truthout--2020-11-10--Barr Order to Investigate “Fraud” Claims Spurs Top DOJ Official to Quit

When the announcement came on Monday afternoon that Attorney General Bill Barr was letting his dogs off the leash to go investigate Trump ’ s wild and thoroughly unsubstantiated claims of election fraud , it prompted warranted fear and concern .
“ Barr ’ s action comes days after Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump and raises the prospect that Trump will use the Justice Department to try to challenge the outcome , ” reported CNBC .
“ Trump has not conceded the election and is instead claiming without evidence that there has been a widespread , multi-state conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Biden ’ s favor.
” Because of the grip Trump has on the psyche of this nation , especially among those who fear and loathe him , this latest move was the worst of all possible scenarios .
An understandable sense of dread swept over the land .
Part of this might seem irrational : Can Trump the alchemist , through the same dark magic he used to ensorcell virtually every elected Republican along with more than 70 million voters , transform this chunk of lead into golden victory , secure a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all coming time ?
The fact remains that Trump lost — not massively , but definitively , and by enough of a margin to forestall reasonable doubt .
Furthermore , President-elect Joe Biden won or is winning in enough states to make Trump ’ s “ vast conspiracy ” accusation laughable on its face .
Finally , the suits being brought , even if successful , do not toss enough votes to alter the outcome .
In short , nothing Trump ’ s people are doing will bring them victory — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t do serious damage .
In point of fact , that damage has already begun .
“ Already Trump ’ s unfounded accusations of fraud have inspired an attempted armed attack on the Philadelphia convention center and bomb threats against the mall next to the convention center , ” reports Mark Bray for Truthout , “ not to mention the plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.
” White Supremacist gangs like the Proud Boys , who Trump specifically ordered to “ stand back and stand by ” during the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word from their leader .
The problems being caused by Trump ’ s inchoate assault on democracy are not confined to the fringes of the Republican fever swamp .
Richard Pilger , director of the Election Crimes Branch at the Justice Department , quit shortly after Barr announced his dumpster-dive investigation .
“ Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications , and in accord with the best tradition of the John C. Keeney Award for Exceptional Integrity and Professionalism ( my most cherished Departmental recognition ) , I must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Election Crimes Branch , ” Pilger wrote in his resignation letter .
It ’ s not hard to read between the lines there : Mr. Pilger would not be able to face himself in the mirror if he participated in this farce , and so he is gone .
Given how unpopular Barr is at Justice , one wonders how many more defections may be coming if this thing is allowed to grind on .
Another side effect is the trickle-down nature of Trump ’ s display .
Across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by vast margins down the ballot are taking up the dual cries of “ Fraud !
” and “ Count the legal votes !
” One GOP candidate doing this lost by 40 points , another by 75 .
This will sit well with the segment of the population who would call Trump a victim even if he ’ d won .
As the election reminded us , that is a far larger segment of the country than many of us might like to believe .
Will the rest of the country see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership echoing them , and recoil ?
We can hope so .
Why is Trump doing this ?
Does he expect to win back the presidency ?
Is he simply trying to be as destructive as possible on his way out ?
Part of the answer is in your email , but only if you ’ re on Trump ’ s campaign list .
The email blasts have been coming fast , furious and ever more desperate since Saturday ’ s announcement .
“ STOP THE FRAUD ” reads one email headline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots ” reads another .
All are seeking donations to Trump ’ s legal fund , so he can fight the good fight against Biden and the socialist hordes .
“ But if you read the fine print , ” reports Judd Legum at Popular Information , “ money sent to the Election Defense Task Force will not necessarily be used to finance the Trump campaign ’ s lawsuits .
Donors are actually contributing to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee ( TMAGAC ) , a joint fundraising committee of Donald J.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican National Committee.
” “ 60 % of the money donated to TMAGAC will go to pay the Trump campaign ’ s debt and 40 % will go to the general operating account of the Republican National Committee , ” continues Legum .
“ Money is only designated for recounts or other legal efforts if an individual donor reaches their legal limit or Trump retires his debt… .
If Trump concedes , that money would come to a halt .
You can ’ t pretend to raise money for a legal challenge once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s refusal to concede may serve many purposes , but one of them is certainly a grift : an incredibly dangerous grift that could permanently undermine not only faith in the judicial branch , but also faith in our elections , both of which are already on shaky ground .
Tuesday ’ s vote went about as smoothly as one could hope for under these extreme circumstances , and yet that positive step forward is being deliberately undermined by a guy who in defeat is still trying to scrape money off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … and some of those followers could get violent when this sideshow finally comes to an end unfavorably for their hero .
There ’ s no predicting what the next few weeks will bring , and the addition of AG Barr and the muscle of the Justice Department is a deeply disquieting turn of events .
But there ’ s no doubt that all the while , until he concedes or is bodily removed from the building , Donald Trump will be in his counting house , counting all his money .
P.T @ @ @ @ @

Grift / grift / noun: Ways of getting money dishonestly that involve tricking someone. —The Cambridge Dictionary
When the announcement came on Monday afternoon that Attorney General Bill Barr was letting his dogs off the leash to go investigate Trump’s wild and thoroughly unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, it prompted warranted fear and concern.
“Barr’s action comes days after Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump and raises the prospect that Trump will use the Justice Department to try to challenge the outcome,” reported CNBC. “Trump has not conceded the election and is instead claiming without evidence that there has been a widespread, multi-state conspiracy by Democrats to skew the vote tally in Biden’s favor.”
Because of the grip Trump has on the psyche of this nation, especially among those who fear and loathe him, this latest move was the worst of all possible scenarios. An understandable sense of dread swept over the land. Part of this might seem irrational: Can Trump the alchemist, through the same dark magic he used to ensorcell virtually every elected Republican along with more than 70 million voters, transform this chunk of lead into golden victory, secure a second term, and own the libs for all coming time?
The fact remains that Trump lost — not massively, but definitively, and by enough of a margin to forestall reasonable doubt. Furthermore, President-elect Joe Biden won or is winning in enough states to make Trump’s “vast conspiracy” accusation laughable on its face. Finally, the suits being brought, even if successful, do not toss enough votes to alter the outcome. In short, nothing Trump’s people are doing will bring them victory — but that doesn’t mean their actions won’t do serious damage. In point of fact, that damage has already begun.
“Already Trump’s unfounded accusations of fraud have inspired an attempted armed attack on the Philadelphia convention center and bomb threats against the mall next to the convention center,” reports Mark Bray for Truthout, “not to mention the plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.” White Supremacist gangs like the Proud Boys, who Trump specifically ordered to “stand back and stand by” during the first presidential debate, may be waiting for the word from their leader.
The problems being caused by Trump’s inchoate assault on democracy are not confined to the fringes of the Republican fever swamp. Richard Pilger, director of the Election Crimes Branch at the Justice Department, quit shortly after Barr announced his dumpster-dive investigation. “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications, and in accord with the best tradition of the John C. Keeney Award for Exceptional Integrity and Professionalism (my most cherished Departmental recognition), I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of the Election Crimes Branch,” Pilger wrote in his resignation letter.
It’s not hard to read between the lines there: Mr. Pilger would not be able to face himself in the mirror if he participated in this farce, and so he is gone. Given how unpopular Barr is at Justice, one wonders how many more defections may be coming if this thing is allowed to grind on.
It’s a grift, folks. An incredibly dangerous grift that could permanently undermine not only faith in the judicial branch, but also faith in our elections.
Another side effect is the trickle-down nature of Trump’s display. Across the country, long-shot Republican office-seekers who got beat by vast margins down the ballot are taking up the dual cries of “Fraud!” and “Count the legal votes!” One GOP candidate doing this lost by 40 points, another by 75.
This will sit well with the segment of the population who would call Trump a victim even if he’d won.
As the election reminded us, that is a far larger segment of the country than many of us might like to believe. Will the rest of the country see these opportunistic whiners, and the GOP leadership echoing them, and recoil? We can hope so.
Why is Trump doing this? Does he expect to win back the presidency? Is he simply trying to be as destructive as possible on his way out?
Part of the answer is in your email, but only if you’re on Trump’s campaign list.
The email blasts have been coming fast, furious and ever more desperate since Saturday’s announcement. “STOP THE FRAUD” reads one email headline, “Joe Biden wants to count ILLEGAL ballots” reads another. All are seeking donations to Trump’s legal fund, so he can fight the good fight against Biden and the socialist hordes.
“But if you read the fine print,” reports Judd Legum at Popular Information, “money sent to the Election Defense Task Force will not necessarily be used to finance the Trump campaign’s lawsuits. Donors are actually contributing to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee (TMAGAC), a joint fundraising committee of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee.”
“60% of the money donated to TMAGAC will go to pay the Trump campaign’s debt and 40% will go to the general operating account of the Republican National Committee,” continues Legum. “Money is only designated for recounts or other legal efforts if an individual donor reaches their legal limit or Trump retires his debt…. If Trump concedes, that money would come to a halt. You can’t pretend to raise money for a legal challenge once you admit you’ve lost.”
… and the penny drops.
Trump’s refusal to concede may serve many purposes, but one of them is certainly a grift: an incredibly dangerous grift that could permanently undermine not only faith in the judicial branch, but also faith in our elections, both of which are already on shaky ground. Tuesday’s vote went about as smoothly as one could hope for under these extreme circumstances, and yet that positive step forward is being deliberately undermined by a guy who in defeat is still trying to scrape money off the backs of his most devoted followers … and some of those followers could get violent when this sideshow finally comes to an end unfavorably for their hero.
There’s no predicting what the next few weeks will bring, and the addition of AG Barr and the muscle of the Justice Department is a deeply disquieting turn of events. But there’s no doubt that all the while, until he concedes or is bodily removed from the building, Donald Trump will be in his counting house, counting all his money. P.T. Barnum was right.
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--2020-11-10--Supreme Court Hears ACA Case That Could Imperil COVID Treatment for Millions

