Anti-fascist Brazilians expressed horror late Sunday as they watched the misogynist, racist former military officer Jair Bolsonaro advance toward a likely victory in the country’s presidential race, days after hundreds of thousands of women and allies protested his extremist agenda.
Shocking journalists and poll-takers by unexpectedly winning 46 percent of the vote in the general election’s first round, Bolsonaro now heads to a run-off scheduled for October 28. He will face former São Paulo Mayor Fernando Haddad of the Worker’s Party (PT), who garnered just over 29 percent of the vote.
The election results stoked fears that under Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party (PSL), Brazilians could soon be living under a military dictatorship like the ones that ruled the country for large portions of the 20th century—and which Bolsonaro has reminisced about during his campaign.
The danger of a fascist takeover is especially plausible because the country lacks strong institutions that could keep Bolsonaro’s power in check, as Brazil-based journalist Glenn Greenwald explained on Democracy Now! last week.
“You really don’t have institutions the way you do in the U.S., like a strong Supreme Court or a kind of deep state of the CIA and the FBI or political parties that would constrain him in what he wants to do,” Greenwald said. “And especially given how much popular support there now is behind him, there’s a substantial part of the country that is genuinely terrified about what he intends to do, and intends to do rather quickly, and probably can do—namely, bringing back the worst abuses of the kinds of dictatorships that summarily executed dissidents, that shut down media outlets, that closed congresses, that we thought was a thing of the past here in Latin America but is now on the verge of returning to its most important and largest country.”
In addition to defending torture, endorsing unequal pay for women, and claiming he would rather learn that his son was killed in a car accident than that he was gay, Bolsonaro has advocated for the kind of deadly law enforcement favored by Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte—who has authorized police and the military to indiscriminately kill anyone suspected of dealing drugs. He has also called to loosen gun restrictions in Brazil and vehemently opposes abortion rights.
Women across the country and around the world have protested Bolsonaro’s campaign in recent weeks, with about four million of them joining the Facebook group Women United Against Bolsonaro and hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating on September 28, many carrying banners that read, “Ele Não,” or “Not Him.”
For many, according to an editorial in the Guardian written by Brazilian journalist Elaine Brum, Bolsonaro’s rise to prominence is the result of disenchantment with the PT, which reduced poverty but became mired in corruption in recent years.
“In the cities,” Brum wrote, “he has the support of the leaders of evangelical religious empires, who defend the concept that marriage is possible only between a man and a woman. The far-right candidate also leads among wealthier, more educated men, reflecting the calibre of the Brazilian elites. In addition to his staunch supporters, he attracts a slice of the population that is simply anti-PT.”
Should Bolsonaro win the October 28 run-off, Brazil will become the latest major economic power to fall into the hands of a right-wing, populist strongman leader, following similar victories in Europe, largely thanks to growing anti-immigrant sentiment there.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Citing racial bias and arbitrary application, the Supreme Court of Washington on Thursday ruled that the use of capital punishment violates the state’s Constitution, a decision that will ban the use of the death penalty going forward and immediately commuted the sentences of death-row inmates to life terms.
“Washington’s Supreme Court showed courage in refusing to allow racism to infect life and death decisions. Let’s hope that courage is contagious.” —Jeff Robinson, ACLU”Today’s decision by the state Supreme Court thankfully ends the death penalty in Washington,” declared Washington’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in response to the ruling.
“The court makes it perfectly clear that capital punishment in our state has been imposed in an ‘arbitrary and racially biased manner,’ is ‘unequally applied’ and serves no criminal justice goal,” Inslee added. “This is a hugely important moment in our pursuit for equal and fair application of justice.”
The ACLU noted the ruling makes Washington the 20th state in the U.S. to ban the death penalty, but the group said it “won’t stop fighting until it’s struck down everywhere in America.”
As Slate reports:
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Jeff Robinson, deputy legal director and director of the ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court recognized clearly that racial bias remains at the heart of “who should and who should die” in the America’s skewed justice system.
“There is nothing unique about the role racism played in Washington’s death penalty,” said Robinson. “What is rare is the Supreme Court’s willingness to call out the truth that has always been there.”
