned with what they perceived as an overreaction by the Cubans to a manifestly existential security threat to their revolution, they should have also addressed the petition to the White House and demanded the ending or at least easing of that security threat. Some of these same individuals have also signed petitions against Nicaragua, Syria, and other official enemies of the US.

    Struggling on two fronts

    Meanwhile, the neoliberal order is becoming more and more exposed, with billionaires increasing their net worth astronomically while working people face a yet to be contained pandemic with inadequate healthcare, unemployment, and austerity. This is fuel for the populist right-wing, which could be the shock troops of a fascist movement. But we are not there yet.

    The legitimate concern about fascism, when associated exclusively with Trump and his followers, has been used by some self-identified progressives as an excuse to embrace the Democrats. The struggle against “neofascist” Trumpism has been coopted into a surrender into the main party now in charge of the imperialist state and increasingly distinguishing itself as the leading proponent of war.

    The January 6th riot by Trump supporters at the Capital Building was conflated by Democrats into a coup attempt of new kind where the perpetrators, instead of taking state power, took selfies and went home. Some of the villains of January 6th, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, turned out to be friendly with the FBI and possible agents with get-out-of-jail-free passes.

    It would be cold comfort for progressives to discover that they have triumphed against the crude fascism of working-class guys with tattoos only to find that the friendly fascism of Saint Robert Mueller’s national security state has prevailed. Progressives, who have their canons aimed at Mar-a-Lago, may be leaving their backs exposed to those who now hold state power in Washington.

    The ensuing clamor after January 6 from would-be progressives to expand the already enormous police powers of the state against protesters is an example of the dictum that you should be careful about what you wish for. The state coercive apparatus – police, military, homeland security, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. – has been and will be used against the left.

    The genuinely progressive solution is not to support one or the other neoliberal party, which are collectively the perpetrators of the current calamity, but to struggle against the conditions that foster a right-wing insurgency. That is, resist both right-wing populism and the established ruling class, with the main emphasis on those in power.

    The post The Progressive Death of Progressivism first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger D. Harris.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • AOC gives somebody the sideeye

    Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday skewered conservative members of the House Democratic caucus who left town for vacation instead of backing an effort to extend the nationwide eviction moratorium that officially expired this weekend, leaving millions of people at imminent risk of being forced out of their homes.

    “The House and House leadership had the opportunity to vote to extend the moratorium. And there was frankly a handful of conservative Democrats in the House that threatened to get on planes rather than hold this vote, and we have to really just call a spade a spade,” the New York Democrat said in an appearance on CNN Sunday morning, hours after the eviction moratorium lapsed.

    “We cannot in good faith blame the Republican Party when House Democrats have the majority,” she added.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did just that in a series of tweets on Saturday, claiming that she “led a relentless campaign to extend the CDC eviction moratorium” only to be thwarted by the GOP.

    “In an act of pure cruelty,” Pelosi wrote, “Republicans blocked this measure — leaving children and families out on the streets.”

    While it’s true that House Republicans opposed prolonging the moratorium, the Democratic leadership made it easy for the GOP to tank the proposed extension by attempting to pass it via unanimous consent. With that procedure, just one Republican objection was enough to defeat the extension — and instead of going on to hold a full House vote, Democratic leaders opted to adjourn the chamber for a seven-week recess.

    In a letter to her caucus on Saturday, Pelosi noted that House members are “on call” to return to Washington at any point — but she did not say she would reconvene the chamber for a vote on extending the eviction moratorium.

    In her CNN interview on Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez stressed that the Biden White House also deserves blame for the lapse of the eviction reprieve, which was first implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last September and extended four times thereafter.

    “The White House waited until the day before the House adjourned to release a statement asking Congress to extend the moratorium,” said Ocasio-Cortez, who accused the Biden administration of not being “forthright” about its position on the moratorium when pressed by lawmakers in recent weeks. “The House was put into, I believe, a needlessly difficult situation.”

    “So, there’s a couple of contributing factors here,” she continued. “We have governors here who are also not getting this emergency rental assistance out in time… But the fact of the matter is that the problem is here. The House should reconvene and call this vote and extend the moratorium. There’s about 11 million people that are behind on their rent, at risk of eviction — that’s one out of every six renters in the United States.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.

    ― Thomas Jefferson, (Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville(

    It is time to recalibrate the government.

    For years now, we have suffered the injustices, cruelties, corruption and abuse of an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution or the rights of the citizenry.

    By “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

    We are overdue for a systemic check on the government’s overreaches and power grabs.

    We have lingered too long in this strange twilight zone where ego trumps justice, propaganda perverts truth, and imperial presidents—empowered to indulge their authoritarian tendencies by legalistic courts, corrupt legislatures and a disinterested, distracted populace—rule by fiat rather than by the rule of law.

    This COVID-19 pandemic has provided the government with the perfect excuse to lay claim to a long laundry list of terrifying lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level) that override the Constitution: the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die, and impose health mandates on large segments of the population.

    These kinds of crises tend to bring out the authoritarian tendencies in government.

    That’s no surprise: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Where we find ourselves now is in the unenviable position of needing to rein in all three branches of government—the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative—that have exceeded their authority and grown drunk on power.

    This is exactly the kind of concentrated, absolute power the founders attempted to guard against by establishing a system of checks of balances that separate and shares power between three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

    “The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance,” concludes law professor William P. Marshall. “The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”

    Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom.

    There’s no point debating which political party would be more dangerous with these powers.

    The fact that any individual—or branch of government—of any political persuasion is empowered to act like a dictator is danger enough.

    So what can we do to wrest back control over a runaway government and an imperial presidency?

    It won’t be easy.

    We are the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority.

    This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government: from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.

    We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American.

    We are viewed as relatively expendable in the eyes of government: faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. Those in power aren’t losing any sleep over the indignities we are being made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they seem to care about are power and control.

    We are being made to suffer countless abuses at the government’s hands.

    We have little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), invasive surveillance, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.

    In the name of national security, we’re being subjected to government agencies such as the NSA, FBI and others listening in on our phone calls, reading our mail, monitoring our emails, and carrying out warrantless “black bag” searches of our homes. Adding to the abuse, we have to deal with surveillance cameras mounted on street corners and in traffic lights, weather satellites co-opted for use as spy cameras from space, and thermal sensory imaging devices that can detect heat and movement through the walls of our homes.

    That doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways in which our Fourth Amendment rights are trampled upon by militarized police and SWAT teams empowered to act as laws unto themselves.

    In other words, freedom—or what’s left of it—is threatened from every direction.

    The predators of the police state are wreaking havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government doesn’t listen to the citizenry, it refuses to abide by the Constitution, which is our rule of law, and it treats the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers are shooting unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—are being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are spying on our emails and phone calls. Government contractors are making a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

    In other words, the American police state is alive and well and flourishing.

    Nothing has changed, and nothing will change unless we insist on it.

    We have arrived at the dystopian future depicted in the 2005 film V for Vendetta, which is no future at all.

