truthout--2020-11-28--Pompeo Embraced Israeli Settlements, But Democrats Also Paved the Way for It

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has faced widespread international condemnation for his recent assertions that illegal Israeli settlements constructed in the occupied West Bank are somehow legal and part of Israel , and that products from these colonies on confiscated Palestinian land should be labeled as “ Made in Israel.
” What fewer are discussing , however , is that while these proclamations are unprecedented in their scope , they are in fact the culmination of decades of bipartisan support for Israeli expansionism .
The illegality of Israel ’ s settlements in the West Bank is clear : Article 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which both Israel and the United States are signatories — prohibits any occupying power from transferring “ parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
” United Nations Security Council resolutions 446 , 452 , 465 , 471 and 2334 have explicitly recognized the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli-occupied territories , as does a landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice .
The Nixon , Ford and Carter administrations all recognized the illegality of these settlements when Israel ’ s colonization drive began in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department issued a formal finding that they were indeed a clear-cut violation of international law .
Last year , however , the Trump administration revoked this longstanding ruling and declared that the United States now considered the settlements legal .
During his trip to Israel on November 19 , Pompeo became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit one of these illegal settlements , crossing into the occupied West Bank to visit the Psagot Winery built on confiscated private Palestinian land and funded by American donors to Trump campaign .
While there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , declaring that his visit was a “ simple recognition of this as part of Israel ” and “ a recognition of the reality.
” ( Pompeo later went to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights — also the first for a top U.S. official — when he insisted that it was “ a central part of Israel.
” Even the Reagan administration supported a unanimous 1981 UN Security Council resolution declaring Israel ’ s illegal annexation of the Syrian territory as “ null and void.
” ) This “ reality ” of facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made possible by both Republican and Democratic administrations ’ acquiescence , despite occasional finger-wagging , to Israel ’ s settlement expansion , as well as a series of bipartisan congressional resolutions .
Indeed , the trend toward U.S. acceptance of Israel ’ s colonization drive has been moving forward for decades .
The Reagan administration was the first to stop referring to the settlements as illegal , but still opposed their expansion .
In 1991 , President George H.W .
Bush insisted on a settlement freeze as a condition to granting a controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In response , leading members of Congress — as well as Bill Clinton and most candidates for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination — attacked Bush from the right by calling on the president to grant the loan guarantee unconditionally .
He eventually capitulated , though insisting that the United States cut the amount of the loan guarantee granted in $ 2 billion increments over the subsequent five years by the equivalent amount Israel paid for settlement construction .
It was under the Clinton administration that U.S. support for Israeli settlements became apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same amount deducted from the loan guarantee , thereby using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the settlements ’ expansion and undermining efforts by Israeli peace activists and the international community to freeze settlement expansion .
When the Oslo Accords were signed in September 1993 and the Palestinians pressed to address the settlements issue immediately , Clinton insisted that it be delayed as a “ final status issue ” to be dealt with later in the talks following security and redeployment issues , thereby enabling Israel to create “ facts on the ground ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the peace process slowly moved forward .
To the shock of much of the international community , the Clinton administration also insisted that the Fourth Geneva Convention and the four U.N. Security Council resolutions addressing the settlements issue were suddenly no longer relevant , vetoing two otherwise unanimous new resolutions calling on Israel to cease its settlement activities .
In 1998 , the Clinton administration and Congress approved additional aid to Israel to build “ bypass roads ” and security enhancements for Israeli settlers in the occupied territories .
Clinton and Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boundaries of a future Palestinian state , unveiled at the July 2000 Camp David Summit , excluded most of the new and expanded settlement blocs developed during the previous years by incorporating them into an enlarged Israel , dividing the Palestinian West Bank into four noncontiguous regions .
The Palestinians recognized that such a fractured mini-state would be unviable and therefore rejected the proposal , leading Clinton and a bipartisan majority of Congress to blame the Palestinians for the failure of the talks .
This failure by the United States to demand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligations and cease its settlements expansion was therefore largely responsible for the collapse of the peace process and the rise of Palestinian groups like Hamas .
George W. Bush ’ s support for right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ’ s 2004 “ convergence plan ” — which would have incorporated virtually all West Bank settlements into Israel and left the Palestinians with even less territory than in the Camp David proposal four years earlier — was endorsed by a broad bipartisan majority in Congress , including Chuck Schumer , John Kerry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same year , these senators co-sponsored a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) for ruling against what their resolution described as “ the security fence being constructed by Israel to prevent Palestinian terrorists from entering Israel.
” However , the ICJ ruling explicitly defended the right of Israel to build such a barrier along its internationally recognized border to prevent “ terrorists ” from entering Israel ; it only opposed its construction deep inside the Israeli-occupied West Bank to protect illegal Israeli settlements .
In saying that entering settlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appears that Biden and his colleagues were effectively agreeing with Pompeo that the West Bank settlements were indeed part of Israel .
While Pompeo was the first sitting Secretary of State to visit a settlement , Hillary Clinton had visited a settlement prior to her taking that post while she was a U.S. senator .
During that visit , she insisted it was in Israel .
Earlier , she had categorically stated that she had no intention of visiting “ Palestinian areas ” during her trip , even though the settlement was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a Christian Palestinian family that had been farming the land for generations .
Obama was more critical of the settlements , but was reluctant to explicitly call them illegal .
In 2011 , in its only U.N. Security Council veto , the United States blocked an otherwise-unanimous resolution reiterating the illegality of the settlements and calling for a construction freeze .
In December 2016 , just weeks before Obama was to leave office , he had the U.S. abstain on a similar resolution calling on Israel to stop expanding its illegal settlements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction , newly elected Sen. Kamala Harris co-sponsored a resolution , passed by a large bipartisan majority , criticizing Obama ’ s failure to veto the resolution in language that effectively insisted that the United Nations stay out of questions of international humanitarian law in occupied territories and that the decision as to whether to expand these illegal settlements should instead be left to the voluntary compliance of the occupying power .
Pompeo Declares Products From the West Bank as “ Made in Israel ” Following his visit to Psagot , Pompeo declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imported from areas “ where Israel exercises the relevant authorities ” to be marked as “ Made in Israel ” or a “ Product of Israel.
” This runs counter to the policies of virtually the entire international community , including the European Union ( EU ) , which recognizes that the settlements are outside Israel ’ s borders .
( The EU has a similar policy in regard to Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara . )
Pompeo condemned what he called “ pernicious EU labeling efforts , ” saying , “ The U.S. stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of delegitimization.
” However , as far back as 2015 , a bipartisan majority of Congress passed a trade bill that formally defined “ Israel ” as including the occupied territories .
It was attached to the “ fast track ” legislation to pave the way for the Trans-Pacific Partnership , the free trade agreement that was a priority for President Obama , in order to force him to pressure potential U.S. trading partners to no longer boycott products made in illegal settlements or discourage their companies from supporting the Israeli occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared that he would not abide by that section of the legislation .
The State Department also rejected the pro-settlements language , observing how “ every U.S. administration since 1967 — Democrat and Republican alike — has opposed Israeli settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines.
” The main target of the bill was the European Union ’ s recent decision on rejecting labeling products from Israeli settlements as being made in Israel .
Bipartisan groups of Congress members wrote three separate letters to the EU ’ s foreign policy chief and the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative was a “ de-facto boycott of Israel ” and accusing the EU of implementing “ restrictive and illegal trade measures ” despite the fact that the EU decision was only in reference to the occupied territories and , much to the consternation of human rights activists , did not call for boycotting any products from the settlements , much less Israel itself .
Signers of this effort included such prominent Democrats as Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-New York ) , Ben Cardin ( D-Maryland ) , Bob Casey , Jr. ( D-Pennsylvania ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ron Wyden ( D-Oregon ) , Chuck Schumer ( D-New York ) and Cory Booker ( D-New Jersey ) .
Another recent bill , sponsored by Nita Lowey ( D-New York ) , the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State , Foreign Operations , and Related Programs , and co-sponsored by Elliot Engel ( D-New York ) , the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , attempted to put Congress on record opposing the EU ’ s interpretive notice on products from settlements .
Despite the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual importation of goods from either Israel or Israeli settlements , Rep. Lowey insisted that such truth-in-labeling laws were designed “ to extract one-sided concessions and feed into politically-motivated acts to boycott Israel , ” .
