truthout--2020-06-17--The GOP’s Police Reforms Won’t Do It. We Need to Defund the Police.

Rebellions are clarifying .
They not only respond to conditions — they shape them .
A month into a popular uprising against policing and the broader edifice of state violence , politicians are rushing to catch up with its energy — or contain its spread .
The Minneapolis City Council is moving to disband the police department that murdered George Floyd , Philando Castile and almost 200 others in the last 20 years .
Albuquerque , Los Angeles and San Francisco have moved to create unarmed , non-law–enforcement agencies to respond to issues that have for decades been the province @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council has proposed slashing $ 1 billion from the world ’ s largest police force , a move other municipalities are considering as well , albeit to varying degrees and amounts .
A number of concerns await these and other moves , including who will decide what incidents require law enforcement versus social workers or other non-police response teams , and how municipalities will overcome the backlash of aggressive police departments that stand to lose the spoils to which they ’ ve grown accustomed .
Still , a month of popular rebellion has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has funneled an endless font of technology and resources to police to uphold a system that funneled an endless redistribution of wealth upward and misery downward .
Enter the Republicans .
On Wednesday morning , Republican senators Tim Scott and Mitch McConnell announced the “ Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere ” ( JUSTICE ) Act .
Scott , the only Black Republican in the Senate , said his bill supports both Black Americans and law enforcement .
The GOP senators ’ announcement follows on the heels of the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday .
Our “ law-and-order ” president ’ s credibility on the issue is highly suspect .
After all , Trump has repeatedly encouraged police to be as brutal as possible — particularly against Black people , immigrants , Muslims and leftists .
Early in the life span of this uprising , Trump repeated a 1967 threat issued from Miami Police Chief Walter Headley to kill anyone suspected of looting .
Like Trump , Headley ’ s threat was less about the sanctity of private property than a threat to uphold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After announcing the order , Trump predictably went off script to tout the stock market , Confederate statues , “ school choice ” attacks on public schools — and , of course , policing itself .
Trump still plans to host a campaign rally on Saturday , the day after Juneteenth , in Tulsa , the site of a notorious racist massacre in 1921 .
Neither the executive order nor the Senate bill is blustery .
Nor is either particularly surprising .
Both repeat many of the same procedural tweaks that have characterized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades .
The executive order stresses the importance of law enforcement , noting that “ some officers have misused their authority , challenging the trust of the American people ” — particularly “ in African-American communities.
” The Senate bill similarly promises to restore the “ lost faith ” in law enforcement .
To restore that “ trust , ” the order and the proposed Senate bill rehash familiar ground .
Namely , they propose more training , funding and monitoring of U.S. police departments .
The order requires regular and independent credentialing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be determined and certified by the attorney general .
It creates a national database to document police use of excessive force .
It mandates that “ all officers should be properly trained ” to address “ mental health , homelessness , and addiction.
” And it authorizes the attorney general , along with the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the president ’ s domestic policy adviser , to propose legislation and grants that advance these directives .
The grab bag of options to be considered under this rubric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as “ community outreach and listening sessions.
” In addition to repeating these approaches , the Senate bill requires better reporting of no-knock warrants ( the use of which resulted in Breonna Taylor ’ s murder ) and aims to “ incentivize ” against chokeholds ( which police used in murdering Eric Garner and George Floyd ) — despite bans on them already being in existence .
It also returns to the favorite suggestion of modern police reformers , the body camera .
Like a bill under consideration by the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal hate crime .
And its provisions for police training include a proposed partnership with the National Museum of African American History and Culture .
Let ’ s begin with the obvious problem of this administration : Much of the order falls under the purview of the attorney general , the top federal law enforcement official .
Both Trump ’ s order and Scott ’ s bill empower the attorney general to provide the training , dispense the funding and manage the database these acts create .
Under this administration , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man who never misses an opportunity to defend the imperial presidency against the faintest hint of democracy , in charge of what amounts to a continued transfer of wealth and power to U.S. policing .
The current administration , including Barr ( author of the 1992 report “ The Case for More Incarceration ” ) , has made no secret of its love for the carceral state .
And as per usual , what is left unsaid remains as relevant as what is made explicit .
The executive order seems to apply only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows local officials to ultimately determine whether they follow its dictates ) .
It makes no mention of the alphabet soup of federal policing agencies such as the BOP , CBP , DEA , FBI and ICE — despite several of these agencies playing a role in the violent repression of recent protests , the latest in a long history of abuses by these agencies .
The Senate bill does prohibit federal law enforcement from “ engag [ ing ] in a sexual act ” with anyone in custody .
The problems are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , parts of this order functionally have been carried out by a different attorney general .
Following the rebellions that responded to the police murder of Michael Brown in 2014 , Barack Obama used an executive order to create the “ Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
” While that task force issued a more ambitious set of reforms than Trump ’ s executive order , it displayed the same emphasis on small-scale procedural shifts — data analysis , better training , more resources — over structural change .
The top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not been much better .
Responding to the current wave of rebellion , Bernie Sanders called for police officers to receive a raise while Joe Biden pledged $ 300 million to community policing efforts , the tried-and-failed highlight of the 1994 crime bill that Biden championed .
Like its corollary in the realm of incarceration , bipartisan police reform is of limited ambitions .
The goal of these reforms seems primarily to be stopping the rebellions rather than stopping the abuses that cause them .
Despite its narrow scope , mainstream police reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problems can be solved with more money for police , either directly in the form of hardware such as body cameras or indirectly , in the form of training .
On the streets , however , reality is continuing to be remade .
The beauty of the # DefundthePolice demand is that it refuses the grift at the heart of U.S. policing .
It cuts to the chase : Money for police comes at the expense of money for health , housing , food and social welfare .
It is the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the world we need , somehow now more in reach than it has been in generations .
The problem is not a dearth of data or trainings .
The problem is a surplus of police .

Part of the Series The Road to Abolition
Rebellions are clarifying. They not only respond to conditions — they shape them. A month into a popular uprising against policing and the broader edifice of state violence, politicians are rushing to catch up with its energy — or contain its spread.
The Minneapolis City Council is moving to disband the police department that murdered George Floyd, Philando Castile and almost 200 others in the last 20 years. Albuquerque, Los Angeles and San Francisco have moved to create unarmed, non-law–enforcement agencies to respond to issues that have for decades been the province of police. The New York City Council has proposed slashing $1 billion from the world’s largest police force, a move other municipalities are considering as well, albeit to varying degrees and amounts.
A number of concerns await these and other moves, including who will decide what incidents require law enforcement versus social workers or other non-police response teams, and how municipalities will overcome the backlash of aggressive police departments that stand to lose the spoils to which they’ve grown accustomed. Still, a month of popular rebellion has upended a half century of political orthodoxy that has funneled an endless font of technology and resources to police to uphold a system that funneled an endless redistribution of wealth upward and misery downward.
Enter the Republicans. On Wednesday morning, Republican senators Tim Scott and Mitch McConnell announced the “Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere” (JUSTICE) Act. Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate, said his bill supports both Black Americans and law enforcement.
The GOP senators’ announcement follows on the heels of the executive order on police reform issued by Trump on Tuesday. Our “law-and-order” president’s credibility on the issue is highly suspect. After all, Trump has repeatedly encouraged police to be as brutal as possible — particularly against Black people, immigrants, Muslims and leftists. Early in the life span of this uprising, Trump repeated a 1967 threat issued from Miami Police Chief Walter Headley to kill anyone suspected of looting. Like Trump, Headley’s threat was less about the sanctity of private property than a threat to uphold the racist status quo through murderous violence.
After announcing the order, Trump predictably went off script to tout the stock market, Confederate statues, “school choice” attacks on public schools — and, of course, policing itself. Trump still plans to host a campaign rally on Saturday, the day after Juneteenth, in Tulsa, the site of a notorious racist massacre in 1921.
Neither the executive order nor the Senate bill is blustery. Nor is either particularly surprising. Both repeat many of the same procedural tweaks that have characterized bipartisan police reforms of the last two decades. The executive order stresses the importance of law enforcement, noting that “some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people” — particularly “in African-American communities.” The Senate bill similarly promises to restore the “lost faith” in law enforcement.
