truthout--2020-09-23--50+ Progressive Writers and Activists Pen Open Letter Urging Vote for Biden

More than 50 progressive writers and activists — including prominent left-wing voices such as Noam Chomsky , Barbara Ehrenreich , and Cornel West — unveiled an open letter Wednesday morning that argues a vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in November is essential because while “ the lesser evil is evil… in this case , the greater evil is simply off the charts.
” Citing “ well-founded ” concerns that President Donald Trump could attempt to dispute the results of the election if he loses , the letter states that “ voting for Biden all over ” — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help “ ward off post-election Trumpian tactics ” by delivering the former vice president “ as big an Electoral College margin as possible.
” “ The Electoral College should be gone .
Electoral coercion , manipulation , and misdirection should be gone , ” reads the letter , which was published in Common Dreams .
“ The need to purchase visibility should be gone .
The Democratic Party candidate should be Bernie Sanders or whoever would inspire your positive support .
But none of that will happen by Election Day .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Biden or increase the risk that Trump wins.
” The letter goes on to briefly acknowledge and reject common arguments against voting for Biden in November , from “ claims that more votes for the Green Party ’ s or any other third party ’ s presidential candidate are necessary to win long-term progressive goals ” to “ protestations that Biden is beholden to elites.
” The latter claim is accurate , the open letter says , “ but beside the point ” ; also true is the insistence that “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the message that not voting in swing states sends in 2020 is that we are OK with Trump for four more years as long as we don ’ t have to sully our hands by voting for Biden , ” reads the letter , which was released just over 40 days ahead of Election Day .
Pointing to Trump ’ s destructive climate and nuclear weapons policies , his ongoing assault on democracy and the judiciary , and his “ racism and sexism , ” the progressive signatories declare that “ ending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important goal that can be achieved between now and January.
” “ Not voting for Biden in swing states won ’ t bring on a revolution .
Not voting for Biden in swing states will not make anyone the slightest bit more progressive , radical , or revolutionary , ” the open letter declares .
“ So , it comes down to this .
Dump Trump , Then Battle Biden .
Vote for Biden at least in swing states — and urge others to do so as well .
And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing fundamental change.
” The letter comes just over a month after progressive advocacy group RootsAction.org launched its “ Vote Trump Out ” initiative aimed at boosting voter turnout in the key swing states of Arizona , Michigan , and Wisconsin with the warning that a second term for Trump would spell catastrophe for workers , immigrants , and the planet .
“ Another four years of Trump may literally lead us to the stage where the survival of organized human society is deeply imperiled , ” Chomsky says in the campaign ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter whether you like Biden or not .
That ’ s your personal feelings , irrelevant , nobody cares about that .
What they care about is what happens to the world .
We have to get rid of Trump , keep pressure on Biden , just as Sanders and associates have been doing.
” Read the full open letter and view the list of signatories below : Many people , both on the left and more mainstream , are now discussing preparations for the very real possibility that Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after he has lost .
Such concerns are well-founded .
But such concerns should not obscure the most urgent task — defeating Trump in the election with as big an Electoral College margin as possible , to undermine his predictable efforts to steal the election .
How does Trump lose ?
Trump loses only if Biden , however distasteful he may be , wins .
And how does Biden win ?
Biden wins if he gets more votes than Trump in swing states so that his Electoral College count is higher than Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be gone .
Electoral coercion , manipulation and misdirection should be gone .
The need to purchase visibility should be gone .
The Democratic Party candidate should be Bernie Sanders or whoever would inspire your positive support .
But none of that will happen by Election Day .
So it undeniably comes down to this — help Biden or increase the risk that Trump wins .
Voting for Biden all over helps ward off post-election Trumpian tactics .
Voting for Biden in swing states is essential .
Protestations that Biden is beholden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lesser evil is evil , but in this case , the greater evil is simply off the charts .
Claims that not voting sends a message are true .
But the message that not voting in swing states sends in 2020 is that we are okay with Trump for four more years as long as we don ’ t have to sully our hands by voting for Biden .
Claims that more votes for the Green Party ’ s or any other third party ’ s presidential candidate are necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways that Trump ’ s re-election — with his climate policies , his nuclear weapons policies , his undermining of democracy and the courts , and his racism and sexism — would obstruct all positive social change .
Imagine it is late November .
The mail votes are finally all counted .
Everything is tallied .
And Trump has scored an Electoral College victory .
That is what not voting for Biden in swing states risks .
It is what not advocating we should vote for Biden in swing states risks .
Ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the most important goal that can be achieved between now and January .
Not voting for Biden in swing states won ’ t bring on a revolution .
Not voting for Biden in swing states will not make anyone the slightest bit more progressive , radical , or revolutionary .
Not voting for Biden in swing states will not grow or solidify the ranks of opposition .
But not voting for Biden in swing states risks immeasurably enlarging the obstacles that opposition will thereafter face .
So , it comes down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
Vote for Biden at least in swing states — and urge others to do so as well .
And then get on with building grassroots movements for ongoing fundamental change .
[ Organizations listed for purposes of identification only . ]
Linda Gordon , historian , author , “ The Second Coming of the KKK ” Sonali Kolhatkar , writer , host of “ Rising Up With Sonali ” Radio/TV

Not voting conveys that we can live with Trump again “as long as we don’t have to sully our hands by voting for Biden.”
More than 50 progressive writers and activists — including prominent left-wing voices such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Cornel West — unveiled an open letter Wednesday morning that argues a vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in November is essential because while “the lesser evil is evil… in this case, the greater evil is simply off the charts.”
Citing “well-founded” concerns that President Donald Trump could attempt to dispute the results of the election if he loses, the letter states that “voting for Biden all over” — including but not merely in swing states — could help “ward off post-election Trumpian tactics” by delivering the former vice president “as big an Electoral College margin as possible.”
“The Electoral College should be gone. Electoral coercion, manipulation, and misdirection should be gone,” reads the letter, which was published in Common Dreams. “The need to purchase visibility should be gone. The Democratic Party candidate should be Bernie Sanders or whoever would inspire your positive support. But none of that will happen by Election Day. So it undeniably comes down to this — help Biden or increase the risk that Trump wins.”
The letter goes on to briefly acknowledge and reject common arguments against voting for Biden in November, from “claims that more votes for the Green Party’s or any other third party’s presidential candidate are necessary to win long-term progressive goals” to “protestations that Biden is beholden to elites.”
The latter claim is accurate, the open letter says, “but beside the point”; also true is the insistence that “not voting sends a message.”
“But the message that not voting in swing states sends in 2020 is that we are OK with Trump for four more years as long as we don’t have to sully our hands by voting for Biden,” reads the letter, which was released just over 40 days ahead of Election Day.
Pointing to Trump’s destructive climate and nuclear weapons policies, his ongoing assault on democracy and the judiciary, and his “racism and sexism,” the progressive signatories declare that “ending the Trump presidency is, by far, the most important goal that can be achieved between now and January.”
“Not voting for Biden in swing states won’t bring on a revolution. Not voting for Biden in swing states will not make anyone the slightest bit more progressive, radical, or revolutionary,” the open letter declares. “So, it comes down to this. Dump Trump, Then Battle Biden. Vote for Biden at least in swing states — and urge others to do so as well. And then get on with building grassroots movements for ongoing fundamental change.”
The letter comes just over a month after progressive advocacy group RootsAction.org launched its “Vote Trump Out” initiative aimed at boosting voter turnout in the key swing states of Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin with the warning that a second term for Trump would spell catastrophe for workers, immigrants, and the planet.
“Another four years of Trump may literally lead us to the stage where the survival of organized human society is deeply imperiled,” Chomsky says in the campaign’s launch video. “It doesn’t matter whether you like Biden or not. That’s your personal feelings, irrelevant, nobody cares about that. What they care about is what happens to the world. We have to get rid of Trump, keep pressure on Biden, just as Sanders and associates have been doing.”
