Chris Hedges's Blog, page 217

Robert Reich: America’s Greatest Economic Threat Isn’t China

Xi Jinping might possibly agree this weekend when he meets Donald Trump on further steps to bring down China’s trade imbalance with the US, giving Trump a face-saving way of ending his trade war.

But Xi won’t agree to change China’s economic system. Why should he?

The American economic system is focused on maximizing shareholder returns. And it’s achieving that goal. Last Friday, the S&P 500 notched a new all-time high.

But average Americans have seen no significant gains in their incomes for four decades, adjusted for inflation.

China’s economic system, by contrast, is focused on maximizing China. And it’s achieving that goal.

Forty years ago China was still backward and agrarian. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy, home to the world’s biggest auto industry and some of the world’s most powerful technology companies. Over the last four decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty.

The two systems are fundamentally different.

At the core of the American system are 500 giant companies headquartered in the US but making, buying and selling things all over the world. Half of their employees are non-American, located outside the US. A third of their shareholders are non-American.

These giant corporations have no particular allegiance to America. Their only allegiance and responsibility is to their shareholders.

They’ll do whatever is necessary to get their share prices as high as possible – including keeping wages down, fighting unions, reclassifying employees as independent contractors, outsourcing anywhere around world where parts are cheapest, shifting their profits around the world wherever taxes are lowest, and paying their top CEOs ludicrous sums.

At the core of China’s economy, by contrast, are state-owned companies that borrow from state banks at artificially low rates. These state firms balance the ups and downs of the economy, spending more when private companies are reluctant to do so.

China’s core planners and state-owned companies will do whatever is necessary both to improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy.

Trump thinks that’s unfair. But it works. Since 1978, the Chinese economy has grown by an average of more than 9% per year. Growth has slowed recently, and American tariffs could bring it down to 6% or 7%, but that’s still faster than almost any other economy in the world, including the US.

The American system relies on taxes, subsidies and regulations to coax corporations to act in the interest of the American public. But these levers have proven weak relative to the overriding corporate goal of maximizing shareholder returns.

Last week, for example, Walmart, American’s largest employer, announced it would lay off 570 employees despite taking home more than $2bn courtesy of Trump and the Republican corporate tax cuts. Last year, the company closed dozens of Sam’s Club stores, leaving thousands of Americans out of work.

At the same time, Walmart has plowed more than $20 billion into buying back shares of its own stock, which boosts the pay of Walmart executives and enriches wealthy investors but does nothing for the economy.

It should be noted that Walmart is a global company, not adverse to bribing foreign officials to get its way. Last Thursday it agreed to pay $282m to settle federal allegations of overseas corruption, including channeling more than $500,000 to an intermediary in Brazil known as a “sorceress” for her ability to make construction permit problems disappear.

The Trump tax cut did squat for jobs and wages but did nicely for corporate executives and big investors. Instead of reinvesting the savings into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies used it to buy back stock.

But wait. America is a democracy and China is a dictatorship, right?

True, but most Americans have little or no influence on public policy – which is why the Trump tax cut did so little for them.

That’s the conclusion of professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues before Congress and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.

Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations, those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

Don’t blame American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.

But because of their dominance in American politics and their commitment to share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans, it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness.

I’m not suggesting we emulate the Chinese economic system. I am suggesting that we not be smug about the American economic system.

Instead of trying to get China to change, we should lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American policy.

China isn’t the reason half of America hasn’t had a raise in four decades. The simple fact is Americans cannot thrive within a system run largely by big American corporations, organized to boost their share prices but not boost Americans.

Supreme Court Allows Partisan Gerrymandering, Blocks Census Query

WASHINGTON — In two politically charged rulings, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow Thursday to efforts to combat the drawing of electoral districts for partisan gain and put a hold on the Trump administration’s effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

On the court’s final day of decisions before a summer break, the conservative justices ruled that federal courts have no role to play in the dispute over the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. The decision could embolden political line-drawing for partisan gain when state lawmakers undertake the next round of redistricting following the 2020 census.

Voters and elected officials should be the arbiters of what is a political dispute, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court.

The court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland.

The decision was a major blow to critics of the partisan manipulation of electoral maps that can result when one party controls redistricting.

The districting plans “are highly partisan by any measure,” Roberts said.

But he said courts are the wrong place to settle these disputes.

In dissent for the four liberals, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.” Kagan, in mournful tones, read a summary of her dissent in court to emphasize her disagreement.

