Saturday, December 21, 2024

Top News | Call for $2.5 Trillion in Cuts Proves GOP Wants to 'Steal Our Benefits'



A Dire Threat to Independent Journalism

Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. Please, donate today to help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency.

Friday, December 20, 2024

■ Today's Top News 


Call for $2.5 Trillion in Cuts Proves GOP Wants to 'Steal Our Benefits'

"Nearly 60% of mandatory spending is for Medicare and Social Security," noted one expert. "If they don't touch those, they'd have to cut Medicaid to the bone."

By Jake Johnson


With a potential government shutdown just hours away, House Republican leaders displayed a slide during a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Friday showing a draft agreement proposing $2.5 trillion in net mandatory spending cuts in exchange for raising the U.S. debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion at some point next year.

The slide was seen as further confirmation that Republicans are seriously eyeing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal nutrition assistance—programs that fall under the mandatory spending category.

Though by law Social Security cannot be cut in the reconciliation process that Republicans are planning to use to bypass the Senate filibuster and Democratic opposition in the upcoming Congress, other key programs including Medicare and Medicaid could be vulnerable to the GOP's massive proposed austerity spree.

"The ONLY WAY to cut $2.5 trillion in spending is by slashing Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid," the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works (SSW) wrote on social media in response to the slide. "Republicans want to steal our benefits to pay for their billionaire tax cuts."

Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, wrote that the slide "is a Republican commitment to cut Medicare, Social Security, or veterans' benefits (all to make way for new tax cuts for the rich)."

"There's no way to make this math work otherwise," he added. "Their promise is to cut $2.5 trillion in mandatory spending. Nearly 60% of mandatory spending is for Medicare and Social Security. If they don't touch those, they'd have to cut Medicaid to the bone."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that the draft agreement means "Republicans are plotting to cut healthcare for seniors and veterans to grease the wheels for tax cuts for giant corporations and billionaires like Elon Musk."

For weeks, Republicans have been discussing potential cuts and sweeping changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—including the addition of new work requirements—to help pay for a fresh round of tax cuts that would largely benefit the richest Americans and large corporations.

Republicans working with Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—the billionaire co-chairs of the soon-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency—have also signaled that Social Security and Medicare cuts are on the table even after President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on protecting the programs.   

TRUMP LIED!

"Republicans have made their plan for the new year crystal clear: Ram through massive tax giveaways for the ultra-wealthy and corporations, and pay for them by shaking down programs and agencies that working families rely on," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens wrote in a Rolling Stone op-ed on Friday. "And they're putting unelected and unaccountable oligarchs—Musk and Ramaswamy—in charge of deciding how much pain Americans will have to tolerate so that the rich can get richer."



Israeli Troops Recount Indiscriminate Murder of Civilians in Gaza 'Kill Zone'

"We're killing civilians there who are then counted as terrorists," said one Israeli veteran, who added that random slayings have become "a competition between units" to see who can kill more people.

By Brett Wilkins


Israel Defense Forces commanders, soldiers, and veterans described a "kill zone" in the heart of the Gaza Strip where troops are ordered to shoot "anyone who enters," adding to the copious body of evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by IDF troops during their 441-day obliteration of the Palestinian enclave.

Haaretz, Israel's oldest newspaper, this week published the accounts of anonymous IDF troops who received orders to kill unarmed men, women, children, and elders in the Netzarim Corridor, a strip of land several miles wide that bisects Gaza from the Israeli border to the Mediterranean Sea just south of Gaza City.

"The forces in the field call it 'the line of dead bodies,'" a commander in Division 252 told Haaretz. "After shootings, bodies are not collected, attracting packs of dogs who come to eat them. In Gaza, people know that wherever you see these dogs, that's where you must not go."

Another senior officer in that unit told the paper that "the division commander designated this area as a 'kill zone.' Anyone who enters is shot."

One Division 252 veteran said: "For the division, the kill zone extends as far as a sniper can see. We're killing civilians there who are then counted as terrorists. The IDF spokesperson's announcements about casualty numbers have turned this into a competition between units. If Division 99 kills 150, the next unit aims for 200."