Meanwhile , a customs bill passed in Congress with bipartisan support called on the United States to block “ investigations or prosecutions by any government or international organization of U.S. citizens for doing business with individuals or entities operating from the illegal settlements.
” It also prohibited any U.S. court from recognizing or enforcing any judgment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlements and required the president to submit a report on decisions by individuals , corporate entities and state-affiliated financial institutions “ that limit or prohibit economic relations , ” not only in Israel but in “ any territory controlled by Israel.
” While it is easy to see Pompeo ’ s announcements as simply another one of the Trump administration ’ s renunciations of longstanding international norms or an embrace of the agenda of right-wing evangelical Christians , support for the Israeli colonization of occupied Palestinian territory has been ongoing for years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats alike , including the president-elect and the vice-president elect .
These policies make a viable two-state solution impossible by dividing Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank into multiple non-contiguous canons , creating an apartheid-like situation on the West Bank of exclusively Jewish towns and roads while the Palestinian majority is squeezed into increasingly small enclaves .
It is also an effective renunciation of some of the most basic principles of international law established after World War II , enshrined in the UN Charter and other international legal statutes , prohibiting the expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military force and forbidding the colonization of one nation by another .

Part of the Series Struggle and Solidarity: Writing Toward Palestinian Liberation
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has faced widespread international condemnation for his recent assertions that illegal Israeli settlements constructed in the occupied West Bank are somehow legal and part of Israel, and that products from these colonies on confiscated Palestinian land should be labeled as “Made in Israel.” What fewer are discussing, however, is that while these proclamations are unprecedented in their scope, they are in fact the culmination of decades of bipartisan support for Israeli expansionism.
Israeli Settlements
The illegality of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank is clear: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention — to which both Israel and the United States are signatories — prohibits any occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
United Nations Security Council resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 2334 have explicitly recognized the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli-occupied territories, as does a landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice.
The Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations all recognized the illegality of these settlements when Israel’s colonization drive began in the 1970s. In 1978, the U.S. State Department issued a formal finding that they were indeed a clear-cut violation of international law. Last year, however, the Trump administration revoked this longstanding ruling and declared that the United States now considered the settlements legal.
During his trip to Israel on November 19, Pompeo became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit one of these illegal settlements, crossing into the occupied West Bank to visit the Psagot Winery built on confiscated private Palestinian land and funded by American donors to Trump campaign. While there, he sampled a red blend named after him, declaring that his visit was a “simple recognition of this as part of Israel” and “a recognition of the reality.” (Pompeo later went to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights — also the first for a top U.S. official — when he insisted that it was “a central part of Israel.” Even the Reagan administration supported a unanimous 1981 UN Security Council resolution declaring Israel’s illegal annexation of the Syrian territory as “null and void.”)
This “reality” of facts on the ground cited by Pompeo was made possible by both Republican and Democratic administrations’ acquiescence, despite occasional finger-wagging, to Israel’s settlement expansion, as well as a series of bipartisan congressional resolutions. Indeed, the trend toward U.S. acceptance of Israel’s colonization drive has been moving forward for decades.
The Reagan administration was the first to stop referring to the settlements as illegal, but still opposed their expansion. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush insisted on a settlement freeze as a condition to granting a controversial $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel. In response, leading members of Congress — as well as Bill Clinton and most candidates for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination — attacked Bush from the right by calling on the president to grant the loan guarantee unconditionally. He eventually capitulated, though insisting that the United States cut the amount of the loan guarantee granted in $2 billion increments over the subsequent five years by the equivalent amount Israel paid for settlement construction.
The trend toward U.S. acceptance of Israel’s colonization drive has been moving forward for decades.
It was under the Clinton administration that U.S. support for Israeli settlements became apparent, increasing aid to Israel by the same amount deducted from the loan guarantee, thereby using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the settlements’ expansion and undermining efforts by Israeli peace activists and the international community to freeze settlement expansion.
When the Oslo Accords were signed in September 1993 and the Palestinians pressed to address the settlements issue immediately, Clinton insisted that it be delayed as a “final status issue” to be dealt with later in the talks following security and redeployment issues, thereby enabling Israel to create “facts on the ground” by building more and more settlements, even as the peace process slowly moved forward.
To the shock of much of the international community, the Clinton administration also insisted that the Fourth Geneva Convention and the four U.N. Security Council resolutions addressing the settlements issue were suddenly no longer relevant, vetoing two otherwise unanimous new resolutions calling on Israel to cease its settlement activities. In 1998, the Clinton administration and Congress approved additional aid to Israel to build “bypass roads” and security enhancements for Israeli settlers in the occupied territories.
Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s proposed boundaries of a future Palestinian state, unveiled at the July 2000 Camp David Summit, excluded most of the new and expanded settlement blocs developed during the previous years by incorporating them into an enlarged Israel, dividing the Palestinian West Bank into four noncontiguous regions. The Palestinians recognized that such a fractured mini-state would be unviable and therefore rejected the proposal, leading Clinton and a bipartisan majority of Congress to blame the Palestinians for the failure of the talks. This failure by the United States to demand that Israel live up to its international legal obligations and cease its settlements expansion was therefore largely responsible for the collapse of the peace process and the rise of Palestinian groups like Hamas.
George W. Bush’s support for right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s 2004 “convergence plan” — which would have incorporated virtually all West Bank settlements into Israel and left the Palestinians with even less territory than in the Camp David proposal four years earlier — was endorsed by a broad bipartisan majority in Congress, including Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
That same year, these senators co-sponsored a resolution condemning the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for ruling against what their resolution described as “the security fence being constructed by Israel to prevent Palestinian terrorists from entering Israel.” However, the ICJ ruling explicitly defended the right of Israel to build such a barrier along its internationally recognized border to prevent “terrorists” from entering Israel; it only opposed its construction deep inside the Israeli-occupied West Bank to protect illegal Israeli settlements. In saying that entering settlement enclaves was “entering Israel,” it appears that Biden and his colleagues were effectively agreeing with Pompeo that the West Bank settlements were indeed part of Israel.
While Pompeo was the first sitting Secretary of State to visit a settlement, Hillary Clinton had visited a settlement prior to her taking that post while she was a U.S. senator. During that visit, she insisted it was in Israel. Earlier, she had categorically stated that she had no intention of visiting “Palestinian areas” during her trip, even though the settlement was on the West Bank on land seized from a Christian Palestinian family that had been farming the land for generations.
Obama was more critical of the settlements, but was reluctant to explicitly call them illegal. In 2011, in its only U.N. Security Council veto, the United States blocked an otherwise-unanimous resolution reiterating the illegality of the settlements and calling for a construction freeze. In December 2016, just weeks before Obama was to leave office, he had the U.S. abstain on a similar resolution calling on Israel to stop expanding its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. In reaction, newly elected Sen. Kamala Harris co-sponsored a resolution, passed by a large bipartisan majority, criticizing Obama’s failure to veto the resolution in language that effectively insisted that the United Nations stay out of questions of international humanitarian law in occupied territories and that the decision as to whether to expand these illegal settlements should instead be left to the voluntary compliance of the occupying power.
Pompeo Declares Products From the West Bank as “Made in Israel”
Following his visit to Psagot, Pompeo declared that the United States would require goods imported from areas “where Israel exercises the relevant authorities” to be marked as “Made in Israel” or a “Product of Israel.” This runs counter to the policies of virtually the entire international community, including the European Union (EU), which recognizes that the settlements are outside Israel’s borders. (The EU has a similar policy in regard to Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.) Pompeo condemned what he called “pernicious EU labeling efforts,” saying, “The U.S. stands with Israel and will not tolerate any form of delegitimization.”
Support for the Israeli colonization of occupied Palestinian territory has been endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike, including the president-elect and the vice-president elect.
However, as far back as 2015, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed a trade bill that formally defined “Israel” as including the occupied territories. It was attached to the “fast track” legislation to pave the way for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free trade agreement that was a priority for President Obama, in order to force him to pressure potential U.S. trading partners to no longer boycott products made in illegal settlements or discourage their companies from supporting the Israeli occupation.
This followed a letter sent by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), the then-ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the de facto foreign policy spokesperson for Senate Democrats, to the chief U.S. trade representative calling on him to try to block European governments from “differentiating between pre- and post-1967 Israel” because there should be “no differentiation” between “Israel or territories controlled by Israel.”
