We have a great process that requires a little support. When that support is not there, the wheels come off. The wheels are coming off because we can’t bring in a few donations. Yes, the donation you make will matter. Your participation matters here — the organization is literally built around it. Reader. Supported. News. It works. Marc Ash If you would prefer to send a check: |
09 June 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
RSN: William Boardman | Joe Manchin Argues: Self-Defeating Idiocy Is Best Choice
William Boardman, Reader Supported News
Boardman writes: "Among the many threats to free and fair elections in the United States, one of the most immediate is Senator Joe Manchin III, a multi-millionaire, career politician of West Virginia."
mong the many threats to free and fair elections in the United States, one of the most immediate is Senator Joe Manchin III, a multi-millionaire, career politician of West Virginia. As a putative Democrat (under Trump, he voted Republican about half the time), Manchin is best known for his high self-regard and his abiding by whatever principles are likely to secure his re-election in West Virginia. His circumstances make it politically difficult to lead on any serious matter – for example, voting rights.
Rather than take on the challenge of actual leadership, Manchin puts on a show of faux leadership. This makes him look like an idiot.
Evidence of his idiocy is plentiful, most recently his op ed in the Charleston (WV) Gazette-Mail on June 6, excerpts from which follow, with comment. Manchin begins:
The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics.
Who could disagree with such idealistic, empty rhetoric? And who doesn’t want to know how such rhetoric informs action? For Manchin, this “high-mindedness” serves as an excuse for inaction. And his formulation is mindlessly divorced from history. American democracy began with little regard for any universal right to vote. Our history features a long struggle to expand suffrage, and Manchin has positioned himself on the wrong side of that history. Manchin continues:
Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.
This is the core of Manchin’s bait-and-switch mantra. He paints himself into a corner of imaginary bipartisanship, then has the chutzpah to complain that he’s painted into a corner.
Almost any sentient being knows by now that “bipartisanship” is currently a political unicorn. Republican senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has been saying that out loud since 2009. “Bipartisanship” is a shibboleth for fools and frauds, a tool Republicans use to manipulate the soft-headed. Manchin’s soft-headed position leads to the absurd possibility that if internment camps were bipartisan, he’d be for them (oh, wait, he’s been there when it was useful in Guantanamo or along the southern border).
In its simplest form, Manchin’s position is that you shouldn’t do the right thing unless your opponents agree. How is this not self-imposed impotence?
The reality now is that Republicans have introduced 389 bills to limit voting rights in 48 states (the only exceptions being Vermont and Hawaii). Does Manchin inveigh against this hyper-partisan attack on what he calls a fundamental right? He does not.
In self-defense, Manchin claims that he supported early voting in West Virginia, which is hardly relevant or exculpatory. Once again he invokes bipartisanship:
Throughout my tenure in politics, I have been guided by this simple philosophy – our party labels can’t prevent us from doing what is right.
This would be laughable but for Manchin’s critical position in the Senate and the high stakes involved for the country. Manchin’s self-imposed reality is to avoid doing what is right.
Manchin argues that “the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized,” which, either dumb or dishonest, is a gross distortion of history. But Manchin goes on to use this false premise to justify his actual support (by inaction) for partisan voting laws. His garbled argument remains rooted in avoidance.
Manchin says he won’t vote for the For The People Act (first passed by the House in 2019) but does not object to a single element in its 818 pages. This is a remarkable failure of critical intelligence, even for a senator. No Republican supports the bill, so Manchin hands them a veto over his vote. He complains that the act has zero Republican support, but doesn’t even try to analyze why. He diverts attention by wondering why Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump don’t support voting rights. And asks:
Are these same senators, whom many in my party applauded for their courage, now threats to the very democracy we seek to protect?
Well, yes, they are. Pretty much all Republicans in Congress are “threats to the very democracy we seek to protect.” What do you mean “we,” Joe? You’re lined up with them while you gaslight the rest of us about protecting democracy. And Manchin’s flimflam hardly stops there, as he rushes to protect the filibuster that protects the Senate from actually rescuing voting rights from partisan assault:
They’ve attempted to demonize the filibuster and conveniently ignore how it has been critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past.
Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t come much purer than this. Any honest examination of the filibuster recognizes that it can be used for good or ill. Currently it is being used mostly for ill, such as blocking voting rights. Historically, the filibuster was hugely useful to racist southern Democrats in holding off the Civil Rights Movement and perpetuating Jim Crow laws. Joe Manchin may not be a racist, but he tucks himself in bed with racists.
In an apparent effort to seem reasonable, Manchin offers an alternative:
The truth is there is a better way – if we seek to find it together.