Today , the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act , and millions of Americans could lose their healthcare in the middle of a pandemic .
“ In a way , we ’ re committing mass suicide , ” says science journalist Laurie Garrett , who says scrapping the landmark Obama-era healthcare law would leave people “ to potentially carry disease forward into the community , into their workplaces , and so on , without any treatment , any help , any assistance .
That ’ s just insane.
” This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , 10 seconds , Laurie .
Today , the Supreme Court takes up the Affordable Care Act .
Tens of millions of people , if they vote to eviscerate it , to take it down , could lose their healthcare in the midst of this pandemic .
Your comment ?
LAURIE GARRETT : Well , obviously , that would be dreadful , horrible , awful .
And none of those people would have the financial wherewithal to turn to another source to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them , the individuals and their families , but for everybody they have contact with .
And so , in a way , we ’ re committing mass suicide .
This is an incredibly self-destructive thing for American people to do , to deny healthcare to millions of Americans in the middle of a pandemic and leave them on their own to potentially carry disease forward into the community , into their workplaces , and so on , without any treatment , any help , any assistance .
That ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we want to thank you for being with us , Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer , former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations .
Her new piece , we will link , in Foreign Policy , “ The Vaccine News Is Good .
Here ’ s the Bad News.
” When we come back , we look at the death of Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat .
He ’ s died of the coronavirus .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Thousand Finger Man ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday at his home in the Bronx at the age of 99 .

Millions in the U.S. could lose their health care in the middle of a pandemic.
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, and millions of Americans could lose their healthcare in the middle of a pandemic. “In a way, we’re committing mass suicide,” says science journalist Laurie Garrett, who says scrapping the landmark Obama-era healthcare law would leave people “to potentially carry disease forward into the community, into their workplaces, and so on, without any treatment, any help, any assistance. That’s just insane.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, 10 seconds, Laurie. Today, the Supreme Court takes up the Affordable Care Act. Tens of millions of people, if they vote to eviscerate it, to take it down, could lose their healthcare in the midst of this pandemic. Your comment?
LAURIE GARRETT: Well, obviously, that would be dreadful, horrible, awful. And none of those people would have the financial wherewithal to turn to another source to get healthcare. This has implications not just for them, the individuals and their families, but for everybody they have contact with. And so, in a way, we’re committing mass suicide. This is an incredibly self-destructive thing for American people to do, to deny healthcare to millions of Americans in the middle of a pandemic and leave them on their own to potentially carry disease forward into the community, into their workplaces, and so on, without any treatment, any help, any assistance. That’s just insane.
AMY GOODMAN: Laurie Garrett, we want to thank you for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer, former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations. Her new piece, we will link, in Foreign Policy, “The Vaccine News Is Good. Here’s the Bad News.”
When we come back, we look at the death of Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat. He’s died of the coronavirus. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Thousand Finger Man” by Cándido. The legendary Cuban percussionist died Saturday at his home in the Bronx at the age of 99.
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--2020-11-10--Number of Seized Migrant Children That Cannot Be Reunited With Parents Now 666

Last month , the world was shocked and outraged to learn that lawyers tasked with locating relatives of child migrants seized by U.S. immigration agents under the Trump administration ’ s “ zero tolerance ” policy were unable to locate the parents of 545 children .
Now it turns out that the actual number of children and infants separated from their parents is significantly higher than previously thought , according to an email obtained by NBC News .
In the email , Steven Herzog , the lawyer leading the effort to locate the children ’ s relatives and reunite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 20 % of whom were under the age of 5 when they were ripped away from their parents — remain separated .
Herzog attibutes the initial undercount to the fact that the government did not provide phone number contacts for 129 of the minors .
“ We would appreciate the government providing any available updated contact information , or other information that may be helpful in establishing contact for all 666 of these parents , ” Herzog wrote to Justice Department attorneys representing the Trump administration .
Last month , the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration knew it would not be able to reunite migrant families when planning the “ zero tolerance ” separation policy , but implemented it anyway .
The Democratic-led committee spent 21 months investigating the planning and execution of the administration ’ s policy , which resulted in the seizure of more than 2,500 migrant children — including some with physical and mental disabilities — from their parents , the majority of whom are believed to have been deported from the U.S .
Both parents and children — who were often told by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other again — have suffered tremendous emotional and psychological trauma that Physicians for Human Rights has called “ torture ” and “ state-sanctioned child abuse.
” The federal government often separated families who presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and legally requested asylum after fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries , much of it resulting from U.S. policies and actions .
Some of the children have been given to U.S. families , who are sometimes able to petition for permanent custody of them , and some of the children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In late June 2018 , as public outrage mounted in the face of stories like a breastfeeding baby being torn away from her mother and a father driven to suicide after being separated from his wife and child , the administration reluctantly rolled back the policy — which along with forced surgical removal of reproductive organs of migrant women has been called the Trump administration ’ s worst domestic human rights violation .
President-elect Joe Biden vowed last month that he will form a task force to reunite all of the separated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , on the other hand , continues to defend the separation policy while falsely claiming that the seized children were brought into the country by human traffickers .
Biden has called family separation “ criminal , ” but has not said whether or not he would seek to punish Trump or any of the administration officials who planned and executed the policy .