In a signing statement, Obama declared that he would not abide by that section of the legislation. The State Department also rejected the pro-settlements language, observing how “every U.S. administration since 1967 — Democrat and Republican alike — has opposed Israeli settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines.”
The main target of the bill was the European Union’s recent decision on rejecting labeling products from Israeli settlements as being made in Israel. Bipartisan groups of Congress members wrote three separate letters to the EU’s foreign policy chief and the U.S. trade representative, insisting that the EU initiative was a “de-facto boycott of Israel” and accusing the EU of implementing “restrictive and illegal trade measures” despite the fact that the EU decision was only in reference to the occupied territories and, much to the consternation of human rights activists, did not call for boycotting any products from the settlements, much less Israel itself. Signers of this effort included such prominent Democrats as Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pennsylvania), Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and Cory Booker (D-New Jersey).
Another recent bill, sponsored by Nita Lowey (D-New York), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, and co-sponsored by Elliot Engel (D-New York), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, attempted to put Congress on record opposing the EU’s interpretive notice on products from settlements. Despite the fact that the initiative explicitly did not ban the actual importation of goods from either Israel or Israeli settlements, Rep. Lowey insisted that such truth-in-labeling laws were designed “to extract one-sided concessions and feed into politically-motivated acts to boycott Israel,”.
Meanwhile, a customs bill passed in Congress with bipartisan support called on the United States to block “investigations or prosecutions by any government or international organization of U.S. citizens for doing business with individuals or entities operating from the illegal settlements.” It also prohibited any U.S. court from recognizing or enforcing any judgment against Americans who conduct business in Israeli settlements and required the president to submit a report on decisions by individuals, corporate entities and state-affiliated financial institutions “that limit or prohibit economic relations,” not only in Israel but in “any territory controlled by Israel.”
While it is easy to see Pompeo’s announcements as simply another one of the Trump administration’s renunciations of longstanding international norms or an embrace of the agenda of right-wing evangelical Christians, support for the Israeli colonization of occupied Palestinian territory has been ongoing for years. It has been endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike, including the president-elect and the vice-president elect. These policies make a viable two-state solution impossible by dividing Palestinian-populated areas of the West Bank into multiple non-contiguous canons, creating an apartheid-like situation on the West Bank of exclusively Jewish towns and roads while the Palestinian majority is squeezed into increasingly small enclaves. It is also an effective renunciation of some of the most basic principles of international law established after World War II, enshrined in the UN Charter and other international legal statutes, prohibiting the expansion of any nation’s territory by military force and forbidding the colonization of one nation by another.
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--2020-11-28--“Better Than Trump” Is Not Enough. We Need More From Biden on LGBTQ Policy.

The Biden/Harris administration will almost certainly be better for LGBTQ people than the Trump/Pence administration has been .
But that is a terribly low bar .
Without sustained pressure , the administration will probably do little for the most vulnerable LGBTQ people , including Black trans people and LGBTQ immigrants and incarcerated people .
There are also real limitations to what even the best possible administration can do now , given the damage Trump has done .
To assess what will come next , it helps to consider where we are .
The federal courts , including the U.S. Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the number of appointments Trump has made .
Short of a constitutional amendment or court-packing , that is not likely to change for decades at best .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration has specifically attacked trans communities on many fronts , trying to bar trans access to homeless shelters , education , employment , asylum , health care , military service and participation in school sports .
And the Trump administration has emboldened extremists who use tactics ranging from physical violence to state legislation to attack our communities .
Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ people .
At least two trans women ( Roxsana Hernandez and Johana Medina León ) died in immigration detention during his time in office , and another was killed shortly after deportation ( Camila Díaz Córdova ) .
More trans people have been murdered so far in the U.S. in 2020 than any other year on record .
We have also lost many other LGBTQ leaders to COVID-19 and other , often preventable , causes this year , including Lorena Borjas , Monica Roberts , Aimee Stephens , Stacey Park Milbern , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McClelland , Marty Brown , Garry Bowie , Dan Kirsch , James J. Smith , George Valentine and Joan Drury , among others .
Nothing anyone can do will bring them back , although it is possible to change policies in ways that reduce the risk of further premature deaths .
The Biden administration can — and has promised to — roll back most of the Trump administration ’ s political attacks on LGBTQ people , and trans people in particular .
The new administration can not fully control the forces Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources , it can serve as an important ally to trans and LGBTQ communities fighting these battles on international , federal , state and local levels .
Biden ’ s record on LGBTQ issues from his time in the Senate is abominable , but he has changed many of his earlier positions .
Biden voted in favor of laws barring immigrants living with HIV from entering the country , cutting off federal funds to schools that taught acceptance of “ homosexuality , ” barring LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a woman .
He also voted in favor of welfare reform and immigration reform measures in 1996 that devastated low-income and immigrant LGBTQ communities , even though they were not targeted at LGBTQ people in particular .
Similarly , in 1994 he sponsored a “ crime control ” law that increased incarceration rates , particularly for Black , Indigenous and Latinx communities , including Black , Indigenous and Latinx LGBTQ people .
Biden has taken anti-LGBTQ positions throughout his tenure .
In the 1970s , he said that LGBTQ people in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly opposed same-sex marriage in the 2000s .
And as recently as February , he described Mike Pence , who is virulently anti-LGBTQ , as a “ decent guy ” ( although he then clarified that Pence ’ s anti-LGBTQ positions were not “ decent ” ) .
But from 2012 on , he publicly supported same-sex marriage .
In 2017 , he wrote in support of transgender rights , and in his November speech accepting the presidential nomination , he thanked trans people .
Harris supported same-sex marriage in word and deed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration advanced LGBTQ rights in some key respects , and Biden ’ s platform promises to reverse Trump ’ s attacks on LGBTQ communities and return to Obama-era policy , which would be a welcome change after Trump ’ s outrages .
For example , Biden has promised not to move forward Trump ’ s proposed rule to empower homeless shelters to turn trans and gender-nonconforming people away .
Biden has also proposed some improvements to Obama-era policy .
For example , he promises to add an X option for gender markers on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. citizens to travel with a form of ID that does not misgender them .
He also promises to support the Ending Homelessness Act , a bill Harris introduced that would provide billions for rental assistance to people without housing .
While not LGBTQ-specific , it seems plausible that the bill could benefit LGBTQ people — particularly LGBTQ youth and trans women of color with disabilities , who have particularly high rates of homelessness , and nonbinary people , who are least likely to have access to shelter while unhoused .
But Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse for the most vulnerable LGBTQ people than they were under Bush .
High rates of deportation under Obama led organizers to dub him “ deporter-in-chief ” and Jennicet Gutierrez to challenge him at a White House event .
Obama targeted immigrants with criminal records for detention and removal .
Given the racism , classism , ableism and anti-transness of the criminal legal system , that is a way of targeting low-income , disabled , trans immigrants of color for detention and removal .
Biden has promised to return to targeting immigrants with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affirmative changes to the immigration system beyond just reversing Trump ’ s policies , including increasing the number of U visas available .
U visas are available to some crime victims , and , given how frequently trans people of color are crime victims , U visas offer one of the more accessible routes to status for trans immigrants .
But while Biden has promised to end “ prolonged ” immigration detention , he has not promised to end immigration detention , or even to end immigration detention of trans women or LGBTQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress .
When it comes to the criminal legal system , the records of both Biden and Harris are cause for alarm .
Biden advocated for legislation that increased funding for prison construction and imposed drastic sentences for drug crimes .
Harris , a former district attorney and California attorney general , opposed a bill to decriminalize consensual sex work and litigated aggressively to prevent an incarcerated transgender woman from accessing gender-affirming surgery .
Harris has evaded questions about whether she now supports incarcerated trans people having access to gender-affirming health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports trans federal prisoners having access to hormone therapy ( which would not be a change from current policy ) , he has not spoken out on surgery .
While Biden now opposes imprisonment for simple drug possession and has a plan that calls for reducing incarceration rates and prohibiting police profiling based on race , religion , sexual orientation and gender identity , we do not yet know how serious he is about those commitments .
He has thus far refused to support the BREATHE Act or meet with Patrisse Cullors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legislative proposal from the Movement for Black Lives , would accomplish many of the goals trans advocates have sought for years : an end to solitary confinement and ICE detention , a repeal of federal laws that punish and endanger sex workers , and diversion of funds from police and prisons to housing , education and health care .
Biden and Harris have also both demonstrated a commitment to harsh hate crime laws .