Noting that both conscious and unconscious racial bias “plays a role in the death penalty decisions across America, influencing who faces this ultimate punishment, who sits on the jury, what kind of victim impact and mitigation evidence is used, and who is given life or death,” Robinson said that this kind of “disparity can be described by many words — but justice is not one of them.”
Human rights groups and other death penalty opponents said they hope that others states, and ultimately the U.S. federal government, will now follow the other twenty states and ban the death penalty nationwide:
“Washington’s Supreme Court showed courage in refusing to allow racism to infect life and death decisions,” said the ACLU’s Robinson. “Let’s hope that courage is contagious.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The newly launched Medicare for All political action committee (PAC), chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), has revealed the first candidates getting its endorsement.
As the Huffington Post first reported, the eight Democrats are:
Kara Eastman, running for Nebraska’s Second Congressional District;
Andrew Gillum, running for Florida governor;
Josh Harder, running for California’s 10th Congressional District;
Katie Hill, running for California’s 25th District;
Mike Levin, running for California’s 49th District;
Katie Porter, running for California’s 45th District;
Harley Rouda, running for California’s 48th District; and
Liz Watson running for Indiana’s 9th District
“Access to quality affordable healthcare is becoming more and more unattainable for American families,” Jayapal—who is also co-chair of the House Medicare for All Caucus, told the HuffingtonPost. “That’s why we need fighters in public office committed to making Medicare for All a reality.”
In an earlier interview with HuffPost, Jayapal said of candidates getting a possible endorsement and financial support from the PAC, “The only criteria that we have is: are they legitimately for that or do they undercut it in the next sentence and say, ‘And the way to get there is through a Medicare buy-in,’ which doesn’t really get at the idea that we’re transforming the whole system?”
On its Twitter stream, the PAC has been encouraging supporters to help build momentum for more Democrats to sign on to the caucus:
The announcement of the endorsements comes on the heels of a survey from National Nurses United (NNU) finding that the majority of Democrats running for Congress in 2018—225 candidates out of 431 races—back Medicare for All.
“But even more important,” said Robert Weissman, president of advocacy group Public Citizen, “is why these candidates are embracing it—because an increasing majority of Americans, with increasing passion, is demanding that the United States end the rationing of healthcare with a Medicare for All system.”
Indeed, as the findings of a recent Hill.TV and HarrisX poll show, 92 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans support Medicare for All.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a “huge and hard fought victory” that writer and activist Shaun King called “one of the most important of our lifetime,” Florida on Tuesday overwhelming approved Amendment 4, which restores voting rights for 1.4 million state residents with past felony convictions who were barred from participating in elections even after completing their sentences.
“Not only does this repeal one of the country’s worst Jim Crow laws,” noted Public Citizen, “it’s also the largest expansion in voting rights since the Voting Rights Act,” which was enacted in 1965.
With 81 percent reporting on Tuesday evening, the ballot measure surpassed the 60 percent threshold needed, securing support from 64.1 percent of voters. While the measure restores rights for most felons who have fully completed their sentences, it does not extend to those with murder or sex crime convictions.
“For too long, Florida has been an extreme outlier,” concluded ACLU of Florida executive director Howard Simon. “Our state’s lifetime voting ban was the single most powerful voter suppression tactic in the country, shutting more people out of the voting booth and out of our democracy than any other single law or policy in the country.”
Prior to the state constitutional amendment’s passage, as Ari Berman reported for Mother Jones, Florida was “one of only four states that prevent ex-felons from voting even after they’ve paid their debt to society. This felon disenfranchisement law, which dates back to the Jim Crow era, blocks 10 percent of Floridians from voting, including one in five African Americans.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
The results came in ahead of a closely watched gubernatorial race between former Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis and Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum.
“The constitutional amendment the voters have now approved is not the end of this saga; it is more like the end of the beginning,” declared Simon, vowing to work with whoever is elected governor “to ensure that Amendment 4 is implemented as intended by the Floridians who placed in on the ballot and voted to approve it—without delay and without imposing more burdens on the process to register to vote.”
While the move is expected to significantly influence the political future of Florida—as Berman put it on Twitter, “Restoring voting rights to 1.4 million people is game changer for voting rights & criminal justice reform & will transform Florida’s political map”—Simon, and others, tied the outcome to the broader fight against attacks on democracy across the United States.