The initial undercount was attributed to the government not providing phone number contacts for 129 of the minors.
Last month, the world was shocked and outraged to learn that lawyers tasked with locating relatives of child migrants seized by U.S. immigration agents under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy were unable to locate the parents of 545 children. Now it turns out that the actual number of children and infants separated from their parents is significantly higher than previously thought, according to an email obtained by NBC News.
In the email, Steven Herzog, the lawyer leading the effort to locate the children’s relatives and reunite the families, says that 666 children — about 20% of whom were under the age of 5 when they were ripped away from their parents — remain separated. Herzog attibutes the initial undercount to the fact that the government did not provide phone number contacts for 129 of the minors.
“We would appreciate the government providing any available updated contact information, or other information that may be helpful in establishing contact for all 666 of these parents,” Herzog wrote to Justice Department attorneys representing the Trump administration.
Last month, the House Judiciary Committee released a scathing report revealing the administration knew it would not be able to reunite migrant families when planning the “zero tolerance” separation policy, but implemented it anyway. The Democratic-led committee spent 21 months investigating the planning and execution of the administration’s policy, which resulted in the seizure of more than 2,500 migrant children — including some with physical and mental disabilities — from their parents, the majority of whom are believed to have been deported from the U.S.
Both parents and children — who were often told by U.S. officials that they would never see each other again — have suffered tremendous emotional and psychological trauma that Physicians for Human Rights has called “torture” and “state-sanctioned child abuse.” The federal government often separated families who presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and legally requested asylum after fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries, much of it resulting from U.S. policies and actions.
Some of the children have been given to U.S. families, who are sometimes able to petition for permanent custody of them, and some of the children may indeed never see their parents again.
Deported parents may lose kids to adoption: An AP investigation finds holes in a system that allow state court judges to grant custody of migrant children to American families — without notifying parents. https://t.co/z8djG1yLMq (1/7) — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 11, 2018
In late June 2018, as public outrage mounted in the face of stories like a breastfeeding baby being torn away from her mother and a father driven to suicide after being separated from his wife and child, the administration reluctantly rolled back the policy — which along with forced surgical removal of reproductive organs of migrant women has been called the Trump administration’s worst domestic human rights violation.
President-elect Joe Biden vowed last month that he will form a task force to reunite all of the separated children with their families. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, continues to defend the separation policy while falsely claiming that the seized children were brought into the country by human traffickers. Biden has called family separation “criminal,” but has not said whether or not he would seek to punish Trump or any of the administration officials who planned and executed the policy.
Once Trump’s out of office, we’ll be told that holding the child-snatchers accountable is “too divisive.” Fuck that. If we let the perpetrators move on with their lives like nothing happened IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. There’s a reason Nazis were put on trial. https://t.co/D4ERVmVVBH — ✡ Never Again Action ✡ (@NeverAgainActn) November 9, 2020
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--2020-11-10--Grassroots Organizing Defeated Trump. Now We Must Out-Organize Trumpism.

This was a historic election in so many ways : at least 148 million people voted ( and counting ! )
, which is roughly 62 percent of eligible voters .
This is the highest turnout since at least 1968 , and while turnout was high for both presidential candidates , Democrats won the presidency and are working to remove the most dangerous president in modern history from the White House — despite his refusal to concede .
Progressives both won and lost many other races , and we saw several battleground states either pull through for Democrats , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these states , including Arizona , North Carolina , and Georgia , have had local and state organizers working for these victories for more than a decade .
Every single organizer I know worked on this election in some way .
I am a queer , white woman from an immigrant family and I have been an organizer for almost 20 years , working exclusively in red and purple states .
I witnessed the grassroots organizing behind the fight to defeat Trump as a multiracial , multigendered , intergenerational and cross-class force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
We had different strategies , different terrains and different ways we articulated this win as a priority .
We owe our success to ourselves , but even more so , we owe this success to the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who were not politically active before 2016 , who got involved in the last four years .
We know most of them are women and so many of them are people of color .
They jumped in and did all they could , learning on the go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the millions who just went and voted : despite voter intimidation , voter suppression and an incredibly slow process .
Hell , where I live in Phoenix , the right-wing had machine guns on the backs of trucks out in the streets in the past few days .
It is not rhetoric to say that it took all of us : not some shiny , polished coalition but a messy alignment of souls pointed in the same direction , united for this moment in history .
We know that the right wing also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , convinced that the fight they are in is a war both holy and political , for the soul and the future of the nation .
Where I live there was no dancing in the streets when Biden was declared the winner .
Just the silence of a city filled with enduring fighters who have won , and are bracing for the impact of backlash .
Only those who have never lived in places where progressives are outnumbered make fun of the power of Trumpism .
When Trump became president in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were shocked .
Trumpism remains a powerful threat , and that movement is built of men and women , mostly white , mostly straight , many of whom are both married and evangelical Christians .
This massive reactionary force remains a threat to our very lives .
The way to safety is to out-organize them .
Through my work with the Women ’ s March , I have spent the last three years organizing with a broad base of women who are mostly brand new to activism .
I can tell you that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can tell you they busted ass for this election , leaving everything they had on the dance floor .
I can tell you they are many , and they are hungry for more .
As we move forward toward out-organizing Trumpism , we must recognize some hard realities .
This includes the fact that , although a multiracial coalition of mostly women drove this victory , many white women voted for Trump , without a doubt , even if you ( like me ) distrust exit polls .
Black and Brown women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing and voting for justice for all at every turn .
Meanwhile , at roughly 33 percent of the electorate , white women are just about 1 in 3 of every voter .
That means it is likely that almost 50 million white women voted in this election , and a very large portion of them voted for Trump ( the exact percent is based on how much you believe exit polls ) .
Fifty million white women is an ocean of a constituency in organizing terms .
It is a constituency ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectrum of other identities and experiences of age , sexuality , class , place , ethnicity , disability , marital status and family of origin , just to name a few .
Feminist organizing is rooted in the truth that all experiences politicize you in one way or another ; and in the case of white women we have many factors that can politicize us to the right , to the left , and all over the place .
When it comes to white women voters , there is so much work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core work of uprooting white supremacy .
It is the work that people like me must do in order to live our values .
It is long work , and it is in progress .
The victory is also a signal to those of us called to do that work with other white women — to sit in an ocean of a constituency , and move and mobilize as many white women as possible to the side of racial justice like our lives depend on it .
Defeating Trump took all of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a few very old-school organizing rules , some of which fly in the face of current trends ; one is that you organize whoever shows up .
You don ’ t make them feel like they are the wrong people in the seats .
You don ’ t only tell them about who is not there .
You work with who and what you have .
That is not the same as not having to tell folks about themselves sometimes , and organizing for the long game always includes being told about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us .
That does not mean we don ’ t have a lot of work still to do .
As a teenager , I learned firsthand that safety only comes from organized networks of solidarity and care — there is no big daddy in the sky , or with a badge coming to save us .
Only each other , our courage and our commitment to hold the systems that govern our lives accountable will keep us safe .
That ’ s what my family taught me .
The work in front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fashioning a new future for this country , and it is going to take all of us who are ready to come along .

