President Donald Trump was met with peaceful protesters in North Charleston, South Carolina on Friday as he gave a speech at a Boeing plant in his first visit to the state since winning its Republican presidential primary last year.
Members of Indivisible Charleston, a local resistance group, rallied at the North Charleston Coliseum near the plant, which produces the massive Dreamliner aircraft.
At least 100 people gathered to listen to speakers, wielding signs that read, “Truths not tweets,” and “No one is free when others are oppressed.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
One of the speakers read the 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King that opposed now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) famously attempted to read it on the floor of the Senate during Sessions’ confirmation vote this month, only to be censured by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Indivisible chapters have sprung up throughout the country in response to the Indivisible Guide, a field manual written by former congressional staffers that instructs local organizations on how to use the Tea Party’s obstructionist tactics—honed during the Obama administration—to oppose the rightwing agenda in the White House and Congress, now under Republican control.
Trump’s visit came just two days after Boeing’s thousands of workers voted against unionization, a somewhat predictable outcome in a region that has historically cracked down on workplace organizing.
Jeffrey Hirsch, law professor who specializes in labor relations at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told WJLA, “The culture here, at least in recent memory, has not been pro-union.”
“If they were successful it would be huge, I think,” Hirsch says. “The numbers by themselves are not going to move the dial nationally in a substantive way, but the symbolism of it would be quite large.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
As President Donald Trump escalates his anti-immigration policies and rhetoric, more and more spaces are standing up for undocumented immigrants.
The Guardian reported Tuesday on libraries throughout the country launching initiatives to make their immigrant visitors feel welcome, from hanging posters that read “Libraries for Everyone” to running the LibrariesResist Twitter account.
Many libraries have even declared themselves sanctuaries, where people can seek legal advice or shelter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Indeed, the sanctuary movement has taken off among many institutions.
Churches and synagogues throughout Massachusetts, for example, have begun making preparations to shelter undocumented immigrants in what the Boston Globe describes as a “hub” formation—helping each other close the gaps in their support services. If one congregation doesn’t have the facilities to house people, they pledge to help others with food, transportation, and 24-hour accompaniment.
The Globe reports:
[block:block=30]
While there is no law barring ICE from arresting an undocumented immigrant in a sanctuary, agents are urged not to enter houses of worship or other “sensitive locations” without advance approval or exigent circumstances—although some said Tuesday’s immigration guidelines put that “sensitive locations guidance” in doubt.
The desire to protect immigrants has spread rapidly since Trump’s rise to power. States and cities throughout the U.S. have declared themselves sanctuaries in the month since he took office, risking federal funding. Even Canada has joined in, with Montreal voting Monday to officially designate itself a sanctuary city, approving a declaration introduced by Mayor Denis Coderre, who formerly served as the country’s immigration minister.
Rev. Kathleen O’Keefe Reed, the pastor at the University Lutheran Association of Greater Boston, which is taking part in the Massachusetts hub, told the Globe that the participants understand the legal and financial dangers of their work—but, she said, “love that doesn’t risk isn’t love.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Leading members of the House Intelligence Committee have demanded that President Donald Trump provide evidence by Monday of his claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped—possibly by former President Barack Obama.
The Associated Press reported Saturday that committee chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the panel’s ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff of California, made the request in a letter sent to the White House last week.
Other lawmakers have made similar demands, including U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as Common Dreams reported Wednesday.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also reiterated the call for evidence on CNN‘s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “I think the president has one of two choices: either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve, because, if his predecessor violated the law, President Obama violated the law, we have got a serious issue here, to say the least,” he said.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Also Sunday, Schiff repeated his doubts about Trump’s claim while speaking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC‘s “This Week.” However, he added that FBI director James Comey and others called to testify at the upcoming hearing “would be in a position to have to know.”
“I think on March 20 if not before we’ll be able to put this to rest,” Schiff said. ”I don’t think anyone has any question about this, George. The only question is why the president would make up such a thing.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order, signed during the chaos of the GOP’s healthcare scoring report this week, instructs department heads to recommend any “unnecessary” agencies or programs to be slashed as part of a plan for “reorganizing” the federal government—and could spell disaster for agencies like the Department of Education, critics warn.
The order, officially titled the Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch, instructs agencies to consider:
Whether “some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the federal government or would be better left to state or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise”;
Whether “some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program”;
Whether “certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program”;
Whether the “costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides”; and
“The costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.”
Put simply, as Charles P. Pierce wrote for Esquire on Tuesday, the order gives Trump and his advisers the power to “eviscerate the federal agencies that might inconvenience them by actually acting like they’re part of the government or something.”