While they tout these measures as protecting trans women of color , no shred of evidence suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a single incident of violence toward a trans woman of color .
What is clear is that these laws funnel more resources to the violent , anti-Black , anti-trans , criminal legal system .
In fact , Biden ’ s platform expresses support for a federal hate crime bill that he describes as about collecting data on the incidence of hate crimes .
But the bill would make a variety of federal grants available to state and local governments for “ law enforcement activities ” that go beyond mere data collection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to training officers and creating hotlines .
The law runs directly counter to calls to defund the police .
So far , the administration ’ s appointments show an emphasis on centrist Democrats with a great deal of federal government experience .
Some D.C. insiders are not necessarily a bad idea — the administration will need folks who can hit the ground running after the chaos of the last months and years — but if the administration plans to appoint people with more diverse experience and an agenda more progressive and ambitious than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo , it has not done so yet .
The LGBTQ appointees to the administration ’ s transition team have not varied from this pattern .
Shawn Skelly , a trans woman , served under Obama in the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation .
Chai Feldblum , a lesbian , served on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for nearly a decade .
Pam Karlan , a bisexual woman , was a deputy assistant attorney general under Obama .
Dave Noble , a gay man , served under Obama in the Presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointments may be good choices , they certainly do not represent nonbinary communities of color , trans immigrants living with HIV , or grassroots organizers working for justice and liberation .
However , what happens next is not only up to the administration .
As always , we can , and we must , support each other , demand the best from the federal government , and work fiercely and creatively to defend our communities from the worst .

Biden promises a return to Obama-era policy on LGBTQ issues — but even if he follows through, that is not enough.
The Biden/Harris administration will almost certainly be better for LGBTQ people than the Trump/Pence administration has been. But that is a terribly low bar. Without sustained pressure, the administration will probably do little for the most vulnerable LGBTQ people, including Black trans people and LGBTQ immigrants and incarcerated people. There are also real limitations to what even the best possible administration can do now, given the damage Trump has done.
To assess what will come next, it helps to consider where we are. The federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have become exceptionally conservative, due to the number of appointments Trump has made. Short of a constitutional amendment or court-packing, that is not likely to change for decades at best. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has specifically attacked trans communities on many fronts, trying to bar trans access to homeless shelters, education, employment, asylum, health care, military service and participation in school sports. And the Trump administration has emboldened extremists who use tactics ranging from physical violence to state legislation to attack our communities.
Trump administration action and inaction has also killed many LGBTQ people. At least two trans women (Roxsana Hernandez and Johana Medina León) died in immigration detention during his time in office, and another was killed shortly after deportation (Camila Díaz Córdova). More trans people have been murdered so far in the U.S. in 2020 than any other year on record.
We have also lost many other LGBTQ leaders to COVID-19 and other, often preventable, causes this year, including Lorena Borjas, Monica Roberts, Aimee Stephens, Stacey Park Milbern, Larry Kramer, Ron Simmons, PJ McClelland, Marty Brown, Garry Bowie, Dan Kirsch, James J. Smith, George Valentine and Joan Drury, among others. Nothing anyone can do will bring them back, although it is possible to change policies in ways that reduce the risk of further premature deaths.
The Biden administration can — and has promised to — roll back most of the Trump administration’s political attacks on LGBTQ people, and trans people in particular. The new administration cannot fully control the forces Trump has empowered, but with political will and resources, it can serve as an important ally to trans and LGBTQ communities fighting these battles on international, federal, state and local levels.
Biden’s record on LGBTQ issues from his time in the Senate is abominable, but he has changed many of his earlier positions. Biden voted in favor of laws barring immigrants living with HIV from entering the country, cutting off federal funds to schools that taught acceptance of “homosexuality,” barring LGBTQ people from serving openly in the military, and defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Biden administration can — and has promised to — roll back most of the Trump administration’s political attacks on LGBTQ people, and trans people in particular.
He also voted in favor of welfare reform and immigration reform measures in 1996 that devastated low-income and immigrant LGBTQ communities, even though they were not targeted at LGBTQ people in particular. Similarly, in 1994 he sponsored a “crime control” law that increased incarceration rates, particularly for Black, Indigenous and Latinx communities, including Black, Indigenous and Latinx LGBTQ people.
Biden has taken anti-LGBTQ positions throughout his tenure. In the 1970s, he said that LGBTQ people in government would be a security risk. He repeatedly opposed same-sex marriage in the 2000s. And as recently as February, he described Mike Pence, who is virulently anti-LGBTQ, as a “decent guy” (although he then clarified that Pence’s anti-LGBTQ positions were not “decent”). But from 2012 on, he publicly supported same-sex marriage. In 2017, he wrote in support of transgender rights, and in his November speech accepting the presidential nomination, he thanked trans people. Harris supported same-sex marriage in word and deed as early as 2004.
The Obama administration advanced LGBTQ rights in some key respects, and Biden’s platform promises to reverse Trump’s attacks on LGBTQ communities and return to Obama-era policy, which would be a welcome change after Trump’s outrages. For example, Biden has promised not to move forward Trump’s proposed rule to empower homeless shelters to turn trans and gender-nonconforming people away.
Biden has also proposed some improvements to Obama-era policy. For example, he promises to add an X option for gender markers on passports, which would allow many nonbinary U.S. citizens to travel with a form of ID that does not misgender them. He also promises to support the Ending Homelessness Act, a bill Harris introduced that would provide billions for rental assistance to people without housing. While not LGBTQ-specific, it seems plausible that the bill could benefit LGBTQ people — particularly LGBTQ youth and trans women of color with disabilities, who have particularly high rates of homelessness, and nonbinary people, who are least likely to have access to shelter while unhoused.
Biden’s record on LGBTQ issues from his time in the Senate is abominable, but he has changed many of his earlier positions.
But Obama’s policies actually made some things worse for the most vulnerable LGBTQ people than they were under Bush. High rates of deportation under Obama led organizers to dub him “deporter-in-chief” and Jennicet Gutierrez to challenge him at a White House event. Obama targeted immigrants with criminal records for detention and removal. Given the racism, classism, ableism and anti-transness of the criminal legal system, that is a way of targeting low-income, disabled, trans immigrants of color for detention and removal. Biden has promised to return to targeting immigrants with criminal records.
Biden has proposed some affirmative changes to the immigration system beyond just reversing Trump’s policies, including increasing the number of U visas available. U visas are available to some crime victims, and, given how frequently trans people of color are crime victims, U visas offer one of the more accessible routes to status for trans immigrants. But while Biden has promised to end “prolonged” immigration detention, he has not promised to end immigration detention, or even to end immigration detention of trans women or LGBTQ people despite demands from organizers and members of Congress.
When it comes to the criminal legal system, the records of both Biden and Harris are cause for alarm. Biden advocated for legislation that increased funding for prison construction and imposed drastic sentences for drug crimes. Harris, a former district attorney and California attorney general, opposed a bill to decriminalize consensual sex work and litigated aggressively to prevent an incarcerated transgender woman from accessing gender-affirming surgery.
Harris has evaded questions about whether she now supports incarcerated trans people having access to gender-affirming health care, and while Biden has said he supports trans federal prisoners having access to hormone therapy (which would not be a change from current policy), he has not spoken out on surgery. While Biden now opposes imprisonment for simple drug possession and has a plan that calls for reducing incarceration rates and prohibiting police profiling based on race, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, we do not yet know how serious he is about those commitments. He has thus far refused to support the BREATHE Act or meet with Patrisse Cullors to discuss it. The BREATHE Act, a legislative proposal from the Movement for Black Lives, would accomplish many of the goals trans advocates have sought for years: an end to solitary confinement and ICE detention, a repeal of federal laws that punish and endanger sex workers, and diversion of funds from police and prisons to housing, education and health care.
What happens next is not only up to the administration. As always, we can, and we must, support each other.
Biden and Harris have also both demonstrated a commitment to harsh hate crime laws. While they tout these measures as protecting trans women of color, no shred of evidence suggests that any hate crime law has ever prevented even a single incident of violence toward a trans woman of color. What is clear is that these laws funnel more resources to the violent, anti-Black, anti-trans, criminal legal system. In fact, Biden’s platform expresses support for a federal hate crime bill that he describes as about collecting data on the incidence of hate crimes. But the bill would make a variety of federal grants available to state and local governments for “law enforcement activities” that go beyond mere data collection, ranging from creating specialized hate crime units to training officers and creating hotlines. The law runs directly counter to calls to defund the police.