A commander in Division 252 said that out of 200 "militants" the IDF said one unit had killed, "only 10 were confirmed as known Hamas operatives. Yet no one questioned the public announcement about killing hundreds of militants."

A senior reserve commander asserted, "Calling ourselves the world's most moral army absolves soldiers who know exactly what we're doing."

"It means ignoring that for over a year, we've operated in a lawless space where human life holds no value," he added. "Yes, we commanders and combatants are participating in the atrocity unfolding in Gaza. Now everyone must face this reality."

"Calling ourselves the world's most moral army absolves soldiers who know exactly what we're doing."

Another Division 252 veteran recounted the time when "guards spotted someone approaching" and "we responded as if it was a large militant raid."

"We took positions and just opened fire. I'm talking about dozens of bullets, maybe more," he continued. "For about a minute or two, we just kept shooting at the body. People around me were shooting and laughing."

The soldier continued:

We approached the blood-covered body, photographed it, and took the phone. He was just a boy, maybe 16. That evening, our battalion commander congratulated us for killing a terrorist, saying he hoped we'd kill 10 more tomorrow. When someone pointed out he was unarmed and looked like a civilian, everyone shouted him down. The commander said: 'Anyone crossing the line is a terrorist, no exceptions, no civilians. Everyone's a terrorist.' This deeply troubled me—did I leave my home to sleep in a mouse-infested building for this? To shoot unarmed people?

One Division 99 reservist recalled watching a video feed from a drone showing "an adult with two children crossing the forbidden line."

"We had them under complete surveillance with the drone and weapons aimed at them—they couldn't do anything," he said. "Suddenly we heard a massive explosion. A combat helicopter had fired a missile at them. Who thinks it's legitimate to fire a missile at children? And with a helicopter? This is pure evil."

Soldiers who served in Division 252 described the first speech delivered by Brig. Gen. Yehuda Vach, who took command of the unit last summer and, according to one veteran in attendance, told its troops that "there are no innocents in Gaza."

"In the Middle East, victory comes through conquering territory," Vach said, according to the witness. "We must keep conquering until we win."

"Who thinks it's legitimate to fire a missile at children? And with a helicopter? This is pure evil."

One officer said Vach obsessed over carrying out the so-called Generals' Plan—a blueprint for the starvation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from northern Gaza—and sought to forcibly expel 250,000 people from the area.

The IDF responded to the Haaretz story in a statement claiming "strikes are targeted solely at military objectives, and before the strikes are carried out, many steps are taken to minimize harm to noncombatants."

However, the testimonies published by Haaretz are consistent with numerous other accounts provided by IDF soldiers and veterans, as well as Palestinian survivors and witnesses, and international medical personnel who worked in Gaza.

Earlier this year, South Africa—which is leading a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice—filed an emergency request with the tribunal citing "testimony from Israeli soldiers who have served in Gaza that Israeli soldiers treat evacuation zones as 'zones of extermination' in which all remaining Palestinians are considered to be legitimate targets."

American trauma surgeons who volunteered at the European Hosptial in Khan Younis described "horrifying violence deliberately directed at civilians," including "a 3-year-old boy shot in the head, a 12-year-old girl shot through the chest, an ICU nurse shot through the abdomen, all by some of the best-trained marksmen in the world."

Palestinian survivors have recounted IDF troops or drones killing young children and people holding white flags. Rescue workers and journalists attempting to document the incidents have also been killed.

These are some of the more than 45,000 Palestinians who, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, have been killed, and over 107,000 others who've been wounded, since Israel launched the war on Gaza in retaliation for the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack.

On Thursday, the international medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières and Human Rights Watch joined United Nations experts, rights groups including Amnesty International, more than a dozen national governments, and thousands of academicsjurists, and others who accuse Israel of genocidal acts or outright genocide in Gaza.


ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE THERE A CATEGORIES - LOOK UP CHINA....CHINA IS LEADING THE WORLD IN CHEAP CLEAN SOLAR - LARGEST OCEAN SOLAR FAR & A FUNCTIONING GRID... 

DIRTY FOSSIL FUEL IS NOT THE FUTURE!

DIRTY ENERGY KNEW FOR DECADES THE THREAT FOSSIL FUEL POSED, THE DEVASTATING HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF PARTICULATES, BUT HAS FOUGHT TO CONTINUE TO POLLUTE! 


THERE ARE INSTANCES OF LAWMAKERS COLLUDING TO KEEP GAS PRICES HIGH..... 

DIRTY ENERGY CREATED CANCER ALLEY WITH HIGH RATES OF CANCER....


DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES! 

VEHICLES CAN BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, SAVING YOU $$$!  



As Big Oil Ally Trump Returns, Industry Set to Turn Lobbying Machine on US Consumers

With "a supportive administration that has pledged to protect their interests," new analysis warns industry groups "may turn attention to influencing the public."

By Julia Conley


The first Trump administration was a boon for fossil fuel executives, and a new analysis shows the efforts the industry is already making to ensure it benefits when Trump takes office again in January, including by directing their lobbying efforts at the American public.

"Many of the tactics already being deployed by industry are reminiscent of the first Trump presidency, indicating a continuation of familiar fossil fuel tactics to shape climate policy and politics," reads the analysis by InfluenceMap.

The analysis shows fossil fuel companies have already revived three key tactics from the first Trump term ahead of the president-elect's inauguration:

  • Shifting from a defensive to offensive position as it lobbies for Trump to roll back specific climate policies;
  • Heavily advocating for permitting reform, and
  • Strategically using narratives to position themselves as "protecting" consumers—even as they continue to extract planet-heating fossil fuels and put communities at risk of devastating climate disasters.

"It is alarming to see the extent to which fossil fuel actors are gearing up to use their old tactics to roll back climate policy and present themselves as the 'good guys' ahead of the next presidency," said Kendra Haven, director of projects at InfluenceMap.

The report details how ahead of the first Trump term, fossil fuel interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (API) filed a number of lawsuits to challenge and weaken Obama-era climate regulations, many of them already weaker than experts said was necessary, including the Clean Power Plan.

But after Trump took office in 2017, the groups shifted their attention to lobbying for rollbacks which, according to Carbon Brief, would amount to "a staggering 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined."

Starting in January, InfluenceMap said, fossil fuel industry groups "will likely issue various statements and comments urging and supporting these moves," such as the "5-Point Policy Roadmap" API released just after the election on November 12, calling for the next Trump administration to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) tailpipe rules, retain the 21% corporate tax rate, and take other industry-friendly steps.

API's roadmap also called for a heavy focus on permitting reform, demanding changes to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of projects before approving them, and the Clean Water Act.

"In 2025 and the years following, issues of permitting, infrastructure, and the future of gas are likely to remain a focus of corporate advocacy," said InfluenceMap.

Fossil fuel companies have submitted numerous public comments regarding state-level efforts to phase out the use of fossil gas as an energy source, with WEC Energy Group submitted several comments "promoting the 'crucial role' of fossil gas" in Illinois and warning that "'forced electrification' would inhibit the competitiveness of the state's economy."

But while fossil fuel groups are expected to continue lobbying policymakers to support industry-friendly measures, InfluenceMap noted that oil and gas interests also spent a "vast amount of time and resources that fossil fuel companies invest in reaching the public to protect their 'social license' or public reputation."

With "a supportive administration that has pledged to protect their interests" taking office next month, industry groups "may turn attention to influencing the public."

The strategy for influencing the American people is evident in API's policy roadmap, which uses a phrase the InfluenceMap points to several times in its analysis: "consumer choice."

"In 2024 alone, there were over 100 instances of corporate interests centering the 'consumer choice' narrative in their public advocacy on autos," reads the analysis.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' electric vehicle mandates as harming "consumer choice," and just after the election Toyota urged the incoming Trump administration to protect "consumer choice" by overturning federal greenhouse gas emissions standards.

