truthout--2020-11-25--Trump Is on a Death Row Killing Spree and Wants to Make Firing Squads Possible

The Trump administration is rushing to execute an unprecedented number of people before President-elect Joe Biden , an opponent of the death penalty , takes office on January 20 .
Unless he grants requests for commutations , President Trump will leave office having set a grim record for overseeing the most executions of federal prisoners during a presidential transition period in U.S. history , according to the Death Penalty Information Center .
The Trump administration has already executed eight people by lethal injection since July , when the federal government resumed executions after a 17-year hiatus .
On Friday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal execution under a “ lame duck ” president in 131 years , the Department of Justice announced its intention to execute three more people incarcerated at the Terre Haute federal prison in Indiana .
This brings the total number of people scheduled to be executed before Trump leaves office to five , including Lisa Montgomery , a survivor of extreme sexual violence who suffers from mental illness and would be the first woman to be executed on the federal level in nearly six decades .
“ We ’ re really in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Allison Cohen , a spokesperson for the anti-death penalty group Death Penalty Action , in an interview .
The last time a federal execution was carried out under a “ lame duck ” president was in 1889 , after President Grover Cleveland lost his first bid at reelection , the Death Penalty Information Center reports .
The seven executions carried out by the Trump administration in the four-month period leading up to the November elections outnumber those carried out by any presidential administration over the past 78 years .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perform the fewest number of executions in nearly four decades .
Cohen said the federal executions already carried out since July “ line up perfectly ” with the campaign season , allowing the Trump campaign to boast about the president ’ s supposed “ law and order ” credentials .
A regulation proposed by the Trump administration on Wednesday would allow the federal government to execute people by methods besides lethal injection — including by firing squad , according to Death Penalty Action .
“ From what we can tell , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break a record and have something to email his followers , ” Cohen said .
While a majority of Americans prefer life sentences in prison to the death penalty , 58 percent of Republicans still support killing incarcerated people , according to a 2019 Gallup poll .
Meanwhile , a growing number of advocates are pushing for an end to both the death penalty and life-without-parole sentences , which they call “ death by incarceration.
” Biden has said he opposes the death penalty and will work to end capital punishment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide incentives for the 28 states that still allow the death penalty to change their laws , according to Cohen .
The Trump administration , Cohen said , appears to be pushing to execute people before Biden has a chance to reverse decisions made by the Department of Justice or grant them commutations — which would spare the prisoners ’ lives , but would not absolve them of guilt or free them from prison .
Of all the current death row cases , Montgomery ’ s has gained the most attention as she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal execution in decades .
Before her incarceration , Montgomery was traumatized by years of horrific sexual violence and abuse and developed severe mental illnesses , including bipolar disorder with psychotic features and post-traumatic stress disorder , according to advocates and her sister , Diane Mattingly .
When Montgomery committed the crime that she would be sentenced to death for , she feared losing her four children in a custody battle with her stepbrother and ex-husband , who had raped Montgomery and her children for years , according to Mattingly .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the years of untreated trauma and severe mental illness , pushed Lisa over the edge , ” Mattingly recently wrote in Newsweek .
“ In the haze of her mental illness , she went to the home of a pregnant woman , killed her , and removed the baby .
Lisa then took the baby home and cared for her as though she was her own .
The crime itself shows that Lisa had lost all touch with reality.
” While some states have considered banning the death penalty for people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been enacted .
Montgomery ’ s execution was originally scheduled for December 8 , and last week civil rights attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department alleging Montgomery is being held in “ torturous conditions ” for a mentally ill person who has endured years of “ sexual terror , ” as many of her belongings were taken away after her execution date was set , including pictures of her children , and she was placed in a solitary cell to await death .
A federal judge issued a brief stay on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her attorneys were sickened by coronavirus and could not assist with her plea for a sentence commutation .
However , Montgomery could be put to death as soon as January .
Currently , a coalition of 1,000 advocates , including mental health and women ’ s rights activists , are pleading with the Trump administration to grant Montgomery clemency and spare her life .
Activists are also scrambling to save the lives of Alfred Bourgeois , Cory Johnson , Dustin Higgs and Brandon Bernard , the four men scheduled to die before Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black .
Johnson ’ s attorneys have argued that he has an intellectual disability , and it would be unconstitutional to put him to death , because the Supreme Court has ruled against killing people with low IQs .
Bernard was convicted and sentenced for being an accomplice to murder — he did not commit the murder himself and was only 18 years old at the time .
A former prosecutor who tried his case and originally defended the death verdict is now calling for mercy .
As the Trump administration moves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department , activists are also sounding the alarm for Billie Allen , a death row inmate at risk of being added to the list of upcoming executions .
Allen , who is also Black , was convicted of robbing and murdering a security guard in 1997 , but his supporters say the trial was botched and the government may kill an innocent man .
Eric Montroy , Allen ’ s attorney , said Allen ’ s legal case “ has been beset by injustice.
” “ He has professed his innocence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the government is in possession of DNA evidence that could be instrumental in proving his innocence , ” Montroy said in a statement .
“ Yet the government has fought off every effort to test the DNA .
No person should face execution where such important questions are within easy reach , yet remain unanswered.
” Cohen wonders if the Justice Department is sacrificing incarcerated people so Trump can broadcast to his fans that he is a “ rough and tough executioner.
” “ For a while , these executions lined up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
This story has been updated .

The Trump administration is rushing to execute an unprecedented number of people before President-elect Joe Biden, an opponent of the death penalty, takes office on January 20.
Unless he grants requests for commutations, President Trump will leave office having set a grim record for overseeing the most executions of federal prisoners during a presidential transition period in U.S. history, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The Trump administration has already executed eight people by lethal injection since July, when the federal government resumed executions after a 17-year hiatus.
On Friday, one day after carrying out the first federal execution under a “lame duck” president in 131 years, the Department of Justice announced its intention to execute three more people incarcerated at the Terre Haute federal prison in Indiana. This brings the total number of people scheduled to be executed before Trump leaves office to five, including Lisa Montgomery, a survivor of extreme sexual violence who suffers from mental illness and would be the first woman to be executed on the federal level in nearly six decades.
“We’re really in the middle of an unprecedented execution spree,” said Allison Cohen, a spokesperson for the anti-death penalty group Death Penalty Action, in an interview.
The last time a federal execution was carried out under a “lame duck” president was in 1889, after President Grover Cleveland lost his first bid at reelection, the Death Penalty Information Center reports. The seven executions carried out by the Trump administration in the four-month period leading up to the November elections outnumber those carried out by any presidential administration over the past 78 years. At the same time, states are on pace to perform the fewest number of executions in nearly four decades.
Cohen said the federal executions already carried out since July “line up perfectly” with the campaign season, allowing the Trump campaign to boast about the president’s supposed “law and order” credentials. A regulation proposed by the Trump administration on Wednesday would allow the federal government to execute people by methods besides lethal injection — including by firing squad, according to Death Penalty Action.
“From what we can tell, this has been just another way for Trump to break a record and have something to email his followers,” Cohen said.
Unless he grants requests for commutations, President Trump will leave office having set a grim record.
While a majority of Americans prefer life sentences in prison to the death penalty, 58 percent of Republicans still support killing incarcerated people, according to a 2019 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, a growing number of advocates are pushing for an end to both the death penalty and life-without-parole sentences, which they call “death by incarceration.”
Biden has said he opposes the death penalty and will work to end capital punishment on the federal level, as well as provide incentives for the 28 states that still allow the death penalty to change their laws, according to Cohen. The Trump administration, Cohen said, appears to be pushing to execute people before Biden has a chance to reverse decisions made by the Department of Justice or grant them commutations — which would spare the prisoners’ lives, but would not absolve them of guilt or free them from prison.