So far, the administration’s appointments show an emphasis on centrist Democrats with a great deal of federal government experience. Some D.C. insiders are not necessarily a bad idea — the administration will need folks who can hit the ground running after the chaos of the last months and years — but if the administration plans to appoint people with more diverse experience and an agenda more progressive and ambitious than just a return to a pre-Trump status quo, it has not done so yet.
The LGBTQ appointees to the administration’s transition team have not varied from this pattern. Shawn Skelly, a trans woman, served under Obama in the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation. Chai Feldblum, a lesbian, served on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for nearly a decade. Pam Karlan, a bisexual woman, was a deputy assistant attorney general under Obama. Dave Noble, a gay man, served under Obama in the Presidential Personnel Office and NASA. While these appointments may be good choices, they certainly do not represent nonbinary communities of color, trans immigrants living with HIV, or grassroots organizers working for justice and liberation.
However, what happens next is not only up to the administration. As always, we can, and we must, support each other, demand the best from the federal government, and work fiercely and creatively to defend our communities from the worst.
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--2020-11-29--Republicans Won Key Races in 2020 Granting Them Far More Power to Gerrymander

The Republican Party is poised to cement its hold on power in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives after winning nearly every election in which the power to redraw legislative maps was at stake .
Despite winning the White House and still holding a shot at gaining a majority in both chambers of Congress , Democratic losses in state legislative elections across the country gave Republicans far more power to redistrict , or gerrymander , districts following the census next year .
The census is already expected to cost states like New York , California and Illinois congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states like Texas , Florida and Arizona .
Furthermore , Republicans will have the power to redistrict far more seats than Democrats .
Republicans have control over 30 state maps , according to NBC News .
The GOP is set to control the redistricting of 188 congressional seats , or 43 % of the House , according to FiveThirtyEight , while Democrats will control the redistricting of no more than 73 seats , or 17 % .
Democrats spent hundreds of millions targeting state legislative races but lost nearly every state where control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were able to hold on to their majority in Texas , fended off Democrats in Pennsylvania , retained their majority in North Carolina , upset Democrats to hold on to the Minnesota state Senate , kept control of the Iowa state House , maintained their supermajorities in Kansas , and flipped the state Senate and House in New Hampshire .
Missouri also re-elected Gov .
Mike Parson , maintaining Republican control of the state ’ s redistricting process , and Virginia voters passed an amendment that gives a bipartisan commission rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maps .
The lone exception could be New York , where Democrats may still win a supermajority in the state Senate once all the votes are counted .
These wins across the country put Republicans in a similar position as they were after the 2010 Republican wave that resulted in the most biased House map against Democrats in modern history .
For years , Republicans have been able to win control of the U.S. House and state legislatures despite losing the popular vote .
Though some states have shifted redistricting power to independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 38 % of House seats will be left up to such panels , compared to 33 % in 2011 , according to FiveThirtyEight .
“ This will put the Republican Party in a position where we ’ re able to secure a decade of power across the country , ” Austin Chambers , president of the Republican State Leadership Committee , told reporters after the election , according to the Washington Post .
“ It ’ s something that the Democrats were desperate for , and they came up well short.
” Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the party ’ s disappointing election slate , made the battle for control of legislative maps a top priority ahead of the election after losing over 900 legislative seats since 2011 .
“ Democrats didn ’ t focus on those state legislative races to the extent that we should have in 2010 , ” former Attorney General Eric Holder , who now heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee , said ahead of the election .
“ As a result , the 2011 redistricting went well for the Republicans and led to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has affected our politics over the course of this last decade .
I think Democrats are focusing now on state-level races.
” But after the election , Holder ’ s group sought to downplay the losses by pointing to states that changed their rules on redistricting since 2011 .
“ People are focused on Democrats not making gains in 2020 , but we measure this by where we were a decade ago , ” Patrick Rodenbush , a spokesman for the group , told the Post .
“ We ’ ve reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Republican legislatures and governors from 213 in 2011 to 175 in 2021 , and that ’ s before the census.
” Grassroots groups echoed that sentiment , arguing that Democrats “ are going into the next redistricting cycle in a better position , at least in some states.
” “ Over the last few years , we have been able to defeat Republican trifectas and supermajorities , along with passing fair districting reform measures , ” Lyzz Schwegler , the co-founder of Sister District , a volunteer group that aims to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , in 2011 the GOP had trifecta control of Michigan and Pennsylvania .
Going into this cycle , Democrats control at least one branch of government in both of those states .
Wins in 2018 broke GOP supermajorities in both chambers in North Carolina , the Pennsylvania Senate and the Michigan Senate .
And wins this year kept the GOP from gaining supermajorities in either of Wisconsin ’ s chambers.
” Even with slightly less influence overall , Republicans will be able to continue to hold on to power in some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Democrats won just three of Wisconsin ’ s eight U.S. House seats despite winning 200,000 more votes than their Republican counterparts .
In Texas , Democrats won 47 % of the vote in U.S. House races but won just 13 of the state ’ s 36 seats .
Christina Polizzi , a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee , blamed the existing gerrymandered maps for the party ’ s disappointing election .
“ An unexpected surge of Trump support helped carry Republican legislative candidates over the line .
Legislative Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easy to win in rigged districts .
While Biden won decisively , to win a majority of districts , Democratic candidates needed to outperform the top of the ticket to win , ” she said in a statement to Salon .
“ Gerrymandering had a huge impact .
In our target states like Michigan , Pennsylvania and North Carolina , the maps were deliberately drawn so Republicans could withstand even the bluest wave to win .
In these states , Republican wins in 2010 allowed them to subvert our democracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to capture the legislatures they targeted despite sinking copious sums of money into the races , Democrats will now have to rely on the courts and a growing grassroots movement to push back on Republican redistricting .
“ In 2010 , Republicans caught us off guard .
This time , we know what ’ s coming and we understand their playbook — we aren ’ t going to let them get away with another decade of rigged districts , ” Polizzi said .
“ We are going to fight tooth and nail for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade later — in North Carolina , for example , we have fair courts that could stop obvious Republican gerrymanders .
We will also have fairer maps in Michigan because they passed an independent redistricting commission.
” Michael Li , senior counsel for the Democracy Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School , predicted that Republican efforts will particularly focus on southern states .
“ Democrats fell short of winning any of the chambers they were targeting there in the last two cycles in states like Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he told NBC , “ so there ’ s still a lot of potential for abuse there , because there are fewer protections this time around .
I think the South in a lot of ways will be the redistricting hot spot of this cycle.
” Li said he expects numerous court battles over potential redistricting abuses as well as challenges over the census itself .
Democrats have long challenged Trump ’ s attempts to exclude some immigrants from the count and cut short the counting period amid the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , there is little that could be done once the census is complete .
“ There have been cases where people have tried to get the bureau to make changes , but it ’ s really hard , ” Li said .
“ You can ’ t redo the census easily , for instance , so trying to figure out a remedy is going to be a challenge.
” Republicans do not seem particularly worried about legal challenges .
“ In North Carolina alone , we ’ ve been through , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional maps just this decade ?
All that money spent on those lawsuits , and it didn ’ t yield them a majority in anything — the Senate , the House or in Congress , ” Adam Kincaid , head of the National Republican Redistricting Trust , told NBC News .
“ But Democrats do this and do it over and over again .
The way we talk about it is Democrats see a state they want and sue until it ’ s blue.
” The Supreme Court last year also made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling in a 5-4 decision that federal courts have no power to hear such cases .
Schwegler argued that the next decade of battles over fair maps would be different “ because of increased public awareness in the importance of ending gerrymandering and the growth of organizations that are dedicated to the cause.
” “ We will continue with our mission of getting Democrats elected to strategic state legislative seats , ” she said .
“ The more progressive power we are able to build at the state level , the more influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care reform , reproductive freedom , gun reform , environmental regulation , voting rights and many other legislative fights .
”

Democrats will have to rely on the courts and grassroots movements to push back on Republican redistricting.
The Republican Party is poised to cement its hold on power in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives after winning nearly every election in which the power to redraw legislative maps was at stake.
Despite winning the White House and still holding a shot at gaining a majority in both chambers of Congress, Democratic losses in state legislative elections across the country gave Republicans far more power to redistrict, or gerrymander, districts following the census next year.