This was a historic election in so many ways: at least 148 million people voted (and counting!), which is roughly 62 percent of eligible voters. This is the highest turnout since at least 1968, and while turnout was high for both presidential candidates, Democrats won the presidency and are working to remove the most dangerous president in modern history from the White House — despite his refusal to concede. Progressives both won and lost many other races, and we saw several battleground states either pull through for Democrats, or come within a razor-thin margin. Many of these states, including Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, have had local and state organizers working for these victories for more than a decade.
Every single organizer I know worked on this election in some way. I am a queer, white woman from an immigrant family and I have been an organizer for almost 20 years, working exclusively in red and purple states. I witnessed the grassroots organizing behind the fight to defeat Trump as a multiracial, multigendered, intergenerational and cross-class force of people from every part of this country.
We had different strategies, different terrains and different ways we articulated this win as a priority. We owe our success to ourselves, but even more so, we owe this success to the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who were not politically active before 2016, who got involved in the last four years. We know most of them are women and so many of them are people of color. They jumped in and did all they could, learning on the go. Finally, we owe it to the millions who just went and voted: despite voter intimidation, voter suppression and an incredibly slow process. Hell, where I live in Phoenix, the right-wing had machine guns on the backs of trucks out in the streets in the past few days.
It is not rhetoric to say that it took all of us: not some shiny, polished coalition but a messy alignment of souls pointed in the same direction, united for this moment in history. We know that the right wing also has a very animated and radicalized base, convinced that the fight they are in is a war both holy and political, for the soul and the future of the nation.
Where I live there was no dancing in the streets when Biden was declared the winner. Just the silence of a city filled with enduring fighters who have won, and are bracing for the impact of backlash. Only those who have never lived in places where progressives are outnumbered make fun of the power of Trumpism.
When Trump became president in 2016, I was shocked that so many progressives were shocked. Trumpism remains a powerful threat, and that movement is built of men and women, mostly white, mostly straight, many of whom are both married and evangelical Christians. This massive reactionary force remains a threat to our very lives.
We owe this success to the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who were not politically active before 2016.
The way to safety is to out-organize them. Through my work with the Women’s March, I have spent the last three years organizing with a broad base of women who are mostly brand new to activism. I can tell you that they are ready to be organized. I can tell you they busted ass for this election, leaving everything they had on the dance floor. I can tell you they are many, and they are hungry for more.
As we move forward toward out-organizing Trumpism, we must recognize some hard realities. This includes the fact that, although a multiracial coalition of mostly women drove this victory, many white women voted for Trump, without a doubt, even if you (like me) distrust exit polls.
Black and Brown women are the champions of our democracy, organizing and voting for justice for all at every turn. Meanwhile, at roughly 33 percent of the electorate, white women are just about 1 in 3 of every voter. That means it is likely that almost 50 million white women voted in this election, and a very large portion of them voted for Trump (the exact percent is based on how much you believe exit polls). Fifty million white women is an ocean of a constituency in organizing terms. It is a constituency (like any constituency) that has a spectrum of other identities and experiences of age, sexuality, class, place, ethnicity, disability, marital status and family of origin, just to name a few.
It took all of us: not some shiny, polished coalition but a messy alignment of souls pointed in the same direction.
Feminist organizing is rooted in the truth that all experiences politicize you in one way or another; and in the case of white women we have many factors that can politicize us to the right, to the left, and all over the place. When it comes to white women voters, there is so much work to do. It is part of the core work of uprooting white supremacy. It is the work that people like me must do in order to live our values. It is long work, and it is in progress. The victory is also a signal to those of us called to do that work with other white women — to sit in an ocean of a constituency, and move and mobilize as many white women as possible to the side of racial justice like our lives depend on it.
Defeating Trump took all of us that showed up. Now, I have a few very old-school organizing rules, some of which fly in the face of current trends; one is that you organize whoever shows up. You don’t make them feel like they are the wrong people in the seats. You don’t only tell them about who is not there. You work with who and what you have. That is not the same as not having to tell folks about themselves sometimes, and organizing for the long game always includes being told about yourself right back. We won because of us. That does not mean we don’t have a lot of work still to do. As a teenager, I learned firsthand that safety only comes from organized networks of solidarity and care — there is no big daddy in the sky, or with a badge coming to save us. Only each other, our courage and our commitment to hold the systems that govern our lives accountable will keep us safe. That’s what my family taught me.
The work in front of us is nothing short of imagining and fashioning a new future for this country, and it is going to take all of us who are ready to come along.
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--2020-11-10--Trump Removes Scientist Overseeing Key Climate Assessment Report

The Trump administration has removed Michael Kuperberg from his role as executive director of the U.S .
Global Change Research Program , an alarming move that may have grave consequences for future discussions and planning regarding climate change .
Kuperberg ’ s removal came on Friday .
The agency he had overseen crafts a key report called the National Climate Assessment every four years , as required by law .
The report encompasses the views and assessments of 13 federal agencies regarding how climate change will affect the United States .
The next report , scheduled for a 2022 release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development .
Kuperberg told his colleagues , after his departure was announced , that he would be returning to a job he previously held at the Department of Energy .
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy , which oversees the Global Change Research Program , would not provide comment on why he was removed .
It ’ s expected that President Donald Trump will replace Kuperberg with David Legates , who currently serves as a deputy assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for having worked closely with climate change denial groups .
Legates has in the past expressed a disinterest in trying to correct the damage that climate change has already wrought .
“ Climate has always changed and weather is always variable , due to complex , powerful natural forces , ” Legates said during congressional testimony in 2019 .
“ No efforts to stabilize the climate can possibly be successful.
” Legates has also controversially suggested that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn ’ t necessarily a bad thing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not a pollutant.
” Some studies have found that increases in carbon dioxide do indeed benefit plant life in some ways .
But the gas is detrimental to the rest of the world , particularly when it comes to climate , as it traps heat from the sun within the earth ’ s atmosphere , warming the planet and producing dire consequences for a number of species , including humans .
Increases in CO2 can also limit nitrogen levels , another element that is key to plant growth , and thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of carbon dioxide will not produce indefinite benefits for plants in the long-run , as Legates has implied .
Although a plethora of different agencies will contribute to the report , producing an assessment that includes climate change denialist language could have lasting and devastating outcomes .
The assessment could become a political document , used to counter lawmakers ’ attempts to craft energy policy , or attempts to reduce the nation ’ s carbon footprint .
It could also be used by the fossil fuel industry as a means to defend against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 National Climate Assessment report had stated that climate change was a threat to the U.S. on many fronts , likely to cause harm to those who live in coastal areas , as well as potentially hurting the economy in significant ways .
“ With continued growth in emissions at historic rates , annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century — more than the current gross domestic product ( GDP ) of many U.S. states , ” the report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , which his administration had released quietly in November of that year .
“ I ’ ve seen it , I ’ ve read some of it , and it ’ s fine .
I don ’ t believe it , ” he said at the time .

Michael Kuperberg is expected to be replaced by a climate change denialist who has described CO2 as “plant food.”
The Trump administration has removed Michael Kuperberg from his role as executive director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an alarming move that may have grave consequences for future discussions and planning regarding climate change.
Kuperberg’s removal came on Friday. The agency he had overseen crafts a key report called the National Climate Assessment every four years, as required by law. The report encompasses the views and assessments of 13 federal agencies regarding how climate change will affect the United States. The next report, scheduled for a 2022 release had already been postponed before this latest development.
Kuperberg told his colleagues, after his departure was announced, that he would be returning to a job he previously held at the Department of Energy. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which oversees the Global Change Research Program, would not provide comment on why he was removed.
It’s expected that President Donald Trump will replace Kuperberg with David Legates, who currently serves as a deputy assistant secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Before entering that agency, Legates was known for having worked closely with climate change denial groups.
Legates has in the past expressed a disinterest in trying to correct the damage that climate change has already wrought. “Climate has always changed and weather is always variable, due to complex, powerful natural forces,” Legates said during congressional testimony in 2019. “No efforts to stabilize the climate can possibly be successful.”
Legates has also controversially suggested that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn’t necessarily a bad thing, calling the greenhouse gas “plant food and not a pollutant.”
Some studies have found that increases in carbon dioxide do indeed benefit plant life in some ways. But the gas is detrimental to the rest of the world, particularly when it comes to climate, as it traps heat from the sun within the earth’s atmosphere, warming the planet and producing dire consequences for a number of species, including humans. Increases in CO2 can also limit nitrogen levels, another element that is key to plant growth, and thus, some researchers have suggested that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will not produce indefinite benefits for plants in the long-run, as Legates has implied.
Although a plethora of different agencies will contribute to the report, producing an assessment that includes climate change denialist language could have lasting and devastating outcomes. The assessment could become a political document, used to counter lawmakers’ attempts to craft energy policy, or attempts to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint. It could also be used by the fossil fuel industry as a means to defend against proposals to regulate carbon outputs.
The 2018 National Climate Assessment report had stated that climate change was a threat to the U.S. on many fronts, likely to cause harm to those who live in coastal areas, as well as potentially hurting the economy in significant ways.
“With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century — more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states,” the report said.
Trump expressed skepticism at the report, which his administration had released quietly in November of that year. “I’ve seen it, I’ve read some of it, and it’s fine. I don’t believe it,” he said at the time.
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--2020-11-10--Fundraising for Trump Legal Challenge Will Help Pay Campaign Debt