    Set in the year 2020, V for Vendetta (written and produced by the Wachowskis) provides an eerie glimpse into a parallel universe in which a government-engineered virus wreaks havoc on the world. Capitalizing on the people’s fear, a totalitarian government comes to power that knows all, sees all, controls everything and promises safety and security above all.

    Concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” Populist uprisings and protests are met with extreme force. The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.

    Sounds painfully familiar, doesn’t it?

    As director James McTeighe observed about the tyrannical regime in V for Vendetta, “It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don’t think it’s such a big leap to say things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people.”

    Clearly, our leaders have stopped listening to the American people.

    We are—and have been for some time—the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government—from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.

    We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American. We are relatively expendable in the eyes of government—faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars.

    What will it take for the government to start listening to the people again?

    In V for Vendetta, as in my new novel The Erik Blair Diaries, it takes an act of terrorism for the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny: in Vendetta, V the film’s masked crusader blows up the seat of government, while in Erik Blair, freedom fighters plot to unmask the Deep State.

    These acts of desperation and outright anarchy are what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent: people get desperate, citizens lose hope, and lawful, nonviolent resistance gives way to unlawful, violent resistance.

    This way lies madness.

    Then again, this madness may be unavoidable unless we can wrest back control over our runaway government starting at the local level.

    How to do this? It’s not rocket science.

    There is no 10-step plan. If there were a 10-step plan, however, the first step would be as follows: turn off the televisions, tune out the politicians, and do your part to stand up for freedom principles in your own communities.

    Stand up for your own rights, of course, but more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you might disagree. Defend freedom at all costs. Defend justice at all costs. Make no exceptions based on race, religion, creed, politics, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc. Vote like Americans, for a change, not Republicans or Democrats.

    Most of all, use your power—and there is power in our numbers—to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.

    Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it. If it carries even a whiff of tyranny, oppose it. Demand that your representatives in government cut you a better deal, one that abides by the Constitution and doesn’t just attempt to sidestep it.

    That’s their job: make them do it.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all freedoms hang together. They fall together, as well.

    The police state does not discriminate. Eventually, we will all suffer the same fate.

    The post Authoritarians Drunk on Power: It Is Time to Recalibrate the Government first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger listens during the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, on July 27, 2021, at the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election was once a fringe idea. It was thought up by Trump and his team to throw the election into chaos and, he hoped, keep Trump in power, no matter the election results.

    Republicans in Congress didn’t have to follow suit, but they did and have been repeating the lies about the election for months. Even after their lives were put in danger on January 6 by an angry mob of Trump hooligans, 147 of them voted to overturn the election results. Republicans at the state level, meanwhile, have now passed 30 laws to restrict voting based on the lies about “voter fraud.”

    This is all despite the fact that, evidently, Republican lawmakers don’t even believe in the Big Lie. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) said on CNN on Wednesday that nearly all of his colleagues in Congress don’t actually believe that there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election — but they repeat the lie anyway.

    “Save one or two maybe out here, nobody — and I think it’s very important to repeat — nobody actually believes the election was stolen from Donald Trump, but a lot of them are happy to go out and say it was,” Kinzinger told Wolf Blitzer.

    Kinzinger, one of the two Republicans on the House committee to investigate January 6, also said that Republican colleagues are quietly supportive of his work on the committee. “There is a lot of people, you know, that come up and say it. And it’s not any of them that go on TV and spout the Big Lie and then say it. It’s the ones that stay more quiet that I think appreciate the stand,” he said. “But it’s a lot.”

    Most observers would have a hard time believing that Republicans who don’t stand behind the Big Lie are actually the silent majority in Congress. GOP members have been repeating the lie for months and have even convinced their voter base that the election was stolen, even if they claim in private that they don’t believe it themselves. They had even voted to oust the other Republican on the January 6 committee, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), from party leadership back in May for not repeating Trump’s lie.

    Kinzinger and Cheney aren’t angels. They are, as William Pitt recently wrote for Truthout,hardcore House Republicans” that count as moderates only because they reject the Big Lie — a very low bar. “At first blush, the inclusion of Cheney and Kinzinger would seem to represent a giant step back” because of their heinous views on LGBTQ rights, health care and the forever wars in the Middle East, Pitt wrote.

    But the party as a whole has become so extreme that the two seem like middle-of-the-road legislators. The drama stirred by the party over the January 6 committee did even more to exaggerate that stance.

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) had raised a stink over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) rejection of his picks, Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Indiana), from the January 6 committee. He called the process a “sham” and said that the Republican Party would not take part, making it seem as though the entire caucus was opposed to the process.

    As Kinzinger has said, however, this is clearly not the case. Though many Trump-allied Republicans downplay the attack today, it would appear that many of them are still alarmed about the severity of the attack, even if they won’t admit it.

    Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia), for instance, has referred to the attack as a “normal tourist visit,” a comparison that he still stands by today. But photos from the day show him and fellow lawmakers barricading the door of the House chamber, suggesting that even he believed it was anything but normal six months ago.

    Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama), who had told the Trump mob to “start taking down names and kicking ass” before they attacked the Capitol, recently admitted to Slate that he was warned of the risks of the day and wore body armor to protect himself. Still, he thinks that the January 6 committee isn’t necessary and the conservative attack to reinstate Trump as president despite the will of over 81 million voters would be somehow more politicized than it already has been because of the hearings.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters gather in front of the Oregon state capitol building during a "Stop the Steal" rally on November 7, 2020, in Salem, Oregon.

    Former Oregon Republican state Rep. Mike Nearman has pleaded guilty to official misconduct after he let a violent far right mob into the state Capitol late last year.

    Nearman must now pay a $2,700 fine, perform 80 hours of community service and is banned from entering the state Capitol grounds for 18 months. The fine is meant to pay for damages done to the building. The Republican was expelled from office in June for allowing the mob into the state Capitol.

    But, as The Washington Post points out, Nearman said after his sentencing on a conservative radio show that he doesn’t think that he did anything wrong that day, despite having pleaded guilty. “I don’t think I committed a crime, and I don’t think I did anything wrong,” he said.

    The statement is clearly confounding after Nearman’s guilty plea earlier that day, and the video footage of Nearman allowing the QAnon-affiliated supporters into the building is clear cut and damning. Though the former lawmaker said on the radio show that he pleaded guilty in order to avoid a long and expensive court battle, his motivations for denying fault may have more to do with his political career than legal consequences he might face.

    In court, Nearman revealed his true intentions for letting the mob into the building: he told the judge that he believed it “would make me appear favorable to certain citizen groups,” reports The Oregonian. Those groups, presumably, would be the QAnon mob and other far right conspiracy peddlers who were behind the protests that day.

    The group had been outside the Oregon Capitol in December protesting coronavirus restrictions that barred the public from entering the building. Some of the individuals were armed, and they had wanted to occupy the Capitol.

    After Nearman opened the door to the mob, they clashed with police, trying to shove their way in and using bear spray against the officers. Lawmakers from both parties condemned Nearman’s actions when voting to expel him.