Read the full open letter and view the list of signatories below:
Many people, both on the left and more mainstream, are now discussing preparations for the very real possibility that Donald Trump will dispute the results of the election after he has lost. Such concerns are well-founded. But such concerns should not obscure the most urgent task — defeating Trump in the election with as big an Electoral College margin as possible, to undermine his predictable efforts to steal the election. How does Trump lose? Trump loses only if Biden, however distasteful he may be, wins. And how does Biden win? Biden wins if he gets more votes than Trump in swing states so that his Electoral College count is higher than Trump’s. The Electoral College should be gone. Electoral coercion, manipulation and misdirection should be gone. The need to purchase visibility should be gone. The Democratic Party candidate should be Bernie Sanders or whoever would inspire your positive support. But none of that will happen by Election Day. So it undeniably comes down to this — help Biden or increase the risk that Trump wins. And what helps elect Biden? Voting for Biden all over helps ward off post-election Trumpian tactics. Voting for Biden in swing states is essential. Protestations that Biden is beholden to elites are true but beside the point. The lesser evil is evil, but in this case, the greater evil is simply off the charts. Claims that not voting sends a message are true. But the message that not voting in swing states sends in 2020 is that we are okay with Trump for four more years as long as we don’t have to sully our hands by voting for Biden. Claims that more votes for the Green Party’s or any other third party’s presidential candidate are necessary to win long-term progressive goals ignore the many ways that Trump’s re-election — with his climate policies, his nuclear weapons policies, his undermining of democracy and the courts, and his racism and sexism — would obstruct all positive social change. Imagine it is late November. The mail votes are finally all counted. Everything is tallied. And Trump has scored an Electoral College victory. That is what not voting for Biden in swing states risks. It is what not advocating we should vote for Biden in swing states risks. Ending the Trump presidency is, by far, the most important goal that can be achieved between now and January. Not voting for Biden in swing states won’t bring on a revolution. Not voting for Biden in swing states will not make anyone the slightest bit more progressive, radical, or revolutionary. Not voting for Biden in swing states will not grow or solidify the ranks of opposition. But not voting for Biden in swing states risks immeasurably enlarging the obstacles that opposition will thereafter face. So, it comes down to this. Dump Trump, Then Battle Biden. Vote for Biden at least in swing states — and urge others to do so as well. And then get on with building grassroots movements for ongoing fundamental change. Signed, [Organizations listed for purposes of identification only.] Aisha Jumaan, epidemiologist and health activist Amar Shergill, chair Progressive Caucus of Calif. Dem. Party Andrej Grubacic, anarchist writer, activist, CIIS, Collective 20 Ann Ferguson, women, gender, sexuality studies, activist Avi Chomsky, writer, activist, Salem State Barbara Ehrenreich, author, journalist Bill Fletcher Jr., writer, TransAfrica Forum, trade unionist Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams, Ethics In Tech, SF Berniecrats, Collective 20 Charles Lenchner, digital media, People for Bernie Cornel West, writer, activist, Harvard Divinity School Cynthia Peters, The Change Agent, City Life/Vida Urbana, Collective 20 Dan La Botz, New Politics, DSA David Barsamian, Alternative Radio Doug Henwood, economic journalist, LBO, KPFK’s “Behind the News” Doug Pagitt, Vote Common Good Elena Herrada, Radio host “Beloved Detroit,” activist, Collective 20 Gar Alperovitz, writer, historian, Democracy Collaborative Gregory Wilpert, writer, activist Hassan El-Tayyab, peace activist, songwriter, author, FCNL lead lobbyist Jeff Cohen, writer, RootsAction.org, FAIR founder Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Baptist preacher, moral activist Joseph Gerson, writer, International Peace Bureau Juliet Schor, sociology, Boston College Karen Bernal, former chair Progressive Caucus of Calif. Dem. Party Kathy Kelly, activist, author, Voices for Creative Nonviolence Kim Scipes, professor, USMC veteran Leslie Cagan, social justice organizer and writer Linda Gordon, historian, author, “The Second Coming of the KKK” Liza Featherstone, feminist journalist, “Divining Desire,” Nation contributing editor Lydia Sargent, author, Z Communications Marina Sitrin, writer, activist, Binghamton Marjorie Cohn, activist, scholar Medea Benjamin, author, CodePink, Collective 20 Michael Albert, writer, Z Communications, RevolutionZ, Collective 20 Nanette Funk, writer, Brooklyn College Noam Chomsky, writer, Collective 20 Norman Solomon, author, “War Made Easy,” RootsAction.org Oscar Chacon, Salvadoran immigrant, organizer, Collective 20 Paul Ortiz, historian, “Emancipation Betrayed,” Collective 20, University of Florida Peter Bohmer, writer, activist, Evergreen, Economics for Everyone, Collective 20 Peter Kuznick, writer, historian, “Untold History of the United States,” American University Robert McChesney, author on media and political economy Robin Hahnel, author, activist, American University, Portland State University Sandy Carter writer, activist Savvina Chowdhury, political and feminist econ, Evergreen State College, Collective 20 Shane Claiborne, author, activist Sherry Baron, DSA Sonali Kolhatkar, writer, host of “Rising Up With Sonali” Radio/TV Stephen Shalom, writer, activist, New Politics Steve Early, writer, labor activist, NewsGuild/CWA Suzanne Gordon, journalist, author, healthcare reform advocate Ted Glick, climate activist, author “Burglar for Peace” Victor Wallis, author, “Red-Green Revolution” Vincent Emanuele, writer, activist, organizer, combat veteran, Collective 20 Winnie Wong, organizer, People for Bernie, former senior adviser Bernie 2020


truthout--2020-09-23--Front-Runner to Replace RBG Is Anti-Abortion Member of Catholic Group

We look at President Trump ’ s top pick for a woman to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg : U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who is a devout Catholic who has taken conservative stances on abortion , gun rights , immigration and LGBTQ rights .
Barrett ’ s involvement with the conservative Catholic group People of Praise , whose members pledge a lifelong loyalty oath to the group , has also raised questions about her ability to rule independently .
“ There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in there will affect her ability to be impartial and fair as a judge , ” says Heidi Schlumpf , executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We begin today ’ s show looking at the future of the Supreme Court .
On Tuesday , Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney said he ’ ll support a floor vote for President Trump ’ s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : The announcement means Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the support of 51 Republican senators he needs to rapidly push forward with a vote on Justice Ginsburg ’ s replacement , just 41 days before the November election .
In 2016 , McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland , President Obama ’ s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia , who died nearly nine months before the election .
At the time , McConnell said , quote , “ The American people should have a voice in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” President Trump has said he will name his nominee by Saturday and that it will be a woman .
The front-runner appears to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who met with Trump on Monday .
Barrett is a devout Catholic who ’ s taken conservative stances on abortion , gun rights and immigration .
The Human Rights Campaign has called her a , quote , “ absolute threat to LGBTQ rights , ” unquote .
One issue that ’ s likely to be raised if Judge Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her membership in a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise .
Members of the group pledge a lifelong loyalty oath to the group , which assigns each member a personal adviser known as “ heads ” for men and , until recently , “ handmaids ” for women .
The secretive group has a strictly patriarchal structure in which men are the heads of household with power over their wives and families .
The group has been described by some as “ cult-like.
” The Senate did not question Barrett about People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit .
But California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein did question Barrett about her views on Roe v. Wade and her religious views .
AMY GOODMAN : This all comes as President Trump is scheduled to speak this morning at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast .
Well , for more , we ’ re joined by Heidi Schlumpf .
She ’ s the executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter .
In 2018 , she wrote the piece “ Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s joining us from Chicago .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Heidi .
Why don ’ t you start off by telling us a brief biography of Amy Coney Barrett and what People of Praise is ?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Thank you , Amy , so much for having me .
And I ’ m happy to talk to you this morning .
So , Amy Coney Barrett is , like your introduction said , a Catholic judge .
She has also been a professor at the Law School at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conservative judge , an originalist , as we would probably expect to be at the top of the list of this president and leader in this party .
I ’ ve seen some reporting that said she has been groomed for this moment since as early as her first year in law school by a group of faculty at the University of Notre Dame ’ s Law School who were strongly opposed to Roe v. Wade .