To restore that “trust,” the order and the proposed Senate bill rehash familiar ground. Namely, they propose more training, funding and monitoring of U.S. police departments. The order requires regular and independent credentialing of local and state police departments, to be determined and certified by the attorney general. It creates a national database to document police use of excessive force. It mandates that “all officers should be properly trained” to address “mental health, homelessness, and addiction.” And it authorizes the attorney general, along with the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the president’s domestic policy adviser, to propose legislation and grants that advance these directives. The grab bag of options to be considered under this rubric include “improved use-of-force policies” as well as “community outreach and listening sessions.”
In addition to repeating these approaches, the Senate bill requires better reporting of no-knock warrants (the use of which resulted in Breonna Taylor’s murder) and aims to “incentivize” against chokeholds (which police used in murdering Eric Garner and George Floyd) — despite bans on them already being in existence. It also returns to the favorite suggestion of modern police reformers, the body camera. Like a bill under consideration by the House, the Senate bill does make lynching a federal hate crime. And its provisions for police training include a proposed partnership with the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Let’s begin with the obvious problem of this administration: Much of the order falls under the purview of the attorney general, the top federal law enforcement official. Both Trump’s order and Scott’s bill empower the attorney general to provide the training, dispense the funding and manage the database these acts create. Under this administration, that would leave noted reactionary Bill Barr, a man who never misses an opportunity to defend the imperial presidency against the faintest hint of democracy, in charge of what amounts to a continued transfer of wealth and power to U.S. policing. The current administration, including Barr (author of the 1992 report “The Case for More Incarceration”), has made no secret of its love for the carceral state. And as per usual, what is left unsaid remains as relevant as what is made explicit. The executive order seems to apply only to state and local police (and allows local officials to ultimately determine whether they follow its dictates). It makes no mention of the alphabet soup of federal policing agencies such as the BOP, CBP, DEA, FBI and ICE — despite several of these agencies playing a role in the violent repression of recent protests, the latest in a long history of abuses by these agencies. The Senate bill does prohibit federal law enforcement from “engag[ing] in a sexual act” with anyone in custody.
The problems are bigger than the current administration, however. Indeed, parts of this order functionally have been carried out by a different attorney general. Following the rebellions that responded to the police murder of Michael Brown in 2014, Barack Obama used an executive order to create the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing.” While that task force issued a more ambitious set of reforms than Trump’s executive order, it displayed the same emphasis on small-scale procedural shifts — data analysis, better training, more resources — over structural change.
The top two 2020 Democratic candidates for president have not been much better. Responding to the current wave of rebellion, Bernie Sanders called for police officers to receive a raise while Joe Biden pledged $300 million to community policing efforts, the tried-and-failed highlight of the 1994 crime bill that Biden championed.
Like its corollary in the realm of incarceration, bipartisan police reform is of limited ambitions. The goal of these reforms seems primarily to be stopping the rebellions rather than stopping the abuses that cause them. Despite its narrow scope, mainstream police reform efforts are united by a belief that the problems can be solved with more money for police, either directly in the form of hardware such as body cameras or indirectly, in the form of training.
On the streets, however, reality is continuing to be remade. The beauty of the #DefundthePolice demand is that it refuses the grift at the heart of U.S. policing. It cuts to the chase: Money for police comes at the expense of money for health, housing, food and social welfare. It is the people’s executive order, the call for the world we need, somehow now more in reach than it has been in generations. The problem is not a dearth of data or trainings. The problem is a surplus of police.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-17--Trump Doubles Down on Rally in Tulsa, Site of Race Massacre, as COVID Cases Rise

President Donald Trump says he will push ahead with a massive campaign rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on Saturday , even as COVID cases are surging there as the state reopens .
Trump delayed the rally by one day after it was originally scheduled for June 19 — the day of the Juneteenth celebration marking the emancipation of enslaved people .
Tulsa is also the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history , when a white mob in 1921 killed as many as 300 people in a thriving African American business district .
“ The rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of both the venue , Tulsa , and because of the timing , ” says Hannibal B. Johnson , attorney and author of Black Wall Street : From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We begin today ’ s show in Tulsa , Oklahoma , where President Donald Trump will host a massive indoor campaign rally Saturday , despite concerns that the gathering will lead to a surge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus is already alarmingly on the rise .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Oklahoma has seen a 7.7 % increase in COVID cases — the largest in the country .
Tulsa ’ s health director said he wished the president would postpone the rally , the first since the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. in March , due to concerns about the virus .
The mayor has also said he doesn ’ t want it there now .
Two Oklahoma lawyers have sued in an attempt to halt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endanger the Tulsa community .
Despite public health experts ’ warnings against large indoor gatherings , the Trump administration is moving forward with plans to fill the 19,000-seat arena for the rally , with tens of thousands more in the nearby convention center .
Vice President Mike Pence , who will attend the rally , falsely claimed that , in a very real sense , Oklahoma had flattened the curve of COVID infections .
This is Trump speaking Monday .
AMY GOODMAN : The Trump campaign is requiring attendees to his rally to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability if an attendee contracts COVID-19 , but they are not requiring the attendees to wear masks , in contravention of the CDC .
This comes as President Trump also faces outrage for choosing Tulsa , Oklahoma , as the location of his first rally amidst the nationwide uprising against racism and police brutality .
The Trump administration rescheduled the rally to Saturday after originally announcing it would be held this Friday .
That ’ s June 19th , or Juneteenth , a celebration of African Americans ’ liberation from slavery .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history .
In 1921 , 99 years ago this month , a white mob attacked a Black neighborhood in Tulsa , killing as many as 300 African Americans .
Over two days , white mobs set fire to homes , businesses and churches in Greenwood , a thriving African American business district known at the time as “ Black Wall Street.
” When the smoke cleared , the area lay in ruins .
This is an excerpt from the History Channel documentary The Night Tulsa Burned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just children when the attack occurred .
This is George Monroe , followed by Juanita Burnett Arnold and Ernestine Alpha Gibbs .
GEORGE MONROE : I will always remember four men coming in our house with torches , and my mother saw them coming , and she put the four of we children under the bed .
And from under the bed , we could see them walking to the curtains and setting fire to the curtains to set our house on fire .
JUANITA BURNETT ARNOLD : We start hearing shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get up .
And we got up , and we could see smoke and hear — hear shots .
And we couldn ’ t sleep or anything .
We were just frightened nearly to death .
ERNESTINE ALPHA GIBBS : As soon as daylight came , we looked outside .
All of these people were coming down this railroad track .
Didn ’ t nobody try to take a thing .
And those people were coming along one track .
They just had clothes on .
That ’ s all .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : For more , we go to Tulsa , Oklahoma , where we ’ re joined by Hannibal Johnson , attorney and author of several books about the history of Tulsa ’ s African American community , including Black Wall Street : From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District , Up from the Ashes and Images of America : Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District .
So , if you could start , Hannibal Johnson , by talking about what happened 99 years ago this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tulsa in 1921 was really emblematic of the racial violence that pervaded the United States during that period .
In fact , historians and sociologists refer to the early part of the 20th century as the nadir of race relations in America , the low point of race relations in America , because of the proliferation of these so-called race riots — mostly invasions of Black communities by vigilante white mobs — and because of the prevalence of lynching , lynching being a form of domestic terrorism targeting primarily African Americans .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and historical racial trauma .
The event in Tulsa is the worst of the so-called race riots during this period in terms of its magnitude .
The business community in the Greenwood District , the Black sector in Tulsa , was highly developed — a great concentration of service providers , like doctors , lawyers , pharmacists and dentists , but all manner of business enterprises , small businesses like movie theaters , dance halls , barbershops , restaurants , grocery stores , haberdasheries , shine shops — a real concentration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35-square-block area in Tulsa , Oklahoma , separated from downtown Tulsa by the Frisco tracks .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Hannibal Johnson , you mentioned the racial conflicts of that period , which many Americans are not aware of .
But there were — throughout the country in the World War I , post-World War I period , there were these huge conflicts .
There was the Houston mutiny of 1917 of Black soldiers against racism that they were perceiving in the military .
There was the East St. Louis riot of 1917 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elaine , Arkansas , massacre , where over a hundred African Americans were massacred in Elaine .
Was part of this the result of the fact that as African Americans began being impressed into the military , there was even more willingness , one , on the one hand , of African Americans to stand up for their rights , and also of whites to seek to suppress the African American community ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Right .
I think it ’ s important to understand the pervasiveness and the power of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we had these African American men who went off to war in foreign countries , sacrificed their lives , potentially , for the country and for their American citizenship .