“Today, when democratic values are on the defensive worldwide,” he said, “Florida voters made a resoundingly clear statement that the state’s shameful lifetime ban on voting is not consistent with the values of democracy.”
Our Revolution president Nina Turner said in a statement that “tonight’s passage of Amendment 4, commonly referred to as ‘Second Chances,’ shows that we, as a country, are moving towards a more just, equitable society that lives up to the value of ‘one person, one vote.'”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
That’s how Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) responded Thursday to House Republicans’ successful efforts to block a vote on his war powers resolution that aimed to end U.S. support for the Saudi- and UAE-led coalition’s bombing of Yemen, which has produced the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and put some 14 million civilians at risk of starving to death.
On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee advanced legislation to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list, but inserted language that also would effectively prevent a floor vote on Khanna’s resolution. Wednesday evening, the House approved the rule 201-187.
“We’ve never seen those kinds of shenanigans with a war powers resolution,” Khanna said of the Republicans’ maneuvering on Democracy Now! Thursday morning. “They’re not just hurting children in Yemen and the humanitarian crisis—they’re undermining their own role as members of Congress.”
“Let’s be very clear: This is unprecedented… This is basically rendering ineffectual the War Powers Act,” Khanna said on the House floor Wednesday evening. With this move, he argued, the GOP-controlled chamber is essentially saying that “if the president of the United States and the speaker believe we should be at war, we should be at war. It doesn’t matter what members of Congress think.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
In terms of next steps, Khanna said that the Senate may take up a version of the resolution by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and if the upper chamber passes it, “we will bring it up again in the House before the lame-duck session ends because we don’t have time to waste.” If the Senate doesn’t vote, or rejects Sanders’ resolution, Khanna said he will push for a vote when Democrats take control of the House in January.
Although Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary James Mattis announced last week that the U.S. would halt the refueling of the coalition’s aircraft, as Khanna emphasized Thursday, “that’s not a binding decision.” In fact, “one of the reasons that Pompeo and Mattis called for a ceasefire of violence is they knew they were losing support in Congress. They knew that this war powers resolution was pending, that it was going to come for a vote, that they have 15 to 20 Republicans defecting—many from the Freedom Caucus—and they wanted to try to preempt that,” Khanna claimed.
“When the new Congress convenes next year, ending all U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating war in Yemen should be the first order of business.” —Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action
As Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action pointed out, “House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office cited the administration’s recent decision to end U.S. refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft in the war in Yemen as a reason for de-privileging the Yemen war powers resolution, but other forms of U.S. support for the coalition—arms sales, intelligence sharing, targeting assistance, and political support—are still fueling the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen.”
“When the new Congress convenes next year, ending all U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating war in Yemen should be the first order of business,” Martin added. While anti-war activists have fought for years to end U.S. complicity in the war and the subsequent humanitarian crisis, Saudi Arabia has garnered heightened media attention and criticism from the American public since Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last month.
“His last column in the Washington Post was calling for the end of the barbaric campaign in Yemen,” Khanna noted. “He was murdered precisely because he was speaking for hundreds of thousands of Yemeni civilians who didn’t have a voice, and I’m glad that Khashoggi’s murder has awakened the conscience of the United States and the world community about what was going on in Yemen.”
“But the way we honor Khashoggi is not simply to seek retribution for the killers who took his life,” the congressman concluded. “It’s to make sure that the killers who are taking the lives of children in Yemen and hundreds of thousands of Yemeni civilians are brought to justice and that that stops.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Less than two days after her deliverence of a “not a speech of concession” concession speech won applause from voting rights advocates nationwide, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams said on Sunday morning that the fight for voter access is not over by a long shot and—even though she admits the her race for governor is over—what the nation witnessed in her state and elsewhere should now serve as “call to arms” for pro-democracy reforms nationwide.
Asked by CNN host Jake Tapper if her Friday speech—in which she accused her Republican opponent Brian Kemp of “deliberate” efforts to skew the election by preventing people from voting—would “undermine faith in the democratic process,” Abrams said absolutely not, because she has chosen her words very carefully.
“We have had systematic disenfranchisement of voters,” she said. “We have seen gross mismanagement of our elections. And we have seen an erosion of faith in democracy in our state. Those are all true facts.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Watch:
“This is someone who has compromised our systems,” Abrams said subsequently of Kemp.