"Recognizing industry narratives is a critical component of any action to confront industry influence over climate policy," said InfluenceMap, "particularly given that many fossil fuel interests are likely to publicly position themselves as proponents of climate action leading up to and throughout the new administration."

Haven said the group expects "industry associations to be at the forefront of the most negative advocacy in the U.S. going into 2025, just as they were during the first Trump term, providing essential cover for individual companies."

"The science is clear, as is the long-term harm this advocacy will cause to climate and communities," said Haven. "Misleading narratives from industry must be challenged accordingly."


SPINELESS MAGA GOP GENUFLCTED TO PRESIDENT ELON MUSK & RISKED A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, JEOPARDIZING AMERICANS....MAGA GOP CONTINUE TO PROVE THEIR INABILITY TO GOVERN! 

TRUMP SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT DURING HIS FIRST DISATROUS REIGN THAT TRUMPTERS PRETEND WAS SUCCESSFUL LEAVING REFRIGERATED TRAILERS FILLED WITH COVID DEAD, A STAGGERING UNEMPLOYMENT RATE & A CRASHED STOCK MARKET! 


PRESIDENT MUSK? 


AMNESIA TRUMPERS! 




Top Senate Dem Says 'We're Not Going to Let Elon Musk Run the Government'

After once again moving the nation toward a government shutdown, the House GOP on Friday was pushing a Plan C: separate votes on short-term funding, disaster relief, and farming.

By Jessica Corbett


Congressional Democrats on Friday continued to target billionaire Elon Musk and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for forcing a last-minute scramble to prevent a government shutdown shortly before the winter holidays.

"I'm ready to stay here through Christmas because we're not going to let Elon Musk run the government," Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a Friday statement. "Put simply, we should not let an unelected billionaire rip away research for pediatric cancer so he can get a tax cut or tear down policies that help America outcompete China because it could hurt his bottom line."

"We had a bipartisan deal—we should stick to it. The deal that was already agreed to would responsibly fund the government, offer badly needed disaster relief to communities across America, and deliver some good bipartisan policy reforms," she added. "The American people do not want chaos or a costly government shutdown all because an unelected billionaire wants to call the shots—I am ready to work with Republicans and Democrats to pass the bipartisan deal both sides negotiated as soon as possible."

If Congress doesn't act before midnight, a government shutdown could begin overnight—a possibility the White House Office of Management and Budget is warning federal agencies to prepare for, according to Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein.

After Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—the two billionaires Trump has tapped to co-lead his forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—came out against the initial bipartisan deal on Wednesday, the president-elect swiftly followed suit, leading progressive critics to dub Musk, the world's richest person, a "shadow president" a month before the inauguration.

Faced with that opposition and Trump's sudden call for the continuing resolution to also raise the country's debt ceiling, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Thursday evening held a vote on a bill that would address that demand and fund the government for three months—but it was rejected by 38 Republicans and all but two Democrats.

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, on Thursday night called out Musk on his own social media platform, X, and argued that "Congress must not yield to out-of-touch billionaires."

After voting against the so-called American Relief Act (H.R. 10515) on Thursday, Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said in a statement that "we had an agreement. A bipartisan negotiated continuing resolution. But then the Republicans' billionaire bosses—Trump and Musk—got involved, and Republicans showed us *exactly* who they work for."

"In the last 48 hours, the Republicans have shown, AGAIN, that their agenda is the corporate billionaire, big money in politics agenda," she continued. "In order to meet their bosses' expectations, they offer up vulnerable Americans as an offering, sacrificing working people's healthcare, children's research, elderly people's affordable prescription drugs, and much, much more."

"And they are laying the groundwork to make the rich richer through tax cuts for the ultrawealthy in the 119th Congress," Ramirez warned. "If the Republicans want to make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the sick sicker, they will have to pass this continuing resolution without me. I work for everyday Americans. I am not beholden to billionaires. I voted NO."