They come back to the United States , and they ’ re treated as , at best , second-class citizens ; at worst , subhuman .
So , Black men were much more vocal about protecting their civil rights after having served in World War I .
On the flipside of that , the white community , noticing this new sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , was determined to enforce white supremacy .
And these events , that were called race riots , and these lynchings are really in service of white supremacy .
AMY GOODMAN : It ’ s very interesting , because we ’ ve been looking at the bringing down of the Confederate statues around the country and the naming of military bases after Confederates , like Fort Bragg , and this was right around the same time — not during the Civil War , but way after — that they named these bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they saw the rising empowerment of African Americans , to pull them down .
I wanted to go to Tulsa native , professor Olivia Hooker , a survivor of the Greenwood massacre , describing the attack on her community that took place when she was just 6 years old .
She was 92 when she did this interview .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Tulsa native , professor Olivia Hooker , talking about what happened in 1921 .
And I wanted to ask you , Hannibal Johnson , about President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , there ’ s the surge , and we know that COVID-19 hits the African American community much harder than the rest of the community in this country .
There ’ s a surge in Tulsa .
Many of the leaders are asking for it not to be held there .
And he was going to hold it Friday , Juneteenth , the celebration of the end of slavery , which has outraged so many , that even President Trump was forced to put it off for a day .
Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the vice presidency under a President Joe Biden administration , if that were to happen , said , “ This isn ’ just a wink to white supremacists — he ’ s throwing them a welcome home party.
” Can you respond to this choice of location and the original date ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Right .
So , the rally is troubling to a lot of people because of both the venue , Tulsa , and because of the timing .
So , we ’ re in the midst of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midst of a surge here in Tulsa .
Bringing thousands of people together in a tight space where it ’ s not possible to socially distance , where people don ’ t have to wear masks , those people are going to attend the rally , then they ’ re going to spill out into the community writ large and pose substantial risk to all of us here .
So , that , in and of itself , is a problem .
The other problem with timing is that even though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20th as opposed to June 19th , it ’ s still Juneteenth weekend .
There still are festivities going on .
It ’ s a celebratory atmosphere of a very significant day in our history , particularly for African Americans .
The rally comes two-and-a-half weeks after the 99th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre .
So , it ’ s an issue of sensitivity at the very least .
And the other dynamic that ’ s important to think about is the character of the rally .
And we know something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on prior experience with these sorts of rallies , which tend to be raucous .
They tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive .
They tend to have elements of race and racism as part of the experience .
So that troubles a lot of people , because , here in Tulsa , we are working hard on reconciliation , on moving our community closer together as we approach the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre .
And the rally has the potential to be a disruptor to where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I wanted to ask you — of course , the country has been swept for weeks now by protests over police abuse and the murders of African Americans , but the Tulsa police Major Travis Yates recently denied the existence of systemic racism in the police force .
He said African Americans probably should be shot more .
In a recording , you can hear him say , quote , “ All of the research says we ’ re shooting African Americans about 24 % less than we probably ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being committed.
” Your response to the police major in your city ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : Well , he says that remark was taken out of context , but the remark speaks for itself .
And it is deeply troubling .
It has been rebuked by both the police chief , Wendell Franklin , and the mayor , G.T .
Bynum .
And it is not reflective of the officers , ranking officers , whom I know and have worked with for many , many , many years .
But again , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have been , whatever the intention may have been , it ’ s deeply problematic to put those words together on a radio show in the midst of all the things that the country is going through and all the things that we ’ ve gone through here in Tulsa .
AMY GOODMAN : And , of course , you have the situation of the two kids — I don ’ t even want to say “ jaywalking ” — 13-year-old Tulsa residents who were brutalized by the police .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of them put in the car , and you see the police officer kicking him .
They accuse him of jaywalking on a rural road — and one of these kids is 13 years old — that doesn ’ t have sidewalks .
Hannibal Johnson , have they been suspended ?
Have they been fired ?
Have they been charged with assault ?
Meaning the police officers .
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : So , all I know is that the matter is under investigation , as well it should be .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts that we know , as you just recited them , this is deeply disturbing and troubling .
So we need to find the facts , and we need to hold people accountable , as appropriate , based on the facts and circumstances that are determined through the investigatory process .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Hannibal Johnson , we want to thank you very much for being with us , attorney and author of Black Wall Street : From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa ’ s Historic Greenwood District .
Final question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reparations for what happened in 1921 ?
Wasn ’ t there a commission set up that said they should ?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON : There was a commission that was convened in 1997 , issued a final report in February of 2001 .
It recommended reparations for riot survivors and descendants of riot survivors who could prove loss of property .
There was a lawsuit filed in the early 2000s .
It was dismissed on the basis of statute of limitations .
So , cash reparations to individuals have not happened .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including building a substantial history center here in the Greenwood District , a pathway to hope that connects various sites in the Greenwood District , and other initiatives that are more community-based rather than individually focused .
AMY GOODMAN : Thank you so much , Hannibal Johnson .
We will continue to look at Tulsa on Friday on Democracy Now !
, when we ’ ll be joined by the sister , the twin , of a man who was killed by police in 2016 .
Her great-grandmother survived the Tulsa race massacre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we come back , we go to Puerto Rico .
Stay with us .

President Donald Trump says he will push ahead with a massive campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Saturday, even as COVID cases are surging there as the state reopens. Trump delayed the rally by one day after it was originally scheduled for June 19 — the day of the Juneteenth celebration marking the emancipation of enslaved people. Tulsa is also the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history, when a white mob in 1921 killed as many as 300 people in a thriving African American business district. “The rally is troubling to a lot of people because of both the venue, Tulsa, and because of the timing,” says Hannibal B. Johnson, attorney and author of Black Wall Street: From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where President Donald Trump will host a massive indoor campaign rally Saturday, despite concerns that the gathering will lead to a surge in COVID-19 cases in a state where the virus is already alarmingly on the rise. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Oklahoma has seen a 7.7% increase in COVID cases — the largest in the country.
Tulsa’s health director said he wished the president would postpone the rally, the first since the outbreak of the coronavirus in the U.S. in March, due to concerns about the virus. The mayor has also said he doesn’t want it there now. Two Oklahoma lawyers have sued in an attempt to halt the rally, saying the event will endanger the Tulsa community.
Despite public health experts’ warnings against large indoor gatherings, the Trump administration is moving forward with plans to fill the 19,000-seat arena for the rally, with tens of thousands more in the nearby convention center. Vice President Mike Pence, who will attend the rally, falsely claimed that, in a very real sense, Oklahoma had flattened the curve of COVID infections. This is Trump speaking Monday.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oklahoma’s at a very low number. They’ve done really fantastic work. They have a new — a pretty new, magnificent arena, as you probably have heard. And we’re getting exact numbers out, but we’re either close to or over 1 million people wanting to go. We have a 22,000-seat arena, but I think we’re going to also take the convention hall next door, and that’s going to hold 40,000. So we’ll have 22,000 plus 40,000, which would mean that we’d have over 900,000 people that won’t be able to go, but hopefully they’ll be watching.
AMY GOODMAN: The Trump campaign is requiring attendees to his rally to sign a waiver absolving the campaign of liability if an attendee contracts COVID-19, but they are not requiring the attendees to wear masks, in contravention of the CDC.
This comes as President Trump also faces outrage for choosing Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the location of his first rally amidst the nationwide uprising against racism and police brutality. The Trump administration rescheduled the rally to Saturday after originally announcing it would be held this Friday. That’s June 19th, or Juneteenth, a celebration of African Americans’ liberation from slavery.
But Tulsa is also the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history. In 1921, 99 years ago this month, a white mob attacked a Black neighborhood in Tulsa, killing as many as 300 African Americans. Over two days, white mobs set fire to homes, businesses and churches in Greenwood, a thriving African American business district known at the time as “Black Wall Street.” When the smoke cleared, the area lay in ruins.
This is an excerpt from the History Channel documentary The Night Tulsa Burned, which features some of the survivors who were just children when the attack occurred. This is George Monroe, followed by Juanita Burnett Arnold and Ernestine Alpha Gibbs.
