Ed Rendell, the DA who presided over this atrocity, is now a surrogate for Joe Biden
Here he is acting as a Biden surrogate saying "we are not a progressive party" (https://twitter.com/cascamike/status/1143708718854545409 …). Before that he was a Clinton surrogate, during which time he said some pretty sexist stuff (https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/ed-rendell-women-donald-trump/index.html …) and praised FOX News (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clinton-surrogate-ed-rend_n_94280 …).
House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a sprawling 1,815-page, $3 trillion coronavirus relief package that spurns many of the key demands of progressive activists and lawmakers while including proposals that immediately provoked backlash, such as a tax cut for the wealthy and a provision that would allow corporate lobbying organizations to take part in federal small business loan program.
Formally titled the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, the bill (pdf) would provide $1 trillion in additional funding for state and local governments, extend beefed-up unemployment benefits through January of next year, authorize an additional round of one-time $1,200 stimulus payments for adults earning up to $75,000 per year, expand federal nutrition benefits, provide $25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service, establish a hazard pay fund for frontline workers, and increase spending on Covid-19 testing.
"It is too small even if it passed as is. As a starting point for negotiation it is going to be a disaster."
—Jon Walker, freelance journalist
While there is much in the bill that progressives support, observers who combed through the nearly 2,000 pages of legislative text were quick to highlight sections and omissions that they deemed unacceptable.
The bill, which the House is expected to vote on as early as Friday, does not contain recurring direct cash payments, a paycheck guarantee, cancellation of rent and mortgage payments, or expansion of Medicare to cover the rapidly growing number of unemployed and uninsured Americans.
The legislation does, however, propose an expansion of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) eligibility to include corporate lobbying organizations—which aggressively pushed for the change—and a bailout for landlords.
"Democratic leadership has had plenty of input from progressive thinkers over the past couple of months. They just care more about the input from corporate lobbyists," tweeted HuffPost senior reporter Zach Carter. "There is just no excuse for this."
Instead of expanding Medicare as progressives recommended, the HEROES Act "funds approximately nine months of full premium subsidies for the existing health insurance program COBRA, which allows laid-off or furloughed employees to stay on their health insurance plans," Vox's Ella Nilsen and Li Zhou reported.
Progressives have vocally criticized the COBRA proposal as a mere subsidy to the private insurance industry that would not be nearly as beneficial or cost-effective as the emergency Medicare expansion proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, pushed hard for the inclusion of her Paycheck Guarantee Act but was rebuffed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has wielded near-unilateral authority over the negotiating process as lawmakers remain in their home districts due to Covid-19 fears.
As an alternative to Jayapal's ambitious paycheck guarantee proposal, which would have provided companies with direct payroll grants to keep workers employed, the newly unveiled legislation proposes an expansion of the Employee Retention Tax Credit.
Even as the legislation fails to meet demands that progressives characterized as basic steps toward ensuring economic security and public health, the House Democratic leadership has signaled that they're willing to negotiate down even further as talks over the stimulus package continue.
"Democrats acknowledge that their behemoth proposal, whose summary alone is 90 pages, is more of a talking point than legislation that they expect to become law," Politico reported.
Freelance journalist Jon Walker called the HEROES Act "deeply depressing," particularly as an opening bid in negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate and the Trump White House.
"It is too small even if it passed as is," Walker tweeted. "As a starting point for negotiation it is going to be a disaster."
Though critics described the legislation as inadequate as a whole, progressive advocacy groups applauded a number of individual provisions in the bill.
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Action, celebrated the inclusion of a nationwide moratorium on water shut-offs amid the coronavirus pandemic.
"Grassroots efforts across the country have finally paid off today as our congressional leaders move to protect the human right to water," Hauter said in a statement.
Stand Up America, meanwhile, praised the bill's proposal of an additional $3.6 billion in election assistance funding to help states expand vote-by-mail capacity.
"We applaud House Democrats for fighting to protect our democracy and working to provide states the critical resources they need to expand mail-in voting and make in-person voting safer," said Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge. "This bill would help ensure that voters won't be forced to risk their health to cast their ballot amid this pandemic."
*cue Malcolm X for the 1,000,000th time*
United States representatives, no matter their racial or ethnic backgrounds, appear unable to perceive the inherent white supremacy in the notion that the US has some altruistic responsibility to police the continent of Africa with military troops and supervisors. As a result, "people of color," such as the Somali-"American" Congresswoman IIhan Omar provide political and moral cover to the presence of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the dubious claims about “US interests” on the continent.
Only an erasure of brutal European colonization from history and its “Scramble for Africa” to steal her rich mineral resources and vast tracts of arable land can justify giving heirs of European colonialism a role of benevolence. AFRICOM is the colonization of Africa by the U.S. and constitutes the new scramble for Africa tantamount to when, in the 1800s, the colonial powers fought over which of them would dominate which parts of the resource rich continent.