So , she ’ s on the list from the Federalist Society , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Prayer Breakfast that ’ s about to start later this morning .
The founder of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast , Leonard Leo , was also the longtime leader of the Federalist Society , which has for decades been trying to reshape the judiciary , especially around some of these culture warrior issues like abortion and LGBT rights .
So , one of the reasons that Amy Barrett was not questioned about her membership in this group within Catholicism called the People of Praise is that she did not disclose it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when her name was floated to the top of a list when Justice Kennedy retired back in 2018 , that ’ s when many people started asking questions about the People of Praise .
So , the People of Praise is a covenanted community , which means that its members sign a covenant or make a covenant to one another .
And I just want to say at the beginning here that I don ’ t think there ’ s anything wrong with practicing your faith .
I ’ m a Catholic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other like-minded people .
The level of commitment that you see in these covenanted communities is admirable .
However , because of some of the secretness and some of the beliefs of a number of these communities , as well as some allegations by members who have left , of authoritarianism , there ’ s some real concerns about whether her involvement in there will affect her ability to be impartial and fair as a judge .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Heidi Schlumpf , could you talk about some of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ descriptions that I ’ ve heard , of this complete submission to the will of your husband , and the involvement of leaders of the group in the most intimate parts of a family ’ s functioning .
Could you talk about some of those practices ?
And also , what is the response of the Catholic hierarchy to groups within the Catholic Church that , by all appearances , appear to be cults ?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Yeah .
So , I would say , just to take your second question first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Church , which goes back to like the 1970s , is something that is accepted by the Catholic Church , but not everyone who is a charismatic Catholic — “ charismatic ” referring to someone who has a personal experience of God , kind of directly through the Holy Spirit , and often results in different gifts of the Holy Spirit , like speaking in tongues or healing or prophecy .
So , this whole idea of charismatic experience within Catholicism is something that the church is OK with .
A number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subgroup of charismatics .
And there ’ s a number of these other communities , that we ’ ve reported on at NCROnline several times : Word of God , Sword of the Spirit , Lord ’ s Ranch , the Mother of God Community .
I looked specifically at the People of Praise , which , to be quite honest , has fewer criticisms than some of these other organizations .
But what you have is a setup in which these members of the community — and there are about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People of Praise , spread out over various number of cities — most of them are Catholic , but it is an ecumenical group .
They belong to regular parishes and worship at their local church .
But then , usually on Sunday afternoons , they get together for their own sort of prayer service , and then they also may meet in smaller groups throughout the week , single-gender groups .
But then you ’ re asking about this idea that they have a head or someone who is kind of like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , their spiritual adviser would be another man in the community .
For a single woman , your spiritual adviser would be another woman .
But within marriage , the wife ’ s spiritual adviser is her husband .
And this whole language of “ handmaiden , ” which , of course , is scriptural , and obviously has a very negative connotation now because of the Margaret Atwood book and series , is something that sort of reinforces a patriarchy that not only this group but a number of evangelical Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the family and the decision makers , and , consequently , women in a more submissive or subordinate role .
So , there ’ s also founders of some of these groups , not so much as a problem with People of Praise , that have some history of being very authoritarian .
The decisions that a head might discuss with their advisee , I guess , could be anything around where you should live , who you should marry , where your children should go to school .
But a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current member said it ’ s everything from those kinds of important decisions to , you know , redecorating their house .
So , there ’ s nothing wrong , again , with somebody having a spiritual adviser , but the secrecy involved in this organization does raise some red flags , as do some of the reports from people who have left .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And who is the leadership of the People of Praise , given the fact that the members pledge loyalty to the group , and obviously the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence , let ’ s say , in the case of Amy Barrett ?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Yeah .
So , the leader I spoke to back in 2018 , who I believe is still the head , is Craig Lent .
He is a professor at Notre Dame .
And I will tell you , I know a number of folks in South Bend — I ’ m a Notre Dame grad myself — who know people who belong to the People of Praise , or I know people who send their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s schools .
So , they have a number of private schools , including in South Bend .
And what I hear from them is they ’ re perfectly nice people and very — you know , very normal .
That said , because there is a level of secrecy — for example , I tried very hard to get a copy of the covenant , which I understand is a few sentences that the covenanted members make to one another , and they were very reluctant to have that be public in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of secrecy things , I think , are what bring people to use language about like cults .
I ’ m not sure that I would call it a cult , but I would say that some of those concerns about authoritarianism , secrecy — it is true , I heard from a number of other members that I spoke with or chat rooms where I read what they were saying , is that when they were trying to leave the organization , there was a level of shunning of them , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask you about this pledging of lifelong loyalty to the group , which assigns each member a personal adviser , known as “ heads ” for men and , until recently , “ handmaids ” for women .
The secretive group has a strictly patriarchal structure in which men are the heads of the household , as you said , with power over their wives and families .
The group has been described by some as “ cult-like.
” And Margaret Atwood has talked about various Catholic charismatic groups .
The group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was People of Hope in New Jersey , not the South Bend People of Praise .
But , of course , that term is so significant , that they used “ handmaids ” tale [ sic ] until recently .
Atwood told The New York Times , “ I delayed writing it for about three years after I got the idea because I felt it was too crazy .
Then … I started noticing that a lot of the things I thought I was more or less making up were now happening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the publication of the book .
There is a sect now , a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect , which calls the women handmaids .
They don ’ t go in for polygamy of this kind but they do threaten the handmaids according to the biblical verse I use in the book — sit down and shut up , ” she said .
Now , again , that ’ s a different charismatic Catholic group , a kind of spinoff , People of Hope .
Explain the difference .
And also , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the unfortunate questioning of Feinstein when she said to Amy Barrett , “ The dogma lives loudly within you , ” was then , you know , people took great umbrage at that .
And she said , “ I can separate my religious views from my legal opinions.
” “ The dogma lives loudly within you ” was Feinstein ’ s comment .
And if you can talk about that and whether that will prevent people from questioning Amy Coney Barrett about her views and how they affect her legal decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go back to the People of Hope , so , the People of Hope , I ’ m less familiar with — excuse me — but I would say that I have followed a number of folks who grew up in some of these covenanted communities , and there is a history of allegations , especially by folks who have chosen to leave it , of problematic authoritarianism .
I think there ’ s — it ’ s interesting to note that , historically , there ’ s nothing inherently conservative about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re having this personal relationship with the Holy Spirit and with God , God could also , you know , tell you to be a progressive Catholic , I suppose , too .
But many charismatic movements have aligned themselves or are very similar to Pentecostalism and Protestantism , and so we have this sort of combining of conservative Catholicism , with all of its teachings around gender roles , anti-gay marriage and these sorts of things , that then get sort of connected with these charismatic groups .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s concern isn ’ t that she ’ s the member of a religious community .
Obviously , you know , this is not simple anti-Catholicism .
If being a Catholic was a problem for being on the Supreme Court , why do we have so many Catholic justices already ?
But it ’ s this particular group , its secretiveness .
And then also it does have — and she has specifically spoken about her own views on abortion , on even the death penalty , in terms of church teaching on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do think it ’ s somewhat ironic that if — HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Yeah , opposed to the death penalty , yes , opposed to abortion , opposed to gay marriage .
And so — HEIDI SCHLUMPF : I do think — go ahead .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I wanted to ask you , given the fact that one of the apparent principles of People of Praise is that a wife must be submissive to the will of her husband , and that in this case Amy Barrett ’ s husband is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what does this say about her ability to make independent decisions , apart from what her husband might think , when she ’ s on the court ?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Yeah .
So , I can ’ t speak to that specifically , although , you know , it ’ s possible that there could be somebody nominated to the court who has that belief and it ’ s not known in a public way , because of — her membership in this group , it ’ s known .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her , if she were to be nominated and at a confirmation hearing .
So , obviously , when the Senate is looking to confirm someone to such an important position , a lifelong position , I think all kinds of questions about someone ’ s beliefs , including their religious beliefs and their membership in certain organizations , is fair game .