Federal courts in five states concluded that redistricting plans put in place under one party’s control could go too far and that there were ways to identify and manage excessively partisan districts. Those courts included 15 federal judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents reaching back to Jimmy Carter.

But the five Republican-appointed justices decided otherwise.

The decision effectively reverses the outcome of rulings in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, where courts had ordered new maps drawn, and ends proceedings in Wisconsin, where a retrial was supposed to take place this summer after the Supreme Court last year threw out a decision on procedural grounds.

Proponents of limiting partisan gerrymandering still have several routes open to them, including challenges in state courts. There is a pending North Carolina lawsuit.

The North Carolina case has its roots in court decisions striking down some of the state’s congressional districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

When lawmakers drew new maps as a result, Republicans who controlled the legislature sought to perpetuate the 10-3 GOP advantage in the congressional delegation. Democratic voters sued over the new districts, complaining that they were driven by partisan concerns.

The voters won a lower court ruling, as did Democrats in Wisconsin who challenged state assembly districts. But when the Supreme Court threw out the Wisconsin ruling on procedural grounds that did not address the partisan gerrymandering claims, the justices also ordered a new look at the North Carolina case. A three-judge court largely reinstated its ruling.

In Maryland, Democrats controlled redistricting and sought to flip one district that had been represented by a Republican for 20 years. Their plan succeeded, and a lower court concluded that the district violated the Constitution.

The high court agreed to hear both cases.

In the census case, the court said the Trump administration’s explanation for wanting to add the question was “more of a distraction” than an explanation. The administration had cited the need to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

There was no immediate response from the White House on either Supreme Court decision Thursday.

It’s unclear whether the administration would have time to provide a fuller account. Census forms are supposed to be printed beginning next week.

Roberts again had the court’s opinion, with the four liberals joining him in the relevant part of the outcome.

A lower court found the administration violated federal law in the way it tried to add a question broadly asking about citizenship for the first time since 1950.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have predicted that millions of Hispanics and immigrants would go uncounted if the census asked everyone if he or she is an American citizen.

Immigrant advocacy organizations and Democratic-led states, cities and counties argue the citizenship question is intended to discourage the participation of minorities, primarily Hispanics, who tend to support Democrats, from filling out census forms.

The challengers say they would get less federal money and fewer seats in Congress if the census asks about citizenship because people with noncitizens in their households would be less likely to fill out their census forms.

Evidence uncovered since the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in late April supports claims that the citizenship question is part of a broader Republican effort to accrue political power at the expense of minorities, the challengers say.

The Constitution requires a census count every 10 years. A question about citizenship had once been common, but it has not been widely asked since 1950. At the moment, the question is part of a detailed annual sample of a small chunk of the population, the American Community Survey.

The case stems from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision in 2018 to add a citizenship question to the next census, over the advice of career officials at the Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department. At the time, Ross said he was responding to a Justice Department request to ask about citizenship in order to improve enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Democrats Rail Against Economy-for-the-Rich in First Debate

MIAMI—Ten Democrats railed against a national economy and Republican administration they said exists only for the rich as presidential candidates debated onstage for the first time in the young 2020 season, embracing class warfare as a defining theme in their fight to deny President Donald Trump a second term in office.

Health care, more than any other issue, led the debate. And Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, more than anyone else, stood out — on her own at times — in calling for “fundamental change” across the nation’s economy and government to address persistent issues of inequality.

“I think of it this way. Who is this economy really working for? It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top,” Warren declared shortly before raising her hand as one of the only Democrats on stage willing to abolish her own private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan. “Health care is a basic human right and I will fight for basic human rights.”

The debate marked a major step forward in the young 2020 presidential campaign as Democrats seek to break out from the crowded field that has so far been dominated by former Vice President Joe Biden, who will appear in a second debate featuring another 10 candidates Thursday night. Biden was not mentioned during Wednesday’s faceoff, a civil debate with moments of modest policy clashes and few instances of Democrat-on-Democrat confrontation.

Immigration was also on their minds as the candidates’ minds as they pointed to the searing photos of a drowned Salvadoran father and his toddler daughter at the Rio Grande and blamed Trump and his policies on migrants crossing into America illegally.

Former Obama administration housing chief Julian Castro said, “Watching that image of Oscar and his daughter Valeria was heartbreaking. It should also piss us all off.”

Warren spent the evening at center stage, a top-tier candidate whose campaign has gained ground in recent weeks as she has released a near-constant stream of policy proposals. She was flanked by lower-tier candidates including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who needed big moments to help spark momentum in the crowded field.