The Trump campaign has solicited donations from supporters to fund lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential election in a flurry of fundraising pitches , but at least half of the money will go toward paying down its debt , according to the fine print .
Trump refuses to concede his loss as he pushes a number of legally dubious challenges in several states which narrowly voted for President-elect Joe Biden .
Judges in Georgia , Michigan , Nevada and Pennsylvania have already dismissed multiple legal challenges from the campaign , though Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani teased up to 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the parking lot of a Philadelphia landscaping company adjoining a porn store and a crematorium .
The Trump campaign has relentlessly flooded supporters with appeals for donations to pay for the legal effort , reportedly firing off more than a dozen emails on Sunday alone .
The emails for the “ official election defense fund ” warned supporters that it was imperative to “ PROTECT the Election.
” “ This is your FINAL NOTICE , ” one pitch said .
“ So far , you ’ ve ignored all our emails asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ELECTION .
You ’ ve ignored Team Trump , Eric , Lara , Don , the Vice President AND you ’ ve even ignored the President of the United States.
” The emails linked to a donation page with a disclaimer advising that 50 % of the donations would be used to retire the campaign ’ s debt , The Wall Street Journal first reported .
Other emails asking for help to “ protect the integrity of this election ” led to a donation page for Trump ’ s “ Make America Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of donations would go toward retiring campaign debt and the other 40 % would go to the Republican National Committee ( RNC ) , according to The Journal .
Though President-elect Joe Biden is also raising money to fend off legal challenges , there is no disclaimer about retiring campaign debt in his pitches .
His campaign did note that most of the donations would go to the Democratic National Committee , and both parties would likely play a “ prominent role in financing election legal proceedings , ” according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ particularly conspicuous , ” since the president previously claimed that he might use his own money to fund his re-election effort , The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake wrote .
“ Even as he swears he has a legitimate legal case , he ’ s not just declining to use his own money , but he ’ s diverting half the money raised for it to another purpose tied to the winding down of the campaign.
” The campaign also has not put up the roughly $ 3 million needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s team immediately demanded a recount after the vote count swung toward Biden .
“ It is an indication that they ’ re not super serious about pursuing one and that their announcements are mostly for show , ” The Post ’ s James Hohmann said .
Trump ’ s campaign raised more than $ 1 billion earlier this year , but it quickly blew through that money early in the campaign , prompting the ouster of campaign manager Brad Parscale .
Whereas Biden began October with more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign had only $ 63 million .
Trump has continued to push unfounded claims about “ irregularities ” and “ fraud , ” even though no significant evidence supports his claims .
Meagan Wolfe , the director of the Wisconsin Elections Commission , told reporters last week that she had “ not received any reports of any irregularities.
” Georgia Lt. Gov .
Geoff Duncan , a Republican , told CNN on Monday that “ we ’ ve not seen any credible examples ” of fraud or irregularities .
The Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Friday statement that they had not received any reports of “ voter fraud ” or “ any other misdeeds.
” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford , a Democrat , on Friday said the campaign ’ s fraud allegations were “ garbage , ” and neither the “ Republican secretary of state ” nor “ 17 county registrars ” had reported any widespread fraud .
While a legal challenge in a specific state could theoretically swing the election , as did the recount and litigation surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in so many must-win states that his legal efforts are effectively futile .
Biden , who already has 290 electoral votes , is on track to win Georgia , which would raise his tally to 306 votes .
“ Trump ’ s biggest emerging problem is that he ’ d need to overturn the results in multiple states , ” Blake wrote .
“ In fact , he ’ d need to do so in at least three states , as things currently stand.
” The fundraising efforts amid the seemingly doomed legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabricated claims of fraud to milk his supporters for additional cash .
“ Part of the reason Trump won ’ t concede is narcissism .
But it ’ s also about money , ” Popular Info ’ s Judd Legum wrote .
“ He can raise a lot of money convincing millions of people that he needs cash to expose the biggest fraud in American history .
If he concedes , that grift is over .
”

Fine print on fundraising emails advised that at least half of the donations would be used to retire campaign debt.
The Trump campaign has solicited donations from supporters to fund lawsuits challenging the results of the presidential election in a flurry of fundraising pitches, but at least half of the money will go toward paying down its debt, according to the fine print.
Trump refuses to concede his loss as he pushes a number of legally dubious challenges in several states which narrowly voted for President-elect Joe Biden. Judges in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania have already dismissed multiple legal challenges from the campaign, though Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani teased up to 10 additional election-related lawsuits after a press conference in the parking lot of a Philadelphia landscaping company adjoining a porn store and a crematorium.
The Trump campaign has relentlessly flooded supporters with appeals for donations to pay for the legal effort, reportedly firing off more than a dozen emails on Sunday alone.
The emails for the “official election defense fund” warned supporters that it was imperative to “PROTECT the Election.”
“This is your FINAL NOTICE,” one pitch said. “So far, you’ve ignored all our emails asking you to join us in DEFENDING THE ELECTION. You’ve ignored Team Trump, Eric, Lara, Don, the Vice President AND you’ve even ignored the President of the United States.”
The emails linked to a donation page with a disclaimer advising that 50% of the donations would be used to retire the campaign’s debt, The Wall Street Journal first reported.
Other emails asking for help to “protect the integrity of this election” led to a donation page for Trump’s “Make America Great Again” committee, which said 60% of donations would go toward retiring campaign debt and the other 40% would go to the Republican National Committee (RNC), according to The Journal.
Though President-elect Joe Biden is also raising money to fend off legal challenges, there is no disclaimer about retiring campaign debt in his pitches. His campaign did note that most of the donations would go to the Democratic National Committee, and both parties would likely play a “prominent role in financing election legal proceedings,” according to the report.
Trump’s appeals were “particularly conspicuous,” since the president previously claimed that he might use his own money to fund his re-election effort, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wrote. “Even as he swears he has a legitimate legal case, he’s not just declining to use his own money, but he’s diverting half the money raised for it to another purpose tied to the winding down of the campaign.”
The campaign also has not put up the roughly $3 million needed to finance a recount in Wisconsin, where the president’s team immediately demanded a recount after the vote count swung toward Biden.
“It is an indication that they’re not super serious about pursuing one and that their announcements are mostly for show,” The Post’s James Hohmann said.
Trump’s campaign raised more than $1 billion earlier this year, but it quickly blew through that money early in the campaign, prompting the ouster of campaign manager Brad Parscale. Whereas Biden began October with more than $177 million in the bank, Trump’s campaign had only $63 million.
Trump has continued to push unfounded claims about “irregularities” and “fraud,” even though no significant evidence supports his claims.
Meagan Wolfe, the director of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told reporters last week that she had “not received any reports of any irregularities.”
Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, told CNN on Monday that “we’ve not seen any credible examples” of fraud or irregularities.
The Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania legislature also said in a Friday statement that they had not received any reports of “voter fraud” or “any other misdeeds.”
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat, on Friday said the campaign’s fraud allegations were “garbage,” and neither the “Republican secretary of state” nor “17 county registrars” had reported any widespread fraud.
While a legal challenge in a specific state could theoretically swing the election, as did the recount and litigation surrounding the 2000 presidential election in Florida, Trump is on track to lose in so many must-win states that his legal efforts are effectively futile. Biden, who already has 290 electoral votes, is on track to win Georgia, which would raise his tally to 306 votes.
“Trump’s biggest emerging problem is that he’d need to overturn the results in multiple states,” Blake wrote. “In fact, he’d need to do so in at least three states, as things currently stand.”
The fundraising efforts amid the seemingly doomed legal moves suggests that Trump may be pushing fabricated claims of fraud to milk his supporters for additional cash.
“Part of the reason Trump won’t concede is narcissism. But it’s also about money,” Popular Info’s Judd Legum wrote. “He can raise a lot of money convincing millions of people that he needs cash to expose the biggest fraud in American history. If he concedes, that grift is over.”
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--2020-11-10--Consumer Advocates Warn Pfizer Data Is Incomplete — Vaccine Is Still Months Away