Trump’s first proposed budget, announced last month, which follows a hard-line blueprint put forward by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, included massive cuts to discretionary spending. The official budget is expected to come this week. Pierce suggested Tuesday that the executive order could act as something of a backup in case those proposed cuts don’t pass muster in Congress.
Noting chief strategist Steve Bannon’s behind-the-scenes power in the White House, “it seems likely that this is the fundamental purpose behind the order,” Pierce wrote.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“This ‘reorganization’ of the executive departments sounds very much like how a polar bear ‘reorganizes’ your innards prior to making a meal of you,” he added.
And as Education Week reporter Andrew Ujifusa warned, one of the agencies almost certain to be on the biggest chopping block is the Department of Education.
“On the campaign trail, Trump talked about either shutting down the Education Department or significantly slashing its budget,” he wrote. And while there hasn’t been any word yet what his administration plans to do with the office, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has indicated her support for massive cuts.
“DeVos is essentially on the same page as Trump on this issue,” Ujifusa continued. “Last month, she announced that she would look through the Education Department budget in order to identify unnecessary programs. DeVos is a long-time donor to GOP candidates and causes who has advocated for a limited federal government role.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nearly ten years after pipeline company TransCanada first applied for a State Department permit for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the Trump administration has reversed the previous administration’s decision and signed off on the “disastrous” project.
“The Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster for people, wildlife, and the planet,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Donald Trump only cares about making his special interest pals richer even though our children will inherit a world ravaged by climate change. We will use every tool we have to fight this pipeline from the courts to the streets.”
“It’s as if the Trump administration is determined to go down as the most irrational and destructive presidential administration in history.” —Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice
The State Department’s pipeline permit was announced Friday morning by under secretary of political affairs Tom Shannon, after reports of the pending decision came out late Thursday.
Secretary of State and former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson recused himself from the decision because of conflicts of interest.
“This is the latest in a string of decisions where the Trump administration is ignoring facts, public opinion and the law,” said Earthjustice vice president of Litigation for Climate and Energy Abigail Dillen. “As Arctic sea ice reaches its lowest level ever and rising seas flood Miami, we need to put the brakes on dirty fossil fuel projects and invest in clean energy. Instead, the current administration is trying to fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline—a literal pipe dream—and de-fund our clean energy investments.”
“This decision defies all logic, not to mention the wishes of 75 percent of Americans who want our leaders to regulate climate pollution. In combination with all of their recent missteps, it’s as if the Trump administration is determined to go down as the most irrational and destructive presidential administration in history,” Dillen continued.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Indeed, environmental groups are dismayed and outraged, and mounting a renewed opposition to the project.
“It’s a huge setback for the climate, but it’s not game over yet,” said Food & Water Watch director Wenonah Hauter. “We will support any and all avenues pursued by allies to prevent this dangerous pipeline from being built. And we will continue to resist Trump’s pro-polluter agenda at every turn, while working hard to make real progress against the harms of fossil fuels in communities big and small throughout the country.”
Importantly, the pipeline route through Nebraska still has yet to be approved by the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC). The agency is currently taking public comments before it decides on approval for the pipeline’s route through delicate wetlands, waterways, and farms (pdf). The groups Bold Nebraska and the Sierra Club are already organizing opposition to convince the state government to block the disastrous pipeline.
On the national stage, environmentalists are urging pipeline opponents to channel their outrage into action, and take to the streets for the People’s Climate March on April 29:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
House Republicans are wasting no time with their attack on your online privacy. Backed by powerful media corporations, if the House passes S.J. Res. 34 it will take only Trump’s signature to eliminate FCC rules adopted last year that prohibit phone and cable companies from selling your private data (such as your web-browsing history) to advertisers and other companies without your consent. This is a bill that benefits only large corporations like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — and at our expense. It’s inexcusable for Congress to exploit our personal information like this.
We can’t let it undermine our online privacy.
Free Press has made it easy for you to find your representative’s direct line .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has additional resources .
Learn more and share the call the action with your networks by using the hashtag
After Senate Democrats indicated they are willing to filibuster the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, they need your help urging them to hold the line on that effort.
and tell them you oppose Gorsuch. If they’ve already committed to join the filibuster, congratulate them (or send them flowers: #FilibusterFlowers)
Share your opposition using the and hashtags on social media
Read the Indivisible Guide’s “” resource page. And more .
Amid the ongoing and bizarre developments in the controversy that has engulfed the White House and Capitol Hill, the call for an independent body to investigate these serious and complex issues has reached a new zenith.
(MoC) and tell them you support an independent comission or special prosecutor. (Sample script .)
Tell your MoC to back Rep. Adam Schiff’s demand for independent commission and that you support the call by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) “for a total and complete shutdown of any @ agenda item” the facts are established and made public
Follow and share on the and hashtags on social media
What You Can Be Doing Everyday
Check out the Indivisible Guide’s “Capitol Calendar.” See if there’s a local Indivisible group in your area. If there isn’t, start one.