The Voting Rights Act [of 1965], for example, was monumental in the fight to guarantee freer and fairer elections in the United States. Since its original passage, it has been reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan votes five separate times. In addition, there is bipartisan support to pass the latest iteration of this legislation, the rightfully named John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
This is all well and good, as far as it goes. But as Manchin knows, it doesn’t go very far. This legislation is mostly a repair job, an effort to address the damage the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act in its 2013 decision (5-4) in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529. That was the case in which Chief Justice John Roberts invented his own reality and, in effect, declared that racism was over in America and voters no longer needed to be protected from official bigotry.
Like anyone looking to redress the court’s insanity, Manchin is in good company supporting this legislation, even if it does little more than restore the legal context of 2012. That’s better than nothing, but not much. The Republican assault on voting rights in America is more than twenty years old, and Joe Manchin continues to be one of its facilitators. He’d rather you didn’t pay attention to that. Instead, he concludes his op ed:
American democracy is something special, it is bigger than one party, or the tweet-filled partisan attack politics of the moment. It is my sincere hope that all of us, especially those who are privileged to serve, remember our responsibility to do more to unite this country before it is too late.
Joe Manchin “hopes” Republicans will remember their responsibility to unite this country. Really? After decades of deliberate division? All we have is a vain hope? And if they don’t, what does Joe Manchin plan to do? He’s going to enable the success of their partisanship, all in the name of bipartisanship. And if it turns out to be too late, will he believe his chimerical delusion was worth it?
If Joe Manchin is not an idiot, why does he play one in the Senate?
William Boardman has over 40 years’ experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary and a stint with Captain Kangaroo. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. A collection of his essays, EXCEPTIONAL: American Exceptionalism Takes Its Toll, published in September 2019, is available from Yorkland Publishing of Toronto or Amazon.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
Mourners visit the scene of Sunday's hate-motivated vehicle attack in London, Ontario, Canada which left four members of a Muslim family dead and injured a 9-year-old boy. (photo: Geoff Robins/AP)
A Man Ran Over a Muslim Family With His Truck Because of Their Religion, Police Say
Associated Press
Excerpt: "A pickup truck attack that killed four members of an immigrant family has shaken Canada, a country where immigrants are largely accepted, and drew denunciations Tuesday from Canada's prime minister, who called it a hate crime directed at Muslims."
The victims — two parents, two children and a grandmother — were on an evening walk when the driver of the truck struck them at an intersection in London, Ontario. The sole survivor was a 9-year-old boy, who was hospitalized.
"This was a terrorist attack, motivated by hatred, in the heart of one of our communities," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Parliament. "If anyone thinks racism and hatred don't exist in this country, I want to say this: How do we explain such violence to a child in a hospital? How can we look families in the eye and say "Islamophobia isn't real"?
The victims' extended family issued a statement identifying the dead as Salman Afzal, 46; his wife Madiha, 44; their daughter Yumna, 15; and a 74-year-old grandmother whose name was withheld. The hospitalized boy was identified as the couple's son, Fayez. Friends said the family immigrated to Canada 14 years ago.
Many Canadians have been enjoying evening walks to get fresh air after long days at home during the pandemic, Trudeau said.
"But unlike every other night, this family never made it home," Trudeau said. "Their lives were taken in a brutal, cowardly and brazen act of violence. This killing was no accident. ... Canadians are outraged by what happened on Sunday. And many Muslim Canadians are scared."
Trudeau said words matter and in part blamed rhetoric, disinformation and extremism online and in politics.
"They can be a seed that grows into an ugly, pervasive trend. And sometimes, they lead to real violence," the prime minister said.
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan said on Twitter that the attack revealed the growing Islamophobia in Western countries.
A 20-year-old suspect, Nathaniel Veltman, was arrested in the parking lot of a nearby mall. He was facing four counts of first-degree murder. Police were inside the suspect's London apartment on Tuesday.
Police said Veltman did not know the victims. Detective Supt. Paul Waight said it was not clear if he belonged to any specific hate group, but that local police were working with federal authorities to investigate potential terrorism charges. He said the attack was planned.
Veltman worked part time at an egg farm in nearby Strathroy, Ontario. The chief executive of Gray Ridge Eggs Inc., William Gray, gave no details about Veltman's job. He said the company was "shocked and saddened" by the attack, and he expressed sympathy for the victims' relatives and the Muslim community.
Everyone who knew the Afzal family knew "the model family they were as Muslims, Canadians and Pakistanis," the statement from the extended family said. "They worked extremely hard in their fields and excelled. Their children were top students in their school and connected strongly with their spiritual identity."
A fundraising webpage said the father was a physiotherapist and cricket enthusiast and his wife was working on a doctorate in civil engineering at Western University in London. Their daughter was finishing ninth grade, and the grandmother was a "pillar" of the family, the page said.
The family statement urged the public to stand against hate and Islamophobia.