As the United States shatters global records for COVID-19 infections , news on Monday of early trial data suggesting that a potential vaccine for the virus is 90 percent effective provided a brief sense of relief .
However , scientists and pharmaceutical watchdogs cautioned that the preliminary data released by Pfizer , the multinational giant behind the vaccine , is merely a snapshot of a clinical trial and does not show whether the vaccine is safe and would effectively prevent hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly and medically vulnerable .
Pfizer released the preliminary trial data into a highly charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new COVID-19 infections surging as the nation contends with the fallout of an election shaped in so many ways by the pandemic .
“ The release of preliminary and incomplete clinical trial data by press release to the public is bad science , ” said Michael Carome , director of Public Citizen ’ s Health Research Group , in a statement on Monday .
Meanwhile , COVID-19 cases in the United States hit 10 million this week , more than any other country in the world .
Fueled by outbreaks in the upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown for weeks , the U.S. reported about a million new cases over the past 10 days , reflecting daily counts exceeding 100,000 , far more than any other nation .
Hospitalizations have doubled since mid-September , with a slow but steady uptick in deaths following , according to pandemic trackers at The New York Times .
Pfizer ’ s announcement was quickly wrapped up in politics as people close to President Trump attempted to erroneously give his administration credit for the vaccine , leading Pfizer to clarify that the company did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump Jr. , the president ’ s son , suggested without evidence that there was a conspiracy to keep the trial data under wraps until after the election .
Trump Jr. insisted that “ Big Pharma hates Trump ” for working to lower prescription drug prices , which President Trump repeatedly promised but largely failed to do .
President-Elect Joe Biden implored Americans on Monday to continue wearing masks through the winter as a widely distributed vaccine is likely still months away , despite the promising news from Pfizer .
Biden announced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health experts and former federal health officials as part of his transition team , which is already crafting COVID-19 policies ahead of Biden ’ s inauguration on January 20 .
“ The head of the CDC warned this fall that , for the foreseeable future , a mask remains the most potent weapon we have against the virus , ” Biden said .
“ Today ’ s news does not change that urgent reality.
” While Biden did not mention the sitting president by name , he asked Americans to put aside partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign and the pandemic , Trump repeatedly , and with little evidence , assured his followers that effective COVID-19 treatments and vaccines would soon be widely available while flouting mask-wearing and social-distancing rules .
Trump and others at the White House tested positive for coronavirus last month and received medical treatment .
In September , Trump said on television that he would be “ getting ” a vaccine “ in a matter of weeks , ” and predicted a vaccine would be available to the public before November , a claim that clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
A Widely Available Vaccine Is Likely Still Months Away Pfizer made its vaccine announcement based on the analysis of 94 trial participants with confirmed COVID-19 infections in a study that enrolled 43,500 , according to a press release .
The vaccine clinical trial continues and will eventually conclude with a final analysis of 164 confirmed cases , and data on safety and efficacy are still being collected , the company said .
Pfizer partnered with the German biotech firm BioNTech to develop the vaccine .
Carome said “ enthusiasm ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tempered ” until the clinical trial is reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer makes more data on safety and efficacy available .
“ Crucial information absent from the companies ’ announcement is any evidence that the vaccine prevents serious COVID-19 cases or reduces hospitalizations and deaths due to the disease , ” Carome said .
“ More importantly , critical safety data from the phase 3 trial of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available.
” Still , the preliminary data on the vaccine ’ s efficacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market jumped — along with stock prices for Pfizer and BioNTech .
Trump boasted about the stock market and the vaccine on Twitter , stopping short of taking credit for the vaccine on behalf of his administration , as sitting Vice President Mike Pence did in a tweet that was immediately questioned by experts and journalists .
Pfizer later clarified that , while the company has made a “ purchase agreement ” with the U.S. government as a potential vaccine supplier , it has not received any public funding from the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop and distribute a vaccine .
While the Trump administration could potentially take credit for distributing Pfizer ’ s vaccine if it ’ s approved before Biden takes office — a big “ if ” — Trump and Pence can not truthfully take credit for the development of this particular vaccine , only for providing an incentive by offering to buy the final product : a policy no-brainer .
However , in 2016 researchers at the National Institutes of Health developed a method for freezing coronavirus “ spike ” proteins that is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines , according to Public Citizen .
While this technology preceded the Trump administration ’ s private-public partnerships to rapidly develop of a COVID-19 vaccine , it is just the latest example of private companies using taxpayer-funded research and technology to develop crucial medicines that can be sold to taxpayers for a profit , undercutting Pfizer ’ s claim that is received no government support .
Anthony Fauci , the government ’ s lead infectious disease expert who is regularly attacked by Trump , said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 percent effectiveness are “ just extraordinary.
” Fauci and other scientists have warned for months that an initial vaccine may only be 50 or 60 percent effective and could require multiple shots administered to each patient .
“ It ’ s going to have a major impact on everything we do with respect to COVID , ” Fauci told The Associated Press .
The vaccine is one of dozens currently in development in the U.S. and globally , including 11 in late-stage testing .
Many questions remain .
The data released on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Pfizer released few details about how its vaccine trial is structured , including how many participants received the vaccine and how many received a placebo .
Pfizer and BioNTech still must show that the vaccine is effective in dozens of additional study participants and track any side effects that may occur over the course of weeks .
If the vaccine receives an emergency approval before the end of the year , Pfizer expects to produce enough doses to treat only 25 million people before 2021 , when production would increase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine is approved , it will likely be rationed at least initially , with access prioritized for health care workers and the medically vulnerable .
On Monday , Biden said widely distributing a vaccine “ free of charge ” is the goal of his administration , but that could be months down the line .
Biden said his administration would also work to distribute more COVID-19 tests , support widespread contact tracing and produce more personal protective equipment for health care workers .
Biden said addressing racial disparities that cause higher rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a priority for his pandemic task force , and activists are expected to hold Biden accountable to this pledge .
In the meantime , everyone should wear a mask in public .
“ Please , I implore you , wear a mask , ” Biden said .
“ Do it for yourself , do it for your neighbor.
” This story has been updated .