GEORGE MONROE: I will always remember four men coming in our house with torches, and my mother saw them coming, and she put the four of we children under the bed. And from under the bed, we could see them walking to the curtains and setting fire to the curtains to set our house on fire. JUANITA BURNETT ARNOLD: We start hearing shots. And my grandfather told us all to get up. And we got up, and we could see smoke and hear — hear shots. And we couldn’t sleep or anything. We were just frightened nearly to death. ERNESTINE ALPHA GIBBS: As soon as daylight came, we looked outside. All of these people were coming down this railroad track. Didn’t nobody try to take a thing. And those people were coming along one track. They just had clothes on. That’s all. They didn’t try to take anything.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where we’re joined by Hannibal Johnson, attorney and author of several books about the history of Tulsa’s African American community, including Black Wall Street: From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District, Up from the Ashes and Images of America: Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District.
So, if you could start, Hannibal Johnson, by talking about what happened 99 years ago this month?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: What happened in Tulsa in 1921 was really emblematic of the racial violence that pervaded the United States during that period. In fact, historians and sociologists refer to the early part of the 20th century as the nadir of race relations in America, the low point of race relations in America, because of the proliferation of these so-called race riots — mostly invasions of Black communities by vigilante white mobs — and because of the prevalence of lynching, lynching being a form of domestic terrorism targeting primarily African Americans. So this was a period fraught with racial violence and historical racial trauma. The event in Tulsa is the worst of the so-called race riots during this period in terms of its magnitude.
The business community in the Greenwood District, the Black sector in Tulsa, was highly developed — a great concentration of service providers, like doctors, lawyers, pharmacists and dentists, but all manner of business enterprises, small businesses like movie theaters, dance halls, barbershops, restaurants, grocery stores, haberdasheries, shine shops — a real concentration of Black entrepreneurship and Black wealth in a 35-square-block area in Tulsa, Oklahoma, separated from downtown Tulsa by the Frisco tracks.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hannibal Johnson, you mentioned the racial conflicts of that period, which many Americans are not aware of. But there were — throughout the country in the World War I, post-World War I period, there were these huge conflicts. There was the Houston mutiny of 1917 of Black soldiers against racism that they were perceiving in the military. There was the East St. Louis riot of 1917, the Chicago riot of 1919 and the Elaine, Arkansas, massacre, where over a hundred African Americans were massacred in Elaine. Was part of this the result of the fact that as African Americans began being impressed into the military, there was even more willingness, one, on the one hand, of African Americans to stand up for their rights, and also of whites to seek to suppress the African American community?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Right. I think it’s important to understand the pervasiveness and the power of white supremacy as a philosophy during this period. So we had these African American men who went off to war in foreign countries, sacrificed their lives, potentially, for the country and for their American citizenship. They come back to the United States, and they’re treated as, at best, second-class citizens; at worst, subhuman. So, Black men were much more vocal about protecting their civil rights after having served in World War I. On the flipside of that, the white community, noticing this new sense of emboldment on the part of African Americans, was determined to enforce white supremacy. And these events, that were called race riots, and these lynchings are really in service of white supremacy.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s very interesting, because we’ve been looking at the bringing down of the Confederate statues around the country and the naming of military bases after Confederates, like Fort Bragg, and this was right around the same time — not during the Civil War, but way after — that they named these bases after Confederate soldiers, again, as they saw the rising empowerment of African Americans, to pull them down. I wanted to go to Tulsa native, professor Olivia Hooker, a survivor of the Greenwood massacre, describing the attack on her community that took place when she was just 6 years old. She was 92 when she did this interview.
OLIVIA HOOKER: I refuse to call it a “riot,” because it was really, you know, whites decided to burn down the homes of 10,000 people. So, that was not a riot. It was planned desecration. … And when the mobs came in, they had those pine, you know, knots all lighted up, and they set things on fire. And my mother refused to run, because she was busy putting water on the house to try to keep it from burning. And so she put the children under the big oak table. You know, they had those great big tables in those days, with little nooks under them. So we were under the table when the mobs came in.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Tulsa native, professor Olivia Hooker, talking about what happened in 1921. And I wanted to ask you, Hannibal Johnson, about President Trump choosing Tulsa. Now, of course, there’s the surge, and we know that COVID-19 hits the African American community much harder than the rest of the community in this country. There’s a surge in Tulsa. Many of the leaders are asking for it not to be held there. And he was going to hold it Friday, Juneteenth, the celebration of the end of slavery, which has outraged so many, that even President Trump was forced to put it off for a day. Kamala Harris, the senator from California, vying for the vice presidency under a President Joe Biden administration, if that were to happen, said, “This isn’ just a wink to white supremacists — he’s throwing them a welcome home party.” Can you respond to this choice of location and the original date?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Right. So, the rally is troubling to a lot of people because of both the venue, Tulsa, and because of the timing. So, we’re in the midst of a COVID pandemic. We’re in the midst of a surge here in Tulsa. Bringing thousands of people together in a tight space where it’s not possible to socially distance, where people don’t have to wear masks, those people are going to attend the rally, then they’re going to spill out into the community writ large and pose substantial risk to all of us here. So, that, in and of itself, is a problem.
The other problem with timing is that even though the rally has now been moved to June 20th as opposed to June 19th, it’s still Juneteenth weekend. There still are festivities going on. It’s a celebratory atmosphere of a very significant day in our history, particularly for African Americans. The rally comes two-and-a-half weeks after the 99th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. So, it’s an issue of sensitivity at the very least.
And the other dynamic that’s important to think about is the character of the rally. And we know something about the potential character of the rally based on prior experience with these sorts of rallies, which tend to be raucous. They tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive. They tend to have elements of race and racism as part of the experience. So that troubles a lot of people, because, here in Tulsa, we are working hard on reconciliation, on moving our community closer together as we approach the 100th anniversary of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre. And the rally has the potential to be a disruptor to where we are on the road to reconciliation.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — of course, the country has been swept for weeks now by protests over police abuse and the murders of African Americans, but the Tulsa police Major Travis Yates recently denied the existence of systemic racism in the police force. He said African Americans probably should be shot more. In a recording, you can hear him say, quote, “All of the research says we’re shooting African Americans about 24% less than we probably ought to be, based on the crimes being committed.” Your response to the police major in your city?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: Well, he says that remark was taken out of context, but the remark speaks for itself. And it is deeply troubling. It has been rebuked by both the police chief, Wendell Franklin, and the mayor, G.T. Bynum. And it is not reflective of the officers, ranking officers, whom I know and have worked with for many, many, many years. But again, it is deeply troubling. Whatever the context may have been, whatever the intention may have been, it’s deeply problematic to put those words together on a radio show in the midst of all the things that the country is going through and all the things that we’ve gone through here in Tulsa.
AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, you have the situation of the two kids — I don’t even want to say “jaywalking” — 13-year-old Tulsa residents who were brutalized by the police. I mean, the video of these kids, one of them put in the car, and you see the police officer kicking him. They accuse him of jaywalking on a rural road — and one of these kids is 13 years old — that doesn’t have sidewalks. Hannibal Johnson, have they been suspended? Have they been fired? Have they been charged with assault? Meaning the police officers.
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: So, all I know is that the matter is under investigation, as well it should be. On the surface of things, based on the facts that we know, as you just recited them, this is deeply disturbing and troubling. So we need to find the facts, and we need to hold people accountable, as appropriate, based on the facts and circumstances that are determined through the investigatory process.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Hannibal Johnson, we want to thank you very much for being with us, attorney and author of Black Wall Street: From Riot to Renaissance in Tulsa’s Historic Greenwood District. Final question, 20 seconds: Are people getting reparations for what happened in 1921? Wasn’t there a commission set up that said they should?
HANNIBAL JOHNSON: There was a commission that was convened in 1997, issued a final report in February of 2001. It recommended reparations for riot survivors and descendants of riot survivors who could prove loss of property. There was a lawsuit filed in the early 2000s. It was dismissed on the basis of statute of limitations. So, cash reparations to individuals have not happened. We are looking at reparations in other forms, including building a substantial history center here in the Greenwood District, a pathway to hope that connects various sites in the Greenwood District, and other initiatives that are more community-based rather than individually focused.
AMY GOODMAN: Thank you so much, Hannibal Johnson. We will continue to look at Tulsa on Friday on Democracy Now!, when we’ll be joined by the sister, the twin, of a man who was killed by police in 2016. Her great-grandmother survived the Tulsa race massacre.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Puerto Rico. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-06-17--The Supreme Court’s Landmark LGBTQ Case Could Shape the 2020 Election

The June 15 Supreme Court ruling applying Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act to the LGBTQ community , and particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch ’ s uncharacteristically expansive reading of the law , could well have a profound impact on the November elections .