The census is already expected to cost states like New York, California and Illinois congressional seats while giving a big boost to states like Texas, Florida and Arizona. Furthermore, Republicans will have the power to redistrict far more seats than Democrats.
Republicans have control over 30 state maps, according to NBC News. The GOP is set to control the redistricting of 188 congressional seats, or 43% of the House, according to FiveThirtyEight, while Democrats will control the redistricting of no more than 73 seats, or 17%.
Democrats spent hundreds of millions targeting state legislative races but lost nearly every state where control over redistricting was at stake. Republicans were able to hold on to their majority in Texas, fended off Democrats in Pennsylvania, retained their majority in North Carolina, upset Democrats to hold on to the Minnesota state Senate, kept control of the Iowa state House, maintained their supermajorities in Kansas, and flipped the state Senate and House in New Hampshire. Missouri also re-elected Gov. Mike Parson, maintaining Republican control of the state’s redistricting process, and Virginia voters passed an amendment that gives a bipartisan commission rather than the Democratic state legislature the power to redraw maps.
The lone exception could be New York, where Democrats may still win a supermajority in the state Senate once all the votes are counted.
These wins across the country put Republicans in a similar position as they were after the 2010 Republican wave that resulted in the most biased House map against Democrats in modern history. For years, Republicans have been able to win control of the U.S. House and state legislatures despite losing the popular vote.
Though some states have shifted redistricting power to independent commissions or bipartisan panels, only about 38% of House seats will be left up to such panels, compared to 33% in 2011, according to FiveThirtyEight.
“This will put the Republican Party in a position where we’re able to secure a decade of power across the country,” Austin Chambers, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, told reporters after the election, according to the Washington Post. “It’s something that the Democrats were desperate for, and they came up well short.”
Democrats, who have sniped at each other over the party’s disappointing election slate, made the battle for control of legislative maps a top priority ahead of the election after losing over 900 legislative seats since 2011.
“Democrats didn’t focus on those state legislative races to the extent that we should have in 2010,” former Attorney General Eric Holder, who now heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said ahead of the election. “As a result, the 2011 redistricting went well for the Republicans and led to the gerrymandering that we have seen, and that has affected our politics over the course of this last decade. I think Democrats are focusing now on state-level races.”
But after the election, Holder’s group sought to downplay the losses by pointing to states that changed their rules on redistricting since 2011.
“People are focused on Democrats not making gains in 2020, but we measure this by where we were a decade ago,” Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the group, told the Post. “We’ve reduced the total number of seats drawn entirely by Republican legislatures and governors from 213 in 2011 to 175 in 2021, and that’s before the census.”
Grassroots groups echoed that sentiment, arguing that Democrats “are going into the next redistricting cycle in a better position, at least in some states.”
“Over the last few years, we have been able to defeat Republican trifectas and supermajorities, along with passing fair districting reform measures,” Lyzz Schwegler, the co-founder of Sister District, a volunteer group that aims to end gerrymandering, told Salon. “For instance, in 2011 the GOP had trifecta control of Michigan and Pennsylvania. Going into this cycle, Democrats control at least one branch of government in both of those states. Wins in 2018 broke GOP supermajorities in both chambers in North Carolina, the Pennsylvania Senate and the Michigan Senate. And wins this year kept the GOP from gaining supermajorities in either of Wisconsin’s chambers.”
Even with slightly less influence overall, Republicans will be able to continue to hold on to power in some states despite losing the popular vote. In 2018, Democrats won just three of Wisconsin’s eight U.S. House seats despite winning 200,000 more votes than their Republican counterparts. In Texas, Democrats won 47% of the vote in U.S. House races but won just 13 of the state’s 36 seats.
Christina Polizzi, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, blamed the existing gerrymandered maps for the party’s disappointing election.
“An unexpected surge of Trump support helped carry Republican legislative candidates over the line. Legislative Republicans won because Donald Trump over-performed. It’s easy to win in rigged districts. While Biden won decisively, to win a majority of districts, Democratic candidates needed to outperform the top of the ticket to win,” she said in a statement to Salon. “Gerrymandering had a huge impact. In our target states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the maps were deliberately drawn so Republicans could withstand even the bluest wave to win. In these states, Republican wins in 2010 allowed them to subvert our democracy and lock in minority rule.”
After failing to capture the legislatures they targeted despite sinking copious sums of money into the races, Democrats will now have to rely on the courts and a growing grassroots movement to push back on Republican redistricting.
“In 2010, Republicans caught us off guard. This time, we know what’s coming and we understand their playbook — we aren’t going to let them get away with another decade of rigged districts,” Polizzi said. “We are going to fight tooth and nail for fair maps. It’s a decade later — in North Carolina, for example, we have fair courts that could stop obvious Republican gerrymanders. We will also have fairer maps in Michigan because they passed an independent redistricting commission.”
Michael Li, senior counsel for the Democracy Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, predicted that Republican efforts will particularly focus on southern states.
“Democrats fell short of winning any of the chambers they were targeting there in the last two cycles in states like Georgia, Texas, Florida and North Carolina,” he told NBC, “so there’s still a lot of potential for abuse there, because there are fewer protections this time around. I think the South in a lot of ways will be the redistricting hot spot of this cycle.”
Li said he expects numerous court battles over potential redistricting abuses as well as challenges over the census itself.
Democrats have long challenged Trump’s attempts to exclude some immigrants from the count and cut short the counting period amid the coronavirus pandemic. But even if courts side with Democrats, there is little that could be done once the census is complete.
“There have been cases where people have tried to get the bureau to make changes, but it’s really hard,” Li said. “You can’t redo the census easily, for instance, so trying to figure out a remedy is going to be a challenge.”
Republicans do not seem particularly worried about legal challenges.
“In North Carolina alone, we’ve been through, what, 17 lawsuits over the legislative and congressional maps just this decade? All that money spent on those lawsuits, and it didn’t yield them a majority in anything — the Senate, the House or in Congress,” Adam Kincaid, head of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, told NBC News. “But Democrats do this and do it over and over again. The way we talk about it is Democrats see a state they want and sue until it’s blue.”
The Supreme Court last year also made it more difficult to challenge partisan gerrymanders, ruling in a 5-4 decision that federal courts have no power to hear such cases.
Schwegler argued that the next decade of battles over fair maps would be different “because of increased public awareness in the importance of ending gerrymandering and the growth of organizations that are dedicated to the cause.”
“We will continue with our mission of getting Democrats elected to strategic state legislative seats,” she said. “The more progressive power we are able to build at the state level, the more influence we will have over critical fights including health care reform, reproductive freedom, gun reform, environmental regulation, voting rights and many other legislative fights.”
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--2020-11-29--A Prosecutor Called Jail Time for Renters Who Fall Behind “Cruel.” He Got Fired.

An Arkansas prosecutor has been fired after speaking out against the state ’ s criminal eviction statute in an October ProPublica story .
Garland County deputy prosecutor Josh Drake was let go from his position on Oct. 31 by Michelle Lawrence , the prosecuting attorney .
Arkansas is the only state where landlords can file criminal charges rather than civil complaints against tenants for falling behind on rent .
Drake told ProPublica , “ I hate that law .
It ’ s unconstitutional.
” It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment , he said , echoing other Arkansas legal experts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law , which dates to 1901 , if a tenant ’ s rent is a day overdue , they forfeit their right to be in the property .
If they don ’ t leave their homes within 10 days of getting a notice from their landlords , they can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined for each day they overstay .
Evictions in the state can snowball from charges to warrants to arrests to jail time , leaving people with criminal records that hinder their ability to find a new home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evictions , by contrast , landlords can pursue unpaid rent and other additional fees from tenants , but the process doesn ’ t include daily fines for staying in the property without paying or put tenants at risk of jail time .
ProPublica found that since 2018 , more than 1,000 cases have been filed under the criminal eviction statute .
During that time , judges have sentenced at least 37 renters to jail after charges stemming from the law , which is officially known as “ failure to pay rent , failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color have disproportionately been charged .
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s national moratorium on evictions did not stop the criminal filings .
Since the Sept. 4 order , at least 49 people have been charged , with more than two dozen cases filed in the last month .
Meanwhile , the number of new cases of the coronavirus in Arkansas has risen dramatically since mid-September .
The state now has over 1,000 hospitalized because of the virus , according to Gov .
Asa Hutchinson .
Landlords told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil evictions because the criminal process is cheaper .