"This young man who committed this act of terror was influenced by a group that he associated with, and the rest of the community must take a strong stand against this, from the highest levels in our government to every member of the community," the statement said.
Flowers were placed around a light pole and a tree where the truck crossed onto the sidewalk. A vigil was scheduled for Tuesday night at the mosque the family attended. Trudeau and other federal political party leaders were scheduled to attend. Pandemic restrictions were eased to allow mourners to attend the vigil.
Rauf Ahmad and three friends watched the growing tribute on the corner.
"I didn't think there was racism in Canada, and I felt very safe when I came here two years ago, but I do not feel safe now," Ahmad said. "Humanity is first. We should not care about whether someone is a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian."
Zahid Khan, a family friend, said the family belonged to the London Muslim Mosque.
"They were just out for their walk that they would go out for every day," Khan said through tears near the site of the crash. "I just wanted to see."
Mayor Ed Holder said flags would be lowered for three days in London, which he said has 30,000 to 40,000 Muslims among its more than 400,000 residents.
Canada is generally welcoming toward immigrants and all religions, but in 2017 a French Canadian man known for far-right, nationalist views went on a shooting rampage at a Quebec City mosque that killed six people.
"Canada is not immune to the kind of intolerance and division we have seen elsewhere in the world," Trudeau said.
Attorney Bruce Castor represented former president Donald Trump at his Senate trial after the House of Representatives impeached Trump for the second time. (photo: AP)
Trump Impeachment Lawyers Are Now Representing Capitol Riot Defendants
Tom Dreisbach, NPR
Dreisbach writes: "Attorneys Michael van der Veen and Bruce Castor defended former President Donald Trump at his Senate impeachment trial over allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection."
Even as van der Veen, Castor and the Trump defense team called the impeachment "political theater" and ultimately secured Trump's acquittal, they condemned the rioters for bringing "unprecedented havoc, mayhem and death" to the Capitol. They argued in a legal brief that the rioters' actions deserve "robust and swift investigation and prosecution."
Now, van der Veen and Castor find themselves on the other side of those prosecutions, defending at least three people charged in connection with the Capitol breach.
Prosecutors allege that van der Veen's client, Marine Corps veteran Jason Dolan of Florida, is affiliated with the extremist militia group the Oath Keepers, and that he helped plan, and ultimately participated in the storming of the Capitol.
Castor is representing two defendants facing much less serious charges.
Kristina Malimon, 28, and her mother, Yevgeniya Malimon, 54, were arrested on the evening of Jan. 6 outside the Capitol building. According to court documents, the two failed to follow repeated police orders to disperse in violation of a curfew order. Authorities in Washington, D.C., have charged both women with unlawful entry of public property, a misdemeanor. Neither has been accused of committing violence or breaching the Capitol building. They have both pleaded not guilty in Washington, D.C., Superior Court.
Van der Veen and Castor did not respond to NPR's phone and email messages seeking an interview. It's unclear how they came to represent these defendants, and whether their experience in the impeachment trial might inform their legal arguments.
Castor's early defense of Trump was widely criticized by Republicans, Democrats, legal observers and late-night comics as "rambling," "random," "meandering," and by at least one Senate Republican as "not one of the finest I've seen." As NPR reported, Trump had been unhappy with Castor's performance early on.
Initially, other attorneys had represented the Malimons.
But court documents show that in recent months the Malimons replaced those lawyers with Castor.
Todd S. Baldwin, who had initially represented Yevgeniya Malimon, confirmed that his former client had sought "outside counsel" but otherwise declined to comment. Michelle Stephens, who previously represented Kristina Malimon, did not respond to a phone message from NPR.
Kristina Malimon is connected to Republican politics, which may provide some clues as to how she retained Castor's legal help. Malimon has served as a vice chairwoman of the Young Republicans of Oregon, a delegate to the Multnomah County Republican Party and as an ambassador to Turning Point USA, an organization for young pro-Trump conservatives.
In August, Malimon helped organize a pro-Trump boat parade on Oregon's Willamette River. A boat, which was not part of the parade, sank when the parade sent waves crashing over its sides.
On her Instagram account, she posted videos from the pro-Trump rally outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, and had previously posted a selfie with longtime Trump adviser and convicted felon Roger Stone, according to The Associated Press. (Trump pardoned Stone in December.) That Instagram account now appears to have been deactivated.
Meanwhile, the militia Dolan allegedly belongs to, the Oath Keepers, provided security to Stone at multiple events. The New York Times first reported the connection between the Oath Keepers and Stone, and Stone has denied any knowledge of or involvement in the Capitol riot.
Van der Veen founded the law firm where Castor works, and the firm focuses on both personal injury and criminal defense cases.