As the United States shatters global records for COVID-19 infections, news on Monday of early trial data suggesting that a potential vaccine for the virus is 90 percent effective provided a brief sense of relief.
However, scientists and pharmaceutical watchdogs cautioned that the preliminary data released by Pfizer, the multinational giant behind the vaccine, is merely a snapshot of a clinical trial and does not show whether the vaccine is safe and would effectively prevent hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly and medically vulnerable.
Pfizer released the preliminary trial data into a highly charged political atmosphere, with the number of new COVID-19 infections surging as the nation contends with the fallout of an election shaped in so many ways by the pandemic.
“The release of preliminary and incomplete clinical trial data by press release to the public is bad science,” said Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, in a statement on Monday.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases in the United States hit 10 million this week, more than any other country in the world. Fueled by outbreaks in the upper Midwest and Great Lakes area that have grown for weeks, the U.S. reported about a million new cases over the past 10 days, reflecting daily counts exceeding 100,000, far more than any other nation. Hospitalizations have doubled since mid-September, with a slow but steady uptick in deaths following, according to pandemic trackers at The New York Times.
Contrasting Trump, Biden Urges Continued Mask-Wearing
Pfizer’s announcement was quickly wrapped up in politics as people close to President Trump attempted to erroneously give his administration credit for the vaccine, leading Pfizer to clarify that the company did not receive government funding for development. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, suggested without evidence that there was a conspiracy to keep the trial data under wraps until after the election. Trump Jr. insisted that “Big Pharma hates Trump” for working to lower prescription drug prices, which President Trump repeatedly promised but largely failed to do.
President-Elect Joe Biden implored Americans on Monday to continue wearing masks through the winter as a widely distributed vaccine is likely still months away, despite the promising news from Pfizer. Biden announced a pandemic task force made up of public health experts and former federal health officials as part of his transition team, which is already crafting COVID-19 policies ahead of Biden’s inauguration on January 20.
“The head of the CDC warned this fall that, for the foreseeable future, a mask remains the most potent weapon we have against the virus,” Biden said. “Today’s news does not change that urgent reality.”
President-Elect Joe Biden implored Americans on Monday to continue wearing masks through the winter as a widely distributed vaccine is likely still months away.
While Biden did not mention the sitting president by name, he asked Americans to put aside partisan divisions over mask-wearing. Throughout his reelection campaign and the pandemic, Trump repeatedly, and with little evidence, assured his followers that effective COVID-19 treatments and vaccines would soon be widely available while flouting mask-wearing and social-distancing rules. Trump and others at the White House tested positive for coronavirus last month and received medical treatment.
In September, Trump said on television that he would be “getting” a vaccine “in a matter of weeks,” and predicted a vaccine would be available to the public before November, a claim that clearly contradicted statements by various health officials at the time.
A Widely Available Vaccine Is Likely Still Months Away
Pfizer made its vaccine announcement based on the analysis of 94 trial participants with confirmed COVID-19 infections in a study that enrolled 43,500, according to a press release. The vaccine clinical trial continues and will eventually conclude with a final analysis of 164 confirmed cases, and data on safety and efficacy are still being collected, the company said. Pfizer partnered with the German biotech firm BioNTech to develop the vaccine.
Carome said “enthusiasm” for Pfizer’s vaccine should be “tempered” until the clinical trial is reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer makes more data on safety and efficacy available.
“Crucial information absent from the companies’ announcement is any evidence that the vaccine prevents serious COVID-19 cases or reduces hospitalizations and deaths due to the disease,” Carome said. “More importantly, critical safety data from the phase 3 trial of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available.”
Still, the preliminary data on the vaccine’s efficacy generated plenty of excitement. The stock market jumped — along with stock prices for Pfizer and BioNTech. Trump boasted about the stock market and the vaccine on Twitter, stopping short of taking credit for the vaccine on behalf of his administration, as sitting Vice President Mike Pence did in a tweet that was immediately questioned by experts and journalists.
The data released on Monday comes from fewer than 100 participants, and Pfizer released few details about how its vaccine trial is structured.
Pfizer later clarified that, while the company has made a “purchase agreement” with the U.S. government as a potential vaccine supplier, it has not received any public funding from the Trump administration’s multibillion dollar private-public effort to develop and distribute a vaccine. While the Trump administration could potentially take credit for distributing Pfizer’s vaccine if it’s approved before Biden takes office — a big “if” — Trump and Pence cannot truthfully take credit for the development of this particular vaccine, only for providing an incentive by offering to buy the final product: a policy no-brainer.
However, in 2016 researchers at the National Institutes of Health developed a method for freezing coronavirus “spike” proteins that is being used by Pfizer and other drug makers to create the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines, according to Public Citizen. While this technology preceded the Trump administration’s private-public partnerships to rapidly develop of a COVID-19 vaccine, it is just the latest example of private companies using taxpayer-funded research and technology to develop crucial medicines that can be sold to taxpayers for a profit, undercutting Pfizer’s claim that is received no government support.
Anthony Fauci, the government’s lead infectious disease expert who is regularly attacked by Trump, said the preliminary results of the vaccine trial showing 90 percent effectiveness are “just extraordinary.” Fauci and other scientists have warned for months that an initial vaccine may only be 50 or 60 percent effective and could require multiple shots administered to each patient.
“It’s going to have a major impact on everything we do with respect to COVID,” Fauci told The Associated Press.
The vaccine is one of dozens currently in development in the U.S. and globally, including 11 in late-stage testing. Many questions remain. The data released on Monday comes from fewer than 100 participants, and Pfizer released few details about how its vaccine trial is structured, including how many participants received the vaccine and how many received a placebo.
Pfizer and BioNTech still must show that the vaccine is effective in dozens of additional study participants and track any side effects that may occur over the course of weeks. If the vaccine receives an emergency approval before the end of the year, Pfizer expects to produce enough doses to treat only 25 million people before 2021, when production would increase. Experts have repeatedly cautioned that, when a vaccine is approved, it will likely be rationed at least initially, with access prioritized for health care workers and the medically vulnerable.
On Monday, Biden said widely distributing a vaccine “free of charge” is the goal of his administration, but that could be months down the line. Biden said his administration would also work to distribute more COVID-19 tests, support widespread contact tracing and produce more personal protective equipment for health care workers. Biden said addressing racial disparities that cause higher rates of infection in communities of color is a priority for his pandemic task force, and activists are expected to hold Biden accountable to this pledge. In the meantime, everyone should wear a mask in public.
“Please, I implore you, wear a mask,” Biden said. “Do it for yourself, do it for your neighbor.”
This story has been updated.
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--2020-11-11--Supreme Court Challenge to ACA Highlights Why We Need Medicare for All

Once again , the fate of the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) , the health law passed under the Obama administration in 2010 , will be in the hands of the Supreme Court .
The court heard oral arguments in the case , California v. Texas , on Tuesday .
A decision is expected in the spring .
This is the third time the law has been tested in the Supreme Court , but this time experts are not certain the outcome will be as favorable as it was in 2012 and 2015 due to the loss of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett .
The current case focuses on the constitutionality of the “ individual mandate ” : the requirement that everyone either has health insurance or pays a penalty .
The individual mandate was ruled to be constitutional in the 2012 Supreme Court decision because the court found that the penalty functions as a tax and the Constitution allows the government to collect taxes for the general welfare .
If it wasn ’ t considered to be a tax , then it would violate the Commerce Clause because the government can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The litigants in the current case argue that since Congress lowered the penalty to $ 0 in 2017 , it no longer qualifies as a tax and , as a result , the individual mandate is no longer constitutional .
If the mandate is found unconstitutional , the critical question in this case becomes whether the entire Affordable Care Act would then be considered unconstitutional as well .
This is the question of severability : whether the individual mandate can be separated from the law , meaning the law could still function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an integral part of the law and its loss would mean the entire law would be invalid .
What is at stake in this case is the potential loss of the entire health care system that has been built over the last 10 years around the provisions in the ACA .
A ruling against the validity of the ACA would eliminate the health insurance markets where 11 million people purchase their coverage .
It would end the Medicaid expansion , which has covered an additional 12 million people .
And , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law , such as its ban on charging higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions , its requirement that health plans cover a set of essential benefits , and its extension of family coverage to the age of 26 .
It could also have adverse impacts on Medicare and on hospitals that receive federal funds through the law .
Is the Supreme Court likely to strike down the entire law in a time of recession in which millions of people have lost their employer-sponsored health benefits and a COVID-19 pandemic is surging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe that is unlikely .
The court has several options before it other than nullifying the entire law , as Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux describes in fivethirtyeight.com .
The court could simply rule that the state of Texas and the two individuals who filed the lawsuit do not have legal standing to bring the case before the court .
In that situation , the case would be dismissed .
The court could rule , consistent with its decision in 2012 , that the penalty is still a tax , in which case nothing would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional but that the loss of the mandate would not impact the rest of the law .
The ACA has been essentially functioning without a mandate since the penalty was lowered in 2017 .
There are other potential outcomes .
Congress could pass a law raising the penalty even to $ 1 , which would make the case moot .
This is unlikely to happen if the Republicans are in control of Congress .
They have been hostile to the ACA since its inception .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay the date when its decision takes effect , which would give Congress more time to act .
The court signaled on Tuesday that it is likely to preserve the ACA .
During the oral arguments on Tuesday , two conservative judges indicated they would uphold the ACA .
Legal scholar Marjorie Cohn , who writes the Human Rights and Global Wrongs column on this site , offered this analysis to Truthout : It appears from Tuesday ’ s Supreme Court argument that there are 5 votes to save the Affordable Care Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote with Breyer , Kagan and Sotomayor to uphold the ACA .
Roberts said , “ It ’ s hard to argue that Congress intended the whole Act to fall when they didn ’ t try to do that ” in 2017 .
“ They left it to us and that ’ s not our job.
” Kavanaugh said , “ I tend to agree with you that it is a very straightforward case under our precedents , meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and strike down the entire ACA .
Barrett ’ s position was unclear although she criticized Roberts for voting to uphold the ACA in a prior case .
This is not surprising because the health insurance lobbyists support upholding the law .
They were the ones that demanded the individual mandate in the first place .
The ACA has been very good for their profits as it not only sells their products in state and federal marketplaces , but it also subsidizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out more than a certain amount on health care .
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal subsidies for health insurance will total $ 920 billion in 2021 .
Of that , 40 percent is for private health insurance through employment and exchanges and 60 percent is for public insurances , Medicaid and Medicare , but most Medicaid enrollees are in privately managed plans and one-third of Medicare enrollees are also in private plans .
In fact , health insurance corporations are increasingly turning to government plans as a major source of revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more than half of health insurance premiums for commercial insurers were paid by the government .
For the largest insurance corporation , UnitedHealthcare , government plans accounted for nearly 60 percent of their premiums or about $ 81 billion .
Counter to what one would think , the COVID-19 pandemic has been a boon for the health insurance industry .
Investopedia describes it as a “ sweet spot ” for private insurance corporations .
They are in the position to raise the price of premiums and ask the government for whatever they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are delaying or forgoing care , meaning health insurers are paying out less for routine care , and investors feel confident about the future since Joe Biden openly opposes national improved Medicare for all .
With the fate of the ACA in question , and now that private health insurers are receiving most of their revenue from the government , it makes sense to question whether we even need private insurers .
They are basically becoming administrators of public insurance plans , but they do so with incredible waste in the forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads and profits for Wall Street investors .
One-third of our health care dollars is spent to administer the myriad health insurance plans — the highest percentage spent on administration by any country — rather than to pay for health care .
Private health insurers are legally required to maximize profits for their investors .
To accomplish that , they charge premiums as high as they can get away with , push more and more of health care costs onto individuals as co-pays and deductibles , and restrict where patients receive care and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not served the people well even in the best of times , with hundreds of thousands of families going bankrupt due to medical illness and tens of thousands of people dying of preventable causes each year .
The current health care system has put the United States at a stark disadvantage compared to other countries during the pandemic .
The countries that have performed the best have national systems that are universal and run by the government .
They were able to respond quickly with a coordinated plan and move resources , health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they were needed .
Everyone was in the system so they could get care when needed without having to pay for care up front or worrying about the cost .
And , importantly , the public trusts the health care system because it functions for the benefit of the people instead of the profits of the corporations .
Perhaps California vs Texas provides us with an opportunity to have a public dialog about what kind of health care system we need to have .
The pandemic and the recession are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With a new Congress and incoming president , now is the time to make the demand for national improved Medicare for All .
The ruling class is never going to just give us a health care system that works for the people — we are going to have to organize and mobilize for it .
With the majority of people in support of national improved Medicare for All , there couldn ’ t be a better time to make the demand .