Now , I think the Democrats are going to be in a tough position , as it ’ s increasingly looking like this hearing could be happening before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careful not to be appearing to ask her questions that are perceived by some as insulting her or anti-Catholic , insulting her religion .
Obviously , Joe Biden and the Democrats have done a lot to reach out to religious voters , moderate religious voters , during the campaign and wouldn ’ t want to undo all that .
I know there are conservative Catholics who proudly say , “ The dogma lives in me , ” to what Dianne Feinstein said .
The only thing I can say is that it must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants her to be on the Supreme Court , because — it is somewhat ironic , you know , if that ’ s what he ’ s encouraging her to do , because it is somewhat ironic that in a group that believes in the submission of women , we have a woman from that group who is potentially going to be on the highest court in the land .
AMY GOODMAN : Before we go to a former member of People of Praise , I wanted to go to Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely relevant .
In a 2017 law review , she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2013 .
She wrote , quote , “ Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute .
He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax , which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power ; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute as lying beyond Congress ’ s commerce power.
” It ’ s a little hard to understand , but it ’ s extremely significant , because if Amy Coney Barrett was nominated , confirmed and sat on the court before November 10th , those are the date of the oral arguments on the ACA , which could strike the whole thing down .
Heidi , your final comments on this ?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF : Yeah .
So , I do think that she is a conservative judge , and she is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States has long supported the Affordable Care Act , especially after the accommodations were made for Catholic employers that didn ’ t want to provide contraceptive coverage .
So , it will be interesting to see if she sides with church leaders on that one or not .
She has said that she would not have her faith affect her decisions as a judge .
She had written a law review article once saying that judges would have to recuse themselves , for example , from capital punishment cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that pro-life issue , the capital punishment and abortion .
But if she does get confirmed , it would be very interesting to see what she does .
She may surprise us .
Sometimes judges do very different things than we expect from them .
AMY GOODMAN : Heidi Schlumpf , we want to thank you so much for being with us , executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter .
In 2018 , she wrote the piece “ Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts spotlight on People of Praise.
” When we come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a former member of the group who likens People of Praise to a cult .
Stay with us .

We look at President Trump’s top pick for a woman to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is a devout Catholic who has taken conservative stances on abortion, gun rights, immigration and LGBTQ rights. Barrett’s involvement with the conservative Catholic group People of Praise, whose members pledge a lifelong loyalty oath to the group, has also raised questions about her ability to rule independently. “There’s some real concerns about whether her involvement in there will affect her ability to be impartial and fair as a judge,” says Heidi Schlumpf, executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at the future of the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney said he’ll support a floor vote for President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at the age of 87.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY: My liberal friends have, over many decades, gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that’s not written in the stars.
AMY GOODMAN: The announcement means Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the support of 51 Republican senators he needs to rapidly push forward with a vote on Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, just 41 days before the November election. In 2016, McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nearly nine months before the election. At the time, McConnell said, quote, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.”
President Trump has said he will name his nominee by Saturday and that it will be a woman. The front-runner appears to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who met with Trump on Monday. Barrett is a devout Catholic who’s taken conservative stances on abortion, gun rights and immigration. The Human Rights Campaign has called her a, quote, “absolute threat to LGBTQ rights,” unquote.
One issue that’s likely to be raised if Judge Barrett is nominated to the Supreme Court is her membership in a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise. Members of the group pledge a lifelong loyalty oath to the group, which assigns each member a personal adviser known as “heads” for men and, until recently, “handmaids” for women. The secretive group has a strictly patriarchal structure in which men are the heads of household with power over their wives and families. The group has been described by some as “cult-like.”
The Senate did not question Barrett about People of Praise directly during her 2017 confirmation hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. But California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein did question Barrett about her views on Roe v. Wade and her religious views.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things? And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think, in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country. AMY CONEY BARRETT: I’m being considered for a position on a court of appeals, and there would be no opportunity to be a “no” vote on Roe. And as I said to the committee, I would faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.
AMY GOODMAN: This all comes as President Trump is scheduled to speak this morning at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.
Well, for more, we’re joined by Heidi Schlumpf. She’s the executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter. In 2018, she wrote the piece “Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts spotlight on People of Praise.” She’s joining us from Chicago.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Heidi. Why don’t you start off by telling us a brief biography of Amy Coney Barrett and what People of Praise is?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Thank you, Amy, so much for having me. And I’m happy to talk to you this morning.
So, Amy Coney Barrett is, like your introduction said, a Catholic judge. She has also been a professor at the Law School at the University of Notre Dame. She is a conservative judge, an originalist, as we would probably expect to be at the top of the list of this president and leader in this party. I’ve seen some reporting that said she has been groomed for this moment since as early as her first year in law school by a group of faculty at the University of Notre Dame’s Law School who were strongly opposed to Roe v. Wade. So, she’s on the list from the Federalist Society, and we have a connection there to that National Catholic Prayer Breakfast that’s about to start later this morning. The founder of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Leonard Leo, was also the longtime leader of the Federalist Society, which has for decades been trying to reshape the judiciary, especially around some of these culture warrior issues like abortion and LGBT rights.
So, one of the reasons that Amy Barrett was not questioned about her membership in this group within Catholicism called the People of Praise is that she did not disclose it on her questionnaire back in 2017. But when her name was floated to the top of a list when Justice Kennedy retired back in 2018, that’s when many people started asking questions about the People of Praise.
So, the People of Praise is a covenanted community, which means that its members sign a covenant or make a covenant to one another. And I just want to say at the beginning here that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with practicing your faith. I’m a Catholic. And I think many people join groups of other like-minded people. The level of commitment that you see in these covenanted communities is admirable. However, because of some of the secretness and some of the beliefs of a number of these communities, as well as some allegations by members who have left, of authoritarianism, there’s some real concerns about whether her involvement in there will affect her ability to be impartial and fair as a judge.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Heidi Schlumpf, could you talk about some of those alleged authoritarian practices? Some of the descriptions that I’ve heard, of this complete submission to the will of your husband, and the involvement of leaders of the group in the most intimate parts of a family’s functioning. Could you talk about some of those practices? And also, what is the response of the Catholic hierarchy to groups within the Catholic Church that, by all appearances, appear to be cults?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Yeah. So, I would say, just to take your second question first, that the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, which goes back to like the 1970s, is something that is accepted by the Catholic Church, but not everyone who is a charismatic Catholic — “charismatic” referring to someone who has a personal experience of God, kind of directly through the Holy Spirit, and often results in different gifts of the Holy Spirit, like speaking in tongues or healing or prophecy. So, this whole idea of charismatic experience within Catholicism is something that the church is OK with.
A number of these covenanted communities are kind of a subgroup of charismatics. And there’s a number of these other communities, that we’ve reported on at NCROnline several times: Word of God, Sword of the Spirit, Lord’s Ranch, the Mother of God Community.
I looked specifically at the People of Praise, which, to be quite honest, has fewer criticisms than some of these other organizations. But what you have is a setup in which these members of the community — and there are about a little under 2,000 of them in the People of Praise, spread out over various number of cities — most of them are Catholic, but it is an ecumenical group. They belong to regular parishes and worship at their local church. But then, usually on Sunday afternoons, they get together for their own sort of prayer service, and then they also may meet in smaller groups throughout the week, single-gender groups.
But then you’re asking about this idea that they have a head or someone who is kind of like a spiritual adviser. And for a man, their spiritual adviser would be another man in the community. For a single woman, your spiritual adviser would be another woman. But within marriage, the wife’s spiritual adviser is her husband. And this whole language of “handmaiden,” which, of course, is scriptural, and obviously has a very negative connotation now because of the Margaret Atwood book and series, is something that sort of reinforces a patriarchy that not only this group but a number of evangelical Christians have, that see husbands as the head of the family and the decision makers, and, consequently, women in a more submissive or subordinate role.