Before representing either the Malimons or Trump, Castor was the district attorney for Montgomery County, Penn. During his time in office, Castor declined to bring criminal charges against Bill Cosby after Andrea Constand accused the actor and comedian of drugging and sexually assaulting her.
Castor's decision was heavily criticized, particularly after additional women accused Cosby of a pattern of sexual misconduct lasting decades. Another prosecutor eventually brought charges against Cosby related to the assault on Constand, and in 2018, a jury found Cosby guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault against her.
Later, Castor got involved in the second impeachment trial through his cousin, Stephen Castor, a Republican attorney who previously helped defend Trump in his first impeachment. Bruce Castor then enlisted van der Veen as part of the legal effort.
Both men told the Philadelphia talk radio station WPHT that they had no regrets about their defense of Trump and recounted how staff at the Trump International Hotel pampered them during the trial.
"They ironed my underwear," van der Veen said. "Every morning, I woke up with ironed underwear!"
Castor said Trump "didn't like the way I looked on TV," so the former president had Brioni suits made up for the lawyer "overnight" to make him more telegenic.
"They treated us like kings," van der Veen added.
Given their experience on the case, van der Veen told the Philadelphia Business Journal that his firm would seek out more high-profile cases. "I think you will see us hopefully tackle more hot button issues," he said.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is shown in Washington, D.C., in 2019. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
IRS Records Show Wealthiest Americans, Including Bezos and Musk, Paid Little in Income Taxes, Report Says
Todd C. Frankel and Douglas MacMillan, The Seattle Times
Excerpt: "The wealthiest Americans - including Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos - paid little in federal income taxes at times in recent years despite soaring fortunes, according to Internal Revenue Service data obtained by ProPublica."
The release of the records sent shock waves through Washington, with the federal government referring the unauthorized disclosure to investigators and some Democrats saying the revelations affirmed their long-held views that the wealthiest Americans are able to shield much of their wealth from taxation.
The information published Tuesday shows how billionaires are able to legally reduce their tax burden, highlighting how the American tax system can hit ordinary wage-earners harder than the richest people in the country. That’s often because the richest Americans tend to have their wealth tied up in stocks and real estate, allowing them to avoid taxes on unrealized profits.
Some tax experts said the ProPublica report fits with previously documented critiques of the U.S. tax system, but they were nonetheless surprised by the disclosure of such detailed personal information about some of the country’s richest individuals and how they benefit from the current tax laws.
“I think this is big because it tells the story of wealth and the way it is taxed in a way everybody kind of expected but didn’t know,” said Philip Hackney, a former IRS official who teaches tax law at the University of Pittsburgh.
The report comes after President Joe Biden and other Democrats have complained the U.S. tax system is unfair and tilted to benefit corporations and the wealthy. There has been a fierce debate in Washington for decades about how much money the wealthy should pay in taxes, but little was known publicly about the tax payments of individual billionaires.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to comment directly on the ProPublica report, calling it an inappropriate disclosure of confidential information. She said the Treasury Department and IRS had referred the matter to at least two inspectors general, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.
But Psaki added, “broadly speaking, we know that there is more to be done to ensure that corporations, individuals who are at the highest income are paying more of their fair share. Hence, it’s in the president’s proposals. His budget and part of how he’s proposing to pay for his ideas will go ahead.”
ProPublica analyzed the data by focusing on the soaring fortunes of the country’s wealthiest members in recent years and alleged they were paying a “true tax rate” of just 3.4%. The news organization came up with this rate by calculating estimates of the value of their stock portfolios and other assets and then how much they paid in federal income taxes. This is not how tax rates are normally measured.
The core issue for many of these billionaires is how their income grows compared with how their wealth grows. The U.S. tax system focuses on income, not so-called “unrealized gains” from unsold stocks, real estate or other assets.
“These are extremely well-known facts,” said Jeffrey Hoopes, a tax expert and associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“If you don’t realize [the income], you don’t pay,” Hoopes added.
Hackney, the former IRS official, echoed this point, noting the current tax system puts wage earners at a disadvantage.
“We are structured in an unequal way,” Hackney said. “The basic game if you’re very wealthy is, hold a lot of wealth, let it go up in value and generally to support your lifestyle, just borrow money.”
This wouldn’t change under Biden’s proposals for altering the U.S. tax code. Biden wants to nudge the top income tax from 37.9% to 39.6% for Americans earning more than $400,000 a year and raise taxes on the sale of certain assets – known as capital gains – from 20% to the top income rate.
Biden has rejected a so-called wealth tax, such as the one proposed during the presidential campaign by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., which would institute a tax on unsold assets for the ultrarich. Biden has also proposed raising taxes on corporations, a number of which pay little if any corporate income taxes, according to some estimates. The president has also pushed to require wealthy people to pay taxes on all previously untaxed capital gains when they die, a change from current policy.