It is a strange but illuminating irony that AFRICOM’s most intense drone war is in Somalia and that the U.S. Congress has its first House representative of Somali origin. Instead of this being an asset to expose AFRICOM and to the decolonization Africa, Rep. Ilhan Omar validates the role of AFRICOM.
“AFRICOM is the colonization of Africa by the U.S.”
Recently, the Minnesota Representative sent a letter to AFRICOM General Stephen Townsend commending AFRICOM for a “step to provide increased transparency and public accounting of U.S. military operations and as part of our national commitment to minimizing civilian casualties.” This essentially legitimizes the dehumanizing European concept of collateral damage, something only colonizers and minions of colonizers would concede to.
For AFRICOM, what matters more than Black Lives is what Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, former AFRICOM Deputy admitted is, “Protecting the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.”
Rep. Omar’s letter was prompted by discrepancies between AFRICOM’s reporting of casualties of its drone war against Somalia versus the reporting by NGOs like Amnesty International and AirWars. Omar’s letter expresses concern for the credibility and productivity of a phony U.S. counterterrorism strategy and was co-signed by Reps. Adam B. Schiff, Eliot L. Engel, André Carson, James R. Langevin, Terri A. Sewell, and Karen Bass.
AFRICOM has admitted to killing only two civilians in Somalia, while AirWars found that between 71 and 139 civilians have been killed since 2007. Amnesty International ’s analysis of 9 cases since 2017 says US airstrikes have killed 21 civilians and injured 11 more.
“Omar essentially legitimizes the dehumanizing European concept of collateral damage.”
A call for AFRICOM to be more transparent and accountable obscures its insidious nature by presuming it has a benevolent purpose. Like its 11 counterparts , this Command serves the neocolonial interest of the US and generates less security, less democracy and diminished human rights for the masses of African people who are in conflict with governments occupied by a comprador class propped up by the U.S. and Western Europe.
African independence movements since the 1950s have been destabilized by U.S. administrations of both parties. Leaders such as Patrice Lumumba of Congo, assassinated by the CIA, and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, who was overthrown in a CIA orchestrated coup, fell victim to U.S. meddling. Long-standing U.S. military aid to, and close joint operations with, Rwanda and Uganda led proxies of these countries into the Congo, contributing to the deaths of 6 million people between 1998 and 2007. In 2018 thousands of Ghanaians rallied in the streets of their capital to protest a deal that would give the United States military an expanded role in Ghana.
The U.S. mainstream media and politicians blame the crisis in Somalia on Al-Shabaab, an Islamist insurgent group that controls much of southern Somalia. The main culprit behind the crisis, however, is the United States government that led a military invasion of the country from 1992 to 93 in a nefariously dubbed Operation Restore Hope. Ever since, Somalia has been in a perpetual state of war, the condition that landed Rep. Omar and her family in a Kenyan refugee camp as a child before eventually making it to the U.S.
“The Command generates less security, less democracy and diminished human rights for the masses of African people.”
Al-Shabaab is a product of this U.S. destabilization and the U.S. continues to benefit from a situation that it created by using this radicalized and extreme resistance to U.S. domination as an excuse to have AFRICOM in the region.
AFRICOM operates under the paradigm of innocent civilians versus enemy combatants. U.S. President George W. Bush first used the enemy combatant framework following 9/11 by claiming the executive power to invent “black sites” in nearly every part of the globe. These enemy combatants were denied due process and were subjected to torture, immoral actions that are counter to international law and the Geneva Conventions.
Today AFRICOM is able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, regardless of whether they are part of Al-Shabaab or not.
During the U.S./NATO’s war on Libya the CIA was not merely conducting covert surveillance on the Islamists based in eastern Libya, but providing them with direct aid and coordinating their operations with the war in Syria. After Col. Gaddafi was executed on October 20, 2011 there were daily reports of fighting all across Libya with levels of insecurity unprecedented in the history of the country, with over 1,700 roaming militias. This has allowed Islamist forces throughout Northern and Eastern Africa to obtain weaponry and further destabilize countries in the region, including Somalia.
U.S. and Western power in oppressed nations depends on neo-colonialism to create the repressive force of a mis-leadership class that will quash dissent and grant Pan-European, white supremacist, capitalists patriachy unfettered access to Africa’s mineral and human resources, land, and markets.
“NATO’s war on Libya allowed Islamist forces throughout Northern and Eastern Africa to obtain weaponry and further destabilize countries in the region.”
Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided opportunities for these misleaders on the African continent to pass regulations curtailing freedoms , like the contraction of civic space; bans on movement and assembly; and even on free speech. AFRICOM works in tandem with this kind of repression.