With less than 12 hours until a shutdown, Senate Democrats are putting the blame on Johnson, who is shifting to Plan C: three separate votes on "a short-term funding bill, money for recent natural disasters, and a one-year farm bill extension with aid for farmers," Politico reported Friday.

According to the outlet:

The new plan will test his ability to wrangle his conference. Members believe Johnson is taking the proposal through the Rules Committee, trying to pass it through regular order so it only requires a simple majority on the House floor. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who is on the panel, said that he will back the plan, meaning it should have enough support to get out of the committee.

But then things get trickier. Johnson would need near unity from his conference to bring it up for debate on the floor, known as voting for the rule. Democrats typically don't vote for rules and are loath to help bail out Republicans after they backed away from a bipartisan funding agreement earlier this week.

"Republicans have the House majority—they should be able to pass whatever they want. If they need our votes, they have to come to the table and negotiate," outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Friday. "That's what happened, and we struck a bipartisan deal. But then they blew it up because of a tweet from a billionaire. Insane."

The shutdown threat comes as Republicans prepare to control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress next year.

Reporting on the GOP's Friday leadership meeting, Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman said that a slide was displayed for a debt ceiling agreement that would "raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion in the 'first reconciliation package' alongside a promise to CUT $2.5 trillion in 'net mandatory spending in the reconciliation process.'"

Though federal law prohibits using the reconciliation process to alter Social Security, the advocacy group Social Security Works noted in response to Sherman that "the ONLY WAY to cut $2.5 trillion in spending is by slashing Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid. Republicans want to steal our benefits to pay for their billionaire tax cuts."



Watchdog Says Dr. Oz Push for 'Medicare Advantage for All' Is Disqualifying

"Oz's deep ties to the private healthcare industry make his nomination to lead our nation's current healthcare system totally egregious," said Public Citizen healthcare advocate Eagan Kemp.

By Jake Johnson


The watchdog group Public Citizen said Thursday that lawmakers should reject President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Medicare privatization advocate Mehmet Oz to lead a key health agency and instead move toward a publicly run single-payer system that would cover all Americans at a lower cost than the status quo.

In a new brief, Public Citizen warned that Medicare privatization efforts—particularly via an expansion of Medicare Advantage plans run by for-profit insurance companies—would likely "move into overdrive" if the Senate confirms Oz as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Ahead of his 2022 Senate bid, Oz backed a plan he described as "Medicare Advantage for All," under which privately run plans would cover non-seniors and "all Americans who are not on Medicaid"—effectively eliminating traditional Medicare.

Public Citizen warned such a plan "would mean huge corporate profits while patients continue to struggle to get the healthcare they need," noting that Medicare Advantage plans are notorious for denying necessary care and overbilling the federal government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

"Policymakers should pass Medicare for All to guarantee care for everyone in the U.S., bring down costs for working families, and generate savings for the country as a whole."

"Further privatizing Medicare would increase healthcare costs systemwide by adding further administrative bloat to our healthcare system," the new brief argues. "Our healthcare system is already made up of thousands of health insurance plans offered by numerous insurers as well as state and federal programs that all play some role in paying for healthcare."

"By spending healthcare resources on corporate profit or administrative waste, privatized Medicare would mean Americans pay even more for healthcare than they already do," the brief adds. "We already spend far more than comparably wealthy countries, over $12,500 per capita, compared with peer nations that are spending around half, per capita."

Oz's plan would also benefit companies in which he has invested tens of millions of dollars, according to financial disclosures.

"Dr. Oz owned between $280,000 and $600,000 in shares in UnitedHealth Group, a major Medicare Advantage insurer, and between $50,000 and $100,000 in shares of CVS Health," Public Citizen noted Thursday, citing the filings.

Eagan Kemp, a healthcare advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement that Oz's "Medicare Advantage for All" proposal "is dangerous to all patients, especially seniors and people with disabilities, many of whom have not received the care they need under Medicare Advantage."