So, there’s also founders of some of these groups, not so much as a problem with People of Praise, that have some history of being very authoritarian. The decisions that a head might discuss with their advisee, I guess, could be anything around where you should live, who you should marry, where your children should go to school. But a member that I interviewed who was a current member said it’s everything from those kinds of important decisions to, you know, redecorating their house. So, there’s nothing wrong, again, with somebody having a spiritual adviser, but the secrecy involved in this organization does raise some red flags, as do some of the reports from people who have left.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And who is the leadership of the People of Praise, given the fact that the members pledge loyalty to the group, and obviously the decisions of the leaders would have an influence, let’s say, in the case of Amy Barrett?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Yeah. So, the leader I spoke to back in 2018, who I believe is still the head, is Craig Lent. He is a professor at Notre Dame. And I will tell you, I know a number of folks in South Bend — I’m a Notre Dame grad myself — who know people who belong to the People of Praise, or I know people who send their children to the People of Praise’s schools. So, they have a number of private schools, including in South Bend. And what I hear from them is they’re perfectly nice people and very — you know, very normal.
That said, because there is a level of secrecy — for example, I tried very hard to get a copy of the covenant, which I understand is a few sentences that the covenanted members make to one another, and they were very reluctant to have that be public in any way. So, those kinds of secrecy things, I think, are what bring people to use language about like cults. I’m not sure that I would call it a cult, but I would say that some of those concerns about authoritarianism, secrecy — it is true, I heard from a number of other members that I spoke with or chat rooms where I read what they were saying, is that when they were trying to leave the organization, there was a level of shunning of them, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about this pledging of lifelong loyalty to the group, which assigns each member a personal adviser, known as “heads” for men and, until recently, “handmaids” for women. The secretive group has a strictly patriarchal structure in which men are the heads of the household, as you said, with power over their wives and families. The group has been described by some as “cult-like.”
And Margaret Atwood has talked about various Catholic charismatic groups. The group she based Handmaid’s Tale on was People of Hope in New Jersey, not the South Bend People of Praise. But, of course, that term is so significant, that they used “handmaids” tale [sic] until recently. Atwood told The New York Times, “I delayed writing it for about three years after I got the idea because I felt it was too crazy. Then … I started noticing that a lot of the things I thought I was more or less making up were now happening, and indeed more of them have happened since the publication of the book. There is a sect now, a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids. They don’t go in for polygamy of this kind but they do threaten the handmaids according to the biblical verse I use in the book — sit down and shut up,” she said. Now, again, that’s a different charismatic Catholic group, a kind of spinoff, People of Hope. Explain the difference.
And also, if you could respond to — I mean, the unfortunate questioning of Feinstein when she said to Amy Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you,” was then, you know, people took great umbrage at that. And she said, “I can separate my religious views from my legal opinions.” “The dogma lives loudly within you” was Feinstein’s comment. And if you can talk about that and whether that will prevent people from questioning Amy Coney Barrett about her views and how they affect her legal decisions?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Well, just to go back to the People of Hope, so, the People of Hope, I’m less familiar with — excuse me — but I would say that I have followed a number of folks who grew up in some of these covenanted communities, and there is a history of allegations, especially by folks who have chosen to leave it, of problematic authoritarianism.
I think there’s — it’s interesting to note that, historically, there’s nothing inherently conservative about the charismatic movement. So, if you’re having this personal relationship with the Holy Spirit and with God, God could also, you know, tell you to be a progressive Catholic, I suppose, too. But many charismatic movements have aligned themselves or are very similar to Pentecostalism and Protestantism, and so we have this sort of combining of conservative Catholicism, with all of its teachings around gender roles, anti-gay marriage and these sorts of things, that then get sort of connected with these charismatic groups.
So, I think what — many people’s concern isn’t that she’s the member of a religious community. Obviously, you know, this is not simple anti-Catholicism. If being a Catholic was a problem for being on the Supreme Court, why do we have so many Catholic justices already? But it’s this particular group, its secretiveness. And then also it does have — and she has specifically spoken about her own views on abortion, on even the death penalty, in terms of church teaching on that, on gay marriage. I do think it’s somewhat ironic that if —
AMY GOODMAN: Opposed to all.
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Yeah, opposed to the death penalty, yes, opposed to abortion, opposed to gay marriage. And so —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I —
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: I do think — go ahead.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you, given the fact that one of the apparent principles of People of Praise is that a wife must be submissive to the will of her husband, and that in this case Amy Barrett’s husband is a member of the group, as well, what does this say about her ability to make independent decisions, apart from what her husband might think, when she’s on the court?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Yeah. So, I can’t speak to that specifically, although, you know, it’s possible that there could be somebody nominated to the court who has that belief and it’s not known in a public way, because of — her membership in this group, it’s known. And I think that is a fair question for her, if she were to be nominated and at a confirmation hearing. So, obviously, when the Senate is looking to confirm someone to such an important position, a lifelong position, I think all kinds of questions about someone’s beliefs, including their religious beliefs and their membership in certain organizations, is fair game.
Now, I think the Democrats are going to be in a tough position, as it’s increasingly looking like this hearing could be happening before the election. So they have to be careful not to be appearing to ask her questions that are perceived by some as insulting her or anti-Catholic, insulting her religion. Obviously, Joe Biden and the Democrats have done a lot to reach out to religious voters, moderate religious voters, during the campaign and wouldn’t want to undo all that. I know there are conservative Catholics who proudly say, “The dogma lives in me,” to what Dianne Feinstein said.
The only thing I can say is that it must be that Amy Barrett’s husband wants her to be on the Supreme Court, because — it is somewhat ironic, you know, if that’s what he’s encouraging her to do, because it is somewhat ironic that in a group that believes in the submission of women, we have a woman from that group who is potentially going to be on the highest court in the land.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to a former member of People of Praise, I wanted to go to Amy Coney Barrett’s views on the ACA — extremely relevant. In a 2017 law review, she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2013. She wrote, quote, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did — as a penalty — he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.” It’s a little hard to understand, but it’s extremely significant, because if Amy Coney Barrett was nominated, confirmed and sat on the court before November 10th, those are the date of the oral arguments on the ACA, which could strike the whole thing down. Heidi, your final comments on this?
HEIDI SCHLUMPF: Yeah. So, I do think that she is a conservative judge, and she is a conservative Catholic. And the Catholic Church in the United States has long supported the Affordable Care Act, especially after the accommodations were made for Catholic employers that didn’t want to provide contraceptive coverage. So, it will be interesting to see if she sides with church leaders on that one or not.
She has said that she would not have her faith affect her decisions as a judge. She had written a law review article once saying that judges would have to recuse themselves, for example, from capital punishment cases. She does at least have consistency on that pro-life issue, the capital punishment and abortion. But if she does get confirmed, it would be very interesting to see what she does. She may surprise us. Sometimes judges do very different things than we expect from them.
AMY GOODMAN: Heidi Schlumpf, we want to thank you so much for being with us, executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter. In 2018, she wrote the piece “Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts spotlight on People of Praise.”
When we come back, we’ll be joined by a former member of the group who likens People of Praise to a cult. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-09-23--Voters Want to Use Climate Change Policies to Rebuild the Economy After COVID

A majority of U.S. voters want to see corrective climate change policies and the creation of jobs in the clean energy sector as a way to recover from the mismanagement and economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic , according to a new poll .
The poll , conducted by VICE Media Group and several partners , found that 54 % of Americans disapprove of President Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic , while 78 % of Americans want to see Congress take a more aggressive stance in stamping out the coronavirus for good .
Two of the most supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers who left the fossil fuel industry and a carbon tax on companies with high annual emissions .
VICE and its survey partners The Guardian , Covering Climate Now , the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication , and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication all released the new numbers Wednesday .
A total of 1,517 registered Democrats , Republicans , and Independents were surveyed online between Sept. 8 and 9 .
According to the poll , 78 % of voters , regardless of party , support retraining former fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy jobs as a way to reinvigorate the economy .
The poll also found that 68 % of voters support a carbon tax .
Two-thirds of voters surveyed also support a massive , multi-trillion-dollar federal stimulus that would prioritize clean and renewable energy infrastructure , while 71 % of voters want to see the federal government offer aid to the cities and towns most vulnerable to the effects of climate change like hurricanes , flooding , and more .