Although the decision has nothing to do with voting rights , it perhaps indicates a softening of the Court ’ s iron-fist conservatism in the face of a rapidly shifting social and political landscape .
Voting rights cases will likely occupy a prominent place on the Court ’ s calendar in the coming months .
Events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , in which polling stations in African American neighborhoods experienced the sort of long lines and technical glitches generally associated with a new iPhone rollout , will doubtless spawn court tests .
In Florida and Iowa , two states very much in play in November , Republican state legislatures are desperately attempting to add onerous financial requirements to prevent former felons from voting .
Other states , such as Texas and Wisconsin , have initiated voter identification requirements widely recognized as attempts to keep African Americans from the polls .
Voter suppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a minority are , in fact , merely a recognition that the structural advantages that have allowed them to remain in power , such as gerrymandering and the small-state bias of the Electoral College , will no longer be sufficient .
The nation seems , suddenly and decisively , to have moved too far from their ideology .
The only thing left is to cheat , and , in the United States , the most effective and time-honored way to cheat is to suppress the African American vote .
For most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority rule has been made possible through the systematic suppression or denial of the African American vote .
Slavery granted Southern states a three-fifths apportionment bonus , giving Southern states outsized representation in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College .
The Jim Crow era was even kinder to the South .
Beginning with Mississippi in 1890 , every state in the old Confederacy , “ redeemed ” by white supremacists through terror and fraud , took to rewriting its state constitution .
Although race was never specifically mentioned , African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as literacy tests , property owning requirements , poll taxes and grandfather clauses — all now forbidden — but they were counted for apportionment , thereby granting Southern whites the same advantages in Congress and the Electoral College they had enjoyed before emancipation .
When these new Southern constitutions were tested in the Supreme Court , each was upheld .
In Williams v. Mississippi , for example , Justice Joseph McKenna wrote , “ The Constitution of Mississippi and its statutes do not on their face discriminate between the races , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual administration was evil ; only that evil was possible under them.
” But perhaps the most damning example was in Giles v. Harris , when revered Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the 1901 Alabama constitution in a ruling so contrived that constitutional scholar Richard Pildes called it “ the one key moment , one decisive turning point … in the bleak and unfamiliar saga … of the history of anti-democracy in the United States.
” Although in 1965 the Voting Rights Act helped limit , but did not end , discriminatory laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Shelby County v. Holder , the court in a 5-4 decision struck down the most effective provisions of that law as unconstitutional .
States were once again allowed to enact legislation that , while appearing race-neutral , was anything but .
Until now , the Supreme Court ’ s five conservative justices , devoted , they insist , to the Constitution , have refused to recognize , or pretended not to see , discriminatory policies for what they are .
In Trump v. Hawaii , for example , the five conservatives pretended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look as if it was not aimed at denying Muslims entry into the United States was valid , despite the fact that Trump had repeatedly and publicly announced that was his intention .
But the political climate has changed , and , despite the insistence that they only follow the “ rule of law , ” the court , as the recent LGBTQ ruling demonstrates , is not impervious to political pressure .
When Thomas Jefferson was elected president , he made no secret of his desire to remove his arch-nemesis and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him with Spencer Roane , thus forcing Marshall ’ s constitutional end run in Marbury v. Madison .
In the wake of the Civil War , when the constitutionality of the Reconstruction program was being tested in the courts , radical Republican congressmen took to sitting in when cases were heard to ensure that some questionable laws were not struck down .
And most famously , after Franklin Roosevelt ’ s disastrous and failed attempt to pack the Court in order to end the judgments invalidating his New Deal programs , the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
This group of conservative justices likely feel themselves similarly under siege , torn between an ideology that enables racism and a nation that seems to have suddenly turned against it .
It is vital , therefore , that the Court ’ s role in enabling Jim Crow be kept in the forefront and public pressure on the justices be maintained .
For this election , if the justices abdicate their responsibility to the Constitution and uphold transparently racist moves to suppress the vote , it could mark the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ tyranny of the majority ” as destructive to democracy .
But the tyranny of the minority is no democracy at all .

The June 15 Supreme Court ruling applying Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act to the LGBTQ community, and particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch’s uncharacteristically expansive reading of the law, could well have a profound impact on the November elections. Although the decision has nothing to do with voting rights, it perhaps indicates a softening of the Court’s iron-fist conservatism in the face of a rapidly shifting social and political landscape.
Voting rights cases will likely occupy a prominent place on the Court’s calendar in the coming months. Events such as the recent primary election in Georgia, in which polling stations in African American neighborhoods experienced the sort of long lines and technical glitches generally associated with a new iPhone rollout, will doubtless spawn court tests. In Florida and Iowa, two states very much in play in November, Republican state legislatures are desperately attempting to add onerous financial requirements to prevent former felons from voting. Other states, such as Texas and Wisconsin, have initiated voter identification requirements widely recognized as attempts to keep African Americans from the polls.
Voter suppression measures by a Republican Party that rules as a minority are, in fact, merely a recognition that the structural advantages that have allowed them to remain in power, such as gerrymandering and the small-state bias of the Electoral College, will no longer be sufficient. The nation seems, suddenly and decisively, to have moved too far from their ideology. The only thing left is to cheat, and, in the United States, the most effective and time-honored way to cheat is to suppress the African American vote.
For most of this nation’s history, white minority rule has been made possible through the systematic suppression or denial of the African American vote. Slavery granted Southern states a three-fifths apportionment bonus, giving Southern states outsized representation in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College.
The Jim Crow era was even kinder to the South. Beginning with Mississippi in 1890, every state in the old Confederacy, “redeemed” by white supremacists through terror and fraud, took to rewriting its state constitution. Although race was never specifically mentioned, African Americans were prevented from voting through contrivances such as literacy tests, property owning requirements, poll taxes and grandfather clauses — all now forbidden — but they were counted for apportionment, thereby granting Southern whites the same advantages in Congress and the Electoral College they had enjoyed before emancipation.
When these new Southern constitutions were tested in the Supreme Court, each was upheld. In Williams v. Mississippi, for example, Justice Joseph McKenna wrote, “The Constitution of Mississippi and its statutes do not on their face discriminate between the races, and it has not been shown that their actual administration was evil; only that evil was possible under them.” But perhaps the most damning example was in Giles v. Harris, when revered Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld the 1901 Alabama constitution in a ruling so contrived that constitutional scholar Richard Pildes called it “the one key moment, one decisive turning point … in the bleak and unfamiliar saga … of the history of anti-democracy in the United States.”
Although in 1965 the Voting Rights Act helped limit, but did not end, discriminatory laws against African-American voting, in 2015, in Shelby County v. Holder, the court in a 5-4 decision struck down the most effective provisions of that law as unconstitutional. States were once again allowed to enact legislation that, while appearing race-neutral, was anything but.
Until now, the Supreme Court’s five conservative justices, devoted, they insist, to the Constitution, have refused to recognize, or pretended not to see, discriminatory policies for what they are. In Trump v. Hawaii, for example, the five conservatives pretended that an order jiggled by President Trump to look as if it was not aimed at denying Muslims entry into the United States was valid, despite the fact that Trump had repeatedly and publicly announced that was his intention.
But the political climate has changed, and, despite the insistence that they only follow the “rule of law,” the court, as the recent LGBTQ ruling demonstrates, is not impervious to political pressure. When Thomas Jefferson was elected president, he made no secret of his desire to remove his arch-nemesis and cousin Chief Justice John Marshall and replace him with Spencer Roane, thus forcing Marshall’s constitutional end run in Marbury v. Madison. In the wake of the Civil War, when the constitutionality of the Reconstruction program was being tested in the courts, radical Republican congressmen took to sitting in when cases were heard to ensure that some questionable laws were not struck down. And most famously, after Franklin Roosevelt’s disastrous and failed attempt to pack the Court in order to end the judgments invalidating his New Deal programs, the Court’s decisions began to go his way.
This group of conservative justices likely feel themselves similarly under siege, torn between an ideology that enables racism and a nation that seems to have suddenly turned against it. It is vital, therefore, that the Court’s role in enabling Jim Crow be kept in the forefront and public pressure on the justices be maintained. For this election, if the justices abdicate their responsibility to the Constitution and uphold transparently racist moves to suppress the vote, it could mark the end of the American experiment.