” also has a running schedule of events and actions.
Sign up to receive ” on your mobile device
Every day: Make your voice heard with “5 Calls” (because calling actually works)
Every Sunday: Join “Ready to Resist” Strategy Calls
Every Tuesday: #ResistTrumpTuesdays (or on Twitter)
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a groundbreaking decision for equality, a federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that LGBTQ people cannot be fired for their sexual orientation on the grounds that it violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act—a ruling that sets up a possible Supreme Court showdown.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago found 8-3 that Kimberly Hively, an instructor at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana, was denied a full-time position because she was a lesbian, which the panel said went against Title VII of the 1964 law.
Although the Civil Rights Act does not explicitly block discrimination on the basis of sexuality, it does prohibit it on the basis of gender. The court found that Hively was passed over because of gender prejudice.
“Hively represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype… she is not heterosexual,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote in the opinion. “Our panel described the line between a gender nonconformity claim and one based on sexual orientation as gossamer-thin; we conclude that it does not exist at all.”
“Hively’s claim is no different from the claims brought by women who were rejected for jobs in traditionally male workplaces, such as fire departments, construction, and policing,” Wood wrote. “The employers in those cases were policing the boundaries of what jobs or behaviors they found acceptable for a woman (or in some cases, for a man).”
The Seventh Circuit is the highest court thus far to rule on the issue. But it conflicts with a decision last month by the 11th Circuit, which found in a separate case that that the Civil Rights Act did not protect sexual orientation.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
A split in the circuits could lead to a confrontation in the Supreme Court.
“I have been saying all this time that what happened to me wasn’t right and was illegal,” said Hively. “No one should be fired for being lesbian, gay, or transgender like happened to me and it’s incredibly powerful to know that the law now protects me and other LGBT workers.”
Hively filed suit in 2014. She alleged she was denied a full-time position after she was seen kissing her then-girlfriend in the parking lot. The case was dismissed by a trial court, but the LGBTQ-focused law firm Lambda Legal appealed in 2015.
“Love won again today,” said Lambda Legal CEO Rachel B. Tiven. “Kim Hively loved her job teaching math at Ivy Tech Community College, but she was fired because she is a lesbian. Today the Seventh Circuit said clearly: that’s wrong. Our movement is about love and pride. Pride in yourself and your work, and the freedom to love and to be treated equally.”
Greg Nevins, director of the organization’s Employment Fairness program, added, “This decision is gamechanger for lesbian and gay employees facing discrimination in the workplace and sends a clear message to employers: it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
With tanking approval ratings, a failed attempt at producing healthcare legislation, and a swirling investigation into possible collusion with Russia, President Donald Trump’s first hundred days were looking pretty bleak.
It was against this backdrop that the president late Thursday took unilateral and illegal military action against the Syrian government in alleged retaliation for Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians, though no proof was presented to confirm reports that President Bashar al-Assad had ordered the deadly strike.
Now, as many foreign governments, U.S. lawmakers, and the corporate media are lining up in support of the bombing campaign, observers say it appears like a ‘Wag the Dog’ moment for Trump, distracting the opposition while conveniently flipping the script about Russia.
In a column on Friday, The Nation‘s Greg Grandin pointed out that with the one assault, the president successfully splintered the Democratic resistance, won the praise of the media, and changed the story of his friendly relations with the Kremlin.
Similarly, New Republic columnist and Georgia Southern University assistant professor Jared Yates Sexton outlined in a lengthy Twitter thread how the strikes have effectively changed the “entire conversation and narrative,” writing:
In his column, Grandin also referenced the New York Times’ reporting that “The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime.”
“In other words,” Grandin wrote, “the object of Trump’s Tomahawks was not Syria’s capacity to deploy gas, but domestic liberal opponents who base their resistance to Trump entirely on the premise that he is anti-American because he is too close to Putin, and that he is a traitor to a bipartisan policy of humanitarian military interventionism. He bombs, drones, and kills, but he doesn’t do it, like his predecessors, in the name of humanity. Until yesterday.”
Many of Trump’s conservative supporters have also come out against the military action for the very reason that it goes against the president’s campaign rhetoric that he would avoid unnecessary wars. Indeed, many of Trump’s former statements, and tweets, have come back to haunt him in recent days, particularly those criticizing former President Barack Obama for threatening to attack Syria in 2013.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Others, too, picked up on what they say appears to be a “fake fight” now between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Meanwhile, others pointed to the dominance of the military industrial complex and how that dovetails with Trump’s fixation on creating more domestic jobs. Not to mention the overall “popularity” of war within dominant political circles.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a project meant to galvanize people to take action on climate, the Berkeley, California-based artist Hannah Rothstein has redesigned iconic National Parks posters for the year 2050 to showcase the devastation to come if climate change goes unchecked.