With misleading headlines, earlier this year the Department of Defense claimed a troop drawdown for AFRICOM that was really only a deployment shift from West Africa to East Africa. The United States far exceeds all other countries in military spending while it’s also number one in COVID-19 deaths. U.S. military expenditures reached $732 billion in 2019, more than the next 10 countries combined and is substantially more than the bottom 139 combined. Any Black leader worthy of the title would not miss pointing out this obscene contradiction against the disproportionate rate of COVID-19 infections and deaths among the African (Black) working class in the U.S.
The US settler state amasses great amounts of economic wealth from the exploitation of its domestic African (Black) working class population, then allocates vast amounts of that wealth to oppress their kin back in the Motherland.
“The United States far exceeds all other countries in military spending while it’s also number one in COVID-19 deaths.”
Until the Black working class, particularly within the U.S., can establish itself as the main social force of a reconstituted Black Liberation project committed to an authentic process of decolonization in every sense of that term, the U.S. will continue to exert direct influence on the continent through AFRICOM.
Plans were recently revealed indicating that the Pentagon is interested in expanding its infrastructure in Africa, for drone intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance, and warfare, as well as training camps and lily-pad bases for increasing the U.S. capacity to project forces in key regions: the Horn of Africa, East Africa and the Sahel.
Anyone embracing an allegiance to U.S. geopolitical interests objectively pits themselves against the interests of Black people everywhere in the world. To act in the best interest of Black people and all of humanity means calling for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Africa and for the demilitarization of the African continent, and the world.
Meant to be "a" hobby. Thanks for that hoe ass nikkaTry to make an intellectual thread but don’t know the difference between are and our, brehs.
One of Biden's key foreign advisers, former CIA official Avril Haines, was a consultant for a data-mining firm that helped Trump carry out mass deportations. Now all traces of that affiliation have suddenly vanished (unless you use the Wayback Machine).
In late November, shortly after the US-backed military coup that unseated the legitimate president of Bolivia, I together with my life companion requested a meeting with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, whose local offices are located just a short walk from our Jackson Heights apartment building. Working on behalf of a group of anti-imperialists opposing the fascist junta, we hoped to persuade her of the need to act quickly to thwart the coup and defend the lives and rights of the Bolivian people.
Although we never got past the reception desk, we were permitted to present a petition signed by leading academics and anti-imperialist organizers on behalf of the people of Bolivia. We provided all personal data and contact info requested by the office. We were promised that we would be contacted promptly to discuss scheduling a meeting.
We were not contacted. For weeks. After pressing the issue, always taking care to remain courteous and respectful of process, we were subjected to a galling and contemptuous bureaucratic runaround that sometimes felt like applying to – and being rejected by – an exclusive private school.
This three-month process involved repeated visits to her office, where our reception ranged from chilly to downright intimidating, endless emails and telephone calls, bureaucratic excuses and dissimulations, and eventually, after much persistence on our part, a half-hour vetting via conference call by a Washington staffer.
The result? As we say in Queens, bubkes.
By contrast, a group of imperialist sympathizers who had been promoting the coup for months were granted instant access. On November 16, four days after the military coup that destroyed Bolivian democracy, Ocasio-Cortez met with a group of pro-Áñez, pro-Camacho activists led by one Ana Carola Traverso. Traverso’s connections to the Bolivian coup plotters have been extensively documented online.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez symbolically embraced the coup by posing for a photo with this group as they brandished the tricolor Bolivian flag, which during that period had become a signal of support for the golpistas (as opposed to the Wiphala flag, which symbolized popular resistance to the takeover). She told them that she supports their “democratic grassroots movement” and offered them “direct lines of communication.”
In sum, a gang of coup supporters, not constituents, were granted instant access, a photo op and promises of ongoing support. Actual constituents, opposing the coup, were shown the door.
Our reception by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was radically different from that I received from her predecessor, Joe Crowley. When, in 2004, I requested a meeting on behalf of the Queens Antiwar Coalition, we were granted prompt and respectful access to the Congressman. We did not have high hopes of changing his vote on the Iraq, but we felt it was important that he hear from his constituents.
So, apparently, did he. We were greeted warmly in his rather funky local office – a striking contrast with AOC’s soulless corporate-style digs, where underlings refer to her as “the Boss” – and were encouraged to speak our piece. Crowley never pretended to be an opponent of US imperialism, but he gave us a respectful hearing, stated his position, and engaged in what felt like meaningful discussion of the war. At a minimum, as Twitter’s bluecheck pundits would say, we felt “seen.”
AOC, by contrast, has no time for people who cannot help her to burnish her brand as she prepares to run for higher office. As a local staffer (who declined to introduce himself) proudly informed us: “She refuses 99 percent of meeting requests from constituents.”
Meanwhile, she happily clears her schedule for interviews about her makeup routine, canned videos in which she postures as a fearless progressive, and closed-door meetings with regime-change sympathizers.
But she will not make time for residents of her district. So much for “ordinary people.”
did anybody respond to info about trump pushing a medicare for all bill?wheres the info on this medicare for all bill?