When Tapper pressed her on not using the word “legitimate” to describe the Republican victory, Abrams responded by saying that “what’s not right is saying that something was done properly when it was not. I will never deny the legal imprimatur that says he is in this position, and I pray for his success. But will I say that this election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? I will not say that.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on countries to “pick a side” on Venezuela, urging them to back opposition leader Juan Guaido in a Saturday speech at the UN Security Council in New York.
“Now, it is time for every other nation to pick a side. No more delays, no more games. Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem,” Pompeo told the Security Council.
Russia accused Washington of plotting a coup attempt and had tried to stop the meeting requested by the United States. “Venezuela does not represent a threat to peace and security. If anything does represent a threat to peace, it is the shameless and aggressive action of the United States and their allies aimed at the ouster of the legitimately elected president of Venezuela,” Russia’s UN ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, told the UN Council.
On Friday, neoconservative Elliott Abrams was appointed US special envoy for Venezuela.
“Elliott will be a true asset to our mission to help the Venezuelan people fully restore democracy and prosperity to their country,” Mr Pompeo said, according to Reuters.
“It’s very nice to be back. This crisis in Venezuela is deep and difficult and dangerous,” Abrams said Friday. “And I can’t wait to get to work on it.”
Abrams is known as the “Assistant Secretary of Dirty Wars,” a title he earned during his stints with the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations:
In 1993, after a UN truth commission which examined 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the twelve-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 per cent of the abuses to the Reagan-assisted right-wing military and its death-squad allies, assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Abrams said: “The administration’s record on El Salvador is one of fabulous achievement.”
Abrams organized the illegal, covert financing of Contra rebels in Nicaragua behind the back of Congress, which had cut off funding.
Abrams lied to Congress twice about his role with the Contras. He pleaded guilty to both counts in 1991 but was pardoned by George HW Bush.
Abrams, a decade later, while working as special Middle East adviser to former president George W Bush, Abrams was an enthusiastic advocate of the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Abrams was in the Bush White House at the time of the abortive coup in 2002 against the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Abrams helped lead the US effort to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, complete with murder and torture.
Also on Friday, a Wall Street Journal report confirmed suspicions that opposition leader Juan Guaido’s move to declare himself “interim president” of Venezuela this week was highly coordinated with the Trump White House and Republican lawmakers.
Guaido’s move and U.S. President Donald Trump’s rapid endorsement were quickly decried as a dangerous intervention—or the beginnings of a coup d’etat—which progressives argued would dramatically worsen the country’s economic and political crisis. As Common Dreams reported, over 70 academics and experts signed an open letter demanding that the U.S. “cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sen. Sherrod BrownSherrod Campbell BrownHillicon Valley: Senators raise concerns over government surveillance of protests | Amazon pauses police use of its facial recognition tech | FBI warns hackers are targeting mobile banking apps Democratic senators raise concerns over government surveillance of protests Some realistic solutions for income inequality MORE (D-Ohio) said that he’s not “actively considering” a run for the White House in 2020, though he said he thinks “about it from time to time.”
“I’m not actively considering it,” he said when asked about it during an interview earlier this week with the Cincinnati Enquirer’s editorial board.
But he also acknowledged hearing about it “more and more.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“I don’t have the great desire to be president like a lot of my colleagues do,” Brown said.
“I think about it from time to time,” he added, “but I’m not close to wanting to do that.”
Brown is among a handful of Democrats floated as possible 2020 challengers to President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE.
The two-term senator is up for reelection this year, but most polls show him with a comfortable lead over his Republican challenger, Rep. Jim RenacciJames (Jim) B. RenacciOhio is suddenly a 2020 battleground Democrats fear Ohio slipping further away in 2020 Medicare for All won’t deliver what Democrats promise MORE.
Trump beat out Democratic presidential nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE in Ohio in 2016, including in 17 counties that Brown won in his 2012 reelection bid.
Brown was once a potential pick to serve as Clinton’s running mate. She ultimately chose Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Senate panel passes amendment to bar using troops against protesters Defense bill turns into proxy battle over Floyd protests MORE (D-Va.) in part because Democrats did not want to run the risk of losing Brown’s Senate seat.