Another way of taxing wealth has been floated by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has proposed an annual tax on unrealized gains on stocks and bonds for wealthy individuals.
Warren said the new details about wealthy taxpayers supported her proposal for an annual tax on assets above $50 million for ultrarich individuals, undercutting criticism that valuing nonliquid investments would be too complex. These individuals appear to hold the majority of their wealth in public-company stock, which is easy to value, she said.
“What this shows is, actually, it’s not that hard to value hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth and tax it on an annual basis,” Warren said.
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans slashed taxes across the board in 2017, and Republicans have vowed to block any efforts by the Biden administration to roll back those changes. Their position has created a big roadblock for key pieces of Biden’s agenda, including the White House’s push to approve an infrastructure package.
There already was some data about taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, but not with the detail found in what ProPublica said it obtained.
The IRS publishes a report on the taxes paid by the top 400 taxpayers based on adjusted gross income. The most recent version, which uses anonymous data, showed that in 2014 these richest Americans paid an average 23.13% federal income tax rate.
Pieces of information from individual IRS tax forms are closely guarded secrets and, in recent years, have loomed large in political fights after President Donald Trump refused to release his personal income tax forms in the run-up to and during his presidency, claiming his tax forms were under an IRS audit.
ProPublica did not disclose how it obtained the records, beyond saying it was from an anonymous source. Hoopes said he was surprised that someone was willing to take the legal risk. Just last week, a former Treasury Department official was sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to leaking banks’ suspicious activity reports to a BuzzFeed News reporter.
“The unauthorized disclosure of confidential government information is illegal,” said Treasury Department spokeswoman Lily Adams, adding that the issue has been referred to multiple agencies, including Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration.
The records, though, purport to show Buffett, head of Berkshire Hathaway, as having paid $23.7 million in federal income taxes on total income of $125 million from 2014 to 2018, which would indicate a personal income tax rate of 19%. ProPublica estimated that Buffett saw his wealth soar by $24.3 billion during that period and so his “true tax rate” was 0.10%.
Buffett has in the past called for tougher restrictions on the wealthy to prevent them avoiding paying taxes.
Likewise, Musk, chief executive of Tesla, paid $455 million on $1.52 billion in income during the same period, when his wealth grew by $13.9 billion, accounting for a “true tax rate” of 3.27%, according to ProPublica.
Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”
Bezos filed a tax return in 2011 reporting he lost money because of bad investments, allowing him to claim and receive a $4,000 tax credit for his children, according to ProPublica.
Spokespeople for Musk and Bezos did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement to ProPublica, Buffett said that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, pays a large amount of corporate income tax and that he has planned for more than 99% of his personal wealth to go to taxes and philanthropy.
“I believe the money will be of more use to society if disbursed philanthropically than if it is used to slightly reduce an ever-increasing U.S. debt,” Buffett wrote in the statement.
“But that will be for Congress to determine,” through changes to U.S. tax policy, he added.
Buffett has long complained that it is wrong for rich people, like himself, to pay a smaller share of their income than ordinary workers. That led President Barack Obama in 2011 to propose “the Buffett rule” – a tax plan requiring people at the top of the income scale to pay the same tax rate as the middle class. That idea never gained traction.
Another wealthy person whose tax data ProPublica obtained was Carl Icahn, the activist investor who built his wealth through corporate takeovers. He paid zero income taxes in 2016 and 2017, partly because he was able to deduct interest expenses on loans from his “adjusted gross income,” ProPublica said.
In an emailed statement to The Post, Icahn said that during those two years, he earned no “income” after accounting for those interest deductions. He said he paid all of the taxes he owed and has not taken any measures to deliberately avoid taxes.
“I don’t believe that investors, wealthy or otherwise, should be pilloried for risking capital,” Icahn said in the statement. “Quite the opposite, I think the strength of our economy relies in part on such activity being encouraged.”
Stacey Abrams. (photo: Shutterstock)
Stacey Abrams-Led Group Launches Campaign to Mobilize Young Voters of Color Around Voting Rights Bill
Tim Perry and Adam Brewster, CBS News
Excerpt: "The voting rights group Fair Fight Action, headed by activist and former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, is announcing a month-long campaign to help mobilize young voters of color around the For the People Act."
he voting rights group Fair Fight Action, headed by activist and former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, is announcing a month-long campaign to help mobilize young voters of color around the For the People Act, also known as S. 1, for the Senate version of the extensive voting rights bill championed by Democratic lawmakers.
The campaign, called Hot Call Summer, will last throughout June, and will feature virtual events, a paid media campaign and plans to text at least 10 million voters in 2022 battleground states that have seen controversial voting legislation move in state legislatures.