Of all the current death row cases, Montgomery’s has gained the most attention as she is the first woman to face a federal execution in decades. Before her incarceration, Montgomery was traumatized by years of horrific sexual violence and abuse and developed severe mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder with psychotic features and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to advocates and her sister, Diane Mattingly.
When Montgomery committed the crime that she would be sentenced to death for, she feared losing her four children in a custody battle with her stepbrother and ex-husband, who had raped Montgomery and her children for years, according to Mattingly.
“The threat of losing her children, combined with the years of untreated trauma and severe mental illness, pushed Lisa over the edge,” Mattingly recently wrote in Newsweek. “In the haze of her mental illness, she went to the home of a pregnant woman, killed her, and removed the baby. Lisa then took the baby home and cared for her as though she was her own. The crime itself shows that Lisa had lost all touch with reality.”
Cohen wonders if the Justice Department is sacrificing incarcerated people so Trump can broadcast to his fans that he is a “rough and tough executioner.”
While some states have considered banning the death penalty for people with mental illness, no such ban has been enacted. Montgomery’s execution was originally scheduled for December 8, and last week civil rights attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department alleging Montgomery is being held in “torturous conditions” for a mentally ill person who has endured years of “sexual terror,” as many of her belongings were taken away after her execution date was set, including pictures of her children, and she was placed in a solitary cell to await death.
A federal judge issued a brief stay on Montgomery’s execution last week because her attorneys were sickened by coronavirus and could not assist with her plea for a sentence commutation. However, Montgomery could be put to death as soon as January. Currently, a coalition of 1,000 advocates, including mental health and women’s rights activists, are pleading with the Trump administration to grant Montgomery clemency and spare her life.
Activists are also scrambling to save the lives of Alfred Bourgeois, Cory Johnson, Dustin Higgs and Brandon Bernard, the four men scheduled to die before Biden takes office. All of them are Black.
Johnson’s attorneys have argued that he has an intellectual disability, and it would be unconstitutional to put him to death, because the Supreme Court has ruled against killing people with low IQs. Bernard was convicted and sentenced for being an accomplice to murder — he did not commit the murder himself and was only 18 years old at the time. A former prosecutor who tried his case and originally defended the death verdict is now calling for mercy.
As the Trump administration moves to execute people before Biden takes over the Justice Department, activists are also sounding the alarm for Billie Allen, a death row inmate at risk of being added to the list of upcoming executions. Allen, who is also Black, was convicted of robbing and murdering a security guard in 1997, but his supporters say the trial was botched and the government may kill an innocent man. Eric Montroy, Allen’s attorney, said Allen’s legal case “has been beset by injustice.”
“He has professed his innocence and sought DNA testing for many years, and the government is in possession of DNA evidence that could be instrumental in proving his innocence,” Montroy said in a statement. “Yet the government has fought off every effort to test the DNA. No person should face execution where such important questions are within easy reach, yet remain unanswered.”
Cohen wonders if the Justice Department is sacrificing incarcerated people so Trump can broadcast to his fans that he is a “rough and tough executioner.”
“For a while, these executions lined up perfectly with campaign season,” Cohen said.
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--2020-11-26--Republicans Have Held On to Enough Power to Influence Future Elections

Election Day delivered a presidential victory for the Democratic Party and narrowed the partisan split in the U.S. House and Senate .
But it was nevertheless a victory for Republicans in the battle every decade to draw state and congressional districts that favor their party .
Beginning in 2021 , states will begin redrawing electoral boundaries for U.S. House districts and state legislative districts , using the results of the 2020 census to determine the partisan composition of Congress and statehouses through 2030 .
Despite national Democratic success , the results of state legislative elections put Republicans in place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2020 .
In most states , the legislature is responsible for drawing Congressional district boundaries , and it is common that the majority party draws the lines to give the advantage to its party members , a practice called gerrymandering .
In most of these states , the governor can veto legislative maps , but it ’ s common to have a governor from the same party as dominates the legislature .
In the 2010 elections , Republicans gained unified control of 17 of the 30 legislatures that then had sole district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those states , Minnesota and Missouri , had Democratic governors .
All those legislatures , which collectively redrew 190 congressional districts , helped produce a congressional map that has been widely regarded as a pro-Republican gerrymander .
Republican-controlled legislatures in North Carolina and Pennsylvania , for example , produced maps that ultimately awarded Republicans with two-thirds of their state ’ s congressional seats despite the party capturing less than 50 % of the statewide vote in the next federal election .
These and similarly gerrymandered state maps helped the Republican Party maintain their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although Democratic candidates won a higher number of votes nationwide in 2012 .
Republicans continue to dominate statehouses in the wake of the 2020 state legislative elections .
Democrats had hoped to flip partisan control of at least one legislative chamber in states like North Carolina , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Minnesota and Texas , where they could exert greater control over the upcoming redistricting process .
But they didn ’ t flip any legislative chambers in their favor — and lost control of both chambers of the New Hampshire statehouse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have unified control of 20 of the 28 legislatures that retain mapmaking responsibility .
Democrats will control just seven .
Power will be split only in Minnesota , where Republicans hold the majority in the Senate and Democrats control the House .
In seven states , Democrats will control the process , which will give them a smaller effect on the national congressional results .
As a result of their greater control over district lines , Republicans may be advantaged in the 2022 House elections .
But there are some forces that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including the states that have taken mapmaking power away from their partisan legislators .
In 2018 , popular referenda in Colorado , Michigan and Utah created redistricting commissions that are independent from the legislatures .
And in November 2020 , Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to amend the Constitution to create a bipartisan redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens .
In addition , Democratic governors in states where Republicans control both legislative chambers , such as Kentucky , Louisiana , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , may veto plans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely throw mapmaking responsibility to the state courts .
There are also forces pushing to preserve more partisan redistricting processes .
On Nov. 3 , Missouri voters narrowly approved a provision that takes redistricting out of the hands of a nonpartisan demographer and places it instead in the hands of a political commission appointed by the governor .
The measure also says districts will be drawn according to the rule of “ one person , one vote ” — which some believe may mean Missouri will draw its districts not based on total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of eligible voters .
That highlights a growing controversy about whether to count noncitizens and others who are ineligible to vote , rather than the total population , for the purposes of creating electoral districts .
Using total population is the current method , followed since the nation ’ s founding .
People seeking to battle partisan gerrymandering can no longer seek help from federal courts , which are barred from taking those cases by a 2019 Supreme Court decision that declared federal courts couldn ’ t review claims of partisan gerrymandering .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ round of partisan gerrymandered districts that will last another decade , but 2020 is not 2010 .
Fewer states will have legislators draw district lines .
Democratic governors may keep Republican-dominanted legislatures in check .
Grassroots movements and activist groups battling against partisan gerrymandering have attracted high-profile support , such as from Eric Holder , a former U.S. attorney general in the Obama administration .
Opposition to redistricting reforms — and specifically the adoption of redistricting commissions — may also intensify , illustrated by the adoption of Amendment 3 in Missouri and challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How these opposing forces will play out over the next decade is an open question , but we are certain they will combine to keep issues of partisan gerrymandering in the spotlight for the foreseeable future .

The results of state legislative elections put Republicans in place to be the long-term winners of the election of 2020.
Election Day delivered a presidential victory for the Democratic Party and narrowed the partisan split in the U.S. House and Senate. But it was nevertheless a victory for Republicans in the battle every decade to draw state and congressional districts that favor their party.
