October 2, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Two new polls released on Thursday highlight a disturbing reality: In a race between two unpopular candidates, an excited base could mean everything. And in the case of the current presidential contest—a race that observers say is “hers to lose”—the failure of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to inspire voters could prove her ultimate downfall.
The latest update of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national tracking poll found that Donald Trump’s advantage over Clinton “grew to nearly six percentage points on Thursday, his largest advantage since his post-convention bounce in July.”
According to the LA Times, the biggest reason for the bump “appears to be an increase in the likelihood of Trump supporters who say they plan to vote, combined with a drop among Clinton supporters on that question. The nominees are now roughly equal in the voting commitment of their supporters, erasing an advantage previously held by Clinton.”
Similarly, the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that in a four-way race, the two leading party candidates are tied at 42 percent while Libertarian Gary Johnson wins eight percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein takes four.
According to RealClearPolitics’ national polling average, in a two-way race, Clinton’s lead over her Republican rival has dropped to less than two points from eight points in early August.
And although the public continues to express record dissatisfaction with both candidates, the New York Times suggests that Trump’s antagonistic bombast has galvanized more enthusiasm among supporters.
“Over all, just 43 percent of likely voters describe themselves as very enthusiastic about casting a ballot in November,” the New York Times reports. “Fifty-one percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters say they are very enthusiastic about voting; 43 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters say they are very enthusiastic.”
The lackluster support is particularly evident among young voters, many of whom were devotees of former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. According to the New York Times/CBS survey, more than a third of likely voters age 18-29 back a third-party candidate.
Another shocking take-away from that poll is that Trump and Clinton are virtually tied among white women with 45 and 46 percent, respectively.
It is worth noting that this latest installment of the New York Times/ CBS poll is the first to include a measure of likely voters, which weighs respondents by their answers to questions about voting history, attention to the campaign, and likelihood of voting. As New York Magazine‘s Ed Kilgore pointed out, this factor typically gives Republican candidates a “bump” that may continue to boost Trump in future polling as other surveys begin to include this measure.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Kilgore on Wednesday broke down the most recent battleground state assessments and determined, “It is possible, in fact, that Trump is opening up multiple paths to victory.”
“[Clinton’s] refusal to even attempt to embrace bold progressive values and her inability to read the simmering nationwide anger over economic and racial injustice are the larger obstacles to her popularity.”
—Sonali Kolhatkar
The most recent CNN/ORC battleground state poll on Wednesday found that in a four-way race among likely voters, Trump edges out Clinton in both Ohio and Florida. Meanwhile, the latest Monmouth University poll showed Trump overtaking Clinton in Nevada, 44 to 42 percent.
“If you want Trump to win, there’s fresh evidence that your preferred candidate is within striking distance of actually getting elected,” wrote MSNBC‘s Steve Benen on Thursday. “If you want Clinton to win, you can no longer assume this race is in the bag—you and your allies are going to have to go earn it.”
Indeed, columnist and Uprising Radio executive producer Sonali Kolhatkar wrote recently that the decline of the Clinton campaign has less to do with her rival’s success and more to do with her failure to articulate a bold, inspiring vision for voters beyond simply “not Trump.”
“For Clinton to fixate on Trump’s endless flaws suggests that her own platform has little substance,” Kolhatkar wrote. “Her refusal to even attempt to embrace bold progressive values and her inability to read the simmering nationwide anger over economic and racial injustice are the larger obstacles to her popularity.”
She continued:
“This election is hers to lose,” Kolhatkar concludes, “and if this nation ends up with President Trump, it will be most of all the fault of Clinton and the Democratic Party that backs her.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: cd universidad catolica
October 2, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
This election cycle, corporate donors are not just beefing up the war chests of their most-favored politicians. According to a new study, industry is flexing its Supreme Court- approved political power to dominate local democracy, as well.
In the study, Big Business Ballot Bullies (pdf), Public Citizen examined eight state-level ballot initiatives and referenda that have seen an outsized amount of political spending. According to the research, published Wednesday, the corporate-backed campaigns have an average of 10-to-1 financial advantage over their mostly grassroots opponents, with total corporate spending in those races topping $139 million.