James Madison was leery of the “tyranny of the majority” as destructive to democracy. But the tyranny of the minority is no democracy at all.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-17--Trump Administration Sued for Denying Loans to Small Business Owners With Record

A coalition of civil rights groups including the ACLU sued the Trump administration on Tuesday for denying coronavirus relief loans to small business owners with criminal records , arguing the restrictive policy violates the law and perpetuates systemic racial injustices by discriminating against people of color .
“ The excluded small business owners are more likely to be Black and Latinx because of bias in our criminal legal system , and their communities are hardest hit by Covid-19 , ” ReNika Moore , director of the ACLU ’ s Racial Justice Program , said in a statement .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic lifeline is afforded to all.
” The Small Business Administration ( SBA ) and the Treasury Department initially barred any small business owner convicted of a felony within the past five years from receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , which was established by the CARES Act .
The SBA slightly loosened the restrictions last week , banning from relief loans anyone who is currently on parole , facing pending charges , or with a felony conviction in the past year .
In their legal complaint against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the criminal-record exclusions are inconsistent with the text and purpose of the CARES Act.
” “ They tell a sweeping category of small-business owners across the country that , at a time of acute financial fragility , there is no lifeline for them or their employees , ” the complaint reads .
Sekwan Merritt , a black small business owner with a pending misdemeanor charge that he denies , said in a statement that “ the SBA ’ s discrimination against formerly incarcerated individuals hurts not just those of us who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses after returning home , but also impacts our families , the people who work for us , and our communities.
” Merritt , who joined the civil rights coalition in suing the SBA , said he was unable to apply for a relief loan because of his pending charge .
“ Through my electrical contracting business , Lightning Electric , I want to provide hope and opportunity for folks who were formerly incarcerated , ” said Merritt .
“ However , as it stands , the SBA blocks the path to economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from underserved communities and who are disproportionately affected by mass incarceration .
”

Civil rights groups argue “the criminal-record exclusions are inconsistent with the text and purpose of the CARES Act.”
A coalition of civil rights groups including the ACLU sued the Trump administration on Tuesday for denying coronavirus relief loans to small business owners with criminal records, arguing the restrictive policy violates the law and perpetuates systemic racial injustices by discriminating against people of color.
“The excluded small business owners are more likely to be Black and Latinx because of bias in our criminal legal system, and their communities are hardest hit by Covid-19,” ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, said in a statement. “We won’t stop fighting until this economic lifeline is afforded to all.”
The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Treasury Department initially barred any small business owner convicted of a felony within the past five years from receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act.
The SBA slightly loosened the restrictions last week, banning from relief loans anyone who is currently on parole, facing pending charges, or with a felony conviction in the past year.
In their legal complaint against the SBA, the civil rights groups argue that “the criminal-record exclusions are inconsistent with the text and purpose of the CARES Act.”
“They tell a sweeping category of small-business owners across the country that, at a time of acute financial fragility, there is no lifeline for them or their employees,” the complaint reads.
Sekwan Merritt, a black small business owner who is on parole, said in a statement that “the SBA’s discrimination against formerly incarcerated individuals hurts not just those of us who have worked hard to create our own businesses after returning home, but also impacts our families, the people who work for us, and our communities.”
“Through my electrical contracting business, Lightning Electric, I want to provide hope and opportunity for folks who were formerly incarcerated,” said Merritt. “However, as it stands, the SBA blocks the path to economic equality and progress for people who come from underserved communities and who are disproportionately affected by mass incarceration.”
Joanna Wasik, counsel at Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, said the United States should “celebrate the accomplishments of formerly incarcerated individuals who are contributing to their communities, not shut them out from aid at a time of acute financial crisis.” “The SBA’s exclusion compounds the already devastating impacts that communities of color are facing from the Covid-19 pandemic Congress did not provide any exclusions when it passed the CARES Act,” said Wasik, “and the SBA has provided no good reason for them.” Correction: A previous version of this story erroneously stated that Sekwan Merritt has a pending charge against him. Sekwan Merritt is on parole, he does not have a pending charge.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-17--Fauci Will Not Attend Trump Rally, Citing COVID Risks

As President Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma , this Saturday , Anthony Fauci , a member of Trump ’ s coronavirus task force , is saying he wouldn ’ t personally attend any campaign event at this time , due to the possibility of contracting the disease .
Fauci , who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , explained in an interview with The Daily Beast on Tuesday that he considers himself part of the “ high-risk category ” of individuals more susceptible to COVID-19 .
“ Personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 79-year-old said regarding attending an election rally .
“ Of course not.
” Some are worried that a second wave of infections could come about due to the ending of the social distancing and stay-at-home measures across the country .
However , in a separate interview with the Wall Street Journal , Fauci also asserted that the U.S. hasn ’ t yet addressed the disease in the first round of infections .
“ People keep talking about a second wave .
We ’ re still in a first wave , ” Fauci explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most trusted voices on the coronavirus due to his many appearances during White House press briefings , as well as discussions on the disease in television interviews , also said that campaign rallies , if they have to happen , are better when they ’ re outside .
The campaign rally slated for this Saturday in Tulsa , Oklahoma , is at the BOK Center , an indoor venue .
The Trump campaign has said it plans to make hand sanitizer available and to hand out face masks to everyone who comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial coverings among participants , in spite of recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) that encourage such precautions in all public interactions .
Those recommendations also include a ranking of examples — from lowest to highest risk — of contracting COVID-19 at public events that Americans might consider attending .
At its highest risk of examples are events described as “ large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for individuals to remain spaced at least 6 feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly for communities of people who are at a greater risk of exposure to coronavirus , the president and his allies seem less concerned about the matter .
Some , like Vice President Mike Pence , are even making comments about the campaign event that are demonstrably false , including his assertion that coronavirus cases in Tulsa are decreasing .
In fact , cases are increasing in Tulsa County , where the seven-day average for new cases of COVID-19 jumped by 304 percent in the past two weeks .
Even while it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be safe , the Trump campaign seems to recognize the possibility that some could get infected merely by attending their rally this weekend .
Before coming to the event , participants must forfeit any claims of liability toward the campaign if they contract coronavirus later as a result of being in attendance .

The CDC continues to advise Americans to wear facial coverings, but the Trump campaign won’t require them on Saturday.
As President Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, this Saturday, Anthony Fauci, a member of Trump’s coronavirus task force, is saying he wouldn’t personally attend any campaign event at this time, due to the possibility of contracting the disease.
Fauci, who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained in an interview with The Daily Beast on Tuesday that he considers himself part of the “high-risk category” of individuals more susceptible to COVID-19.
“Personally, I would not,” the 79-year-old said regarding attending an election rally. “Of course not.”
Some are worried that a second wave of infections could come about due to the ending of the social distancing and stay-at-home measures across the country. However, in a separate interview with the Wall Street Journal, Fauci also asserted that the U.S. hasn’t yet addressed the disease in the first round of infections.
“People keep talking about a second wave. We’re still in a first wave,” Fauci explained.
Fauci, who became one of the most trusted voices on the coronavirus due to his many appearances during White House press briefings, as well as discussions on the disease in television interviews, also said that campaign rallies, if they have to happen, are better when they’re outside.
The campaign rally slated for this Saturday in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is at the BOK Center, an indoor venue. The Trump campaign has said it plans to make hand sanitizer available and to hand out face masks to everyone who comes, although it will not be enforcing facial coverings among participants, in spite of recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that encourage such precautions in all public interactions.
Those recommendations also include a ranking of examples — from lowest to highest risk — of contracting COVID-19 at public events that Americans might consider attending. At its highest risk of examples are events described as “large in-person gatherings where it is difficult for individuals to remain spaced at least 6 feet apart and attendees travel from outside the local area.”
While Fauci seems to be urging caution, particularly for communities of people who are at a greater risk of exposure to coronavirus, the president and his allies seem less concerned about the matter. Some, like Vice President Mike Pence, are even making comments about the campaign event that are demonstrably false, including his assertion that coronavirus cases in Tulsa are decreasing.
In fact, cases are increasing in Tulsa County, where the seven-day average for new cases of COVID-19 jumped by 304 percent in the past two weeks.