Part of the Series Fighting for Our Lives: The Movement for Medicare for All
Once again, the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health law passed under the Obama administration in 2010, will be in the hands of the Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments in the case, California v. Texas, on Tuesday. A decision is expected in the spring. This is the third time the law has been tested in the Supreme Court, but this time experts are not certain the outcome will be as favorable as it was in 2012 and 2015 due to the loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement with Amy Coney Barrett.
The current case focuses on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate”: the requirement that everyone either has health insurance or pays a penalty. The individual mandate was ruled to be constitutional in the 2012 Supreme Court decision because the court found that the penalty functions as a tax and the Constitution allows the government to collect taxes for the general welfare. If it wasn’t considered to be a tax, then it would violate the Commerce Clause because the government cannot require a person to purchase a product. The litigants in the current case argue that since Congress lowered the penalty to $0 in 2017, it no longer qualifies as a tax and, as a result, the individual mandate is no longer constitutional.
If the mandate is found unconstitutional, the critical question in this case becomes whether the entire Affordable Care Act would then be considered unconstitutional as well. This is the question of severability: whether the individual mandate can be separated from the law, meaning the law could still function without it, or whether it is an integral part of the law and its loss would mean the entire law would be invalid.
What is at stake in this case is the potential loss of the entire health care system that has been built over the last 10 years around the provisions in the ACA.
A ruling against the validity of the ACA would eliminate the health insurance markets where 11 million people purchase their coverage. It would end the Medicaid expansion, which has covered an additional 12 million people. And, it would do away with other popular requirements of the law, such as its ban on charging higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, its requirement that health plans cover a set of essential benefits, and its extension of family coverage to the age of 26. It could also have adverse impacts on Medicare and on hospitals that receive federal funds through the law.
Is the Supreme Court likely to strike down the entire law in a time of recession in which millions of people have lost their employer-sponsored health benefits and a COVID-19 pandemic is surging in most states? Legal experts seem to believe that is unlikely. The court has several options before it other than nullifying the entire law, as Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux describes in fivethirtyeight.com.
The court could simply rule that the state of Texas and the two individuals who filed the lawsuit do not have legal standing to bring the case before the court. In that situation, the case would be dismissed.
Now that private health insurers are receiving most of their revenue from the government, they are basically becoming administrators of public insurance plans.
The court could rule, consistent with its decision in 2012, that the penalty is still a tax, in which case nothing would change.
Or the court could rule that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional but that the loss of the mandate would not impact the rest of the law. The ACA has been essentially functioning without a mandate since the penalty was lowered in 2017.
There are other potential outcomes. Congress could pass a law raising the penalty even to $1, which would make the case moot. This is unlikely to happen if the Republicans are in control of Congress. They have been hostile to the ACA since its inception. The Supreme Court also has the power to delay the date when its decision takes effect, which would give Congress more time to act.
The court signaled on Tuesday that it is likely to preserve the ACA. During the oral arguments on Tuesday, two conservative judges indicated they would uphold the ACA.
Legal scholar Marjorie Cohn, who writes the Human Rights and Global Wrongs column on this site, offered this analysis to Truthout:
It appears from Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument that there are 5 votes to save the Affordable Care Act. Roberts and Kavanaugh are likely to vote with Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor to uphold the ACA. Roberts said, “It’s hard to argue that Congress intended the whole Act to fall when they didn’t try to do that” in 2017. “They left it to us and that’s not our job.” Kavanaugh said, “I tend to agree with you that it is a very straightforward case under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place.” Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito appeared willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and strike down the entire ACA. Barrett’s position was unclear although she criticized Roberts for voting to uphold the ACA in a prior case.
This is not surprising because the health insurance lobbyists support upholding the law. They were the ones that demanded the individual mandate in the first place. The ACA has been very good for their profits as it not only sells their products in state and federal marketplaces, but it also subsidizes the purchases and reinsures them if insurers pay out more than a certain amount on health care.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal subsidies for health insurance will total $920 billion in 2021. Of that, 40 percent is for private health insurance through employment and exchanges and 60 percent is for public insurances, Medicaid and Medicare, but most Medicaid enrollees are in privately managed plans and one-third of Medicare enrollees are also in private plans.
In fact, health insurance corporations are increasingly turning to government plans as a major source of revenue. Modern Healthcare reports that by 2017, more than half of health insurance premiums for commercial insurers were paid by the government. For the largest insurance corporation, UnitedHealthcare, government plans accounted for nearly 60 percent of their premiums or about $81 billion.
Counter to what one would think, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a boon for the health insurance industry. Investopedia describes it as a “sweet spot” for private insurance corporations. They are in the position to raise the price of premiums and ask the government for whatever they want. In addition, many people are delaying or forgoing care, meaning health insurers are paying out less for routine care, and investors feel confident about the future since Joe Biden openly opposes national improved Medicare for all.
During the pandemic, the countries that have performed the best have national systems that are universal and run by the government.
With the fate of the ACA in question, and now that private health insurers are receiving most of their revenue from the government, it makes sense to question whether we even need private insurers. They are basically becoming administrators of public insurance plans, but they do so with incredible waste in the forms of outrageous salaries and bonuses for their corporate heads and profits for Wall Street investors. One-third of our health care dollars is spent to administer the myriad health insurance plans — the highest percentage spent on administration by any country — rather than to pay for health care.
Private health insurers are legally required to maximize profits for their investors. To accomplish that, they charge premiums as high as they can get away with, push more and more of health care costs onto individuals as co-pays and deductibles, and restrict where patients receive care and what care they have. This has not served the people well even in the best of times, with hundreds of thousands of families going bankrupt due to medical illness and tens of thousands of people dying of preventable causes each year.
The current health care system has put the United States at a stark disadvantage compared to other countries during the pandemic. The countries that have performed the best have national systems that are universal and run by the government. They were able to respond quickly with a coordinated plan and move resources, health professionals, supplies and equipment, to where they were needed. Everyone was in the system so they could get care when needed without having to pay for care up front or worrying about the cost. And, importantly, the public trusts the health care system because it functions for the benefit of the people instead of the profits of the corporations.
Perhaps California vs Texas provides us with an opportunity to have a public dialog about what kind of health care system we need to have. The pandemic and the recession are going to be with us for the foreseeable future. With a new Congress and incoming president, now is the time to make the demand for national improved Medicare for All.
The ruling class is never going to just give us a health care system that works for the people — we are going to have to organize and mobilize for it. With the majority of people in support of national improved Medicare for All, there couldn’t be a better time to make the demand.
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.