“These findings should be deeply disturbing to anyone who is concerned about the power of corporate money to distort our democracy,” wrote report author and Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool in a Thursday op-ed.
Big Pharma tycoons Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson have spent the most, each contributing more than $7 million to defeat California’s Drug Price Standards Initiative, or Proposition 61, which seeks to lower prescription prices in that state. So far, the industry-backed group opposing that measure has raised more than $86 million.
Colorado’s Amendment 69, which would install a universal, Medicare-for-All system for state residents, has won the ire of the insurance industry, with Anthem, United Healthcare, and others spending hundreds of thousands to back the opposition.
Also in Colorado, an anti-fracking measure that would have set a mandatory setback for oil and gas development saw millions of opposition spending, including $6.55 million from Anandarko Petroleum Company, before it failed to make November’s ballot.
“Corporations spending outrageous sums to defeat ballot initiatives undermine our democracy and cast doubt on the public’s ability to make effective use of this long-standing American democratic institution.”
—Robert Weissman, Public Citizen
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Other high-interest fights include:
- an industry-backed effort to repeal a ban on plastic bags in California (Proposition 67);
- a utility-backed “solar decoy initiative” in Florida (Amendment 1), would make it easier for energy utilities to restrict and raise costs for rooftop solar;
- big business opposition to Oregon’s Measure 97, which seeks to increase the minimum corporate tax by establishing a 2.5 percent tax on corporate gross sales that exceed $25 million;
- and in South Dakota, —Georgia-based Select Management Resources—is funding both the campaign against an effort to cap interest rates for payday lenders (Initiated Measure 21) as well as a constitutional amendment (pdf) to restrict such caps.
Beyond the report, there are numerous other local initiatives—such as a pro-charter school measure in Massachusetts and Arizona’s marijuana legalization effort—that have also garnered significant industry attention.
“The sheer magnitude of corporate money in these races undermines the power of ballot initiatives and referenda to make policy that prioritizes the public interest over private profits,” said Claypool.
And Public Citizen president Robert Weissman added, “Across the country, and for more than a century, people have used initiatives and referenda to drive forward social and economic justice from the ground up. Corporations spending outrageous sums to defeat ballot initiatives undermine our democracy and cast doubt on the public’s ability to make effective use of this long-standing American democratic institution.”
Claypool points out that it was the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision, First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti—not Citizens United—that permitted unlimited corporate spending on ballot initiatives.
“But the solution to Citizens United and Bellotti is the same,” he wrote, “a constitutional amendment, such as the Democracy For All Amendment that was supported by a majority of U.S. senators in 2014, can overturn both rulings by asserting the state’s authority to limit corporate election spending.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: los jaguares argentina
October 2, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Right-wingers like Charles Krauthammer don’t “think anybody should buy it”—and too many Democrats actually don’t want to talk about it—but that doesn’t mean advocates for a single-payer or ‘Medicare for All’ healthcare system aren’t responding to news about rising insurance premiums for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with renewed demands.
Just weeks away from national elections, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made financial and political news late Monday by announcing the average premiums for plans under the ACA (aka Obamacare) will rise significantly for many consumers in 2017.
“There is only one permanent fix—stepping up work for enactment of a humane health care system based on patient need not private profits that guarantees universal health care for all through an expanded and updated Medicare for All—the same approach that works in virtually every other country on earth.”
—Jean Ross, National Nurses United
And while Republicans predictably seized on the development as an easy opportunity to again use Obamacare as an electoral cudgel, backers of the legislation—including many Democrats who voted for it—were left trying to defend a healthcare system that has enriched (and emboldened) the private health industry since its passage in 2010. Though progressives have been able to champion specific positive impacts of the law—including Medicaid expansion, the use of pre-existing conditions to prohibit coverage, and expanding the number of insured people—there remain significant shortcomings that critics say cannot be ignored.
According to Jean Ross, co-president of the National Nurses United, which has longed organized for a single-payer system, the premium increases announced Monday are “outrageous” and just the most recent “sign of a broken, dysfunctional healthcare system.”