    “The facts are clear that Mr. Nearman unapologetically coordinated and planned a breach of the Oregon state Capitol,” Oregon Democrat and House Speaker Tina Kotek said. “His actions were blatant and deliberate, and he has shown no remorse for jeopardizing the safety of every person in the Capitol that day.”

    The Republican leader of the House agreed, saying that there could “easily have been a death on that day.” Nearman was expelled 59 to 1, with Nearman being the only opposing vote.

    The facts of Nearman’s case echo that of January 6, when a violent Donald Trump-supporting mob shoved and fought their way into the U.S. Capitol. Then, too, the mob chanted conspiracy theories fueled by Trump and the far right, clashed with police and called Black officers racial slurs. The January 6 attack happened just over two weeks after Nearman let the far right mob into the Oregon Capitol.

    The judge in Nearman’s case said that she was listening to testimony from Capitol Police officers on her way to the courthouse on Tuesday. Officers testified in front of the House committee to investigate the January 6 attack. They expressed anger that Republicans like Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia) — who said, and still defends, his statement that the attack was a “normal tourist visit” — continue to deny the severity of the attack.

    This, again, is similar to Nearman stating that he didn’t believe he did anything wrong. And the congressional Republicans’ motivations for denying the gravity of the attack and the subsequent deaths are likely similar to Nearman’s: gain support with far right QAnon and conspiracy theory believers who want the violence downplayed, perhaps so they can do it again.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • From left, Representatives Bob Good, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz and Louie Gohmert hold a news conference outside the U.S. Department of Justice on July 27, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    For a moment, put yourself in a pair of Republican shoes. The news today is dominated by testimony given by four police officers about the gruesome beatings they absorbed at the hands of a furiously violent tide of red-hatted Trump lovers on January 6.

    You’re a Republican today. How do you react to that?

    Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham had a decidedly sarcastic reaction to the harrowing Tuesday testimonies of police who defended the Capitol from pro-Trump supporters on January 6,” reports Business Insider. Ingraham accused the officers of acting, and Carlson scolded one of the officers who compared his experience at the Capitol with his time as a soldier in Iraq. “It’s not Fallujah,” said Carlson, while Fox aired a conveniently mellow portion of the riot that merely showed people wandering around the building.

    Over at the laboriously far right One America News Network (OAN), they didn’t even bother to air the testimony beyond a 20-second clip they talked over as it played. They did, however, give detailed coverage of an early GOP press conference where House Speaker Pelosi was blamed for the calamity because she is somehow in charge of the Capitol Police (she isn’t).

    Later, OAN played another GOP press conference featuring Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who claimed the people under arrest for sacking the Capitol were “political prisoners.” That protest was broken up by someone blowing a whistle, which was apparently so unnerving that one of the cars carrying the lawmakers sped the wrong way down 9th St. NW in order to escape. “It swerved in front of oncoming traffic onto Pennsylvania Avenue amid a hail of honking horns,” reports The Washington Post.

    If you reacted like that, you’re doing it wrong. You can take those shoes off now. They pinch, I know.

    This sort of desperately bizarre poo-slinging was not relegated to a couple of shameless “news” outlets and the Goofball Caucus of Gaetz and Greene. “I have yet to meet a Republican in Congress who has minimized and doesn’t believe that what happened on January 6 was serious,” serial denialist Rep. Jim Banks — who along with Jim Jordan was blessedly bounced from the committee by Pelosi — told CNN yesterday.

    Banks has clearly never met Sen. Ron Johnson, who calls 1/6 a “peaceful protest.” Banks likewise ignores Rep. Andrew Clyde, who called the insurrection a “normal tourist visit,” after screaming in terror during the attack. In fact, there appears to be only two Republicans in Congress — Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney — willing to call this thing what it was in public, and both of them now sit on the select committee investigating that day. Only 35 House Republicans voted to create the committee in the first place, and almost all of them have been keeping their heads down ever since.

    The unreality of all this denial serves to underscore the broader surrealist landscape we find ourselves in. The testimony of the four officers was deeply compelling — one of them, Michael Fanone, had a death threat called into his cell while he was testifying — but there were also police officers participating in the insurrection, and law enforcement’s support for Donald Trump is notorious. Cheney and Kinzinger comported themselves well yesterday, but on balance, their voting records make me want to hide under the bed. These are the heroes today?

    Finally, and fundamentally, the idea that Republican officeholders and their supporters can somehow be reached took a mighty blow yesterday. Almost to a person, congressional Republicans bore witness to the horrors of 1/6 while inside the building that day, and then again yesterday as captured on camera and described in testimony. They either turned on their heels and called it no big deal, or they said nothing at all.

    I guess I understand why. The last thing House Republicans want is to have these hearings on their backs as they prepare for the 2022 midterms. It’s bad enough that Trump is still lurking out there, waiting to smash and sabotage his own party at any given opportunity. The video and testimony from yesterday will become fodder for 10,000 Democratic campaign commercials next year, if not sooner, and that is bad news for the faithful.

    Every Trump-backing Republican making money off the MAGA crowd’s fathomless credulity can perceive a reckoning because of that fealty not too far down the line. It is uncertain when the next 1/6 hearing will be taking place, but when it does, Republicans would do well to try and stave off a similar backlash reaction once confronted by the consequences of their deeds. Of course, they won’t. I’m really not sure they can.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • From left: U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, Washington Metropolitan Police Department officer Michael Fanone, Washington Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Harry Dunn are sworn in to testify before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol on July 27, 2021, at the Canon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    The first four witnesses in today’s opening hearing into the 1/6 Capitol attack — DC Metropolitan Police Officers Daniel Hodges and Michael Fanone, alongside Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Sgt. Aquilino Gonell — took their seats a little after 9:00 am Eastern time. A few minutes before, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan and a handful of other congressional Republicans had just finished a press conference in which they blamed Speaker Pelosi for what went down last January.

    It’s that kind of day, week, however long these hearings take. By muffing his little stunt trying to foist the unserious Jordan onto the committee, McCarthy created a situation in which the only two Republicans on the panel are no longer under his control. McCarthy has no means of disrupting the hearings, so you can expect he and his minions will run around waving their arms and screaming, anything to distract from the conversation taking place in that hearing room. If today was any indication, it will not work.

    Those two Republicans — Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney — have been working diligently with Democrats on the committee since they were named to it, no doubt another detail that’s infuriating for McCarthy. The minority leader’s immediate response was to call the two co-operating GOP House members “Pelosi Republicans,” which… yeah. One of those days.

    Both Kinzinger and Cheney have emphasized the need for “facts” (from Kinzinger, who has spread lies about abortion, LGBTQ rights and Iran, to name a few) and the need to “rise above politics” (from Cheney, whose Republican hawkishness spurred the way toward ongoing war, in the model of her father Dick Cheney). Neither of these people will be redeemed by their presence on the committee — far from it — but today their presence was something of a relief, given the alternative.