Several candidates, including Castro, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio and former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland were eager to jab their rivals on issues including health care and immigration.

None of the candidates openly stumbled. Absent the ugly attacks or missteps that marred debates of past elections, the two-hour discussion allowed the Democratic Party to show off its extraordinary diversity. Wednesday’s lineup featured three women, one black man and another man of Mexican heritage. At least two candidates spoke Spanish at times, while Booker, an African American, talked about the violence that left seven people in his own urban neighborhood shot last week alone.

Yet modest differences on health care underscored a much louder internal fight over how aggressive Democrats should be on the nation’s most pressing issues.

On one side: candidates like Warren who are demanding dramatic change that includes embracing liberal policy priorities like free universal health care, debt-free college, a forgiving immigration policy and higher taxes on the rich. On the other: pragmatic-minded Democrats like Biden — and little-known former Maryland Rep. Delaney — who are calling for modest policy solutions that could ultimately attract bipartisan support.

Most of Warren’s rivals Wednesday night, including O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar, called for universal health care but also favored preserving the private insurance market. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who will be in a second debate group Thursday night, has proposed a “Medicare for All” system without private insurance.

“We should be the party that keeps what’s working and fixes what’s broken,” said Delaney, one of the few Democrats on stage who represented his party’s moderate wing. “Why do we have to stand for taking away something from people?”

De Blasio, who joined Warren in raising his hand on health insurance, cast the debate as part of “the battle for the heart and soul of our party.”

Trump, the elephant not in the room, was in the air traveling to Japan for a round of trade talks as Democrats faced the nation for the first time in the 2020 campaign.

Earlier in the day, he confirmed that he would watch the debate from Air Force One. His first tweet of the night: “BORING!”

The Republican president helped unite the Democrats, who joined together in blaming him for the deaths of a migrant father and his toddler daughter who drowned in the Rio Grande.

But the candidates didn’t agree on everything.

Castro assailed fellow Texan O’Rourke for not calling for fully decriminalizing crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

“I just think it’s a mistake, Beto,” he said, adding that O’Rourke would agree with him “if you did your homework on this issue.”

O’Rourke says he doesn’t support fully decriminalizing such border crossings because of fears about smugglers of drugs and people. New Jersey Sen. Booker also sided with Castro, arguing for full decriminalization.

While the candidates have been courting voters in key states for several months already, the vast majority of the nation has yet to pay close attention to the diverse field.

Only 35% of registered Democrats say they’re paying close attention to the campaign, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Two-thirds say they’re paying some or no attention.

___

Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Elana Schor in Washington, Sara Burnett in Chicago, David Bauder in New York, Alexandra Jaffe in Miami and Elana Schor in Washington contributed to this report.

Navy SEAL Court-Martial Witness Could Face Perjury Charges

SAN DIEGO—A Navy SEAL witness could face a perjury charge after testifying that he — and not Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher— had killed a young Islamic State prisoner in Iraq, according to an email sent to a lawyer for the witness.

Officials are considering charging Special Operator First Class Corey Scott with lying under oath during Gallagher’s court-martial, said the email sent Tuesday by Navy Capt. Donald King, a lawyer for the senior commander who convened the war crimes proceedings.

Scott “testified directly contrary to previous official statements — thus exposing him to prosecution,” the email said. Scott’s lawyer, Brian Ferguson, forwarded King’s email to The Associated Press, but did not immediately comment on its contents.

Related Articles











Whitewashing War Crimes Has Become the American Way



by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Scott, a medic, shocked the courtroom last week after he admitted to the killing, saying he plugged the militant’s breathing tube after Gallagher stabbed the boy as an act of mercy because he feared he would be tortured and possibly killed by Iraqi forces if he survived.

Navy officials said Scott told them before his testimony that he sat with the wounded prisoner until he took his last breath, but he never mentioned plugging the breathing tube.

In the courtroom, defense lawyers went on the offensive in the San Diego murder trial of Gallagher, a Bronze Star recipient charged with killing the militant and shooting at civilians in Iraq.

The prosecution rested its case a day earlier, after the judge rejected a defense request to issue a summary judgment finding Gallagher not guilty of murder and attempted murder.

Gallagher’s superior, Master Chief Petty Officer Brian Alazzawi, testified Wednesday that a SEAL team member told him in October 2017 that the platoon chief had stabbed a prisoner during their deployment to Iraq in May of that year. Alazzawi said the alleged war crime wasn’t reported up the chain of command until January 2018 — when he got word that several SEALs had planned to go as high as the Navy commodore over the matter because nothing was being done.