In its report on Monday, HHS explained that for consumers who have Obamacare mid-level plans purchased on the federal exchange, premiums will increase an average of 25 percent next year. While some states will see larger increases, others will be less than that. And while the Obama administration pointed out that many people who use these plans receive government subsidies to pay for them, the Associated Press reports how an “estimated 5 million to 7 million people are either not eligible for the income-based assistance, or they buy individual policies outside of the health law’s markets, where the subsidies are not available.”
Additionally, as some major insurers have withdrawn from the federal exchange, as well as certain state-level exchanges, AP notes that about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from during the 3-month enrollment period which begins on November 1.
Despite those numbers, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said that 72 percent of those enrolled in an Obamacare plan should be able to find a plan with a premium of less than $75 per month. “Our nation has made historic progress under the ACA,” Burwell said in a statement, “and now we want to build on that progress to further improve affordability, access, and quality.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
But while the White House and DHHS tried to alleviate consumer concerns, critics like Ross remain unconvinced that a system so fundamentally flawed can be salvaged with incremental reforms.
“The excuses being offered by the Obama administration are far from reassuring: give more public money to profiteering insurance corporations, or switch to a cheaper plan with much higher out-of-pocket costs and more restrictions on access to the doctors and hospitals of your choice. Nurses know there is only one permanent fix—stepping up work for enactment of a humane health care system based on patient need not private profits that guarantees universal health care for all through an expanded and updated Medicare for All—the same approach that works in virtually every other country on earth.”
Earlier this year, more than 2,000 doctors put forth a plan arguing the political moment was once again right to put single payer back on the table as a serious and necessary policy proposal.
“Our nation is at a crossroads,” said Dr. Adam Gaffney, a Boston-based pulmonary disease and critical care specialist who co-chaired the working group that produced the proposal. “Despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act six years ago, 30 million Americans remain uninsured, an even greater number are underinsured, financial barriers to care like co-pays and deductibles are rising, bureaucracy is growing, provider networks are narrowing, and medical costs are continuing to climb.”
And during his radio show on Wednesday, journalist and commentator Bill Press said the latest Obamacare news only proves that “Bernie [Sanders] was right” when he said “let’s just go all the with single-payer and get the insurance companies the hell out of the business.”
He continued, “This is one place where Obama really did let progressives down, because there was such a hunger for universal healthcare in this country—and this was the moment when we could do it. Democrats were in charge of the congress. President Obama had every opportunity. This was the opportunity to get the insurance companies out of the business, to free people from being basically held hostage by [them], and come up with a plan like western Europe has and like Canada has, where every American gets healthcare coverage as a birthright.”
But that’s not what happened. “No, no, no,” Press lamented. “We didn’t go there. We went into this mess called Obamacare.”
Watch:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey
October 2, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Besides comprising the wealthiest administration in modern U.S. history, President-elect Donald Trump’s 17 ultra-rich cabinet-level picks thus far have a combined wealth that surpasses that of the 43 million least wealthy American households combined.
That’s according to a Quartz analysis published Thursday, based on data from the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances. It shows that the $9.5 billion held by Trump’s cabinet or cabinet-level nominees is greater than that of 43 million U.S. households combined—over one-third of the 126 million households total in the United States. (Other analyses have shown the Trump administration to have an even higher combined wealth.)
“Even if we just compare the wealth of Trump’s cabinet to the median household, it is still an impressive concentration of riches,” Dan Kopf wrote for Quartz. “It would take about 120,000 households with the United States median net worth of about $83,200 to match the wealth of just the four richest members of Trump’s cabinet—Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross Jr., Linda McMahon, and Rex Tillerson.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
In addition to uber-wealthy, Huffington Post senior political reporter Amanda Terkel wrote on Wednesday, Trump’s cabinet “is shaping up to be the least diverse in recent history, with just three people so far who are not white men.”
“Of the 13 people Trump has nominated for Cabinet positions, only Ben Carson (Housing and Urban Development), Elaine Chao (Transportation), and Betsy DeVos (Education) are not both white and male,” she noted.