    Chairman Thompson has made it clear that no person or topic will be off limits during these hearings, and Attorney General Merrick Garland has signaled the Justice Department will not interfere with subpoenas sent to former Trump officials, so a number of familiar names may find themselves called to testify.

    Sgt. Gonell spoke after Thompson and Cheney, raw with emotion. The story he told was harrowing. “What we were subjected to that day was like something from a Medieval battle,” said Gonell. “We fought hand to hand.” He expected to die guarding the doorway where he and his fellow officers clashed with the rioters.

    Officer Fanone spoke next. His was a familiar face, as he has appeared on the news channels multiple times to tell his story, and to scald congressional Republicans for insulting the truth of 1/6. His fury was likewise palpable as he described being tasered on the back of the skull, of getting beaten ruthlessly, and of nearly being killed by his own service weapon as the crowd chanted, “Kill him with his own gun!”

    “The treatment shown my colleagues [by Republicans who deny the facts of the day] is DISGRACEFUL,” Fanone roared at one juncture, pounding the table loud enough to make the room jump. Following Fanone was Officer Hodges, who recounted his similar experiences with a brittle calm. Of the three, Hodges was the most unsparing in his clear declaration that the mob which attacked him was by, for and with Donald Trump.

    Hodges, too, wept during his testimony when he reached the portion of his story recounting his close brush with death when he got caught between the two masses of fighting bodies. Most who have followed this story since January will recognize Hodges; he was the officer screaming for help as a man “foaming at the mouth” battered him in his helplessness and tore off his gas mask.

    Officer Dunn opened his testimony with a request for a moment of silence for Brian Sicknick, one of the Capitol Police officers who died after the attack. Dunn — the officer who was captured on camera leading rioters away from vulnerable Congress members — laid out the evident tactical planning that went into the attack, the deliberate coordination of forces for the specific purpose of sacking the Capitol and disrupting the certification of the election.

    Dunn recounted the torrent of racial abuse he absorbed from the mob, and shared that other Black officers he later spoke to had similar experiences to recount. Dunn quoted McCarthy’s searing criticism of Trump, spoken immediately after the attack was over, a vivid counterpoint to the minority leader’s abrupt about-face.

    As we recognize the weight of these witness statements, we are by no means asserting the righteousness of the police or policing; we’re simply sharing the words of those impacted by this right-wing attack. All of us must simultaneously hold the fact that there were police officers involved in the January 6 attack, and that white supremacy — which drove so many of the Capitol attackers — also drives the core of policing.

    Meanwhile, it is easy enough to see why Republicans want to thwart these hearings, if today is any indication of what is to come. January 6 was a Trump riot, a Republican riot, and the four witnesses today made no equivocation on that score. If it hasn’t happened already, I’m betting McCarthy will be getting an angry call from the Beast of Bedminster. Fortunately for democracy, all McCarthy and Trump can do is watch like the rest of us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 13, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Former-slave-state Missouri Senator Josh Hawley doesn’t want America’s white children to be exposed to the simple reality that slavery was not only legal at the founding of our country but was, in several places, written into our Constitution.

    And that the rest of America subsidized the slave-owners’ states and continues to subsidize them to this day.

    Hawley, of course, is the guy who gave a fist-salute to the armed white supremacist traitors who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th to assassinate Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi. He hopes to ride his white supremacy shtick to the White House.

    Doubling down on the GOP notion that America is a nation exclusively of, by and for white people, Hawley has now proposed a law he calls “The Love America Act of 2021.” The bill is only 3 ½ pages long. There’s a bit of legalese to make it into legislation, defining what “school” means, etc., but this is what it says:

    “RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TEACHING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR RACISM — …[N]o Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism.”

    That’s it. That’s the gist of the entire bill.

    In other words, public schools that teach the actual history of our Constitution lose all their federal funds — our tax dollars — and essentially go out of business. It’s really just that simple: white supremacist Republicans like Hawley don’t want your kids to know the true history of America.

    Black children, they say, are old and tough enough to experience racism but white children are just waaay too young and fragile to learn about it.

    Hawley’s protests notwithstanding, racism and white supremacy were very much a part of our founding documents. Consider “Father of the Constitution” (and slaveholder) James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.

    It was the third week of August and the issue of America taxing “property” (a code word for slaves) got tied to the debate about how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The five slave states wanted all their enslaved people counted toward representation — even though they couldn’t vote or enjoy any of the rights of citizenship — but didn’t want to pay any “property tax” on them. The eight “free” states vehemently objected both to counting enslaved people to increase the slave states’ representation in Congress and to subsidizing them via tax law.

    It produced one of the great speeches at the Constitutional Convention, which Madison dutifully transcribed.

    Gouverneur Morris (“Gouverneur” was his first name, not his title) represented Pennsylvania, and single-handedly wrote the Preamble to the Constitution. He was 35 years old, a lawyer and a graduate of Kings College (what we now call Columbia University). And he was an ardent abolitionist.

    “He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery,” Madison wrote, summarizing Morris’ speech. “It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.”

    Warming to his topic, Morris began an extended rant about how destructive slavery was to the new nation they were birthing. It illustrates how wrong Hawley is in saying that racism and white supremacy had nothing to do with writing the Constitution.

    “Compare the [slave]-free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people,” Morris said, “with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.”

    Morris said the enslavement of people was a curse on America that was visible to anybody who simply looked. The free north was prosperous; the south, where people were enslaved, was poor.

    “The moment you leave the Eastern [slave] States,” he said, “and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”

    But the white supremacist slaveholders representing the slave states in the Convention wanted more power in Congress and lower taxes in their own states, much like today’s Republicans. The key to that, they believed, was having some or all of their states’ enslaved Black people counted toward representation in Congress, even though they were in chains and unable to vote.

    In an echo of this very argument last month the white supremacists of the Georgia legislature passed, and Governor Brian Kemp signed into law in front of a painting of a slave plantation, legislation that would give Georgia’s Republicans the ability to simply toss out the votes of people in largely Black districts with the excuse that they “suspect,” with or without evidence, that “fraud” happened.

    Georgia has already begun to purge local voting officials in Black districts, replacing them with safe white Republicans who will make sure elections produce the “right” outcome.

    It’s such a radical law that the CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, Nsé Ufot, bluntly told Politico that unless the law is overturned by ending the filibuster and passing the For The People Act, “we’re fucked.”

    As if we’re torn in half through some weird time machine, Madison continued with his transcription of Gouverneur Morris’ speech.

    “Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation?” Morris demanded of his colleagues. “Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included [in determining representation}? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.”

    And then Morris nailed down precisely how and why racism and white supremacy were written into the Constitution with the so-called “3/5ths compromise” (among other places) that gave southern states more members in the House of Representatives than their white population would justify.

    “The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this,—that the [white] inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who go to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes… than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”

    It was all about using racism and white supremacy to increase the power of white people in the South, and then force the rest of the country to subsidize them.