"We can't wait any longer for Congress to protect Americans' freedom to vote, which is why we need Senators to pass the For The People Act (HR1/S1)," Abrams said in an email to supporters first obtained by CBS News. "With voting rights under attack in 48 out of 50 state legislatures across the country, the moment has never been more urgent, and it will take all of us to ensure that Congress passes the voting rights protections our country and democracy desperately need."
The announcement comes on the heels of West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin's announcement in an opinion piece over the weekend that he'll vote against the bill, which raises a significant roadblock in getting it passed.
"I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster," Manchin wrote in the Charleston Gazette-Mail Sunday.
He has instead urged his colleagues in the Senate to focus on passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which has some bipartisan support, but has not yet been introduced in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to bring the For the People Act to a vote by the end of June.
Abrams' campaign comes as Republican lawmakers in state legislatures have been trying to overhaul state voting laws. As of May 14, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that would restrict voting access, and more than 15 other states were advancing laws with restrictive provisions, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Lawmakers in Florida, Georgia and Iowa passed significant changes to their election laws, prompting lawsuits from civil rights and voting rights organizations.
Texas Democrats recently staged a high-profile walkout, denying Republicans a quorum and thereby defeating a bill that would have placed limits on early voting hours, banned drive-thru voting, added new requirements for voting by mail and lowered the standard for overturning an election based on fraud. Republican Governor Greg Abbott has said he would call a special legislative session to ensure an election bill gets passed.
Republicans, from the top of the party down to the grassroots, have rallied around the issue of "election integrity" in 2021, which has led the drive to change voting laws in many states. Former President Trump slammed the For The People Act during his speech at the North Carolina GOP state convention on Saturday night and praised GOP efforts to change state voting laws.
"The John Lewis Advancement Act, which restores parts of the Voting Rights Act, is basically a preemptive measure. In other words, it would prevent states from continuing to do the kinds of things that we've seen in Georgia and Florida and other states," said Cliff Albright, the co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter Fund, another organization based in Atlanta. "But it would not in and of itself, be able to correct or override the bills that have already passed forth. For that you need some of the provisions that are found in the For the People Act."
The For the People Act is an ambitious Democratic proposal that includes provisions like: making it easier to register to vote, expanding early voting nationwide, attempting to end political gerrymandering and supporting statehood for the District of Columbia. Some polls have found that a majority of Americans support many of the provisions currently in the bill.
Abrams is scheduled to participate in three virtual town halls across the country with state and federal elected officials. During a Southwest Town Hall event, Abrams will be joined by Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Nevada Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson. Congresswoman Nikema Williams, who replaced Lewis in Congress, is expected to participate in a Southern virtual town hall event.
"The purpose of Hot Call Summer is to ensure that every single U.S. Senator is hearing from their constituents daily on the urgent need to pass S. 1," Fair Fight Action Organizing Director Hillary Holley said in a statement to CBS News.
Fair Fight Action joins a growing list of voting rights organizations pressuring Congress to pass federal legislation. Black Voters Matter Fund is partnering with other organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to host their "Freedom Ride for Voting Rights." This campaign would feature stops in West Virginia and Washington, D.C., throughout the month of June.
Last week, in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa massacre, President Biden announced that he had tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with leading the administration's effort to protect voting rights, a role the president had previously assigned to domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and White House public engagement director and senior adviser Cedric Richmond.
"We must protect the fundamental right to vote for all Americans regardless of where they live. There are two important bills in Congress that would do just that," Harris said in a statement. "The For the People Act would provide all Americans with fair and accessible voting options, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would prevent discriminatory changes to voting laws and procedures."
Harris said she'd work with Congress, voting rights organizations and the private sector to help advance the bills. In early May, Harris held a roundtable discussion with voting rights and civil rights leaders on the issue.
"We need to see a full engagement by the White House in getting these federal legislative vehicles through," a participant in the May meeting with Harris said. "It's going to take every bit of weight behind the Democratic leadership in the Senate and from the White House to move that bill forward. And it may require extraordinary actions not yet taken related to the filibuster. And I think that message was sent, and I think there's a clear need for us to reinforce that and see that posture taken by the White House."
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Getty)
Fears of Violence Grow as Netanyahu Clings to Power
Thomas O. Falk, Al Jazeera
Falk writes: "Netanyahu and his Likud party's efforts to find defectors among the coalition forces is the latest example of 'King Bibi' and his quest for power."
fter the fourth election in two years and the ever-more-likely departure of Benjamin Netanyahu as the country’s prime minister, the situation in Israel is becoming increasingly volatile – and Netanyahu himself is once again pouring fuel on the fire.
Netanyahu faces nothing less than the loss of power on Sunday after 12 years in office, but he is not inclined to accept the latest development of a variety of opponents joining hands against him.
Instead, he is putting massive pressure on Knesset members so they do not vote for a new government by mobilising his supporters, who have been gathering in front of the houses of lawmakers for demonstrations and intimidation efforts.