Beginning in 2021, states will begin redrawing electoral boundaries for U.S. House districts and state legislative districts, using the results of the 2020 census to determine the partisan composition of Congress and statehouses through 2030.
Despite national Democratic success, the results of state legislative elections put Republicans in place to be the long-term winners of the election of 2020.
Legislative Control Is Key
In most states, the legislature is responsible for drawing Congressional district boundaries, and it is common that the majority party draws the lines to give the advantage to its party members, a practice called gerrymandering. In most of these states, the governor can veto legislative maps, but it’s common to have a governor from the same party as dominates the legislature.
In the 2010 elections, Republicans gained unified control of 17 of the 30 legislatures that then had sole district mapmaking responsibility. And only two of those states, Minnesota and Missouri, had Democratic governors. All those legislatures, which collectively redrew 190 congressional districts, helped produce a congressional map that has been widely regarded as a pro-Republican gerrymander.
Republican-controlled legislatures in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, for example, produced maps that ultimately awarded Republicans with two-thirds of their state’s congressional seats despite the party capturing less than 50% of the statewide vote in the next federal election. These and similarly gerrymandered state maps helped the Republican Party maintain their 2010 majority in the House of Representatives, although Democratic candidates won a higher number of votes nationwide in 2012.
Republicans Set to Dominate Redistricting
Republicans continue to dominate statehouses in the wake of the 2020 state legislative elections. Democrats had hoped to flip partisan control of at least one legislative chamber in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Texas, where they could exert greater control over the upcoming redistricting process. But they didn’t flip any legislative chambers in their favor — and lost control of both chambers of the New Hampshire statehouse.
In the 2021 legislative season, Republicans will have unified control of 20 of the 28 legislatures that retain mapmaking responsibility. Democrats will control just seven. Power will be split only in Minnesota, where Republicans hold the majority in the Senate and Democrats control the House.
In seven states, Democrats will control the process, which will give them a smaller effect on the national congressional results. As a result of their greater control over district lines, Republicans may be advantaged in the 2022 House elections. But there are some forces that could counter the possibility of pro-Republican gerrymandering — including the states that have taken mapmaking power away from their partisan legislators.
The Future of Redistricting
In 2018, popular referenda in Colorado, Michigan and Utah created redistricting commissions that are independent from the legislatures. And in November 2020, Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to amend the Constitution to create a bipartisan redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens.
In addition, Democratic governors in states where Republicans control both legislative chambers, such as Kentucky, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, may veto plans that contain egregious partisan gerrymanders — which would likely throw mapmaking responsibility to the state courts.
There are also forces pushing to preserve more partisan redistricting processes. On Nov. 3, Missouri voters narrowly approved a provision that takes redistricting out of the hands of a nonpartisan demographer and places it instead in the hands of a political commission appointed by the governor.
The measure also says districts will be drawn according to the rule of “one person, one vote” — which some believe may mean Missouri will draw its districts not based on total population, but only on the number of eligible voters. That highlights a growing controversy about whether to count noncitizens and others who are ineligible to vote, rather than the total population, for the purposes of creating electoral districts. Using total population is the current method, followed since the nation’s founding.
People seeking to battle partisan gerrymandering can no longer seek help from federal courts, which are barred from taking those cases by a 2019 Supreme Court decision that declared federal courts couldn’t review claims of partisan gerrymandering.
Republicans may be poised to launch another round of partisan gerrymandered districts that will last another decade, but 2020 is not 2010. Fewer states will have legislators draw district lines. Democratic governors may keep Republican-dominanted legislatures in check. Grassroots movements and activist groups battling against partisan gerrymandering have attracted high-profile support, such as from Eric Holder, a former U.S. attorney general in the Obama administration.
Opposition to redistricting reforms — and specifically the adoption of redistricting commissions — may also intensify, illustrated by the adoption of Amendment 3 in Missouri and challenges to Michigan’s new redistricting commission. How these opposing forces will play out over the next decade is an open question, but we are certain they will combine to keep issues of partisan gerrymandering in the spotlight for the foreseeable future.
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--2020-11-26--Corporate Media Sources Within the Democratic Party Lean Toward the Right

Janine Jackson : Seventy percent of Republicans don ’ t think the elections were free and fair , according to Politico .
“ A stark rise , ” they note — perhaps unnecessarily — from the 35 % that felt that way before Trump lost .
There are surely multiple , complicated reasons for that .
One may be that they ’ ve been insufficiently disabused by corporate media that will rhetorically hold up Biden ’ s votes alongside Trump ’ s threats and delusions — because both sides , after all , “ see a path ” to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that for years “ balanced ” evidence of real voter suppression with empty claims of voter fraud , as if it would be unfair to acknowledge that one side reflected reality and the other didn ’ t , as if it weren ’ t for them to say .
Now , even with an acceptance of a Biden victory , election results are being treated as a kind of Rorschach , and in that circumstance , we know that certain interpretations tend to carry the day .
Joining us to talk about corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FAIR senior analyst for election 2020 Julie Hollar .
She joins us now by phone from Brooklyn .
Welcome back to “ CounterSpin , ” Julie Hollar .
Julie Hollar : Thanks for having me , Janine .
It ’ s like no matter what happens , elites — including elite media — try to cram it into the same frame .
The lesson is always the same .
Your latest for FAIR.org describes a post-election phenomenon that listeners will recognize from today ’ s headlines , but it ’ s not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about there ?
The last article I wrote is about this phone call that happened right after the election among House Democrats .
This was a private conversation — but it got leaked to the press — in which the right-wing of the party started to just go off on the left wing , blaming the left for the election being not the blowout that they had hoped .
There was a lot of expectation going into election night that Democrats would boost their House majority , they would get the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ d get a lot of state legislatures — and , very quickly , it turned out that that just didn ’ t come to pass .
So there was a lot of finger-pointing that started from the right toward the left , saying , “ You know the reason that this didn ’ t play out how we thought is because you on the left were talking about ‘ socialism , ’ you were talking about Medicare for All , you were talking about the Green New Deal , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that made it hard for us to get reelected , to get new seats , to win the swing districts .
This is a moment of reckoning , we need to move forward learning from our mistakes , and the mistakes were all yours.
” The left wing of the party , represented by folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , shot back saying , “ Listen , we don ’ t need to be pointing fingers right now , but if you ’ re going to start doing that , let ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at what happened , and let ’ s look at how the campaigning was done .
Were we really all-in on digital ?
Were we using best practices ?
We weren ’ t knocking on doors , largely because of the pandemic , but was that a mistake ?
” There were some progressives who did decide to continue knocking on doors in a safe way , and there were a lot of decisions that were made about campaigning that one could look at .
One could also look at the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left has been pushing are in fact very popular , so the idea that this is what sunk the Democrats just seems very disingenuous .
So you think , “ OK , well this is a story about what went wrong , right ?
What went wrong for the Democrats ?
” It ’ s going to take a while to give a full accounting of this , but for the major establishment press , instead of trying to actually figure out whether the right wing here is correct , they basically just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little space for the left to defend itself , but with the Washington Post article that I looked at , the balance of sources in this article was remarkable .
They quoted and paraphrased 14 sources that blamed the left , and that was counterbalanced by four sources that defended the left .
It ’ s also really interesting to note that a lot of those sources were anonymous — the right -wing Democrat sources were anonymous — and twice they were described just as “ Democrats , ” rather than as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ” or “ moderate Democrats.