    Keep in mind that Democrats in the U.S. Senate today represent 41 million more people than do the Senate’s Republicans. And, echoing 1787, Georgia and 17 other Republican-controlled mostly-former-slave-states have now put into law the power for them to deny the vote to Black people or simply refuse to count their votes.

    But back to 1787:

    Morris paused to gather his thoughts, and then, Madison noted, continued, this time calling out the Southern oligarchs who flaunted their riches made possible by slave labor while asking the northern states to pay for their defense and otherwise subsidize them with northern tax dollars.

    “He would add,” Madison wrote, “that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy.”

    Morris was probably shouting at this point; such language is rarely found in our founding documents and may help explain why Madison kept his “notes” secret until his death nearly 50 years later. Morris pointed out how the south was essentially demanding that the north subsidize them financially, something that continues to this day.

    “And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States,” Morris demanded, “for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? … The … tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave….”

    Morris lost the argument and the southern slave states got extra representation in Congress along with no federal taxation of their “property.” But the GOP sure doesn’t want you or your kids to know that.

    If Hawley’s bill were to become law, any public school that taught Morris’ anti-slavery speech would lose all federal funding. This is how white supremacy works today and, indeed, has worked in this nation since our founding.

    Their strategy is straightforward: Control history (from Texas editing Martin Luther King out of its textbooks to generations of statues of Confederate generals), suppress the political power of Black people while subsidizing Red states, and do it all with a thin patina of legalese.

    Northern states generally make it easy for all people to vote while former slave states do everything they can to suppress the Black vote (along with the votes of young people and older Social Security voters).

    Former slave states like Hawley’s Missouri represent the overwhelming majority of states to have passed voter suppression legislation. And they’re still hustling tax dollars from the rest of us, just as Morris complained about in 1787.

    Northern states get back a fraction of every dollar they send to Washington, DC while former slave states get as much as $2 for every tax dollar they send the federal government.

    As the AP noted in 2017:

    “Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

    “Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.”

    White supremacy, racism and the rest of America subsidizing Red states weren’t just realities in 1787: they’re alive and well today.

    Hawley and his white supremacist buddies in the GOP want to keep it that way, and their hateful “Love America Act” is just the latest disgusting part of their strategy. We’ve been tolerating and subsidizing these losers since 1787 and it’s time to stop.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • So, maybe it didn’t begin there, but is that where it all came together and became the lip signed treaty between President and Party? Was the infamous 2017 around-the-table butt-kissing spectacle the inflection point; the official surrender of the Republican Party to Donald Trump?

    They took turns demeaning themselves and the America people, with Reince Priebus offering up the best summation: “On behalf of the entire senior staff around you, Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda … and the American people.”

    It might have come as a surprise, even to him – not just the willingness, but the seeming eagerness with which they bent over publicly and gave up their human dignity and the charade of serving their country. They were all in. If he hadn’t already known it, Trump must surely have looked around the table that afternoon and realized he could do anything; anything at all and there would be no resistance. “What a bunch of gutless suckers,” he likely thought. “I can work with these people.”

    The scene was made more deplorable in knowing the subsistence level of all those present. All were men and women of enviable means. Their economic livelihoods were not at risk. Their families were not held in jeopardy. Each could have stepped away to un-toady respectability and a more than comfortable lifestyle. But none did. They instead made political reality of Trump’s Access Hollywood braggart admission of sexual assault: “They let you do it. You can do anything.”

    What if they had laughed when Mike Pence first pursed his lips and commenced the parade of abdication: “It’s the greatest privilege of my life to serve as vice president to a president who is keeping his word to the American people, and assembling a team that’s bringing real change, real prosperity, real strength back to our nation.” What if even just one of them had spontaneously laughed out loud, would it have broken the spell? Could the Party (and perhaps the country) have been saved with some animating laughter at the cringe-worthy pandering?

    More than four years have lurched by since that memorable day. They’re not sitting around the adoration table anymore, and many of the faces have changed, but the groveling still goes on. They now pay homage individually with trips to Mar-a-Lago and testimonials on Fox News, Trump TV, or any media outlets offering a kneeling bench.

    In absentia, the former president presides over an emasculated Party. Trump’s presidency is now gone, but his will is still here. His Party is still here, but its will is now gone. They are letting him do it. The Republican Party (and American democracy) is dissolving under the acidic tongue of political butt-kissing. The dissolution is too far along. The 2017 potential off-ramp was missed; the spell can’t be broken with awakening laughter. The Republican Party has immolated itself. The residue still left is the Party of Trump. The POT platform has but one unstable pillar: the autocratic will of Trump.

    What happened to the once proud, even macho-inclined culture of the Republican Party? How was it so easily seduced into fulfilling the desires of a man whose moral credo is: “They let you do it. You can do anything.”

    An acclaimed social psychology study might offer a clue. The Righteous Mind (2012) by Jonathan Haidt explored social/political morality. He examined the perceptions we hold that nudge us towards liberal or conservative stances and often into left-leaning or right-leaning political parties. Haidt delineated a moral matrix of six primary spectrums that influence our social and political leanings: Care/harm, Liberty/oppression, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. Through widespread survey and scrutiny, he discerned a difference in weighting to the components held by liberal, libertarian, and conservative mind-sets.

    As charted below, the liberal moral matrix heavily weights the first three components (but especially Care/harm), the libertarian moral matrix heavily weights the second two components (but especially Liberty/oppression), while the conservative moral matrix weights all components about equally (none are heavily weighted).

    It’s been almost a decade since publication. There appears to be a “new kid” on the block who wasn’t present in 2012. The balanced weighting of Haidt’s conservative moral matrix is not evident in what has become the POT, nor does it conform to either of the other two moral matrix mixes. If its values were charted, it would likely show an extremely heavy line drawn to the Authority/subversion component. It would be the one line of significant breadth. The overwhelming propensity of the POT is to reflect the will of its leader. All other matrix components have been marginalized. The POT is an authoritarian political entity that fell out of the conservative moral matrix once characterizing the GOP.

    So what really changed? It wasn’t a wholesale swap of physical bodies. Most of the prior GOP constituency is intact; many of its stewards are still there, but somehow it has managed to mutate into a POT morality with hardly more than a hiccup. How could that be? It’s as if a congregation went to church one Sunday morning, found its traditional god replaced, yet was still able to sing familiar hymns as if nothing of substance had occurred.

    The Righteous Mind’s aim was not to denigrate one camp over another, but to explore their differences in hopes of stimulating awareness and receptive dialogue between opposing advocates (its subtitle is, Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion). That said, the transformation of the GOP into the POT begs at least one partisan sounding question: Does the GOP’s morph into the POT indicate that the conservative moral matrix mix is unstable and prone to transmutation? Put another way, despite the air of individualistic bravado, are conservative minds more easily manipulated into abandoning former values and embracing authoritarian voices?

    Again, looking at the charts, the liberal moral matrix is moored to Care/harm and the libertarian matrix is tethered to Liberty/oppression. It’s only the conservative moral matrix that is equally weighted, showing no anchor to any particular component. Is that a clue to its apparent instability?