"Healthcare is a right, not a commodity," said Kemp. "Oz's deep ties to the private healthcare industry make his nomination to lead our nation's current healthcare system totally egregious. Congress should reject Oz's nomination and any proposal to further privatize Medicare."

"Instead," he added, "policymakers should pass Medicare for All to guarantee care for everyone in the U.S., bring down costs for working families, and generate savings for the country as a whole."

Public Citizen's brief came as Oz's nomination faced increasingly close scrutiny from congressional Democrats, who have raised similar concerns about the former television personality's promotion of Medicare Advantage and ties to the private insurance industry.

"As CMS administrator, you would be tasked with overseeing Medicare and ensuring that the tens of millions of seniors that rely on the program receive the care they deserve, including cracking down on abuses by private insurers in Medicare Advantage," a group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Oz last week. "The consequences of failure on your part would be grave. Billions of federal healthcare dollars—and millions of lives—are at stake."

"Given your financial ties to private insurers, combined with your view that the traditional Medicare program is 'highly dysfunctional' and your advocacy for eliminating it entirely," the lawmakers added, "it is not clear that you are qualified for this critical job."



'No Contract, No Coffee': Starbucks Workers Launch Five Days of Strikes

Starbucks Workers United accused the company of "backtracking on our promised path forward" and failing to present a "serious economic proposal" to unionized baristas.

By Jake Johnson


JOIN THE MOVEMENT


As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future.

■ More News


Call for $2.5 Trillion in Cuts Proves GOP Wants to 'Steal Our Benefits'


Pentagon Admits Number of US Troops in Syria Much Higher Than Previously Disclosed


'Recipe for Corruption': Trump Transition Team Operating on Private Emails


'Unprecedented' Lawsuit Targets 2 US Lawmakers for Backing Israeli Military Aid    


More than 500 California residents on Thursday took the latest legal action against U.S. leaders in an effort to stop the government's support for Israel's assault on Gaza, with taxpayers represented by two Democratic U.S. House members filing a class action lawsuit against the lawmakers for voting in favor of Israeli military aid.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by the law firm Szeto-Wong Law, live in 10 counties in Northern California and are represented by Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson.

The specific legal tactic being used by the plaintiffs is "unprecedented," according to the group Taxpayers Against Genocide, and hinges on Huffman and Thompson's votes in favor of the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act in April.

The funding package allocated $26.28 billion in military aid to Israel, which at the time was six months into its bombardment of Gaza and a near-total blockade on humanitarian aid that was pushing the enclave's population of 2.3 million people toward starvation.

Now, Israel has been attacking Gaza for 440 days, and more than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed since the onslaught began. At least 77 Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks on Thursday, the same day the class action lawsuit was filed and Doctors Without Borders published a report that detailed how the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have imposed "apocalyptic conditions" on the enclave and how humanitarian workers have seen "clear signs of ethnic cleansing as Palestinians are forcibly displaced, trapped, and bombed."

The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argued that Huffman and Thompson's votes in favor of billions of dollars for the IDF abused the lawmakers' "tax and spend" authority and "illegally forced their constituents into being complicit in genocide."

Huffman and Thompson voted for the funding package, the plaintiffs noted, months after the International Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in South Africa's genocide case against Israel, finding that Israel's actions had threatened Palestinians' right to be protected from genocide. The case has proceeded for ongoing litigation since the preliminary ruling was announced.

The votes were also taken weeks after Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, issued an extensive report that found Israel was committing acts of genocide in Gaza.

"I trusted Congressman Huffman to call for a cease-fire and to demand that the U.S. follow our own laws in addition to international law," said Robie Tenorio, one of the plaintiffs. "But despite overwhelming documented and corroborated evidence, Congressman Huffman voted in April 2024 to send Israel more offensive weapons, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers."

In March, a month before the vote, Democratic lawmakers urged President Joe Biden to enforce the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act—Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military aid to any country that is blocking U.S. humanitarian assistance.

The administration threatened in October to cut off military aid within one month if Israel did not prove that it was allowing in sufficient food, water, medicine, and other relief, but the U.S. State Department did not follow through on the threat despite the U.N.'s finding that conditions had not improved.