” So there was a line that the Post included that was something like , “ Privately , Democrats have said that the answer is obvious — it ’ s because the party ’ s running too far to the left.
” Well , do “ Democrats ” say that ?
Do all Democrats say that ?
This is one of the things that just drives me insane about media coverage like this , and should drive everyone insane , I think , who believes in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you characterize all Democrats as having this position , ; it erases the left wing of the party and it makes it seem like the legitimate position of the party is the one that ’ s voiced by its right .
It totally marginalizes the left wing of the party .
This is happening because this is who the corporate reporters are feeling closest to .
This is who ’ s in their Rolodex .
I ’ m looking back at the interview that we did about election coverage during the primaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar script .
This is baked into the media coverage , and has been forever , because this is who the sources are .
Corporate media sources in the Democratic Party — they just tend to be the more right-wing , the more establishment sources .
That ’ s who they ’ re comfortable calling , that ’ s who they talk to all the time , that ’ s probably who they hang out with playing softball on the weekends , for all we know .
Right .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not just editorially , but through these kind of sourcing tricks and tropes in reporting , as you ’ re just describing — the idea that talking about Medicare for All is too radical , or a Green New Deal is a step too far and turns voters off , and then you ’ ll turn the page and read about a poll that says that in fact those ideas are popular .
And I guess that ’ s one of the things that I resent most about elite media coverage on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to us about us , even though we know they know it .
So how can you be fronting this argument that these ideas are so unpopular , when they know from their own polling data that in fact these ideas are very popular ?
Whose voices , whose opinions are you surrounded by every day ?
That becomes what you think “ normal ” is .
Because they have all of their centrist sources , this is the chatter around them , this is just the conventional wisdom .
It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t matter what the people say .
It ’ s that Washington conventional wisdom says that Medicare for All is a dealbreaker , that the Green New Deal is dead in the water .
The other thing that I pointed out in my article is , who are these candidates funded by ?
They never talk about that .
They never revealed that .
In these articles , you get a quote from a representative talking about how we can ’ t do Medicare for All , and how we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run on Medicare for All , and not talking about the fact that this representative , James Clyburn , has taken more money from pharma than any other senator or House representative within the last 10 years .
So , of course , what ’ s he going to be saying ?
But if readers don ’ t have this information , how are they to judge his motivations when he ’ s speaking ?
In September , when Trump said he might try and stay in office even if he lost , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Trump Declines to Promise Peaceful Transfer of Power After Election , ” like that ’ s a thing presidents sometimes do , they just decline to promise .
Now I ’ m reading headlines like “ Experts Say There Isn ’ t a Constitutional Path Forward for Trump to Remain President , ” which I suppose is meant to be reassuring , but what I take from it is — it ’ s OK with media , and media are telling me to get ready to be OK with the idea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what “ experts say.
” You know , I ’ m not calmed by that .
And you shouldn ’ t be .
It ’ s like , if we just keep marching forward and we keep saying , “ OK , Biden won , ” and we give both sides , but as long as we keep saying that Biden won , then it ’ s just going to have to happen , even if we keep on giving Trump a platform here and giving this idea that , well , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he says he does .
Even by repeating those claims , the reporting on the party in general supporting him , I feel like this is just really dangerous .
We ’ re not talking about a coup in the classic sense , but we ’ re talking about something that ’ s maybe even more dangerous , because it flies under the radar a bit more , because it ’ s the kind of thing that is slow-moving , it just sort of happens .
You don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just have to have the party refuse to acknowledge the results of an election , and the corporate media that just let experts talk and lets the right and the left talk at each other , and never really comes out and says on the front page , “ They ’ re undermining democracy .
They ’ re stealing an election.
” Stop making it sound as though it ’ s red ideas versus blue ideas , when at this point we ’ re really talking about whether we want this democratic project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue , or whether we want to keep eroding it and eroding it until we pave the path for it to really go a whole other way .
I feel like journalists have a special role in really putting a stake in the ground on that , and I ’ m not seeing it .
There ’ s just too much fear .
For so many years , there ’ s just this ingrained idea , particularly in these outlets that are perceived as liberal — which , as anyone who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would disagree with that characterization — but this idea that you have to at least make efforts toward the other side , to believe that you are giving them a fair shake , you know ?
It ’ s the false balance that is putting us into a dangerous position , because you don ’ t want to give any sort of balance to the autocratic side here .
All right , we ’ ll end on that note .
We ’ ve been speaking with FAIR senior analyst for election 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you so much , Julie , for joining us this week on the show .
You ’ re welcome .
Thanks for having me .

Then-former vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, seen through a news camera viewfinder speaks to a crowd at a Democratic National Committee event at Flourish in Atlanta on June 6, 2019, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dustin Chambers / Getty Images
Janine Jackson interviewed FAIR’s Julie Hollar about post-election media for the November 13, 2020, episode of “CounterSpin.” This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: Seventy percent of Republicans don’t think the elections were free and fair, according to Politico. “A stark rise,” they note — perhaps unnecessarily — from the 35% that felt that way before Trump lost.
There are surely multiple, complicated reasons for that. One may be that they’ve been insufficiently disabused by corporate media that will rhetorically hold up Biden’s votes alongside Trump’s threats and delusions — because both sides, after all, “see a path” to the White House. The same press corps that for years “balanced” evidence of real voter suppression with empty claims of voter fraud, as if it would be unfair to acknowledge that one side reflected reality and the other didn’t, as if it weren’t for them to say.
Now, even with an acceptance of a Biden victory, election results are being treated as a kind of Rorschach, and in that circumstance, we know that certain interpretations tend to carry the day.
Joining us to talk about corporate media’s post–Election Day performance is FAIR senior analyst for election 2020 Julie Hollar. She joins us now by phone from Brooklyn. Welcome back to “CounterSpin,” Julie Hollar.
Julie Hollar: Thanks for having me, Janine.
It’s like no matter what happens, elites — including elite media — try to cram it into the same frame. The lesson is always the same. Your latest for FAIR.org describes a post-election phenomenon that listeners will recognize from today’s headlines, but it’s not really new at all. What are you talking about there?
The last article I wrote is about this phone call that happened right after the election among House Democrats. This was a private conversation — but it got leaked to the press — in which the right-wing of the party started to just go off on the left wing, blaming the left for the election being not the blowout that they had hoped.
There was a lot of expectation going into election night that Democrats would boost their House majority, they would get the Senate, they’d get the presidency, they’d get a lot of state legislatures — and, very quickly, it turned out that that just didn’t come to pass.
So there was a lot of finger-pointing that started from the right toward the left, saying, “You know the reason that this didn’t play out how we thought is because you on the left were talking about ‘socialism,’ you were talking about Medicare for All, you were talking about the Green New Deal, you were talking about all sorts of things that made it hard for us to get reelected, to get new seats, to win the swing districts. This is a moment of reckoning, we need to move forward learning from our mistakes, and the mistakes were all yours.”
The left wing of the party, represented by folks like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, shot back saying, “Listen, we don’t need to be pointing fingers right now, but if you’re going to start doing that, let’s really step back in and take a look at what happened, and let’s look at how the campaigning was done. Were we really all-in on digital? Were we using best practices? We weren’t knocking on doors, largely because of the pandemic, but was that a mistake?” There were some progressives who did decide to continue knocking on doors in a safe way, and there were a lot of decisions that were made about campaigning that one could look at.
One could also look at the fact that a lot of these positions that the left has been pushing are in fact very popular, so the idea that this is what sunk the Democrats just seems very disingenuous.