Reporter Gregory Krieg also noted the trend at CNN, writing: “Of Trump’s 18 choices to date—excluding his vice president and senior White House staff—14 are white, of which 12 are male. By comparison, 11 of the the corresponding positions in Obama’s first cabinet were white—with seven men and four women—along with Latino labor and interior secretaries and three African-Americans, two of whom were women.”
Trump’s choice of several generals to fill top positions within his administration has also drawn flak.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: camiseta rosario central
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Democrats hold a 14 percentage point lead over Republicans in a generic House ballot, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they would cast a ballot for the Democrat in their district, while 37 percent said they would vote for the Republican.
ADVERTISEMENT
Republicans currently hold 240 seats in the lower chamber, meaning Democrats need to flip at least 24 seats in the 2018 midterms to gain the majority.
Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers
While 88 percent of Republicans said they would vote for the GOP’s candidate in their congressional district, 98 percent of Democrats said they would vote for their own party’s candidate.
By comparison, Democrats currently only hold a 9 point lead over Republicans in the RealClearPolitics poll average of the generic House ballot.
The CNN survey was conducted by SRSS, polling 1,010 adults from Oct. 12-15. It has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
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 top spokeswoman on Tuesday defended the White House’s record on racial issues, blaming other actors in the political sphere for “stoking political racism.” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders singled out an ad being run in the Virginia governor’s race this week that goes after GOP candidate Ed Gillespie. “The media continues to want to make this and push that this is some sort of racially charged and divided White House — frankly, the only people I see stoking political racism right now are the people in the groups that are running ads like the one you saw take place in Virginia earlier this week,” Sanders said at the White House press briefing. ADVERTISEMENTThe Trump spokeswoman’s comments came after an ad run by the Latino Victory Fund in Virginia sparked uproar this week. The ad features a racially diverse group of children running from a pickup truck that’s flying a Confederate flag and a bumper sticker from Gillespie’s campaign. The truck corners the children in an alley, and the ad cuts to one of the children waking up from a nightmare. “Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream?” says a voice over a scene of the child’s parents watching TV footage of the white nationalist protests in Charlottesville, Va., in August. The ad was released in English and Spanish by the Latino Victory Fund (LVF), an advocacy group that supports Democratic candidate Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam. “In a desperate attempt to become Virginia’s next governor, Ed Gillespie has eagerly embraced racism and xenophobia. We refuse to stand by as bullies like Gillespie slander our families, call us ‘thugs’ and ‘criminals,’ and portray hard-working immigrants as a national security threat,” said Cristobal J. Alex, president of LVF. Gillespie weighed in on the ad Tuesday, calling it “a new low” during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “This attack is not just an attack on my supporters, who are good, decent hardworking Virginians who love their neighbors, it’s an attack on all Virginians,” he said. But the ad’s producers argue it’s fair play, given the parallels Gillespie has drawn between immigrants and violent crime. “Gillespie’s campaign has been running the most divisive and negative campaign in modern history, demonizing immigrants as violent gang members,” said Colin Rogero, whose firm, 76 Words, produced the ad. “We cannot continue to allow Republicans to get away with this. It’s about time. We’re fighting fire with fire creatively,” he added. Sanders brought up the ad in response to a reporter’s question about whether the White House would acknowledge that chief of staff John KellyJohn Francis KellyMORE’s earlier comments on the Civil War were “deeply offensive to some folks, and historically inaccurate.” “No … Because you don’t like history doesn’t mean you can erase it and pretend it didn’t happen. And I think that was the point General Kelly was trying to make,” Sanders responded. Kelly came under fire after an interview on Fox News Monday in which he defended Confederate General Robert E. Lee and argued that the Civil War happened because of a “lack of compromise.” Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Activists from oil-impacted communities around the country are descending on Energy Transfer Partners’ corporate offices in Houston, Texas, to protest the company’s Dakota Access Pipeline and other controversial pipeline projects.
“Together we press forward, rise, and demand a clean world for future generations in our struggle to survive.”