The findings reflect the growing awareness that climate change is both real and serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence from the world ’ s scientific community .
In the same poll , 65 % of voters said they want to see Congress and the next president draft a serious , comprehensive bill addressing how the U.S. plans to fight climate change as soon as next year .
In the lead up to the election , three-quarters of Americans want to see Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden talk about climate change during the upcoming presidential debates .
“ Despite opposition from some elected Republicans , climate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across party lines , ” said Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz , director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication .
“ Americans support major investments to accelerate the transition to clean energy and participation in the worldwide effort to reduce carbon pollution.
” Only 32 % of voters say the federal government should prioritize fossil fuels over the development of the clean energy industry in the recovery from coronavirus .
And 68 % of voters believe that a national effort to embrace clean energy would not only help bolster the economy , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
Since the start of the pandemic in March , fossil fuels have been one of the hardest-hit industries in the U.S. As businesses closed their doors and fewer Americans found themselves commuting to work , the already unstable industry found itself struggling to stay profitable .
This year , demand for coal , oil , and gas fell to lows not seen since the end of World War II .
As of July , the U.S. government had infused more than $ 3 billion to help more than 5,600 companies stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Guardian .
This story originally appeared in VICE News and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .

A new poll shows that voters want job training for workers who left the fossil fuel industry as well as a carbon tax.
Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
A majority of U.S. voters want to see corrective climate change policies and the creation of jobs in the clean energy sector as a way to recover from the mismanagement and economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new poll.
The poll, conducted by VICE Media Group and several partners, found that 54% of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the pandemic, while 78% of Americans want to see Congress take a more aggressive stance in stamping out the coronavirus for good. Two of the most supported methods of recovering were job training for workers who left the fossil fuel industry and a carbon tax on companies with high annual emissions.
VICE and its survey partners The Guardian, Covering Climate Now, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication all released the new numbers Wednesday. A total of 1,517 registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were surveyed online between Sept. 8 and 9.
According to the poll, 78% of voters, regardless of party, support retraining former fossil fuel workers and thrusting them into renewable energy jobs as a way to reinvigorate the economy. The poll also found that 68% of voters support a carbon tax.
Two-thirds of voters surveyed also support a massive, multi-trillion-dollar federal stimulus that would prioritize clean and renewable energy infrastructure, while 71% of voters want to see the federal government offer aid to the cities and towns most vulnerable to the effects of climate change like hurricanes, flooding, and more.
The findings reflect the growing awareness that climate change is both real and serious, despite President Trump’s reluctance to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence from the world’s scientific community.
In the same poll, 65% of voters said they want to see Congress and the next president draft a serious, comprehensive bill addressing how the U.S. plans to fight climate change as soon as next year. In the lead up to the election, three-quarters of Americans want to see Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden talk about climate change during the upcoming presidential debates.
“Despite opposition from some elected Republicans, climate and renewable energy policies continue to be popular across party lines,” said Dr. Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Americans support major investments to accelerate the transition to clean energy and participation in the worldwide effort to reduce carbon pollution.”
Only 32% of voters say the federal government should prioritize fossil fuels over the development of the clean energy industry in the recovery from coronavirus. And 68% of voters believe that a national effort to embrace clean energy would not only help bolster the economy, it would incentivize private companies to do the same.
Since the start of the pandemic in March, fossil fuels have been one of the hardest-hit industries in the U.S. As businesses closed their doors and fewer Americans found themselves commuting to work, the already unstable industry found itself struggling to stay profitable. This year, demand for coal, oil, and gas fell to lows not seen since the end of World War II.
As of July, the U.S. government had infused more than $3 billion to help more than 5,600 companies stay afloat during the pandemic, according to The Guardian.
This story originally appeared in VICE News and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
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--2020-09-23--Why the Fascists Don’t Want Us to Grieve

Welcome to “ Movement Memos , ” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world .
I ’ m your host , Kelly Hayes .
This week we ’ ve witnessed a new chapter in Trump ’ s desperation to replace headlines about the massive death toll caused by his bungled response to COVID-19 with headlines about anarchists and unrest .
The Department of Justice on Monday released a list of cities it has deemed “ anarchist jurisdictions , ” in response to a memo issued by President Trump earlier this month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to identify jurisdictions “ that have permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract these criminal activities ( anarchist jurisdictions ) .
” The Department of Justice has now deemed New York City , Portland and Seattle “ anarchist jurisdictions ” and has threatened to withhold federal funds from those city governments .
The DOJ says it is working to identify other supposed “ anarchist jurisdictions.
” The department ’ s purported rationale for labeling these cities “ anarchist jurisdictions ” included city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the refusal to prosecute protesters for unlawful assembly , the rejection of intervention by federal law enforcement , and law enforcement officials suffering injuries during protests .
The cities the administration has labelled “ anarchist districts ” are Democratically led cities Trump has repeatedly attacked and ridiculed , so we can expect that if further designations are made , the label will probably fall on other cities that Trump regularly demeans , like Chicago .
The real purpose of this spectacle could not be clearer .
As the election approaches , Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results of his failed response to COVID-19 .
In reality , anarchist organizers have been busy since the start of this pandemic , alongside many others , doing mutual aid work and other community organizing , and attending to needs that the Trump administration has not .
Some have been in the streets protesting , but Trump ’ s efforts to conflate boogeyman stereotypes about anarchism with all Black Lives Matter protests is part of his larger fascist agenda .
We must also consider what these designations foreshadow with regard to the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump ’ s potential efforts to invalidate the election ’ s outcome .
We will talk more soon about those on-the-ground concerns , and about some of the mutual aid work and protests Trump is mischaracterizing , but today I want to talk about what he is trying to distract us from by doing this .
Last week , the United States crossed the terrible milestone of having officially lost more than 200,000 people to COVID-19 .
The true human cost of this virus obviously greatly exceeds any numbers rattled off by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s propaganda has been aimed at minimizing coronavirus fatalities .
Last month , the president retweeted a false claim that only 9,000 people had died as a direct result of the disease in the U.S. Trump ’ s suppression of collective acknowledgement and collective grief is highly fascistic , and resisting that suppression is part of resisting fascism .
For that reason , some friends and I co-organized [ another ] We Grieve Together vigil on social media last week , uplifting the names of people who have been lost and messages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources for people coping with grief .
The event was really beautiful and I think it helped a lot of people step into a space of collective grief , which is something a lot of our hearts and minds need right now , whether we realize it or not .
The work of commemoration and memorialization in this moment is a moral , emotional and spiritual imperative — and so is collective empathy .
If you would like to join such efforts , Cleve Jones and other organizers around the country are organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I will be putting a link to the main website for those vigils in the transcript and show notes , in case any of you would like to sign up to organize one in your area .
I am co-organizing one myself .
My collective and I are putting together an event called Signs , Shrines , Collages and a Mixtape , that people who are sheltering in place can participate in solo or in small groups .
I plan to make a collage .
I might even wheatpaste somewhere , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you to join us in using the graphics from our # WeGrieveTogether image folder to create your own sign , collage or shrine .
We are also working on a COVID vigil mixtape that will be played though loudspeakers outside the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in downtown Chicago during the week of vigils .
It will feature speeches from grassroots organizers and music from Chicago artists .
Transcripts of the speeches featured in the mixtape will be included in a COVID-19 memorial zine that will be distributed to imprisoned people .
The zine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s possible the speeches may be spliced up a bit in the mixtape , during the creative process — I don ’ t know because I am leaving that part to the creatives .
Today , I thought I would share my speech for the vigil with you all , to honor those we have lost , and to better explain why these collages , this mixtape and these vigils are so important .
[ musical interlude ] My name is Kelly Hayes .
I am a Native writer and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois .
Over 950,000 people have died of COVID-19 worldwide .
More than 200,000 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 in the United States , but we know the real number is much higher .
We know that the prison industrial complex will always suppress the severity of the horrors behind its walls .