So you think, “OK, well this is a story about what went wrong, right? What went wrong for the Democrats?” It’s going to take a while to give a full accounting of this, but for the major establishment press, instead of trying to actually figure out whether the right wing here is correct, they basically just republish all the accusations. They give a little space for the left to defend itself, but with the Washington Post article that I looked at, the balance of sources in this article was remarkable. They quoted and paraphrased 14 sources that blamed the left, and that was counterbalanced by four sources that defended the left.
It’s also really interesting to note that a lot of those sources were anonymous — the right -wing Democrat sources were anonymous — and twice they were described just as “Democrats,” rather than as what they like to call “centrist Democrats” or “moderate Democrats.” So there was a line that the Post included that was something like, “Privately, Democrats have said that the answer is obvious — it’s because the party’s running too far to the left.”
Well, do “Democrats” say that? Do all Democrats say that? This is one of the things that just drives me insane about media coverage like this, and should drive everyone insane, I think, who believes in a free and fair press, is that you characterize all Democrats as having this position,; it erases the left wing of the party and it makes it seem like the legitimate position of the party is the one that’s voiced by its right. It totally marginalizes the left wing of the party.
This is happening because this is who the corporate reporters are feeling closest to. This is who’s in their Rolodex. I’m looking back at the interview that we did about election coverage during the primaries, and it’s just such a familiar script. This is baked into the media coverage, and has been forever, because this is who the sources are. Corporate media sources in the Democratic Party — they just tend to be the more right-wing, the more establishment sources. That’s who they’re comfortable calling, that’s who they talk to all the time, that’s probably who they hang out with playing softball on the weekends, for all we know.
Right. It’s also almost vertigo-inducing how media will pump up — not just editorially, but through these kind of sourcing tricks and tropes in reporting, as you’re just describing — the idea that talking about Medicare for All is too radical, or a Green New Deal is a step too far and turns voters off, and then you’ll turn the page and read about a poll that says that in fact those ideas are popular. And I guess that’s one of the things that I resent most about elite media coverage on this, is the way they lie to us about us, even though we know they know it. So how can you be fronting this argument that these ideas are so unpopular, when they know from their own polling data that in fact these ideas are very popular?
Whose voices, whose opinions are you surrounded by every day? That becomes what you think “normal” is. Because they have all of their centrist sources, this is the chatter around them, this is just the conventional wisdom. It doesn’t matter what the polls say, it doesn’t matter what the people say. It’s that Washington conventional wisdom says that Medicare for All is a dealbreaker, that the Green New Deal is dead in the water.
The other thing that I pointed out in my article is, who are these candidates funded by? They never talk about that. They never revealed that. In these articles, you get a quote from a representative talking about how we can’t do Medicare for All, and how we’re going to lose if we run on Medicare for All, and not talking about the fact that this representative, James Clyburn, has taken more money from pharma than any other senator or House representative within the last 10 years. So, of course, what’s he going to be saying? But if readers don’t have this information, how are they to judge his motivations when he’s speaking?
In September, when Trump said he might try and stay in office even if he lost, we saw headlines like NPR‘s “Trump Declines to Promise Peaceful Transfer of Power After Election,” like that’s a thing presidents sometimes do, they just decline to promise. Now I’m reading headlines like “Experts Say There Isn’t a Constitutional Path Forward for Trump to Remain President,” which I suppose is meant to be reassuring, but what I take from it is — it’s OK with media, and media are telling me to get ready to be OK with the idea, that maybe this could come down to what “experts say.” You know, I’m not calmed by that.
And you shouldn’t be. It’s like, if we just keep marching forward and we keep saying, “OK, Biden won,” and we give both sides, but as long as we keep saying that Biden won, then it’s just going to have to happen, even if we keep on giving Trump a platform here and giving this idea that, well, he doesn’t really have a path, but he says he does. Even by repeating those claims, the reporting on the party in general supporting him, I feel like this is just really dangerous. We’re not talking about a coup in the classic sense, but we’re talking about something that’s maybe even more dangerous, because it flies under the radar a bit more, because it’s the kind of thing that is slow-moving, it just sort of happens. You don’t have to have a military takeover. You just have to have the party refuse to acknowledge the results of an election, and the corporate media that just let experts talk and lets the right and the left talk at each other, and never really comes out and says on the front page, “They’re undermining democracy. They’re stealing an election.”
Stop making it sound as though it’s red ideas versus blue ideas, when at this point we’re really talking about whether we want this democratic project, such as it is, to continue, or whether we want to keep eroding it and eroding it until we pave the path for it to really go a whole other way. I feel like journalists have a special role in really putting a stake in the ground on that, and I’m not seeing it.
There’s just too much fear. For so many years, there’s just this ingrained idea, particularly in these outlets that are perceived as liberal — which, as anyone who’s listened to us ever knows, we would disagree with that characterization — but this idea that you have to at least make efforts toward the other side, to believe that you are giving them a fair shake, you know? It’s the false balance that is putting us into a dangerous position, because you don’t want to give any sort of balance to the autocratic side here.
All right, we’ll end on that note. We’ve been speaking with FAIR senior analyst for election 2020. She’s Julie Hollar. Thank you so much, Julie, for joining us this week on the show.
You’re welcome. Thanks for having me.
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--2020-11-26--The Catholic Church Is Responding to Indigenous Protest With Exorcisms

On this day , Indigenous activists in New England and beyond are observing a National Day of Mourning to mark the theft of land , cultural assault and genocide that followed after the anchoring of the Mayflower on Wampanoag land in 1620 — a genocide that is erased within conventional “ Thanksgiving Day ” narratives .
The acts of mourning and resistance taking place today build on the energy of Indigenous People ’ s Day 2020 , which was also a day of uprising .
On October 11 , 2020 , also called “ Indigenous People ’ s Day of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took part in actions such as de-monumenting — the toppling of statues of individuals dedicated to racial nation-building .
In response to Indigenous-led efforts that demanded land back and the toppling of statues , Catholic Church leaders in Oregon and California deemed it necessary to perform exorcisms , thereby casting Indigenous protest as demonic .
The toppled statues included President Abraham Lincoln , President Theodore Roosevelt and Father Junípero Serra , who founded California ’ s mission system ( 1769-1834 ) and was canonized into sainthood by the Catholic Church and Pope Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose statues were toppled have in common ?
They perpetrated and promoted devastating violence against Native peoples .
Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the largest mass execution in United States history when 38 Dakota were hanged in 1862 after being found guilty for their involvement in what is known as the “ Minnesota Uprising.
” Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1886 in New York that would have made today ’ s white supremacists blush when he declared : “ I don ’ t go as far as to think that the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I believe nine out of every ten are… ” This was not his only foray in promoting racial genocide .
Junípero Serra is known for having committed cruel punishments against the Indians of California and enslaved them as part of Spain ’ s genocidal conquest .
Last month , “ Land Back ” and “ Dakota 38 ” were scrawled on the base of the now-toppled Lincoln statue in Portland , Oregon .
The political statements and demands for land return reveal a Native decolonial spirit based in resistance continuing through multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day of Rage ” came after months of protests in Portland in support of Black Lives Matter .
The resistance enacted in Portland coincides with demands for both abolition ( the end of racialized policing and imprisonment ) and decolonization ( the return of land and regeneration of life outside of colonialism ) .
Both of these notions encompass a multifaceted imagining of life beyond white supremacy .
In San Rafael , California , Native activists gathered at the Spanish mission that had been the site of California Indian enslavement .
Activists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Marin , first poured red paint on the statue of Serra and then pulled it down with ropes , while other protesters held signs that read : “ Land Back Now ” and “ We Stand on Unceded Land – Decolonization means # LandBack.