    “Equally weighted” usually speaks to stability, but as a moral matrix feature, it means just a little weight added to any component makes that component dominant. The conservative moral matrix has no preexisting heavily weighted component to resist such manipulation. With relatively little effort, a demagogue can add a thumb to the weight of any component, suddenly giving it (and the demagogue) overriding influence.

    The conservative moral matrix is not moored to the Care/harm component, nor is the libertarian matrix. Both are thus susceptible to bypassing or devaluing its import. Broadly speaking, Care/harm is a measure of one’s sensitivity to the distress and well-being of others. Its exclusion or downplay is dangerous to humanity. A political party without Care/harm sentiment is like a physician without a “first, do no harm” principle; pretext is easily justified and ruthlessness has little hindrance.

    It may not have begun with Trump, but a transmutation of this sort has certainly “blossomed” under his watch. His thumb has altered the POT matrix into something that is no longer the conservative moral matrix. When he pushes the Authority/subversion button, all other values are marginalized. The party voice might sound the same; the choir might sing long familiar hymns (freedom, independence, patriotism, etc.) but it does so while dismantling its prior core values (and with it, American democracy). The “only I can fix it” former president presides while his minions “fix” democracy to his authoritarian liking. It’s happening now. In state after state, suffrage is being suppressed, past elections are being invalidated, and future elections are being primed for manipulation. If he and his party prevail, democracy won’t. “American democracy,” like “Russian democracy,” will be a misnomer.

    The POT threat to democracy is coming from the right. Could it just as easily have come from the left? It’s another partisan sounding question, but an almost automatic follow-on to the first.

    Does its anchor in Care/harm protect liberal ambition from authoritarian intrusion and manipulation? Might an “only I can fix it” liberal arise to such prominence that Care/harm values could be abandoned in pursuit of another supposed need? Or could the Care/harm value be so threatened that only the power of a demagogue could save it?

    Demagogues and authoritarians usually arise through promises to address the fears/concerns of one part of a population over another. Demagogues are willing to inflict pain and suffering on one group in order to cement support from another. It’s hard to imagine a would-be leader infused with Care/harm values seeking power in such manner. It’s equally hard to imagine a Care/harm constituency that would be taken in by such tactics. But, “hard to imagine” doesn’t mean impossible. Twenty years ago, could one have reasonably imagined a proud GOP’s devolution into the POT? Could one have imagined “strong” and outspoken GOP leaders like McConnell, McCarthy, Pence, Graham, Cruz, Meadows, Jordan, and too many others so weakly offering themselves up to a wuss-demanding figure like Trump? Could one have imagined a GOP constituency willing to follow and support such sheepish leaders?

    But there’s no point right now in imagining which party or matrix might be most susceptible to decay or manipulation. One has already disintegrated; the GOP is gone. There’s no conservative moral matrix holding party left on the field. There’s only the POT and an authoritarian leader in its place. Its moral matrix is whatever its leader wishes it to be. His supplicants have assumed the position: They are letting him do it. They are letting him do anything.

    Not everyone; they didn’t all bend over. There still are individuals with a balanced conservative moral matrix base. They still do have some grounding in its Care/harm component. While the POT easily presides, perhaps as many as 34% of the former GOP would rather that it didn’t. It’s a minority, but a significant minority. It’s one that can’t control the POT’s direction, but it can determine its fate. Trump is taking the country down the road to authoritarianism. Today, the easy way there is through the ballot. Tomorrow, the only way back will be through blood, the blood of our children. The POT will let him do it; they will let him do anything. But it will take more than just that. He needs all of what used to be the GOP. He needs the acquiescence of its 34% to succeed.

    So, it’s a question for the 34%, the one that must be answered: Will you let him do it?

    The post The 34% Question first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Former President Donald Trump speaks during the Rally To Protect Our Elections conference on July 24, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    As Republicans scuffled with Democrats and the White House over the massively watered-down bipartisan infrastructure package on Monday, former President Donald Trump issued a statement pressuring the GOP to drop the negotiations entirely.

    Trump said that the negotiations make the Republicans look weak and criticized Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) for capitulating to Democrats’ demands on the infrastructure bill, even though McConnell isn’t part of the bipartisan group forming the package. It’s McConnell, too, who has been unforgivingly critical of the Democrats’ proposals on infrastructure.

    The former president also said that the Republicans should wait until 2022 to pass an infrastructure package, when he thinks “proper election results” — Republican-favoring results — could come in.

    “Don’t do the infrastructure deal, wait until after we get proper election results in 2022 or otherwise, and regain a strong negotiating stance,” Trump said. “Republicans, don’t let the Radical Left play you for weak fools and losers!”

    Trump’s statement comes as Republican senators are blaming Democrats for yet another delay in the process, despite the fact that it’s the GOP that has dragged the infrastructure talks on for months. The statement from the former president, not known to mince words as much as his Republican colleagues, is also a show of the Republican mindset on the bill.

    President Joe Biden and Democrats have already agreed to massive cuts to the infrastructure bill. The topline new spending has come down from $4 trillion to $579 billion, shedding many of the climate and socioeconomic measures from Biden’s original proposal along the way. Republicans have also had their way with the pay-fors on the bill, successfully cutting provisions to tax corporations and the wealthy and even nixing a proposal to fund the Internal Revenue Service to enforce existing tax laws on the rich.

    For Republicans, cutting nearly all of the transformative measures from the bill evidently isn’t enough. Democrats sent Republicans an offer on Sunday to wrap up outstanding disagreements on the bill, which Republicans not only rejected but also branded as an insult, saying that the items on the Democrats’ offer were already decided.

    The debacle is laying bare what appears to be the Republican strategy on negotiating for the bill, and elsewhere: Force Democrats to capitulate, or else threaten to withdraw GOP support altogether, thus imperiling the passage of the bill itself. It’s also possible that the Republicans, forever dangling the bipartisanship carrot in front of Democrats, were always planning to make good on their threats to kill the legislation in the end and make Democrats look weak.

    Now Trump telling Republicans to withdraw their support reinforces that message. Republicans have largely gotten everything they wanted; the total figure for new spending in the bipartisan bill, $579 billion, is far closer to the GOP-only infrastructure offer of $257 billion from May, than Biden’s original proposal of $2.25 trillion.

    Allowing Republicans to delay and weaken the bill over the course of several months is precisely what progressives were warning against early in the process for the bill. In May, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) warned the White House against negotiating with the Republicans, saying, “the bottom line is the American people want results.”

    The public doesn’t always consider whether or not a bill was bipartisan when they see tangible positive results, Sanders said. “Frankly, when people got a, you know, $1,400 check or $5,600 check for their family, they didn’t say, ‘Oh, I can’t cash this check because it was done without any Republican votes,’” said the senator, referring to the direct relief payments passed in the American Rescue package.

    Sanders warned later that month that Democrats could lose Congress in the midterm elections if they push too hard for bipartisanship with the party that has a stated disinterest in the practice. Progressives in Congress also put pressure on the White House to stop giving in to Republican demands on infrastructure, saying that they would withdraw their support for the bill if it omitted crucial proposals to address the climate crisis.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Daylight view from below of Michigan State capitol building on overcast day in Lansing, Michigan.