These next few days will show whether the Netanyahu era is indeed over. Since the planned government alliance with Prime Minister-designate Naftali Bennett only has a slim majority of 61 of the 120 seats in parliament, every day counts.
Netanyahu and his Likud party’s efforts to find defectors among the coalition forces is the latest example of “King Bibi” and his quest for power.
Ironically, it was Netanyahu who made the next government possible by passing a new law and by ending the tradition of not entering talks with Arab parties, said Donna Robinson Divine, professor of Jewish Studies and Government at Smith College.
“Netanyahu paved the way for the alternate government about to gain power. He introduced a Basic Law allowing for alternative prime ministers; he began to speak to Mansour Abbas about supporting his own coalition,” she told Al Jazeera.
Machiavellian power plays
It has become a reoccurring theme in Israeli politics. For years Netanyahu utilised all kinds of political shenanigans and Machiavellian power plays to remain the country’s prime minister. However, Israel has paid for it dearly. Politically, Israel has been paralysed. Even the most basic government responsibilities have been put on hold, Divine said.
“Netanyahu found ways to impose four elections in two years on Israel, with the country having to operate without a budget for the last two,” she noted.
Socially, the country is deeply divided, essentially into pro and anti-Netanyahu camps.
The head of Israel’s domestic security agency Shin Bet, Nadav Argaman, warned of political violence and asked all those involved to disarm verbally.
Without naming names, Argaman’s remarks were directed primarily at Netanyahu and Likud. The latter has openly insulted right-wing Knesset members of the future coalition as traitors.
While Netanyahu himself said he condemned any call to violence, he is fully cognisant of his words and their effects.
“Netanyahu is an extremely bright, well-read politician and a master of Israeli political tactics,” said Divine.
His words were thus chosen deliberately. Netanyahu spoke of “the greatest electoral fraud in the state’s history“, and even the “greatest fraud in the history of democracy”. Bennett’s decision to enter a coalition with the left and Arabs was why people felt deceived and reacted accordingly, Netanyahu pontificated.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric resembles former US President Donald Trump and his post-election remarks, particularly on January 6 – lies that triggered rare political violence in that country.
‘Israel is at risk’ campaign
Asked about whether Netanyahu’s remarks of election fraud are similar to Trump’s playbook, Uriel Abulof, visiting associate professor at Cornell University, told Al Jazeera: “To an extent: Netanyahu was not suggesting that it was rigged, but that Bennett deceived his voters. However, Bennett did not, as he clearly indicated that he would like to see Netanyahu removed.”
Indeed, Bennett declared he did not want to work with main coalition partner Yair Lapid or Arab parties. However, the devil appears to be in the detail, said Abulof.
“Many refer to Bennett’s signing a document pledging not to sit with Lapid and the Arab party, but forget that the document bore the title of ‘treaty’, and Bennett invited Netanyahu to sign it. Netanyahu did not, so supposedly it is void.”
However, as Abulof also pointed out, Bennett did not resort to this rationale. Hence, he might feel he did indeed rescind his pledge.
Additional fuel was added by the support from an influential group of national-religious and ultra-Orthodox rabbis, who adopted a similar tone by stating “everything” needed to be done to prevent the new government from being sworn in.
Moreover, the situation has been exacerbated further by reports the new government would seek to pass a law that would bar Netanyahu from office.
While Bennett’s Yamina party is claiming this was just a proposal and denying this law made it to the final version of the agreement among the coalition, the rumour itself has had an effect already and might be to Netanyahu’s benefit, said Maayan Geva, lecturer in the Department of Social Science at the University of Roehampton.
“The reports have been spread very extensively by Netanyahu himself and media outlets which support him, so they are being used as part of Netanyahu’s ‘Israel is at risk’ campaign,” Geva told Al Jazeera.
While Geva acknowledged such a law could ultimately be passed, it is not without hurdles.
“Netanyahu is surely the source of many problems for competing politicians, and if they are in a position to pass a law to help them solve the Netanyahu problem, then they might very well pursue it. It is worth noting that even if a law is written and approved by the Knesset, it is very likely to be challenged at the High Court of Justice.”
‘Israel is not a monarchy’
Meanwhile, Bennett spoke of a “violent machine” that was deliberately set in motion. Then, addressing Netanyahu directly, he said, “Let go and allow Israel to move forward.”
Regarding Likud’s claims the new government would be far left, he replied the coalition was “10 degrees further to the right” than the current one and Israel was allowed to elect a government not headed by Netanyahu.
For Bennett, it will be about resilience and focus over these next days.
“There will be lots of shouting about the transition of government, but Naftali Bennett is correct – Israel is not a monarchy,” said Divine.