Democrats are hoping that gubernatorial candidate Richard CordrayRichard Adams CordrayPoll: Biden, Trump neck and neck in Ohio On The Money: Trump officials struggle to get relief loans out the door | Dow soars more than 1600 points | Kudlow says officials ‘looking at’ offering coronavirus bonds Ex-CFPB director urges agency to ‘act immediately’ to help consumers during pandemic MORE, the former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, can help the party retake the governor’s mansion in Ohio this year.
That would mean that a Democrat would likely be appointed to fill Brown’s seat should he mount a bid for president in 2020.
The gubernatorial race, however, remains close. A Politico–AARP poll released earlier this month shows Republican Mike DeWine leading Cordray by only 1 point in the race for the governor’s mansion.
Sen. Heidi HeitkampMary (Heidi) Kathryn Heitkamp70 former senators propose bipartisan caucus for incumbents Susan Collins set to play pivotal role in impeachment drama Pro-trade group launches media buy as Trump and Democrats near deal on new NAFTA MORE (D) is launching a new TV commercial touting an anti-human trafficking measure as the ad war in North Dakota’s Senate race heats up.
The 30-second spot features a testimony from Brandi Jude, a Bismarck-based advocate for victims of human trafficking, in which she praises the senator’s work on legislation cracking down on websites that facilitate trafficking.
ADVERTISEMENT
“My life’s calling is to help end human trafficking, and I’m so proud that it was Heidi Heitkamp’s law that shut down the trafficking websites,” Jude says in the ad. “She’s a national leader on human trafficking. For me, she’s an inspiration we can’t afford to lose.”
The ad is part of a six-figure TV and digital ad campaign expected to run across North Dakota in the coming weeks.
The spot touts her work on the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which does away with federal liability protections for websites deemed to facilitate sex trafficking, like classified advertising website Backpage.com.
President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE signed that measure into law in April, days after federal authorities seized Backpage.com.
Heitkamp is facing a tough reelection campaign against North Dakota Rep. Kevin CramerKevin John CramerRepublicans prepare to punt on next COVID-19 relief bill GOP senators introduce resolution opposing calls to defund the police Trump tweets spark fresh headache for Republicans MORE (R), who has sought to cast the first-term Democrat as out of touch with her home state and eager to obstruct Trump’s agenda in Washington.
She’s considered one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2018, among 10 in states won by Trump in 2016. The Cook Political Report currently rates the race as a toss-up.
Heitkamp’s latest ad comes as Cramer faces backlash over his recent comments about a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stemming from a high school party in the 1980s.
In a radio interview, Cramer dismissed the accuser’s allegations as “absurd.”
“These are teenagers who evidently were drunk, according to her own statement,” he said. “Nothing evidently happened in it all, even by her own accusation. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere.”
State Sen. Jennifer Wexton (D) holds a 6-point lead over vulnerable GOP incumbent Rep. Barbara ComstockBarbara Jean ComstockLive coverage: House holds third day of public impeachment hearings Gun debate raises stakes in battle for Virginia legislature Progressives face steep odds in ousting incumbent Democrats MORE in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, according to a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-percent of likely voters support Wexton, compared to 44 percent backing Comstock. A similar poll in June found Wexton with a 50 percent to 41 percent lead.
Monmouth University surveyed 374 likely voters in the congressional district from Sept. 26-30. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.
ADVERTISEMENT
The survey also found that 42 percent of likely voters viewing Comstock favorably, with 45 percent having a negative view of her. Thirteen percent said they have no opinion.
Wexton, meanwhile, is viewed favorably by 42 percent of respondents, while 31 percent had a negative view. Twenty-seven percent had no opinion.
President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s unpopularity is seen as a weight on Comstock, whose district is a suburb of Washington, D.C. Forty-three percent of likely voters in the district approve of his job performance, while 53 percent disapprove, according to the Monmouth poll.
About 73 percent of respondents said it is important for them to cast a vote that reflects their feelings for the president, a sentiment shared by 74 percent of Trump supporters and 82 percent of his opponents.
It was reported last week that internal polls in each campaign have the fight closer than public surveys that show Wexton ahead.
Comstock is widely considered one of the most vulnerable House incumbents in the midterm cycle. The Cook Political Report rates the race as “Lean Democratic.”