” The statue broke at the ankles , leaving only the feet on the base .
What was even more provocative than the toppling of the statues by Native activists and their accomplices , was the response by the Catholic Church , which not only condemned the actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiritually chastised them .
In both Portland and San Rafael , the reaction by the Church was to perform exorcisms .
The purpose of an exorcism , according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , is to expel demons or “ the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.
” In other words , Native activism and demands for land back were deemed blasphemous and evil by two archbishops and were determined to require exorcism .
In Portland , Archbishop Alexander K. Sample led 225 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park where he prayed a rosary for peace and conducted an exorcism on October 17 , six days after the “ Indigenous People ’ s Day of Rage.
” Archbishop Sample stated that there was no better time to come together to pray for peace than in the wake of social unrest and on the eve of the elections .
His exorcism was a direct response to Indigenous-led efforts that demanded land back .
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone held an exorcism on the same day as the one performed in Portland and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statue in San Rafael .
In his performance of the exorcism , he prayed that God would purify the mission of evil spirits as well as the hearts of those who perpetrated blasphemy .
Was he responding to a “ demonic possession ” or was he exorcising the political motivations of those he did not agree with ?
Perhaps both , as he also stated that the toppling of the statue was an attack on the Catholic faith that took place on their own property .
However , the mission is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through conquest and missionization .
The conquest of the Americas by European nations was , as Saint Serra had deemed his own work , a “ spiritual conquest.
” From the doctrine of discovery to manifest destiny , the possession of Native land was rationalized as divine – from God .
Those who threaten colonial possession are attacking the theological rationalization of possession , not their faith .
Demands for land back interfere with the doctrine that enabled Native land to be exorcised from them .
Archbishop Cordileone ’ s exorcism was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stolen from Indigenous people long ago , and Archbishop Sample ’ s was in the maintenance of peace and the status quo of Native dispossession .
With a majority-Christian population in the United States and other nations in the Americas , demands for the return of land and decolonization have more to reckon with than racial injustice and white supremacy .
Christians must also consider how dominant strains of Christian theology rationalized conquest and its ongoing structures of dispossession .
Can a religion , made up of many sects , shift its framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its rationalization ?
Can we come together to overturn a racialized theological doctrine that functioned through violence and was adopted into a nation ’ s legal system ?
Can we imagine life beyond rage and the racialized spiritual possession of stolen land ?
The Doctrine of Discovery was the primary international law developed in the 15th and 16th centuries through a series of papal bulls ( Catholic decrees ) that divided the Americas for white European conquest and authorized the enslavement of non-Christians .
In 1823 the Doctrine of Discovery was cited in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M ’ Intosh .
Chief Justice John Marshall declared in his ruling that Indians only held occupancy rights to land — ownership belonged to the European nation that discovered it .
This case further legalized the theft of Native lands .
It continues to be a foundational principal of U.S. property law and has been cited as recently as 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court ( City of Sherrill v. Oneida Nation of Indians ) to diminish Native American land rights .
In 2009 the Episcopal Church passed a resolution that repudiated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Christian denomination to do so and has since been followed by several other denominations , including the Anglican Church of Canada ( 2010 ) , the Religious Society of Friends/Quakers ( 2009 and 2012 ) , the World Council of Churches ( 2012 ) , the United Methodist Church ( 2012 ) , the United Church of Christ ( 2013 ) and the Mennonite Church ( 2014 ) .
Decolonization and land return are as possible as repudiating the legal justification of land theft .
Social , cultural , governmental and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land remains — in the hands of the dispossessors .
When our faith is held above what we know is true — we will prolong doing what is right .
Native peoples are not ancient peoples of the past only remembered on days such as Thanksgiving , just as our mourning is not all that we are .
Native peoples are a myriad of things , including activists who demand land back — which is not a demonic request .
Our land can be returned , and we can work together to heal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dispossession .

At least two archbishops viewed legitimate Native demands for land back as an “evil” best dealt with through exorcism.
On this day, Indigenous activists in New England and beyond are observing a National Day of Mourning to mark the theft of land, cultural assault and genocide that followed after the anchoring of the Mayflower on Wampanoag land in 1620 — a genocide that is erased within conventional “Thanksgiving Day” narratives.
The acts of mourning and resistance taking place today build on the energy of Indigenous People’s Day 2020, which was also a day of uprising. On October 11, 2020, also called “Indigenous People’s Day of Rage,” participants around the country took part in actions such as de-monumenting — the toppling of statues of individuals dedicated to racial nation-building.
In response to Indigenous-led efforts that demanded land back and the toppling of statues, Catholic Church leaders in Oregon and California deemed it necessary to perform exorcisms, thereby casting Indigenous protest as demonic.
The toppled statues included President Abraham Lincoln, President Theodore Roosevelt and Father Junípero Serra, who founded California’s mission system (1769-1834) and was canonized into sainthood by the Catholic Church and Pope Francis in 2015.
What do these leaders whose statues were toppled have in common? They perpetrated and promoted devastating violence against Native peoples.
Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the largest mass execution in United States history when 38 Dakota were hanged in 1862 after being found guilty for their involvement in what is known as the “Minnesota Uprising.”
Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech in 1886 in New York that would have made today’s white supremacists blush when he declared: “I don’t go as far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are…” This was not his only foray in promoting racial genocide.
Junípero Serra is known for having committed cruel punishments against the Indians of California and enslaved them as part of Spain’s genocidal conquest.
Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the largest mass execution in United States history.
Last month, “Land Back” and “Dakota 38” were scrawled on the base of the now-toppled Lincoln statue in Portland, Oregon. The political statements and demands for land return reveal a Native decolonial spirit based in resistance continuing through multiple generations.
The “Indigenous People’s Day of Rage” came after months of protests in Portland in support of Black Lives Matter. The resistance enacted in Portland coincides with demands for both abolition (the end of racialized policing and imprisonment) and decolonization (the return of land and regeneration of life outside of colonialism). Both of these notions encompass a multifaceted imagining of life beyond white supremacy.
In San Rafael, California, Native activists gathered at the Spanish mission that had been the site of California Indian enslavement. Activists, who included members of the Coast Miwok of Marin, first poured red paint on the statue of Serra and then pulled it down with ropes, while other protesters held signs that read: “Land Back Now” and “We Stand on Unceded Land – Decolonization means #LandBack.” The statue broke at the ankles, leaving only the feet on the base.
What was even more provocative than the toppling of the statues by Native activists and their accomplices, was the response by the Catholic Church, which not only condemned the actions of the Native activists, but also spiritually chastised them. In both Portland and San Rafael, the reaction by the Church was to perform exorcisms.
The purpose of an exorcism, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is to expel demons or “the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.”
The mission is only Church property because of Native dispossession through conquest and missionization.
In other words, Native activism and demands for land back were deemed blasphemous and evil by two archbishops and were determined to require exorcism.
In Portland, Archbishop Alexander K. Sample led 225 members of his congregation to a city park where he prayed a rosary for peace and conducted an exorcism on October 17, six days after the “Indigenous People’s Day of Rage.” Archbishop Sample stated that there was no better time to come together to pray for peace than in the wake of social unrest and on the eve of the elections. His exorcism was a direct response to Indigenous-led efforts that demanded land back.
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone held an exorcism on the same day as the one performed in Portland and after the toppling of Saint Junipero Serra’s statue in San Rafael. In his performance of the exorcism, he prayed that God would purify the mission of evil spirits as well as the hearts of those who perpetrated blasphemy. Was he responding to a “demonic possession” or was he exorcising the political motivations of those he did not agree with? Perhaps both, as he also stated that the toppling of the statue was an attack on the Catholic faith that took place on their own property. However, the mission is only Church property because of Native dispossession through conquest and missionization.