In January, the Center for Constitutional Rights sued Biden and members of his Cabinet on behalf of several Palestinian groups and individuals, accusing them of failing to prevent genocide in Gaza. The case was dismissed in July.

The lawsuit filed on Thursday argues that Huffman and Thompson violated the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and U.S. federal laws.

Norman Solomon, co-founder of the grassroots advocacy group RootsAction, said at a press conference on Thursday that Huffman has consistently said he supports U.S. military aid to Israel because he "opposes antisemitism."

"As a Jewish-American I find that kind of rationale disgusting, outrageous, and sickening," said Solomon.

Leslie Angeline, a plaintiff from Marin County, California and an organizer with the peace group CodePink, wrote at Common Dreams on Thursday about her hunger strike in protest of U.S. support for Israel, which she ended as the lawsuit was announced.

"I want to tell you what 30 days with no food does to a person, and my experience is made easier by the fact that I have a roof over my head, access to clean water, and a certainty that I won't have to flee my home at any moment," Angeline wrote. "The women my age in Gaza are not given the same luxuries."

"I wake up each morning worrying about the genocide that is happening in Gaza, knowing that if it wasn't for my government's partnership with the Israeli government this couldn't continue. Our government is sending billions upon billions of our tax dollars to slaughter innocent children, mothers and fathers, entire families with bombs and artillery funded by our country," she continued. "I understand that 'my trauma' is nothing compared to what the people of Gaza must be suffering. I can't even imagine the horrors they're being forced to live through or die from."

Maria Barakat, a Palestinian-Lebanese American and plaintiff from Sonoma County, said it was significant that hundreds of Californians "feel empowered by the ability to take meaningful action."

"This class action is only the beginning of the people's exercise of power against the violence of the American government," said Barakat, "and our refusal to be complicit."


■ Opinion


Progressives Have the Answers to Transform the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party cannot afford to continue losing its connection to the working class. Failing to respond with bold action, clear reforms, and a commitment to the priorities of working families will all but guarantee further electoral losses.

By Joseph Geevarghese


Rojava Under Attack: Why We Must Stand with Syria's Democratic North-East

In Syria, Turkey is escalating the very “terrorism” it pretends to be fighting. Erdoğan and his jihadist SNA proxies are artificially prolonging an atrocious war for their own political agendas, aiming to crush democratic self-determination and women's freedom in north-east Syria. Progressives around the world must no longer stay silent.

By Martin Winiecki


We Will All Be Casualties in Trump’s War on Birthright Citizenship

What Donald Trump’s effort to dismantle the 14th amendment’s guarantee of citizenship for people born in the U.S. might look like and what it would mean for all of us.

By Orion Hall


On December 8, President-elect Donald Trump sat down for an interview on “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker. The interview covered a wide range of topics, but one that drew a lot of attention was his response to a question (more of a statement) that Welker posed. She reminded him, “You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one,” to which he responded, “Correct.”

When Welker asked him about how he would “get around the 14th amendment,” Trump gave a rambling, incoherent answer about using an executive order, mixed with an easily disprovable lie that the U.S. is the only country to offer birthright citizenship, when in fact many countries do. It is important to emphasize that all U.S. presidents take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and when Trump says he will issue an executive order abrogating the 14th amendment, this is a clear violation of his oath and an impeachable offense.

It is easy to see how a mass detention of people who should be citizens could be used in bad faith by the Trump administration to institute fascism in America.

I previously wrote about why we need to defend birthright citizenship against right-wing attacks. That article goes into depth about the 14th amendment, the fringe and absurd conservative theory saying it doesn’t apply to children of undocumented parents, the horrible dystopia that would be created by a Trump administration that attempted to deny citizenship to people, and the positive benefits of birthright citizenship.