We know that even before COVID , prisoners were living in torturous conditions that were stripping years off of people ’ s lives .
We know that for many people living in cages , and outside of them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And now , as winter approaches , we know that the most vulnerable among us , including those trapped in prisons , jails and detention centers , are in the crosshairs .
The conditions of poverty , imprisonment and housing insecurity make COVID transmission more likely , but the threats we are faced with are not grounded in circumstance alone .
Because , in many cases , death is being dealt out with great intention .
When people are warehoused in conditions that we know will breed a virus , a decision is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of those people .
Capitalists , and the death-makers of the prison industrial complex , have always cultivated and maintained conditions that they know will be unsurvivable for many .
In this instance , we are seeing a pandemic rage like wildfire through jails and correctional facilities and detention centers , just as it has torn through retirement homes and assisted living facilities .
This virus has highlighted who we deem as disposable in this society in horrible ways , but the story doesn ’ t end there .
We can refuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or written off .
There is a reason our collective grief has been suppressed with lies and political circus acts during this pandemic .
Because there is power in solidarity and collective memorialization , and the powerful are afraid of that empathy and solidarity .
The fascist Trump administration has sentenced hundreds of thousands of people to suffer and die horribly .
In truth , the number could run in the millions , given that deportations have continued at a swift pace , even though COVID-19 is currently running rampant in U.S. immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceleration of the United States as a genocidal project .
But we are not powerless , in fact , we are the only power that can stop it .
Panic around Trump ’ s framing of unrest has led many people to retract their loud and fiery support for activists resisting state violence , but in time , the wind will shift .
Early on , the pandemic made many people aware of their own proximity to disposability .
That ’ s why the country watched a police station burn in Minneapolis and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system was to blame .
They were right , and many will be again .
The election has given people a whiff of hope that the system might yet save them , and while it is possible to reduce the damage done , we are staring down mass death , nationwide evictions , financial collapse , and even the potential collapse of our feeble , profit-based healthcare system .
We will also see what this country unleashes against dissenters who threaten or complicate its violent work .
We have already seen protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for surrounding a police station .
Joel Northam is facing over 250 years worth of charges for his organizing of protests against the murder of Elijah McCain .
His house was raided by a SWAT team .
Dissenters who are being targeted in this moment are victims of a fascist escalation , and we dare not look away .
We don ’ t yet have the level of solidarity we need to overcome the challenges ahead , and that can not be allowed to continue .
The walls of our silos must crumble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are great storms ahead .
We know the impacts of COVID-19 will continue and that saving as many lives as possible must include freeing our caged siblings .
We also know that many people will die because of this disease who do not die of this disease .
Because when a medical system over-saturates , people die of many things .
People who need major surgery die .
People who are having allergic reactions die .
People who have heart attacks die .
People die and die and die .
We must name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being lost , inside and outside of prisons .
Mutual aid exists because it is in our nature to join together and to act together .
This pandemic , like the horrors of the prison system , has demonstrated how harmful it is to human beings to be deprived of connection .
We were already being starved of it by the cult of individualism .
The answer is more empathy and connection .
The answer is to become an immovable force when we are together and a constellation of power and empathy when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , but we can not wait for the mainstream to catch up with reality .
We must name what ’ s happening and expand our projects and numbers .
When the dead are counted in the years to come — and we will be counting our dead for years — we have something to say about how many names will be read .
History does not simply happen to people .
We all make choices .
We must ask ourselves , what do we owe to the living , and what do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circle Bear , a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe , died of COVID-19 at the age of 30 in federal custody .
Andrea was the first woman in federal custody to die of the coronavirus .
She was also pregnant when she fell ill .
Her child lives on , but Andrea was lost soon after giving birth .
The Department of Justice touted Andrea ’ s sentencing in a January press release .
“ Don ’ t let yourself or your property get mixed up in the world of illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons .
The government issued that statement , and then proceeded to kill Andrea by caging her in the path of COVID-19 .
Sarah Lee Circle Bear , Andrea ’ s sister-in-law , also died in police custody five years earlier while pregnant .
These losses are not aberrations .
They are emblems of what this system is and has always been .
This disease is a genocidal weapon in the hands of this government , but it will also knock on many doors at random in the months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our collective pain can become collective empathy and action .
But this will not happen on its own , as a result of social deterioration .
It will take political will , compassion and courage .
Whatever is ahead , our survival will depend on our willingness to organize it , and our freedom will depend on our willingness to fight for it .
Whatever happens , everything will depend on our willingness to fight for each other , and for the most marginalized among us , including our imprisoned siblings .
May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may the rest of us raise hell .
I want to thank our listeners for joining us today , and remember , our best defense against cynicism is to do good , and to remember , that the good we do matters .
Until next time , I ’ ll see you in the streets .
Ways to get involved with ongoing COVID-19 memorialization efforts : The COVID-19 National Week of Mourning is happening Oct. 4-11 .
You can look for an event in your area or sign up to host one here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Signs , Shrines , Collages and a Mixtape : A Remote COVID Vigil here .
This event is based in Chicago , but is geared toward physically distanced participation , so everyone is welcome to join in .
This toolkit from the last # WeGrieveTogether vigil includes a number of images and online content that can be used for online commemoration .
The event is over , but the imagery , names , stories and art can be used to uplift the fallen at any time .
# NamingTheLost has hosted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people lost to COVID-19 in May .
More recently , they organized # NamingTheLostMemorials , a project that invites people to make and display public memorials for people who have been lost to COVID-19 .
You can sign up to get updates about their memorial efforts here .
Commemoration can be powerful , but it can also be difficult .
The Mutual Aid Mourning and Healing Project offers free support to people struggling with grief during the pandemic .
If you or someone you know is grieving a recent loss and would like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death doula or clergy , please reach out .

Nurses sit with lit candles bearing the names of 235 health and social care workers who have died from coronavirus during a vigil outside Downing Street, London. Kirsty O'Connor/PA Images via Getty Images
Part of the Series Movement Memos
Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.
Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I’m your host, Kelly Hayes.
This week we’ve witnessed a new chapter in Trump’s desperation to replace headlines about the massive death toll caused by his bungled response to COVID-19 with headlines about anarchists and unrest.
The Department of Justice on Monday released a list of cities it has deemed “anarchist jurisdictions,” in response to a memo issued by President Trump earlier this month. The memo directed Attorney General William Barr to identify jurisdictions “that have permitted violence and the destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract these criminal activities (anarchist jurisdictions).” The Department of Justice has now deemed New York City, Portland and Seattle “anarchist jurisdictions” and has threatened to withhold federal funds from those city governments. The DOJ says it is working to identify other supposed “anarchist jurisdictions.” The department’s purported rationale for labeling these cities “anarchist jurisdictions” included city councils voting to cut police funding, the refusal to prosecute protesters for unlawful assembly, the rejection of intervention by federal law enforcement, and law enforcement officials suffering injuries during protests. The cities the administration has labelled “anarchist districts” are Democratically led cities Trump has repeatedly attacked and ridiculed, so we can expect that if further designations are made, the label will probably fall on other cities that Trump regularly demeans, like Chicago.
The real purpose of this spectacle could not be clearer. As the election approaches, Trump is desperate to distract us from the catastrophic results of his failed response to COVID-19. In reality, anarchist organizers have been busy since the start of this pandemic, alongside many others, doing mutual aid work and other community organizing, and attending to needs that the Trump administration has not. Some have been in the streets protesting, but Trump’s efforts to conflate boogeyman stereotypes about anarchism with all Black Lives Matter protests is part of his larger fascist agenda. We must also consider what these designations foreshadow with regard to the election, Republican efforts to suppress votes, and Trump’s potential efforts to invalidate the election’s outcome. We will talk more soon about those on-the-ground concerns, and about some of the mutual aid work and protests Trump is mischaracterizing, but today I want to talk about what he is trying to distract us from by doing this.