The conquest of the Americas by European nations was, as Saint Serra had deemed his own work, a “spiritual conquest.” From the doctrine of discovery to manifest destiny, the possession of Native land was rationalized as divine – from God. Those who threaten colonial possession are attacking the theological rationalization of possession, not their faith.
Demands for land back interfere with the doctrine that enabled Native land to be exorcised from them. Archbishop Cordileone’s exorcism was in the maintenance of property that had been stolen from Indigenous people long ago, and Archbishop Sample’s was in the maintenance of peace and the status quo of Native dispossession.
Christians must also consider how dominant strains of Christian theology rationalized conquest and its ongoing structures of dispossession.
With a majority-Christian population in the United States and other nations in the Americas, demands for the return of land and decolonization have more to reckon with than racial injustice and white supremacy. Christians must also consider how dominant strains of Christian theology rationalized conquest and its ongoing structures of dispossession. Can a religion, made up of many sects, shift its framework to help end continued Native dispossession and its rationalization? Can we come together to overturn a racialized theological doctrine that functioned through violence and was adopted into a nation’s legal system? Can we imagine life beyond rage and the racialized spiritual possession of stolen land?
The Doctrine of Discovery was the primary international law developed in the 15th and 16th centuries through a series of papal bulls (Catholic decrees) that divided the Americas for white European conquest and authorized the enslavement of non-Christians. In 1823 the Doctrine of Discovery was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. M’Intosh. Chief Justice John Marshall declared in his ruling that Indians only held occupancy rights to land — ownership belonged to the European nation that discovered it. This case further legalized the theft of Native lands. It continues to be a foundational principal of U.S. property law and has been cited as recently as 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court (City of Sherrill v. Oneida Nation of Indians) to diminish Native American land rights.
In 2009 the Episcopal Church passed a resolution that repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery. It was the first Christian denomination to do so and has since been followed by several other denominations, including the Anglican Church of Canada (2010), the Religious Society of Friends/Quakers (2009 and 2012), the World Council of Churches (2012), the United Methodist Church (2012), the United Church of Christ (2013) and the Mennonite Church (2014).
Decolonization and land return are as possible as repudiating the legal justification of land theft. Social, cultural, governmental and economic systems are constantly changing, but the land remains — in the hands of the dispossessors. When our faith is held above what we know is true — we will prolong doing what is right.
Native peoples are not ancient peoples of the past only remembered on days such as Thanksgiving, just as our mourning is not all that we are. Native peoples are a myriad of things, including activists who demand land back — which is not a demonic request. Our land can be returned, and we can work together to heal and imagine a future beyond white supremacy and dispossession.
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--2020-11-26--Hundreds of Thousands of Students Traveled Home This Week Amid COVID Spike

After a fall spent studying on ghost-town campuses , hundreds of thousands of college students headed home this week — joining millions of travelers passing through airports and making pit stops in places they might not otherwise visit , likely contributing to an exponential rise of COVID cases in the United States .
No more than a handful of colleges have an “ exit plan ” for students , Inside Higher Ed reports , and plans vary significantly among schools .
The lack of uniform vacation policy and testing protocol has created mixed messages for students , leaving many uncertain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping families safe .
India Sanford is a 20-year-old junior at the University of Arizona who recently flew home to Philadelphia .
At first , Sanford thought coming home was a bad idea , worrying that she might expose her 70-year-old grandmother who lives with her family .
“ I thought I might catch it at the airport or on the plane and I would feel so bad if I gave it to anybody at home , ” she told Truthout , scoffing at White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanksgiving plans because the elderly are bound to die soon anyway .
Dr. Rebekah Fenton , an adolescent medicine fellow at Northwestern ’ s Feinberg School of Medicine and a health equity activist , said it is essential that college students and their families follow the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations on holiday celebrations , which include postponing nonessential travel .
But for many college students , traveling home is essential due to dorm closures or limited or no access to food over the holidays .
“ Students shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may be a necessity , ” Fenton told Truthout .
Like many colleges , the University of Arizona has announced plans to shift all classes online after Thanksgiving break , and has “ strongly encouraged ” students who head home this week not to return campus .
The university offers rapid antigen testing and results are available within an hour after taking the test , which university officials have suggested students take 10 days before traveling in case of a need to isolate .
Sanford says she ’ s satisfied with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances , adding that she thinks only a strict national lockdown , perhaps aided by paying people to stay at home , could have helped avoid the campus shutdowns students and faculty now face .
Sanford pointed specifically to New Zealand as an example , where a first wave of COVID was effectively eliminated in June , following a stringent lockdown .
Any uptick in travel may increase the probability of contributing to overall transmission dynamics .
A study tracking mobility and COVID-19 transmission around the Lunar New Year in China in February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in travel volume corresponded with a 7 percent rise in the number of infected cases in a given city .
The authors note that disease diffusion occurred in two stages in Chinese cities around the holiday : between cities before the Lunar New Year and within cities after the Lunar New Year , and particularly among locations with more intercity travel between Wuhan , where the virus was first identified .
The University of Arizona ’ s protocol reflects a shift toward both public and private colleges announcing plans to turn to online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On November 18 , a coalition of governors of seven Northeast states called on residential colleges and universities to fully shift to online instruction to limit travel back to campus and to test students before they leave .
But fewer than a third of colleges have mandated testing , according to Davidson University professor and founding director of the College Crisis Initiative , a new effort to track higher education institution responses to the pandemic .
Plenty of residential schools across the country , many of them private , have taken less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tia Thomas is an 18-year-old freshman at Valparaiso University , a private college outside of Gary , Indiana .
On November 11 , Valparaiso University brought all classes online , giving students the option to go home or to finish the semester on campus .
Thomas told Truthout she wanted to get tested before leaving for peace of mind , especially because her mother , who planned to drive her home , is immunocompromised .
But the majority of available testing , both on and off campus , was only offered to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a referral from a doctor , neither of which Thomas had .
The one location she found that offered asymptomatic tests was full .
“ So , I really don ’ t have any option other than just going home without getting tested , ” she said , noting that there is a free testing site in her Wisconsin town , where she ’ ll go upon arrival .
Though it ’ s an important risk-reduction strategy , testing is not a foolproof plan for safe celebration and cohabitation , as Wired has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brookings Institution , it may actually embolden behaviors that increase transmission .
Some travelers mistakenly think that if they test negative before departure and wear a mask throughout travel , they are guaranteed to be “ COVID-free.
” Thomas , who is studying nursing and says the pandemic has not discouraged her from pursuing a career in the medical field , explained that complications around getting tested before traveling has been eye-opening .
“ It ’ s made me realize that health insurance and the whole American medical thing — it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said , referring to friends she ’ s in touch with who live in Turkey and Spain , which both have universal health care systems .
Proponents of single-payer health care argue a Medicare for All-like model in the U.S. may have helped save lives .
While Fenton agrees universal health care may have mitigated the degree of the health crisis the U.S. is experiencing , larger structural issues are more to blame .
“ Many of the effects we are seeing are not due to health care quality or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people live and work , ” she said .
“ Yet , a society that values universal health care may also value making sure that everyone has access to housing , clean air and water , a living wage , sick leave and other factors that affect health.
” Thomas and Sanford ’ s families have both decided to cancel their normal Thanksgiving plans , which entail gathering with 15 to 25 extended family members , many from out of state in Thomas ’ s case .