Here, I am going to attempt to flesh out what Donald Trump’s effort to dismantle the 14th amendment’s guarantee of citizenship for people born in the U.S. might look like and what it would mean for all of us. It is important to remember that Trump rarely speaks in terms of policy specifics. Instead, he carelessly tosses out grandiose, vague ideas and leaves it up to his underlings like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan to make actual policy out of them. Although Trump bluffs and lies frequently, he was very active on immigration in his last term, and there is no reason to think this second term will be any different.

Denial of U.S. Passports and Immigrant Petitions to Draw a Legal Challenge

I believe the most likely way that President-elect Trump would start his war on the 14th amendment would be to direct the U.S. Department of State to require that anyone applying for a U.S. passport provide proof that their parents had legal status when they were born. Inevitably, some people will not be able to meet this requirement, and their passport applications will be denied. This will draw legal challenges that will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.

Another potential attack that Trump could make would be to direct U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to demand proof of parental status for any U.S. citizen who tries to petition for permanent resident status for their relative. If you are a U.S. citizen, you can petition for your spouse, child, or parent to obtain permanent resident status (a green card) by filing form I-130 with USCIS. Currently, the citizen petitioner only needs to show they were born in the U.S. to prove citizenship. Trump could add a requirement that they prove their parents were in lawful status when they were born. If they are unable to, then they will not be able to petition for their relatives to stay with them in the U.S.

The Supreme Court is stacked with right-wing, activist justices who have shown time and time again that they are perfectly willing to ignore the plain text of the law (in this case, the 14th amendment) if it suits their policy goals. There is a non-insignificant chance that they will ignore the text of the 14th amendment and upend over 100 years of settled law to rule by fiat that children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are not granted citizenship at birth.

Of course, this is the goal of Miller, Homan, and the other anti-immigrant MAGA acolytes. They know that they are never going to get enough popular support for a constitutional amendment that would strip citizenship from children of undocumented parents. Their best hope is to draw a legal challenge and take their case to a MAGA-friendly Supreme Court in the hope that they will invalidate birthright citizenship through a court decision.

The Nightmare Scenario: Weaponizing ICE to Detain U.S. Citizens

The nightmare, dystopian scenario, which I touched on in my previous piece, would be for Donald Trump to direct U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to begin detaining people who were born in the U.S., but who cannot prove that their parents had lawful status when they were born. Think about how onerous of a requirement it would be to have to prove that your parents had lawful status when you were born. Most people from previous generations didn’t have any affirmative proof of citizenship, unless they naturalized. If your parents were born in the U.S., how can they prove their parents were in lawful status? What about their parents? Would you have to prove a chain of unbroken status dating back to the inception of the 14th amendment? It creates a potentially impossible standard in order to prove U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., let alone children with undocumented parents.

Let’s imagine the implications of a bad-faith Republican President like Trump aggressively challenging the citizenship of people born in the U.S. If someone is retroactively deemed to be a noncitizen, then they have likely been unlawfully present in the U.S. their entire life. Whenever they worked or voted in any U.S. election, they were doing so unlawfully. This would give ICE a way to detain virtually anyone that Donald Trump wanted to go after. Since this would apply to so many people, it could easily be used selectively against Trump’s enemies. It is worth highlighting that people in immigration detention suffer horrible conditions. People in immigration proceedings have no right to an attorney, and the government has substantial power to hold people in immigration detention without bond.

It is easy to see how a mass detention of people who should be citizens could be used in bad faith by the Trump administration to institute fascism in America. Any citizen who commits any kind of minor crime, or even requests a government benefit like food stamps, could suddenly face deportation if they can’t prove their parents had lawful status when they were born. There really is no bottom to how awful things could be if we lose the protection of birthright citizenship.

Although we cannot predict exactly how the new administration will go after the 14th amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, it is important that we stand against it at every turn, because if we lose birthright citizenship, the country we are left with won’t be one that we recognize.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Following the Senate's Lead, House Republicans Just Told Trump NO!

THANK YOU REP. ERIC SWALWELL FOR SPEAKING OUT!  HEED THE COMMENTS ABOUT TRUMP NOMINEES & ENEMIES...  TRUMP THREATENS FREE PRESS...AS DOE...