    After Republican officials in Michigan voted to award themselves bonuses totaling $65,000 from federal COVID relief funds set aside for frontline workers, they have vowed to return the money — but only after public outcry and the filing of a lawsuit against them.

    Earlier this month, Republican commissioners in Shiawassee county voted 6-0 to give themselves a significant portion of the $557,000 allotted to 250 county employees as hazard pay for working through the pandemic. MLive reports that they are the only county to have voted to do so.

    While county employees received $1,000 to $2,000 for their work, the commissioners voted to give themselves much more. Commission chairman Jeremy Root received $25,000 last week. Two commissioners received $10,000, while others got $5,000 each.

    The commissioners, all Republicans, voted to award higher sums to other top Republican officials as well — like Sheriff Brian BeGole, who received $25,000.

    Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Michigan) criticized the commissioners’ vote. A spokesperson for Kildee told ABC12 that the commissioners decided “to benefit themselves instead of the community.”

    “American Rescue Plan dollars were intended to help frontline workers and families impacted by the pandemic, not elected officials,” Kildee said. While health department officials received $2,500 and other lower-level staff received only $1,000, the commissioners awarded themselves 10 times those amounts.

    One Michigan resident has sued the officials, accusing them of violating the law by holding a “secret private meeting” in which they voted on the amounts that they were going to pocket “outside the view of the public.” Meanwhile, other county employees only received an average of $2,148 for their work, the lawsuit says.

    The county prosecutor, Scott Koerner, also pushed back on the officials’ vote, saying that he believed the bonuses were illegal. The commissioners had voted to give Koerner $12,500.

    It’s likely that the bonuses were, indeed, given out in violation of guidelines for the funds from the federal government. A Justice Department spokesperson told MLive that “[American Rescue Plan] dollars used for hazard pay should prioritize low-income workers who were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and essential workers who have faced the greatest risk of exposure,” MLive wrote.

    The GOP commissioners pushed back on the criticism. “Since these payments were made, confusion about the nature of these funds has run rampant,” they said in a statement. They wrote that they “deeply regret that this gesture has been misinterpreted, and have unanimously decided to voluntarily return the funds to the county, pending additional guidance from the state of Michigan.”

    One of the commissioners, Marlene Webster, pushed back on the statement that the public “misinterpreted” the bonuses. Webster wrote in a Facebook post — where she also insisted that she didn’t realize she was voting for a bonus for herself — that the statement issued by the board of commissioners is “an insult to the citizens of Shiawassee county.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The U.S. Capitol Building is seen reflecting on glass on July 26, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Republicans have rejected a Democratic offer to wrap up outstanding final details on the bipartisan infrastructure package, imperiling promises from the Senate group to have the bill finished by Monday. This week is crucial for moving ahead on the bill, but there are still outstanding issues over things like funding for mass transit.

    Republicans in the bipartisan group objected to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York) filing to advance the bill last week, saying that the bill would be ready by Monday. Every Republican in the Senate voted against advancing the bill, making it fall far short of the 60 votes it needed to advance to debate on the floor.

    Now, Monday has arrived, and there are still multiple issues that have yet to be hammered out within the group — and the two parties can’t even agree on which issues are still outstanding.

    “The ‘global offer’ we received from the White House and Chuck Schumer was discouraging since it attempts to reopen numerous issues the bipartisan group had already agreed to,” a GOP source told CNN. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said over the weekend that the outstanding issue was on funding for mass transit on the Republican side.

    But, according to Democrats familiar with the negotiations, there are more unresolved issues than just mass transit. Funding for crucial infrastructure like highways, water and broadband are still in question. There’s also still disagreement in terms of how much of the leftover COVID stimulus funds can be used to pay for the bill and on a rule called the Davis-Bacon, which says that federal contractors can’t pay employees less than the “prevailing wage” for construction projects.

    Senators were optimistic over the weekend that it can be done soon. “We’re down to the last couple of items, and I think you’re going to see a bill Monday afternoon,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) said on Sunday on Fox News. With Republicans rejecting the Democrats’ last offer, that deadline could very well be missed.

    If the senators come to an agreement on the bill soon, then Schumer could call a vote to advance the bill again this week. If it fails to garner the required votes, he’ll have to start the process of filing for cloture all over again, which could delay the bill even further.

    Time is of the essence as the Senate is set to leave for recess in two weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) emphasized again over the weekend that she wants the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill to be passed with the infrastructure bill, so this week is crucial for getting the bills moving.

    Not only are Republicans in disagreement over what’s left to negotiate, they’ve also expressed frustration with Democrats over the transit issue. They claim to have made fair offers to Democrats on transit, and have threatened to withdraw their support unless the Democrats capitulate to their offers. “Unless Democrats show more flexibility, this deal is unlikely to happen,” a GOP source told Politico.

    It isn’t much of a surprise that Republicans again seem to be delaying the infrastructure bill. They’ve held up the bill for months in negotiations, and are still unsatisfied with it despite having whittled it down to nearly an eighth of the original size that President Joe Biden had proposed. And, still, they blamed the delay on Monday on Democrats.

    “If this is going to be successful, the White House will need to show more flexibility as Republicans have done and listen to the members of the group that produced this framework,” a GOP source told CNN. But the White House has already capitulated to a wide swath of Republican demands, watering the bill down to what it is today.

    Instead, it’s Republicans who bear more responsibility for delaying the bill than Democrats. In the first Senate-wide vote on the measure, they had rejected Schumer’s cloture filing last week despite the fact that final details don’t need to be ironed out in order for the bill to advance to debate on the Senate floor, as the majority leader pointed out.

    Democrats and progressives have said repeatedly that the months-long delay is a tactic employed by the GOP to polarize and water down Democratic proposals. They point to the example of the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama when Republicans similarly dragged out talks for months only to vote against it anyway. In the process, however, they achieved what they set out to do — politicize and weaken the bill considerably.

    “My fear is that we could see a repetition of what we saw with the Affordable Care Act,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) told ABC last week, “where discussions went on and on and on and then never went any place.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass legislation making it harder to vote in the US, forcing Democrats to take extraordinary action to combat it.

    GOP legislators in several states are advancing bills that place more restrictions on voting, prompting Democrats to leave the state to stop the bills from passing. This comes after Donald Trump’s election loss last year, which he falsely claimed was due to voter fraud.

    But it’s not just in the US where voting rights are under threat. In the UK, the Tories also have plans that threaten the franchise.

    Flying out of the state

    In Republican-controlled Texas, lawmakers advanced a bill earlier this month that would stop drive-thru voting, 24-hour polling stations, place new ID requirements on mail-in ballots, and ban drop boxes.

    In response, Democrats flew out of the state – as the Republicans need a two-thirds quorum to go ahead with state business. Quorum refers to the minimum number of members of a legislature that must be present to make the meeting valid.