—Yvette Arellano,
Texas Environmental Justice
Advocacy Services
Despite ongoing, growing protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline and the federal government’s repeated requests that Energy Transfer Partners halt its construction, the company has reiterated its intention to continue building the pipeline, undaunted.
Wednesday’s action is a part of nationwide protests against the corporate powers behind Dakota Access. The demonstration will see members from communities affected by the fossil fuel industry from Richmond, Calif., Chicago, Ill., the Gulf Coast, and others joining local Texas organizers to voice their collective opposition to Energy Transfer Partners’ pipeline projects, and to push for a just transition to renewable energy.
“Energy Transfer Partners has drawn national attention for driving both the Dakota Access Pipeline and the equally controversial Trans Pecos Pipeline, that has also violated the rights of Indigenous peoples in West Texas, and poses significant threat to the water and land for many communities in Texas,” Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, an organizer of the demonstration, noted in a press statement.
The protesters will gather for a prayer action that is set to begin at 1:30pm Central Time.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“From Chicago to Houston we stand with all of our communities impacted by the oil and gas industry in fighting back. It took us twelve years to shut down the two coal plant[s] in Chicago and we commit to fighting until our communities have justice,” said Kim Wasserman of Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) in Chicago. “While these companies think they have only money and stocks to lose we have to remind them it’s our lives and world at stake.”
“We stand in deep solidarity with our Indigenous brothers and sisters banded together to resist the Dakota Access Pipeline,” added Radical Arts and Healing Collective member Jayeesha Dutta, from New Orleans. “Our fights are quite literally one: the Gulf South is where that Bakken crude oil will eventually end up for refining and transportation.”
“We are already on the frontline of environmental disasters, like the BP oil catastrophe, which we are still recovering from,” Dutta said. “It is time to put an end to extractive energy production, and the exploitation of our land and labor that comes along with that.”
“Clean water is a basic human right that should be afforded to everyone. No treaty, law or structure should have to reinforce a necessity, yet we understand that we live in a world driven by corporate greed that sacrifices sacred lands, vulnerable populations and people of color,” said Yvette Arellano of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS). “I am humbled by the solidarity and courage grassroots, big greens and supporting organizations from all over the country are demonstrating to face Energy Transfer Partners at their doorstep in the house of the largest petrochemical complex of the nation.”
Click Here: collingwood magpies 2019 training guernsey
“Together we press forward, rise, and demand a clean world for future generations in our struggle to survive,” Arellano said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Lending credence to those who warn Donald Trump’s administration will be dangerous for women nationwide, conservative Texas lawmakers last week filed a slew of new bills attacking reproductive rights.
Legislation filed by GOP state representative Byron Cook would require healthcare centers to bury or cremate fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage. In October, women’s rights advocates delivered 5,500 signatures to the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) opposing a similar—and costly (pdf)—proposal put forth by that agency at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
At a hearing on the DSHS proposal held the day after Trump’s election, “[s]ome women were in tears as they shared stories about their traumatic miscarriages and abortions,” the Austin American-Statesman reported. “They said they would have suffered more had they been required to bury or cremate the fetus.”
Notably, Vice President-elect Mike Pence signed a bill containing a similar provision as Indiana governor earlier this year. It was blocked from going into effect by a federal judge in June.
Another proposal, put forth by Republican state senator Charles Schwertner, gives lip service to top anti-choice talking points. Schwertner’s “Pre-Born Protection and Dignity Act” would “declare something that is already illegal everywhere in the United States, so-called ‘partial-birth’ abortion, illegal in the state of Texas,” the Dallas Observer explained. “Schwertner’s bill would also ban most fetal tissue donation in the state, despite the fact that Texas has not had an active fetal tissue donation program 2010.”
Citing Schwertner’s legislation among other “high-priority bills,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared last week:
Yet another proposed bill was described by the Observer as “the first shot in a battle that could end in abortion being banned in the state.”
Of state senator Bob Hall’s effort, the outlet wrote:
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
In a television interview after his election, Trump reiterated his vow to elect “pro-life” justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade and send the matter of abortion access “back to the states.” Pence, for his part, has said he wants to “see Roe v. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.”