Even while it’s publicly asserting that the event will be safe, the Trump campaign seems to recognize the possibility that some could get infected merely by attending their rally this weekend. Before coming to the event, participants must forfeit any claims of liability toward the campaign if they contract coronavirus later as a result of being in attendance.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-17--Health Care Anti-Bias Tools May Be Endangering Classes of Essential Workers

Bias is so baked into health care delivery that COVID-19 forces us to rethink how we allocate resources so Black and Brown people don ’ t suffer more than they already have .
Health care providers worldwide are now considering how to most fairly allocate scarce resources in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic .
Most guidelines agree on a utilitarian principle of maximizing benefit for the most people .
These criteria prioritize health care workers and use purportedly objective metrics like the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ( SOFA ) score , which is based on the dysfunction of multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allocate scarce resources to patients who have better organ function and thus a greater likelihood of good outcomes .
Even if hospitals aren ’ t prioritizing health care workers or using mortality predictors like the SOFA score , most algorithms are based on the principle that those who are more likely to have a poor outcome should not receive limited resources .
Some approaches have called for allocation by lottery , throwing out utility in the name of equity , but even these approaches can disadvantage people of color if there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utilization across races .
Clearly many of these metrics have hidden , implicit biases against people of color , as disproportionately poor outcomes for African Americans , Latinx and Indigenous populations bear this out .
We ’ re kidding ourselves if we don ’ t rethink what “ fair ” means across all patient populations .
People of color are particularly disadvantaged by resource allocation protocols .
One recent study found “ black people who visited hospitals with COVID-19 symptoms in February and March were less likely to get tested or treated than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in Western states , Latinos account for a large proportion of COVID-19 cases despite being a minority in population size .
And some Native American tribes have higher infection rates than most states , even including hard-hit areas like New York .
While resource allocation policies largely have not been activated in the U.S. , it is likely they will be needed in the future .
We may face a new wave of coronavirus infections or even a different pandemic .
These decisions are made using algorithms to determine which patients receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate need for them outstrip supply .
States and hospital systems are creating or updating these policies based on recommendations from ethicists and medical organizations .
Two principles frequently employed include rewarding “ instrumental value , ” such as giving preference to health care workers , and the likelihood of surviving without having major or long-term deficits via SOFA score .
Sadly , these criteria may also foster implicit bias .
For example , why prioritize health care workers ?
Once recovered , they can continue to help save the lives of others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also an element of “ responsible stewardship , ” where asking health care workers to risk their lives to save others only to be denied treatment if they fall ill , is unfair .
This is logical on its face .
But applying this principle has two major flaws .
First , “ health care workers ” is an ambiguous term .
Is the definition limited to clinicians directly providing medical care , such as physicians and nurses ?
Or might it be extended to other staff in medical facilities , like food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as grocery store employees and supply chain truck drivers who can not work from home — should be included .
After all , they are exposed to the coronavirus at higher rates than the general public .
Here ’ s where more implicit bias comes in : Black and Latinx people are underrepresented as physicians and registered nurses .
At the same time , African Americans make up the largest percentage of health care support staff .
If treatment preference is given to clinicians only , a large number of hospital staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priority access to treatment .
This is not only unethical , but it is also in direct opposition to the principle of maximizing benefit .
Inappropriate application of the label “ health care worker ” could lead to putting the needs of a largely white group first , while ignoring Black health care workers on a different hierarchical rung .
Black and Latinx people are less likely to be able to work from home than whites and Asians .
Black and Brown workers also make up large numbers of workers in food preparation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transportation industries .
People of color , for example , are concentrated in lower-paying jobs in the restaurant industry .
These occupations have proven over and over again how essential they are .
If resource allocation policies prioritize health care workers but not other essential workers , Black and Brown people will continue to be exposed to higher risks , without receiving benefits of responsible stewardship .
Maximizing benefit is at the foundation of putting first those patients with the greatest likelihood of having positive outcomes .
To many , it makes ethical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the greatest likelihood of recovering and those who , once recovered , would have the longest life expectancies .
Because these metrics are impossible to predict , many protocols turn to validated scoring systems , such as SOFA scores , as a less-biased way to assess .
One study found that a full 80.8 percent of hospitals surveyed were using these scores or a similar scale .
However , this approach has been criticized as being unfair to elderly patients , who have lived longer , and thus , have fewer years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with disabilities , who have less access to preventative care and subsequently poorer health outcomes .
These patients tend to have more comorbidities , and thus , higher scores .
Black and Brown people also are disadvantaged by this scoring system .
While the gap is closing , African Americans still have the lowest life expectancies of any race in the United States .
The SOFA score , meant to quantify organ dysfunction across six systems ( respiratory , cardiovascular , hepatic , coagulation , renal and neurological ) , puts Black and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and Latinx populations have higher rates of cardiovascular disease , hypertension and diabetes .
As a consequence , something like the SOFA score , which attempts to predict morbidity and mortality based on the failure of these organ systems , may perpetuate or even magnify the health outcomes disparities experienced by people of color , who already have higher morbidity and mortality rates .
Failure to factor in these facts of life is how implicit bias seeps into attempts at just decision making .
When adding up the ways we prioritize who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t add up for historically underserved populations .
Some health care professionals have pushed back against these resource allocation policies , arguing for justice-based algorithms that take into account demographic and social data in order to ration resources in a more equitable manner , but revamping these policies to make them fair for all populations will require serious time and effort .
Before the next surge occurs , we must develop better standards for sharing resources to root out deadly bias .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Bias is so baked into health care delivery that COVID-19 forces us to rethink how we allocate resources so Black and Brown people don’t suffer more than they already have.
Health care providers worldwide are now considering how to most fairly allocate scarce resources in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. The thought of having to use an algorithm to determine who gets access to life-saving resources and who does not is unquestionably difficult to imagine. We must support the efforts of clinicians, scientists, and engineers who are developing and deploying more and better equipment so that greater numbers of patients can be treated, avoiding the devaluing of any life based on race, age, ability status, etc. Until we have developed a medical infrastructure that treats all individuals fairly, algorithms may be the most objective way to allocate resources. Therefore, we should examine these algorithms and think critically about the fairest and most just way to allocate resources should the unthinkable arise.
Most rationing guidelines agree on a utilitarian principle of maximizing benefit for the most people. These criteria prioritize health care workers and use purportedly objective metrics like the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, which is based on the dysfunction of multiple organ systems, and could be used to allocate scarce resources to patients who have better organ function and thus a greater likelihood of good outcomes.
Even if hospitals aren’t prioritizing health care workers or using mortality predictors like the SOFA score, most algorithms are based on the principle that those who are more likely to have a poor outcome should not receive limited resources. Some approaches have called for allocation by lottery, throwing out utility in the name of equity, but even these approaches can disadvantage people of color if there are pre-existing inequalities in health care access and utilization across races. Clearly many of these metrics have hidden, implicit biases against people of color, as disproportionately poor outcomes for African Americans, Latinx and Indigenous populations bear this out. We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t rethink what “fair” means across all patient populations.
People of color are particularly disadvantaged by resource allocation protocols. One recent study found “black people who visited hospitals with COVID-19 symptoms in February and March were less likely to get tested or treated than white patients.” In some communities, especially in Western states, Latinos account for a large proportion of COVID-19 cases despite being a minority in population size. And some Native American tribes have higher infection rates than most states, even including hard-hit areas like New York.
While resource allocation policies largely have not been activated in the U.S., it is likely they will be needed in the future. We may face a new wave of coronavirus infections or even a different pandemic. These decisions are made using algorithms to determine which patients receive access to life-sustaining medical resources should the immediate need for them outstrip supply. States and hospital systems are creating or updating these policies based on recommendations from ethicists and medical organizations. Two principles frequently employed in resource allocation policies include rewarding “instrumental value,” such as giving preference to health care workers, and the likelihood of surviving without having major or long-term deficits via SOFA score.
Sadly, these criteria may also foster implicit bias.
Most algorithms are based on the principle that those who are more likely to have a poor outcome should not receive limited resources.
For example, why prioritize health care workers? Once recovered, they can continue to help save the lives of others, the reasoning goes. There is also an element of “responsible stewardship,” where asking health care workers to risk their lives to save others only to be denied treatment if they fall ill, is unfair. This is logical on its face. But applying this principle has two major flaws.
First, “health care workers” is an ambiguous term. Is the definition limited to clinicians directly providing medical care, such as physicians and nurses? Or might it be extended to other staff in medical facilities, like food service workers? Maybe essential workers — such as grocery store employees and supply chain truck drivers who cannot work from home — should be included. After all, they are exposed to the coronavirus at higher rates than the general public.