Taxpayers shoulder the cost when county attorneys like Lawrence and Drake pursue tenants .
In civil eviction hearings , landlords have to cover their attorney fees .
Drake had been prosecuting cases on behalf of Garland County , in central Arkansas , since March 2018 on a part-time basis .
Lawrence called Drake into her office the day after ProPublica ’ s story ran and said she was firing him because his remarks drew media and statewide attention to her office , Drake said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garland County ’ s prosecuting attorney ’ s office in 1994 and was elected as the prosecuting attorney in 2016 , declined to comment , citing an office prohibition on speaking about personnel matters .
During Drake ’ s tenure , he handled at least a dozen criminal eviction cases .
Like many landlords , state legislators and prosecutors , he had the impression that the statute never led to arrests or jail time .
That ’ s not true , however .
Since 2018 , 45 people have been arrested exclusively for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to state records .
Despite his misimpression , Drake nevertheless disliked the statute because he said it effectively transformed county attorneys and law enforcement officers into collection agents for landlords .
But he said he felt he had no choice but to prosecute the cases because it was his job .
He never voiced his objections until the ProPublica story .
“ I stand by what I said .
I still feel the same way , ” he said .
“ It ’ s one of those things that I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve never been in a situation where I could do anything about it.
” Now , he said , “ I can at least call more attention to it.
” If Lawrence “ wants to be the one that sticks up for the landlord and continues using tax money to evict people , then there is nothing I can do about it other than point it out to people , ” he said .
Other elected prosecuting attorneys in the state have declined to prosecute the eviction cases .
Prosecutors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pulaski , have stopped accepting the filings altogether .
In other jurisdictions , judges have stopped hearing cases under the statute .
Of the 21 largest counties in the state , ProPublica and the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network found only five contained district courts that processed any criminal eviction filings in 2020 .
After the CDC moratorium this September , a judge and attorney in the state ’ s western Polk County chose to stop pursuing the cases until further notice .
Judge Danny Thrailkill told ProPublica he has long approached the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce it because a lot of people don ’ t have anywhere to go , ” he said .
“ It ’ s really a civil matter.
” Andy Riner , a prosecuting attorney who was just elected into a circuit judge position that will begin in January , said he had found the statute ineffective to begin with .
“ If you ’ re fining someone who is already broke , that doesn ’ t get their attention , that doesn ’ t improve their conduct , ” Riner said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any sense.
” Five years ago , a circuit court judge ruled the statute violated the Eighth Amendment ’ s clause banning cruel and unusual punishment , as well as federal and state bans on debtors prisons , but his ruling did not cover the entire state .
Other judges have upheld the statute .
Advocates are planning to try to get the law repealed in the next session of the state legislature .
“ Like I hoped from the first time I stepped foot in the state and learned about the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeal it , ” Drake said .

An Arkansas prosecutor has been fired after speaking out against the state’s criminal eviction statute.
An Arkansas prosecutor has been fired after speaking out against the state’s criminal eviction statute in an October ProPublica story. Garland County deputy prosecutor Josh Drake was let go from his position on Oct. 31 by Michelle Lawrence, the prosecuting attorney.
Arkansas is the only state where landlords can file criminal charges rather than civil complaints against tenants for falling behind on rent. Drake told ProPublica, “I hate that law. It’s unconstitutional.” It constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, he said, echoing other Arkansas legal experts and advocates across the political spectrum.
Under the law, which dates to 1901, if a tenant’s rent is a day overdue, they forfeit their right to be in the property. If they don’t leave their homes within 10 days of getting a notice from their landlords, they can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined for each day they overstay.
Evictions in the state can snowball from charges to warrants to arrests to jail time, leaving people with criminal records that hinder their ability to find a new home or get a job. In civil evictions, by contrast, landlords can pursue unpaid rent and other additional fees from tenants, but the process doesn’t include daily fines for staying in the property without paying or put tenants at risk of jail time.
ProPublica found that since 2018, more than 1,000 cases have been filed under the criminal eviction statute. During that time, judges have sentenced at least 37 renters to jail after charges stemming from the law, which is officially known as “failure to pay rent, failure to vacate.” Women and people of color have disproportionately been charged.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national moratorium on evictions did not stop the criminal filings. Since the Sept. 4 order, at least 49 people have been charged, with more than two dozen cases filed in the last month. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the coronavirus in Arkansas has risen dramatically since mid-September. The state now has over 1,000 hospitalized because of the virus, according to Gov. Asa Hutchinson.
Landlords told ProPublica they preferred the criminal statute to civil evictions because the criminal process is cheaper. Taxpayers shoulder the cost when county attorneys like Lawrence and Drake pursue tenants. In civil eviction hearings, landlords have to cover their attorney fees.
Drake had been prosecuting cases on behalf of Garland County, in central Arkansas, since March 2018 on a part-time basis. Lawrence called Drake into her office the day after ProPublica’s story ran and said she was firing him because his remarks drew media and statewide attention to her office, Drake said.
Lawrence, who began working in Garland County’s prosecuting attorney’s office in 1994 and was elected as the prosecuting attorney in 2016, declined to comment, citing an office prohibition on speaking about personnel matters.
During Drake’s tenure, he handled at least a dozen criminal eviction cases. Like many landlords, state legislators and prosecutors, he had the impression that the statute never led to arrests or jail time. That’s not true, however. Since 2018, 45 people have been arrested exclusively for failing to pay rent and not leaving, according to state records.
Despite his misimpression, Drake nevertheless disliked the statute because he said it effectively transformed county attorneys and law enforcement officers into collection agents for landlords. But he said he felt he had no choice but to prosecute the cases because it was his job. He never voiced his objections until the ProPublica story.
“I stand by what I said. I still feel the same way,” he said. “It’s one of those things that I’ve always been ashamed of, but I’ve never been in a situation where I could do anything about it.” Now, he said, “I can at least call more attention to it.”
If Lawrence “wants to be the one that sticks up for the landlord and continues using tax money to evict people, then there is nothing I can do about it other than point it out to people,” he said.
Other elected prosecuting attorneys in the state have declined to prosecute the eviction cases. Prosecutors in the state’s most populous county, Pulaski, have stopped accepting the filings altogether. In other jurisdictions, judges have stopped hearing cases under the statute. Of the 21 largest counties in the state, ProPublica and the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network found only five contained district courts that processed any criminal eviction filings in 2020.
After the CDC moratorium this September, a judge and attorney in the state’s western Polk County chose to stop pursuing the cases until further notice. Judge Danny Thrailkill told ProPublica he has long approached the law with unease. “You hate to enforce it because a lot of people don’t have anywhere to go,” he said. “It’s really a civil matter.”
Andy Riner, a prosecuting attorney who was just elected into a circuit judge position that will begin in January, said he had found the statute ineffective to begin with. “If you’re fining someone who is already broke, that doesn’t get their attention, that doesn’t improve their conduct,” Riner said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Five years ago, a circuit court judge ruled the statute violated the Eighth Amendment’s clause banning cruel and unusual punishment, as well as federal and state bans on debtors prisons, but his ruling did not cover the entire state. Other judges have upheld the statute.
Advocates are planning to try to get the law repealed in the next session of the state legislature.
“Like I hoped from the first time I stepped foot in the state and learned about the law, I hope that the legislature will repeal it,” Drake said.
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--2020-11-29--Food Banks Are So Overwhelmed With Demand That They Are Resorting to Rationing

One in six U.S. families with children don ’ t have enough to eat this holiday season , a national emergency exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and the unemployment crisis it has generated .
Over the past several days , remarkable reporting in the Washington Post and National Geographic , among other outlets , has explored this alarming trend .
According to Feeding America , the largest hunger relief organization in the U.S. , more than 50 million people will experience food insecurity by the end of the year .
Among U.S. children , the figure rises to one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a network of some 200 food banks across the nation , says it distributed over half a billion meals last month alone , a 52 % increase from an average pre-pandemic month .
The latest U.S. Census Bureau pandemic survey , published earlier this month , found that fewer than half of U.S. households with children were “ very confident ” they could afford to provide enough food for their families in the next month .
As is so often the case when it comes to matters of economic inequality , Black , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted by the hunger crisis .
Among the 25 U.S. counties experiencing the worst food insecurity , only four have majority white populations , all of them in rural Kentucky .
Census Bureau data reveals that fully 27 % of Black and 23 % of Latinx households with children reported not having enough to eat over the past week — compared with just 12 % of white families .