Instead , both students will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who they say agree about the holiday precautions .
But many families around the U.S. are taking a less cautious approach .
According to polling by C.S .
Mott Children ’ s Hospital of 1,500 parents , one-third say celebrating Thanksgiving is worth the risk of catching or spreading COVID .
That approach is rooted in American exceptionalism , scholars have argued .
In contrast , it ’ s a common practice for people throughout the world to observe holidays far from their loved ones , Syracuse University Geography Professor Farhana Sultana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observing Thanksgiving and Christmas in the United States should be no different .
Sultana pointed out that the largest pilgrimage in the world , the Hajj , was canceled earlier this year .
“ This pandemic needs to be reined in , so both individual choices matter alongside formal policy advice and institutional mechanisms that promote pandemic response , ” she said .
Much like the climate crisis , which Sultana studies , solving the COVID crisis will require both individual and system-wide interventions .
Thomas , the Valparaiso University student , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 .
But she has a feeling the Joe Biden administration might swiftly issue stay-at-home orders that could keep her home for weeks , or months .
When asked how she would feel about delaying her return to campus , Thomas said she thinks it would be a good idea .
“ It ’ s sad because I really want to go back , but if having to go on lockdown for that time means I can go back to college normally , or for a longer period of time , then I @ @ @ @ @ @

After a fall spent studying on ghost-town campuses, hundreds of thousands of college students headed home this week — joining millions of travelers passing through airports and making pit stops in places they might not otherwise visit, likely contributing to an exponential rise of COVID cases in the United States. No more than a handful of colleges have an “exit plan” for students, Inside Higher Ed reports, and plans vary significantly among schools. The lack of uniform vacation policy and testing protocol has created mixed messages for students, leaving many uncertain of what their role should be in keeping families safe.
India Sanford is a 20-year-old junior at the University of Arizona who recently flew home to Philadelphia. At first, Sanford thought coming home was a bad idea, worrying that she might expose her 70-year-old grandmother who lives with her family. “I thought I might catch it at the airport or on the plane and I would feel so bad if I gave it to anybody at home,” she told Truthout, scoffing at White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas’s recent comments that Americans should proceed with Thanksgiving plans because the elderly are bound to die soon anyway.
Dr. Rebekah Fenton, an adolescent medicine fellow at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine and a health equity activist, said it is essential that college students and their families follow the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations on holiday celebrations, which include postponing nonessential travel. But for many college students, traveling home is essential due to dorm closures or limited or no access to food over the holidays. “Students shouldn’t feel ashamed for returning home when it may be a necessity,” Fenton told Truthout.
Like many colleges, the University of Arizona has announced plans to shift all classes online after Thanksgiving break, and has “strongly encouraged” students who head home this week not to return campus. The university offers rapid antigen testing and results are available within an hour after taking the test, which university officials have suggested students take 10 days before traveling in case of a need to isolate. Sanford says she’s satisfied with her school’s response, given the circumstances, adding that she thinks only a strict national lockdown, perhaps aided by paying people to stay at home, could have helped avoid the campus shutdowns students and faculty now face. Sanford pointed specifically to New Zealand as an example, where a first wave of COVID was effectively eliminated in June, following a stringent lockdown.
Any uptick in travel may increase the probability of contributing to overall transmission dynamics. A study tracking mobility and COVID-19 transmission around the Lunar New Year in China in February 2020 suggests that a 10 percent increase in travel volume corresponded with a 7 percent rise in the number of infected cases in a given city. The authors note that disease diffusion occurred in two stages in Chinese cities around the holiday: between cities before the Lunar New Year and within cities after the Lunar New Year, and particularly among locations with more intercity travel between Wuhan, where the virus was first identified.
The University of Arizona’s protocol reflects a shift toward both public and private colleges announcing plans to turn to online learning for the remainder of the semester. On November 18, a coalition of governors of seven Northeast states called on residential colleges and universities to fully shift to online instruction to limit travel back to campus and to test students before they leave. But fewer than a third of colleges have mandated testing, according to Davidson University professor and founding director of the College Crisis Initiative, a new effort to track higher education institution responses to the pandemic.
Though it’s an important risk-reduction strategy, testing is not a foolproof plan for safe celebration and cohabitation.
Plenty of residential schools across the country, many of them private, have taken less authoritative stances on testing and travel. Tia Thomas is an 18-year-old freshman at Valparaiso University, a private college outside of Gary, Indiana. On November 11, Valparaiso University brought all classes online, giving students the option to go home or to finish the semester on campus. Thomas told Truthout she wanted to get tested before leaving for peace of mind, especially because her mother, who planned to drive her home, is immunocompromised. But the majority of available testing, both on and off campus, was only offered to people with symptoms or to those who got a referral from a doctor, neither of which Thomas had. The one location she found that offered asymptomatic tests was full. “So, I really don’t have any option other than just going home without getting tested,” she said, noting that there is a free testing site in her Wisconsin town, where she’ll go upon arrival.
Though it’s an important risk-reduction strategy, testing is not a foolproof plan for safe celebration and cohabitation, as Wired has reported. According to research by the Brookings Institution, it may actually embolden behaviors that increase transmission. Some travelers mistakenly think that if they test negative before departure and wear a mask throughout travel, they are guaranteed to be “COVID-free.”
Thomas, who is studying nursing and says the pandemic has not discouraged her from pursuing a career in the medical field, explained that complications around getting tested before traveling has been eye-opening. “It’s made me realize that health insurance and the whole American medical thing — it’s complicated, especially compared to other countries,” she said, referring to friends she’s in touch with who live in Turkey and Spain, which both have universal health care systems.
Proponents of single-payer health care argue a Medicare for All-like model in the U.S. may have helped save lives. While Fenton agrees universal health care may have mitigated the degree of the health crisis the U.S. is experiencing, larger structural issues are more to blame. “Many of the effects we are seeing are not due to health care quality or access but disparities in the environment where people live and work,” she said. “Yet, a society that values universal health care may also value making sure that everyone has access to housing, clean air and water, a living wage, sick leave and other factors that affect health.”
Thomas and Sanford’s families have both decided to cancel their normal Thanksgiving plans, which entail gathering with 15 to 25 extended family members, many from out of state in Thomas’s case. Instead, both students will be celebrating the holiday with immediate family members, who they say agree about the holiday precautions. But many families around the U.S. are taking a less cautious approach. According to polling by C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital of 1,500 parents, one-third say celebrating Thanksgiving is worth the risk of catching or spreading COVID.
That approach is rooted in American exceptionalism, scholars have argued. In contrast, it’s a common practice for people throughout the world to observe holidays far from their loved ones, Syracuse University Geography Professor Farhana Sultana told Truthout over email, suggesting that observing Thanksgiving and Christmas in the United States should be no different. Sultana pointed out that the largest pilgrimage in the world, the Hajj, was canceled earlier this year. “This pandemic needs to be reined in, so both individual choices matter alongside formal policy advice and institutional mechanisms that promote pandemic response,” she said. Much like the climate crisis, which Sultana studies, solving the COVID crisis will require both individual and system-wide interventions.
Thomas, the Valparaiso University student, is supposed to return to campus on January 25. But she has a feeling the Joe Biden administration might swiftly issue stay-at-home orders that could keep her home for weeks, or months. When asked how she would feel about delaying her return to campus, Thomas said she thinks it would be a good idea. “It’s sad because I really want to go back, but if having to go on lockdown for that time means I can go back to college normally, or for a longer period of time, then I’ll do that.”
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.