Here’s where more implicit bias comes in: Black and Latinx people are underrepresented as physicians and registered nurses. At the same time, African Americans make up the largest percentage of health care support staff. If treatment preference is given to clinicians only, a large number of hospital staff who provide critical services will not get priority access to treatment. This is not only unethical, but it is also in direct opposition to the principle of maximizing benefit. Inappropriate application of the label “health care worker” could lead to putting the needs of a largely white group first, while ignoring Black health care workers on a different hierarchical rung.
Black and Latinx people are less likely to be able to work from home than whites and Asians. Black and Brown workers also make up large numbers of workers in food preparation and service, and material production and transportation industries. People of color, for example, are concentrated in lower-paying jobs in the restaurant industry. These occupations have proven over and over again how essential they are. If resource allocation policies prioritize health care workers but not other essential workers, Black and Brown people will continue to be exposed to higher risks, without receiving benefits of responsible stewardship.
Maximizing benefit is at the foundation of putting first those patients with the greatest likelihood of having positive outcomes. To many, it makes ethical sense to provide resources to those who have the greatest likelihood of recovering and those who, once recovered, would have the longest life expectancies. Because these metrics are impossible to predict, many protocols turn to validated scoring systems, such as SOFA scores, as a less-biased way to assess. One study found that a full 80.8 percent of hospitals surveyed were using these scores or a similar scale.
Inappropriate application of the label “health care worker” could lead to putting the needs of a largely white group first, while ignoring Black health care workers on a different hierarchical rung.
However, this approach has been criticized as being unfair to elderly patients, who have lived longer, and thus, have fewer years to live, as well as patients with disabilities, who have less access to preventative care and subsequently poorer health outcomes. These patients tend to have more comorbidities, and thus, higher scores.
Black and Brown people also are disadvantaged by this scoring system.
While the gap is closing, African Americans still have the lowest life expectancies of any race in the United States. The SOFA score, meant to quantify organ dysfunction across six systems (respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, coagulation, renal and neurological), puts Black and Brown people at a disadvantage. Both Black and Latinx populations have higher rates of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes. As a consequence, something like the SOFA score, which attempts to predict morbidity and mortality based on the failure of these organ systems, may perpetuate or even magnify the health outcomes disparities experienced by people of color, who already have higher morbidity and mortality rates. Failure to factor in these facts of life is how implicit bias seeps into attempts at just decision making.
When adding up the ways we prioritize who gets help first, the equation doesn’t add up for historically underserved populations. Some health care professionals have pushed back against these resource allocation policies, arguing for justice-based algorithms that take into account demographic and social data in order to ration resources in a more equitable manner. Revamping these policies to make them fair for all populations demands our serious time and effort.
Unfortunately, without algorithms, judgment is left entirely up to bedside clinicians, and patients receiving scarce, needed assistance are often chosen based on the personal, inherent biases of the clinicians involved. Beyond resource allocation policies, COVID-19 has exposed the systemic inequality that has pervaded health care and has disadvantaged people of color for far too long. The current pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that it is time to reexamine how we provide care at its most fundamental levels so that health care inequity is not perpetuated or tolerated any longer. Before the next surge occurs, we must develop better standards for sharing resources to root out deadly bias.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-18--Trump Claims He Made Juneteenth Famous. It’s Been Widely Celebrated Since 1865.

In his Juneteenth message delivered in 2019 , President Donald Trump stated , “ as a Nation , we vow to never forget the millions of African Americans who suffered the evils of slavery.
” However , Trump apparently forgot at least one thing from that declaration , issued one year ago this week : that the celebration around Juneteenth existed at all .
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Thursday , Trump said he was first informed about Juneteenth by a Black Secret Service agent just recently , in attempting to explain to the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to host a political rally on June 19 in Tulsa , Oklahoma .
The announcement of Trump ’ s first political rally since March of this year came as uprisings across the country were taking place following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer who had kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes in late May .
The rally ’ s date would have coincided with the celebration and unofficial Juneteenth holiday ( it ’ s an official holiday in Texas ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans enslaved in Texas were informed of their freedom at the close of the Civil War .
The rally is also slated to take place in Tulsa , Oklahoma , which is the site of a deadly massacre in 1921 where Black residents in an affluent neighborhood of the city were attacked and killed , with their homes and businesses also firebombed , by white residents .
The rally ’ s date has since been rescheduled , reportedly out of respect for Juneteenth , and will instead take place on Saturday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he didn ’ t know about Juneteenth prior to planning to hold his campaign rally on that day , Trump suggested the scheduling error had a positive outcome nevertheless : making the day , in his mind , more popular .
“ I did something good : I made Juneteenth very famous , ” Trump said in The Wall Street Journal interview .
“ It ’ s actually an important event , an important time .
But nobody had ever heard of it.
” According to the president , no one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard of the celebration and unofficial holiday , either .
When informed during the interview that he had put out a Juneteenth statement just last year — and , in fact , every year he ’ s been president — Trump seemed to be stunned by the information .
“ Oh really ?
We put out a statement ?
The Trump White House put out a statement ?
Ok , ok. Good , ” he said .
Forty-seven states plus Washington D.C. recognize Juneteenth .
It ’ s been widely celebrated in cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president purportedly said he made the day “ famous ” by scheduling a campaign event on its date .
Indeed , the amount of outrage that doing so generated seems to contradict the very notion that nobody knew about Juneteenth beforehand .
Yamiche Alcindor , the White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour , stated on Twitter that the day has been acknowledged for quite some time .
“ Reminder : Juneteeth has been celebrated since long before President Trump was born , ” Alcindor tweeted out .
Bestselling author and CNN commentator Keith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticizing Trump ’ s ignorance of the celebration .
“ Black people have been celebrating Juneteenth since 1865 , but Trump learned about it last week and now he wants to take credit , ” Boykin wrote .

Juneteenth has been celebrated annually since 1865, with cities and states regularly commemorating the day.
In his Juneteenth message delivered in 2019, President Donald Trump stated, “as a Nation, we vow to never forget the millions of African Americans who suffered the evils of slavery.”
However, Trump apparently forgot at least one thing from that declaration, issued one year ago this week: that the celebration around Juneteenth existed at all.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Thursday, Trump said he was first informed about Juneteenth by a Black Secret Service agent just recently, in attempting to explain to the president why there was an uproar over his decision to host a political rally on June 19 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
The announcement of Trump’s first political rally since March of this year came as uprisings across the country were taking place following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer who had kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes in late May.
The rally’s date would have coincided with the celebration and unofficial Juneteenth holiday (it’s an official holiday in Texas), which commemorates the day in 1865 when Black Americans enslaved in Texas were informed of their freedom at the close of the Civil War. The rally is also slated to take place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is the site of a deadly massacre in 1921 where Black residents in an affluent neighborhood of the city were attacked and killed, with their homes and businesses also firebombed, by white residents.
The rally’s date has since been rescheduled, reportedly out of respect for Juneteenth, and will instead take place on Saturday, the day after.
In spite of his saying he didn’t know about Juneteenth prior to planning to hold his campaign rally on that day, Trump suggested the scheduling error had a positive outcome nevertheless: making the day, in his mind, more popular.
“I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said in The Wall Street Journal interview. “It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”
According to the president, no one in the White House he had asked had heard of the celebration and unofficial holiday, either. When informed during the interview that he had put out a Juneteenth statement just last year — and, in fact, every year he’s been president — Trump seemed to be stunned by the information.
“Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement? Ok, ok. Good,” he said.
Forty-seven states plus Washington D.C. recognize Juneteenth. It’s been widely celebrated in cities across the country, long before the president purportedly said he made the day “famous” by scheduling a campaign event on its date.
Indeed, the amount of outrage that doing so generated seems to contradict the very notion that nobody knew about Juneteenth beforehand.
Yamiche Alcindor, the White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour, stated on Twitter that the day has been acknowledged for quite some time.
“Reminder: Juneteeth has been celebrated since long before President Trump was born,” Alcindor tweeted out.
Bestselling author and CNN commentator Keith Boykin echoed Alcindor’s sentiments, criticizing Trump’s ignorance of the celebration.
“Black people have been celebrating Juneteenth since 1865, but Trump learned about it last week and now he wants to take credit,” Boykin wrote.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.