The Dallas Morning News further reported on other anti-choice proposals put forth in Texas:
The Daily Beast pointed out that Schaefer has put forth similar legislation in sessions past, with “little legislative success.”
However, the publication continued, “these men who would do away with abortion, elected by and loyal to the Tea Party, might find more success or at least more support in a nation ruled by President Donald Trump.”
Indeed, Jordan Smith wrote last week for The Intercept that the Texas proposals are “a preview of Trump’s America,” saying: “[T]he federal government has been crucial in insulating Texas women (and women in similar states) from the insidious regulations championed by conservative state lawmakers—but under a Trump presidency, those important protections may altogether disappear.”
Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks took on the issue over the weekend:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
The earthquake in Oklahoma on Sunday that damaged dozens of buildings near the pipeline epicenter of Cushing is further proof that fossil fuel extraction activities are too dangerous to continue, environmentalists said Monday.
Oklahoma, which has seen a rapid increase in earthquakes that scientists have linked back to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was hit with a magnitude-5.0 event on Sunday, with tremors being felt as far away as Arkansas and Missouri. Officials said 40 to 50 buildings had been damaged, and some gas leaks were reported; although they have since been contained, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission ordered all pipeline companies under its jurisdiction to pause operations, EcoWatch wrote.
Sunday’s event was the 19th earthquake to occur in Oklahoma in a week, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), although it was only the third to register above 5.0 on the Richter scale.
Still, said the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), that’s about 19 too many.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“We don’t need a major earthquake that claims lives and costs millions in damage to tell us the rapid increase in fracking and wastewater injection in Oklahoma and neighboring states is the cause,” said the group’s public lands campaigner Taylor McKinnon. “The USGS has already linked seismic activity to wastewater disposal associated with fracking and has raised the risk for damaging quakes in Oklahoma and Kansas.”
CBD in May called on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to cancel 11 pending oil and gas leases in Oklahoma over earthquake risks. On Monday, the group made that call again, “before more serious harm occurs.”
“It’s only a matter of time until these increasing quakes cause catastrophic damage,” McKinnon added. “Alongside the worsening climate crisis, earthquakes are yet another reason that President [Barack] Obama should end the federal fossil fuel leasing programs now.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey
October 1, 2020 |
News
| No Comments
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security advisor “is a frightening prospect for anyone who values America’s national security,” more than 50 organizations wrote to President-elect Donald Trump on Monday demanding he rescind the appointment “immediately.”
The letter points to Flynn’s “history of bigoted and deceitful statements,” opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement, penchant for “regime change,” and his “alarming ties to foreign governments” as evidence that he is “a completely inappropriate choice to serve in the most senior national security position in the White House.”
Click Here: cd universidad catolica
Given these concerns, the 53 progressive, religious, and peace groups, including American Friends Service Committee, Campaign for America’s Future, and Win Without War, declare Flynn “unfit for serving in this critical post.”
Elsewhere, Flynn’s affinity for conspiracy theories has thrust the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency into the spotlight after fake news rumors spurred a weekend attack on a Washington, D.C. pizza place. Flynn frequently pushes such articles on social media, casting doubt on his ability to accurately advise the incoming president.
According to a Politico review of his Twitter posts, Flynn, who boasts 106,000 followers, has personally pushed “dubious factoids at least 16 times since Aug. 9.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“Flynn, has used the platform to retweet accusations that [Hillary] Clinton is involved with child sex trafficking and has ‘secretly waged war’ on the Catholic Church, as well as charges that Obama is a ‘jihadi’ who ‘laundered’ money for Muslim terrorists,” note reporters Bryan Bender and Andrew Hanna.
“We are talking about some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories out there,” former State Department policy advisor Peter Singer told Politico. “We are down the rabbit hole.”
“How can you take him seriously when he is discussing people in D.C. drinking human blood?” Singer asked, referring to the fake news story spread by Flynn that Clinton advisor John Podesta took part in a Satanic ritual. “It is exasperating.”
“This is the least experienced president in American history,” David Rothkopf, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, also told the news outlet. “That means that his advisors are more important than they have ever been. Getting balanced advice to the president is more important than ever.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.