However, the damage has been done. Netanyahu is seemingly inclined to jeopardise Israel’s democracy for the slim chance to somehow remain in power, primarily for personal reasons, Divine said.
“His determination to remain in office as a way of avoiding prison if he is convicted on the charges against him have compromised state institutions.”
Nevertheless, the implications of Netanyahu’s selfish modus operandi are vast and dangerous, according to Geva.
“We are witnessing a desperate politician who has been in power for a long time and is fearful of what will happen if he is no longer PM. Netanyahu has a strong support base, and it is possible that some violence will ensue in response to his claims. Possibly some of this violence will be directed at members of the predicted government, in particular members of right-winged parties whom Netanyahu is portraying as traitors.”
‘Act on the accusations’?
Netanyahu, of all people, ought to be cognisant of how swiftly heated circumstances can escalate. In 1995, then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a right-wing hardliner.
Similar to today, Netanyahu played a role and does not seem to have learned. While opposition leader, he was the key speaker at two demonstrations that included chants such as “Death to Rabin” and generally was involved in the anti-Rabin movement. He has denied the accusations.
“Netanyahu is again playing a major role in fuelling the dangerous idea that the country is under existential threat in an attempt to rally his supporters,” said Geva.
“Therefore, it is easy to compare the present with 1995 based on the concern that people will act on the accusations coming from Netanyahu and his supporters, and use violence in order to ‘save the country’.”
So what does the worst-case scenario look like? “A civil war if violence erupts,” said Abulof. However, the chances of that are currently minimal, he acknowledged.
“If Bennett is sworn in, chances are the state will compel Netanyahu to step down – however ungracefully,” he said.
In essence, the current situation is another test if Israel is becoming a failing state, Abulof concluded.
An infant mountain gorilla and Silverback male at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, Africa. (photo: Paul Souders Stone/Getty)
Great Apes Could Lose 94% of African Home Due to Climate Crisis and Other Human Actions, Study Finds
Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch
Rosane writes: "Humans are at risk of putting their closest animal relatives out of a home."
A new study published in Diversity and Distributions Sunday warned that Africa's great apes could lose more than 90 percent of their habitat within the next 30 years due to the combined pressures of human population growth, resource extraction and the climate crisis.
"It's a perfect storm for many of our closest genetic relatives, many of which are flagship species for conservation efforts within Africa and worldwide," study leader and Liverpool John Moores University biologist Joana Carvalho told The Guardian. "If we add climate change to the current causes of territory loss, the picture looks devastating."
All of Africa's great apes — chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos — are already listed as either endangered or critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), as the Max Planck Society noted. In order to determine how these iconic species would fare in the future, an international team of researchers from almost 50 universities, institutions and conservation groups, including the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, turned to the IUCN's apes database, as The Guardian explained. This database provides information on population, threats and conservation efforts at hundreds of sites over the last 20 years. Building on this data, the researchers then modeled the impacts of climate change, population growth and land-use change through 2050 using both a best and worst-case scenario.
"'Best case' implies slowly declining carbon emissions and that appropriate mitigation measures will be put in place," study co-author and German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research and the Martin Luther University post-doctoral researcher Jessica Junker told the Max Planck Society. "'Worst case' assumes that emissions continue to rise unchecked — in other words, business as usual."
In the best case scenario, the apes would still lose 85 percent of their range, 50 percent of this outside national parks and other protected areas. In the worst case scenario, they would lose 94 percent of their range, 61 percent outside of national parks.
"What is predicted is really bad," Carvalho told The Guardian.
Part of the problem is that 30 years is simply not enough time for great apes to migrate to more suitable habitats as the climate shifts. Another problem is that higher temperatures will push ideal conditions from the lowlands to the highlands, but not all great apes live in areas that have easy access to higher environments.
"As climate change forces the different types of vegetation to essentially shift uphill, it means that all animals – not only great apes – that depend on particular habitat types will be forced to move uphill or become locally extinct," researcher Fiona Maisels of the Wildlife Conservation Society told The Guardian. "But when the hills are low, many species will not be able to go higher than the land allows, and huge numbers of animals and plants will simply vanish."
While this is bleak, there are things that we can do now to ensure a better future for great apes. One important step is to make sure that conservation areas are well connected to each other, making it easier for great apes to move as conditions change. Planning new protected areas based on climate models could also help, as the Max Planck Society noted.
Consumers in wealthier countries can also do their part by putting pressure on companies that extract resources like phone minerals, palm oil and timber unsustainably from current ape habitats, as The Guardian noted.
"The global consumption of natural resources extracted from great ape ranges is one of the main causes of great ape decline," study author Hjalmar Kühl from the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology told the Max Planck Society. "All nations that benefit from these resources have a responsibility to ensure a better future for great apes, their habitats as well as the people living in them by advancing a more sustainable economy."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.