“ This is a story about racial and ethnic disparities — both food insecurity and the story of coronavirus , ” Emily Engelhard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research unit , told National Geographic .
“ The populations and geographies that started in the most disadvantageous state of food insecurity are the ones that are getting hit the hardest ” during the pandemic .
“ People are seeing hunger like they ’ ve never seen it before , ” Trisha Cunningham , president of the North Texas Food Bank — where cars lined up for miles and people slept in their vehicles waiting for Thanksgiving food boxes — told National Geographic .
On November 14 , its busiest day on record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including 7,000 whole turkeys — to more than 25,000 people .
In northeastern Ohio , the Greater Cleveland Food Bank planned to distribute 12,000 meals , a 5,000-meal increase from a year ago .
“ We ’ re now seeing families who had an emergency fund but it ’ s gone and they ’ re at the end of their rope , ” Kristin Warzocha , president of the Greater Cleveland Food Bank , told the Guardian .
“ We ’ re going to be doing this for a really long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the impact hunger has on physical health , learning and development for children , and parents ’ stress.
” In Texas ’ second-largest city , the San Antonio Food Bank distributes eight semi-trucks full of food every day , but still was forced to resort to rationing due to soaring need .
“ Covid-19 has taken so much , people ’ s jobs , their loved ones , and now we ’ re just trying to stop it from taking Thanksgiving , ” San Antonio Food Bank CEO Eric Cooper told CNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60,000 people a week , and now we ’ re seeing around 120,000… and most of those are new to the food bank .
They ’ ve never had to ask for help before.
” Indeed , among the thousands of cars that lined up starting in the pre-dawn hours for free Thanksgiving meals at Houston ’ s NRG Stadium last weekend , there were more than a few luxury makes .
“ I was just telling my mom , ‘ You look at people pulling up in Mercedes and stuff , come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recently laid-off cook at the stadium who was waiting in line with his elderly mother , told the Post .
“ If a person driving a Mercedes is in need of food , you know it ’ s bad.
” “ It ’ s been hard to survive , ” Young said .
“ Money is low .
No jobs .
Hard to find work.
” Loudoun County , Virginia is per capita the wealthiest county in the nation , with a median household income of just under $ 140,000 .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handed out meals to 887 households in one recent week , a 300 % increase from pre-pandemic activity .
“ We are continuing to see people who have never used our services before , ” Jennifer Montgomery , Loudoun Hunger Relief ’ s executive director , told the Post .
In the nation ’ s largest city , Food Bank for NYC president Leslie Gordon told France 24 that “ even before the pandemic , there were 1.5 million residents here across the five boroughs who didn ’ t always know where their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be , and that ’ s escalated considerably to nearly two million of our neighbors.
” “ Across the country demand has not let up , and food banks do everything they can to make sure families have food on the table for Thanksgiving , ” Zuani Villareal , a spokesperson for Feeding America told the Guardian .
“ There ’ s no end in sight , but we can ’ t be the only solution.
” Celia Call , CEO of Feeding Texas , stressed to the Post that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll be hard-pressed to keep up ” with demand .
“ We ’ re just bracing for the worst , ” she added .
Several progressive lawmakers tweeted the Post article over the past two days .
One of them , Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) , said that “ Congress has the power to address this crisis , ” and asked , “ Why aren ’ t we doing it ?
”

One in six U.S. families with children don’t have enough to eat this holiday season, a national emergency exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and the unemployment crisis it has generated. Over the past several days, remarkable reporting in the Washington Post and National Geographic, among other outlets, has explored this alarming trend.
According to Feeding America, the largest hunger relief organization in the U.S., more than 50 million people will experience food insecurity by the end of the year. Among U.S. children, the figure rises to one in four. The group, which runs a network of some 200 food banks across the nation, says it distributed over half a billion meals last month alone, a 52% increase from an average pre-pandemic month.
The latest U.S. Census Bureau pandemic survey, published earlier this month, found that fewer than half of U.S. households with children were “very confident” they could afford to provide enough food for their families in the next month.
As is so often the case when it comes to matters of economic inequality, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted by the hunger crisis. Among the 25 U.S. counties experiencing the worst food insecurity, only four have majority white populations, all of them in rural Kentucky. Census Bureau data reveals that fully 27% of Black and 23% of Latinx households with children reported not having enough to eat over the past week — compared with just 12% of white families.
“This is a story about racial and ethnic disparities — both food insecurity and the story of coronavirus,” Emily Engelhard, managing director of Feeding America’s research unit, told National Geographic. “The populations and geographies that started in the most disadvantageous state of food insecurity are the ones that are getting hit the hardest” during the pandemic.
This is the reality we’re dealing with now. Nearly 26 million Americans say they didn’t have enough to eat in the past week. No one should be too poor to buy food for Thanksgiving. https://t.co/QyhTN4MwLp — Barbara Lee (@BLeeForCongress) November 25, 2020
“People are seeing hunger like they’ve never seen it before,” Trisha Cunningham, president of the North Texas Food Bank — where cars lined up for miles and people slept in their vehicles waiting for Thanksgiving food boxes — told National Geographic. On November 14, its busiest day on record, North Texas Food Bank provided groceries — including 7,000 whole turkeys — to more than 25,000 people.
In northeastern Ohio, the Greater Cleveland Food Bank planned to distribute 12,000 meals, a 5,000-meal increase from a year ago.
“We’re now seeing families who had an emergency fund but it’s gone and they’re at the end of their rope,” Kristin Warzocha, president of the Greater Cleveland Food Bank, told the Guardian. “We’re going to be doing this for a really long time, and that’s frankly terrifying given the impact hunger has on physical health, learning and development for children, and parents’ stress.”
In Texas’ second-largest city, the San Antonio Food Bank distributes eight semi-trucks full of food every day, but still was forced to resort to rationing due to soaring need.
“Covid-19 has taken so much, people’s jobs, their loved ones, and now we’re just trying to stop it from taking Thanksgiving,” San Antonio Food Bank CEO Eric Cooper told CNBC. “Pre-pandemic we were feeding around 60,000 people a week, and now we’re seeing around 120,000… and most of those are new to the food bank. They’ve never had to ask for help before.”
Indeed, among the thousands of cars that lined up starting in the pre-dawn hours for free Thanksgiving meals at Houston’s NRG Stadium last weekend, there were more than a few luxury makes.
“I was just telling my mom, ‘You look at people pulling up in Mercedes and stuff, come on,'” Randy Young, a recently laid-off cook at the stadium who was waiting in line with his elderly mother, told the Post. “If a person driving a Mercedes is in need of food, you know it’s bad.”
“It’s been hard to survive,” Young said. “Money is low. No jobs. Hard to find work.”
Loudoun County, Virginia is per capita the wealthiest county in the nation, with a median household income of just under $140,000. Yet the Post reports Loudoun Hunger Relief recently handed out meals to 887 households in one recent week, a 300% increase from pre-pandemic activity.
“We are continuing to see people who have never used our services before,” Jennifer Montgomery, Loudoun Hunger Relief’s executive director, told the Post.
In the nation’s largest city, Food Bank for NYC president Leslie Gordon told France 24 that “even before the pandemic, there were 1.5 million residents here across the five boroughs who didn’t always know where their next meal was coming from or what it would be, and that’s escalated considerably to nearly two million of our neighbors.”
“Across the country demand has not let up, and food banks do everything they can to make sure families have food on the table for Thanksgiving,” Zuani Villareal, a spokesperson for Feeding America told the Guardian. “There’s no end in sight, but we can’t be the only solution.”
Celia Call, CEO of Feeding Texas, stressed to the Post that “without sustained aid at the federal level, we’ll be hard-pressed to keep up” with demand. “We’re just bracing for the worst,” she added.
Several progressive lawmakers tweeted the Post article over the past two days. One of them, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said that “Congress has the power to address this crisis,” and asked, “Why aren’t we doing it?”
We’re facing an unprecedented hunger crisis in America. 26 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, are going hungry. In the richest nation in the world, that’s unconscionable. Congress has the power to address this crisis. Why aren’t we doing it?https://t.co/us7aikA1h9 — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) November 27, 2020
We actively work to end hunger around the world, but still haven’t gotten serious about ending it here in America. Eradicating hunger should be a priority. When I came to America 25yrs ago, it was shocking to see people line up to get food & it still is. https://t.co/OETr7eWpTc — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 27, 2020
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.