“We have the ability to outsmart the issues highlighted in National Parks 2050, but we need to act now.” —Hannah Rothstein, artist
While the Trump administration is rolling back climate policies and reinvigorating the fossil fuel industry, Rothstein calls on viewers to push back with her series National Parks 2050, depicting the terrifying ramifications of such government actions.
The classic posters, originally created by artists working for the Works Progress Administration from 1938 to 1941, have been re-imagined so that instead of blue lakes, towering forests, craggy snow-peaked mountains, and tropical lagoons, the posters showcase horrible algae blooms, dead redwoods, snow-free mountain peaks, and rising seas.
“I think a lot of people recognize the posters and that was key to the success [of this project], to have something familiar to people,” Rothstein told Climate Central. “They could be familiar, but then have to look twice to figure out what was different.”
With this project, Rothstein seeks to make the climate crisis more visceral to viewers. As VICE‘s Beckett Mufson writes, “Once you’ve seen an emaciated Smokey the Bear plodding through a barren landscape, it’s hard not to want to call Congress.”
“The changes shown are based on information from the parks’ .gov sites, scientific reports, and reputable news articles about climate change,” Rothstein told Mufson.
“I was only able to include an abbreviated list of potential changes on each poster,” Rothstein added. “The predicted changes are actually much more far-reaching than what’s highlighted here. I’d encourage people to read up on the predicted changes and start talking about them. Acknowledgement and dialogue are the first steps towards positive change, and we need to get moving on this!”
“We have the ability to outsmart the issues highlighted in National Parks 2050, but we need to act now,” Rothstein observes. “From Franklin to Fuller, America has been made its greatest by embracing ingenuity and innovation. If we dive headfirst into inventing for a brighter future, we can prevent National Parks 2050 from becoming a reality.”
All of National Parks 2050 can be viewed on Rothstein’s website.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
It’s “red alert” time on healthcare, according to one observer, amid reports that some congressional Republicans think they have a deal—and it’s even worse than the last one (which was itself crueler than its predecessor).
The Huffington Post reported Wednesday:
The plan “effectively allows states to eliminate the [Affordable Care Act, or ACA]’s guarantee of access to insurance at a reasonable price for people with pre-existing conditions, in the interest of lowering premiums for people who are healthy,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, told the publication upon seeing a description of the proposal. “It seems to tilt heavily towards what the Freedom Caucus has been looking for.”
HuffPo reporters Matt Fuller and Jonathan Cohn note that such provisions could alienate moderate Republicans; the caucus will reportedly discuss the amendment (Politico has a copy here) on a conference call this Saturday.
But there’s political pressure coming from another direction, too, which could influence these talks.
CNN reported Wednesday that some members of the Trump administration are hoping for a win on healthcare before the president reaches his 100-day milestone.
Of the Meadows-MacArthur deal, a senior GOP aide told CNN: “Longshot at best. But the White House clearly wants it.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Indeed, President Donald Trump himself told Wisconsin’s WTMJ on Tuesday, “We are going to have a big win soon, because we are going to have healthcare and that’s gonna happen. And there was no lose with healthcare, this is just a constant negotiation and the plan is getting better and better all the time.”
On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence added to CNN‘s Dana Bash, “I’m very confident that in the days ahead, we’re going to see the Congress come together and we’re going to take that important first step to repeal and replace Obamacare with the kind of healthcare plan President Trump has envisioned.”
In turn, the resistance movement is urging its members to “flood the phones” and use the remaining days of the congressional recess to pressure lawmakers to reject any TrumpCare revision that would cause coverage losses or premium increases for those with pre-existing conditions—which at least one analysis shows the new deal would clearly do.
The Center for American Progress said Thursday that under the compromise plan, premiums could spike a whopping $71,000 for people with lung cancer, $28,000 for breast cancer patients, and $5,500 for those with diabetes.
And don’t forget, Greg Sargent wrote Thursday for the Washington Post, “the new GOP plan would keep in place the old plan’s phase-out of the Medicaid expansion, which would itself result in 14 million fewer people on Medicaid, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
“You’d think that this, plus the gutting of protections for pre-existing conditions, would render the new plan toxic for GOP moderates who, in rejecting the old plan, have confirmed that they are not willing to embrace a massively regressive plan that would push tens of millions of poor and sick people off coverage while delivering an enormous tax cut to the rich,” he wrote. “Of course, the need to give Trump a fake achievement to tout is also an urgent matter, so who knows what they’ll do.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.