    Texas Democrats had employed a similar walk-out in May to protest the voting bill at an earlier stage – but the last time they actually left the state to stop the progress of a bill was 2003.

    Texas already has some of the tightest voting laws in the US, with only those meeting specific criteria – such as being disabled or over 65 – able to vote by post. Trump won the state in the 2020 election, but it had some of the lowest turnout figures across the country.

    Country-wide issue

    Texas isn’t the only state where Republicans are trying to curb voting rights – the GOP has also advanced restricting bills in states such as Alabama and Florida.

    President Joe Biden has criticised the attempts, saying:

    There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today, an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are as Americans.

    Biden has asked for reinstatement of some of the parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court got rid of in 2013.

    However, he did not endorse a change many Democrats are asking for. Voting rights advocates want him to support alterations to the Senate filibuster rule so Democrats need only a simple majority vote to pass legislation.

    Filibustering

    In the meantime, Democrats are also using filibustering as a tactic as they try to resist voting laws. In Alabama, walking out to block the quorum is impossible as Republicans there have a supermajority, meaning a quorum can be formed without Democrats.

    As a result, Democrats in Alabama attempted to launch a filibuster to block Republican voting restrictions in May, but it was unsuccessful.

    And with a Republican majority in the Supreme Court – Democrats have little support there either. At the beginning of July, the Supreme Court decided a big voting rights case. It upheld two restrictive Arizona voting laws that “essentially gutted what’s left of the Voting Rights Act”.

    The scale of the problem

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of 14 July, 18 states across the US have enacted 30 laws that restrict voting access just this year. More than 400 bills intending to make it harder to vote were introduced during the 2021 legislative session, across nearly every state.

    But the Biden administration is fighting back. The ‘For the People Act’ could make state-level laws less effective. It has passed the House, but still needs to pass the Senate to be enacted into law.

    Voting rights advocates Common Cause are calling for US residents to write to their senators and ask them to support the For the People Act:

    We the People deserve a responsive, accountable government that gives us all a stronger voice and puts our needs ahead of special interests.

    Congress must pass the For The People Act (H.R. 1) — a bold, comprehensive package of democracy reforms including independent redistricting commissions, citizen-funded elections, closing the revolving door between government and corporate interests, and protecting voters against discrimination.

    H.R. 1 — is the boldest democracy reform since Watergate. It’s a massive overhaul of money-in-politics, voting, and ethics laws — all to make our democracy more inclusive.

    Voter suppression in the UK

    It’s not just the US enacting laws to disenfranchise voters – the UK government has also set out plans to introduce a mandatory requirement for voters to provide photo ID.

    Opposition MPs and campaigners have slammed the move as one that will decrease turnout, and particularly target minority voters.

    When the plans were announced, Labour MP Nadia Whittome said:

    Requiring photo ID to vote when 1 in 4 don’t have it will stop people from voting. But that’s the point. Because this isn’t about stopping voter fraud – it’s about disenfranchising the young, the poor, and people of colour. People less likely to vote Tory.

    Global voter suppression

    There is no evidence that these restrictions are necessary in either the UK or the US. In the UK voter fraud is such a small problem the reforms are in no way justified, and in the US, new voter restrictions only play into Trump’s false claims that voter fraud led to his loss last year.

    The concurrent attempts to disenfranchise parts of the electorate on both sides of the Atlantic are concerning for the future of democracy – particularly because such laws disproportionately affect those less likely to vote Republican or Conservative.

    Featured image via YouTube/The Telegraph & YouTube/CBS Evening News

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • President Joe Biden participates in a CNN Town Hall hosted by Don Lemon at Mount St. Joseph University in Cincinnati, Ohio, July 21, 2021.

    President Joe Biden said late Wednesday that he remains opposed to eliminating the legislative filibuster even as the Senate GOP uses the archaic procedural tool to obstruct his agenda, including a popular bill that would shield voting rights from state-level Republicans hellbent on eroding them.

    During a CNN town hall in Cincinnati, Biden reiterated his support for bringing back the so-called talking filibuster, which required senators to hold the floor and speak continuously in order to block legislation.

    But abolishing the filibuster outright — a move supported by a growing coalition of Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate — would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done,” the president claimed, even as he agreed that the filibuster is a Jim Crow relic.

    Biden went on to insist, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that some congressional Republicans “know better” and can be won over to the cause of protecting the right to vote — which the GOP is working aggressively to curtail in dozens of states nationwide.

    “They know better than this,” the president said. “What I don’t want to do is get wrapped up right now in the argument whether or not this is all about the filibuster.”

    While some observers were encouraged by Biden’s support for filibuster reform, others criticized the president for clinging to his hope for a Republican epiphany that did not materialize during his first six months in office.

    “This answer from Biden on the filibuster just doesn’t make sense,” said Sawyer Hackett, executive director of People First Future. “Republicans aren’t going to wake up and ‘know better’ than suppressing the vote. The filibuster encourages them to obstruct and our reluctance to end it emboldens them to do worse.”

    Adam Jentleson, executive director of the Battle Born Collective and a former Senate aide, argued that “sometime soon, it will become clear that there is no voting rights compromise that can get 60 votes” — the number necessary to break a legislative filibuster.

    “At that point, there is no more wiggle room, no more vague talk about bringing Republicans along,” Jentleson said. “The choice will be, reform the filibuster or let voting rights die on your watch.”

    Biden’s remarks came just a month after Senate Republicans wielded the legislative filibuster to block debate on the For the People Act, a sweeping bill that would expand ballot access and undercut voter suppression efforts by Republicans at the state level. Since January, at least 14 Republican-led states have enacted more than 20 laws aimed at restricting voting rights.

    Following the Senate GOP’s obstruction of the For the People Act, Biden delivered a speech in Philadelphia in which he described passage of the bill as “a national imperative” and slammed Republican voter suppression efforts as a “21st century Jim Crow assault.”

    But the president didn’t mention the filibuster, which can be eliminated with a simple-majority vote in the Senate. Such a vote would require the support of the entire Democratic caucus plus Vice President Kamala Harris, who would act as a tie-breaker.

    In an open letter published online Wednesday, more than 30 former chiefs of staff to Democratic senators called for complete repeal — or, at the very least, reform — of the legislative filibuster, which they said “has put a chokehold” on the upper chamber.

    Contrary to Biden’s claim that abolishing the filibuster would throw the Senate into chaos — a claim that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has also made — the former Senate aides argued that “ending the filibuster will not make the Senate more partisan.”

    “The filibuster has been weaponized by an increasingly partisan Senate,” the former aides wrote. “Removing this weapon would be a step toward — not away from — comity.”

    Eli Zupnick, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Fix Our Senate, said in a statement Wednesday that “few understand and respect the Senate and its members more than the former chiefs of staff who signed onto this letter.”

    “Their strong call for reform,” Zupnick continued, “is the latest in a growing chorus of respected voices making the case that the filibuster is being abused and has become a clear roadblock to progress of any kind.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.