Last week, the United States crossed the terrible milestone of having officially lost more than 200,000 people to COVID-19. The true human cost of this virus obviously greatly exceeds any numbers rattled off by politicians, but the Trump administration’s propaganda has been aimed at minimizing coronavirus fatalities. Last month, the president retweeted a false claim that only 9,000 people had died as a direct result of the disease in the U.S. Trump’s suppression of collective acknowledgement and collective grief is highly fascistic, and resisting that suppression is part of resisting fascism. For that reason, some friends and I co-organized [another] We Grieve Together vigil on social media last week, uplifting the names of people who have been lost and messages of grief and comfort, as well as resources for people coping with grief. The event was really beautiful and I think it helped a lot of people step into a space of collective grief, which is something a lot of our hearts and minds need right now, whether we realize it or not. The work of commemoration and memorialization in this moment is a moral, emotional and spiritual imperative — and so is collective empathy.
If you would like to join such efforts, Cleve Jones and other organizers around the country are organizing a National Week of Mourning October 4-11. I will be putting a link to the main website for those vigils in the transcript and show notes, in case any of you would like to sign up to organize one in your area. I am co-organizing one myself. My collective and I are putting together an event called Signs, Shrines, Collages and a Mixtape, that people who are sheltering in place can participate in solo or in small groups. I plan to make a collage. I might even wheatpaste somewhere, who knows? But we definitely invite all of you to join us in using the graphics from our #WeGrieveTogether image folder to create your own sign, collage or shrine. We are also working on a COVID vigil mixtape that will be played though loudspeakers outside the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in downtown Chicago during the week of vigils. It will feature speeches from grassroots organizers and music from Chicago artists.
Transcripts of the speeches featured in the mixtape will be included in a COVID-19 memorial zine that will be distributed to imprisoned people. The zine will be accessible to everyone online. It’s possible the speeches may be spliced up a bit in the mixtape, during the creative process — I don’t know because I am leaving that part to the creatives. Today, I thought I would share my speech for the vigil with you all, to honor those we have lost, and to better explain why these collages, this mixtape and these vigils are so important.
[musical interlude]
My name is Kelly Hayes. I am a Native writer and a prison abolitionist, organizing in Chicago, Illinois. Over 950,000 people have died of COVID-19 worldwide. More than 200,000 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, but we know the real number is much higher. We know that the prison industrial complex will always suppress the severity of the horrors behind its walls. We know that even before COVID, prisoners were living in torturous conditions that were stripping years off of people’s lives. We know that for many people living in cages, and outside of them, survival was already a daily struggle. And now, as winter approaches, we know that the most vulnerable among us, including those trapped in prisons, jails and detention centers, are in the crosshairs. The conditions of poverty, imprisonment and housing insecurity make COVID transmission more likely, but the threats we are faced with are not grounded in circumstance alone. Because, in many cases, death is being dealt out with great intention.
When people are warehoused in conditions that we know will breed a virus, a decision is being made about what will happen to many of those people. Capitalists, and the death-makers of the prison industrial complex, have always cultivated and maintained conditions that they know will be unsurvivable for many. In this instance, we are seeing a pandemic rage like wildfire through jails and correctional facilities and detention centers, just as it has torn through retirement homes and assisted living facilities. This virus has highlighted who we deem as disposable in this society in horrible ways, but the story doesn’t end there.
We can refuse to let these deaths be swept aside or written off. There is a reason our collective grief has been suppressed with lies and political circus acts during this pandemic. Because there is power in solidarity and collective memorialization, and the powerful are afraid of that empathy and solidarity. The fascist Trump administration has sentenced hundreds of thousands of people to suffer and die horribly. In truth, the number could run in the millions, given that deportations have continued at a swift pace, even though COVID-19 is currently running rampant in U.S. immigration detention centers. We are witnessing the acceleration of the United States as a genocidal project. But we are not powerless, in fact, we are the only power that can stop it.
Panic around Trump’s framing of unrest has led many people to retract their loud and fiery support for activists resisting state violence, but in time, the wind will shift. Early on, the pandemic made many people aware of their own proximity to disposability. That’s why the country watched a police station burn in Minneapolis and, for a time, remained convinced the system was to blame. They were right, and many will be again.
The election has given people a whiff of hope that the system might yet save them, and while it is possible to reduce the damage done, we are staring down mass death, nationwide evictions, financial collapse, and even the potential collapse of our feeble, profit-based healthcare system. We will also see what this country unleashes against dissenters who threaten or complicate its violent work.
We have already seen protesters in Denver charged with “kidnapping” for surrounding a police station. Joel Northam is facing over 250 years worth of charges for his organizing of protests against the murder of Elijah McCain. His house was raided by a SWAT team. Dissenters who are being targeted in this moment are victims of a fascist escalation, and we dare not look away.
We don’t yet have the level of solidarity we need to overcome the challenges ahead, and that cannot be allowed to continue. The walls of our silos must crumble. Arms must be locked. There are great storms ahead. We know the impacts of COVID-19 will continue and that saving as many lives as possible must include freeing our caged siblings. We also know that many people will die because of this disease who do not die of this disease. Because when a medical system over-saturates, people die of many things. People who need major surgery die. People who are having allergic reactions die. People who have heart attacks die. People die and die and die. We must name that in the scope of what is being lost, inside and outside of prisons.
Mutual aid exists because it is in our nature to join together and to act together. This pandemic, like the horrors of the prison system, has demonstrated how harmful it is to human beings to be deprived of connection. We were already being starved of it by the cult of individualism. The answer is more empathy and connection. The answer is to become an immovable force when we are together and a constellation of power and empathy when we are apart.
We need more people, but we cannot wait for the mainstream to catch up with reality. We must name what’s happening and expand our projects and numbers. When the dead are counted in the years to come — and we will be counting our dead for years — we have something to say about how many names will be read. History does not simply happen to people. We all make choices. We must ask ourselves, what do we owe to the living, and what do we owe to the dead?
Andrea Circle Bear, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, died of COVID-19 at the age of 30 in federal custody. Andrea was the first woman in federal custody to die of the coronavirus. She was also pregnant when she fell ill. Her child lives on, but Andrea was lost soon after giving birth.
The Department of Justice touted Andrea’s sentencing in a January press release. “Don’t let yourself or your property get mixed up in the world of illegal drugs. It ends badly,” said U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons. The government issued that statement, and then proceeded to kill Andrea by caging her in the path of COVID-19. Sarah Lee Circle Bear, Andrea’s sister-in-law, also died in police custody five years earlier while pregnant. These losses are not aberrations. They are emblems of what this system is and has always been.
This disease is a genocidal weapon in the hands of this government, but it will also knock on many doors at random in the months to come. If we organize, our collective pain can become collective empathy and action. But this will not happen on its own, as a result of social deterioration. It will take political will, compassion and courage. Whatever is ahead, our survival will depend on our willingness to organize it, and our freedom will depend on our willingness to fight for it. Whatever happens, everything will depend on our willingness to fight for each other, and for the most marginalized among us, including our imprisoned siblings.
May the fallen rest in peace, and may the rest of us raise hell.
I want to thank our listeners for joining us today, and remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good, and to remember, that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.
Show Notes:
Ways to get involved with ongoing COVID-19 memorialization efforts:
The COVID-19 National Week of Mourning is happening Oct. 4-11. You can look for an event in your area or sign up to host one here.
You can learn more about participating in Signs, Shrines, Collages and a Mixtape: A Remote COVID Vigil here. This event is based in Chicago, but is geared toward physically distanced participation, so everyone is welcome to join in.
This toolkit from the last #WeGrieveTogether vigil includes a number of images and online content that can be used for online commemoration. The event is over, but the imagery, names, stories and art can be used to uplift the fallen at any time.
#NamingTheLost has hosted a 24 hour reading of the names of people lost to COVID-19 in May. More recently, they organized #NamingTheLostMemorials, a project that invites people to make and display public memorials for people who have been lost to COVID-19. You can sign up to get updates about their memorial efforts here.
Commemoration can be powerful, but it can also be difficult. The Mutual Aid Mourning and Healing Project offers free support to people struggling with grief during the pandemic. If you or someone you know is grieving a recent loss and would like to speak to a therapist, a death doula or clergy, please reach out.
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.