Special Warfare Operator First Class Craig Miller was “very emotional” when he reported the stabbing, Alazzawi said. Miller explained that he was coming forward a year after they had returned from deployment because Gallagher was being nominated for a Silver Star and promoted to being an instructor. Alazzawi said Miller told him he also feared some SEAL teammates who were “good people” could get in trouble, according to the testimony.

Alazzawi said he found Gallagher to be a solid tactical leader, but he also found the allegation made by Miller to be credible.

Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt. Joshua Vanderpool testified for the defense that he never heard Gallagher talk about hurting civilians or stabbing anyone. He said Gallagher had an intense style and would get on his SEAL teammates for not cleaning their guns and not understanding their weapons equipment.

Some fellow SEALs didn’t share Gallagher’s aggressive attitude, and Vanderpool said he sensed the team was starting to “fracture.”

The defense also planned to show jurors videotaped testimony from an Iraqi general who handed over the fighter to Gallagher for medical treatment after the adolescent was wounded in an airstrike. The general gave videotaped testimony in June when he visited San Diego.

Prosecution witnesses, including a fellow Navy SEAL, testified that Gallagher stabbed the prisoner twice in the neck in May 2017 and that the attack could have been fatal.

Defense lawyers say testimony from the Iraqi general and other witnesses will show Gallagher isn’t guilty. They already have contended that the witnesses against him offered tainted or even false testimony. They have questioned the methodology of the chief investigator and noted the lack of a body or other physical evidence.

Prosecutors called seven SEALs from the platoon to testify in the court-martial at Naval Base San Diego that started a week ago

On Tuesday, a computer specialist testified that Gallagher had texted a photo to a comrade in which he clutched the hair of the dead captive in one hand and a knife in the other.

The specialist also linked Gallagher to a text message sent to a comrade that bragged: “Got him with my hunting knife.”

Defense attorney Timothy Parlatore called the photos of Gallagher posing with the corpse in poor taste but not criminal. Several of the same SEALs who had testified against Gallagher also posed with the dead body in a platoon photo, he noted.

No blood was found on the knife.

Gallagher, 40, has pleaded not guilty to murder in the case of the prisoner and attempted murder for his alleged shooting of a young girl and elderly man in separate incidents outside Mosul. The defense said the shooting incidents were based on the accounts of one SEAL and one former SEAL who never saw Gallagher pull the trigger.

Fellow defense lawyer Marc Mukasey suggested earlier Tuesday that the lead investigator, a special agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Joseph Warpinski, befriended witnesses and encouraged them to speak with each other and go after Gallagher in violation of standard investigation practices.

Warpinski acknowledged making some mistakes in the hundreds of text messages he exchanged with witnesses, but denied making friends with them or encouraging them to discuss the case to get their stories straight or to target the chief. He said he had to build rapport with members of the insular special forces community to earn their trust and cooperation.

Mukasey also suggested Warpinski had not asked pertinent questions of witnesses, such as the cause of death of the captive fighter and why Gallagher, an 18-year veteran and trained medic, would suddenly kill a patient he was treating for battle wounds.

Scott testified that he thought the patient would have survived the stabbing, despite previously telling the prosecution his life could not have been saved.

___

Associated Press reporters Brian Melley contributed from Los Angeles.

NRA Breaks With Its PR firm, Lobbyist and TV Station

Infighting at the National Rifle Association exploded Wednesday, when the powerful association severed ties with its longtime public relations firm, suspended operations of its fiery online TV station and lost its top lobbyist.

The latest turmoil emerged just a year before the critical 2020 presidential elections when the NRA’s ability to influence the outcome could decide the fate of gun rights.

Lobbyist Chris Cox, long viewed as the likely successor to longtime CEO Wayne LaPierre, was placed on administrative leave about a week ago by the NRA, which claimed he was part of a failed attempt to extort LaPierre and push him out.

Related Articles











The NRA's Real Mission



by Paul Street

It also came within hours of the association officially severing ties with Ackerman McQueen, the Oklahoma-based public relations firm that has shaped some of the NRA’s most memorable messages in the past decades.

Cox had been the executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, since 2002. He was credited with leading efforts to allow a decade-long ban on “assault weapons” to expire in 2004, an achievement that allowed the gun industry to resume selling what the industry calls “modern sporting rifles” and critics claim are used too often to exact mass carnage.

His resignation was confirmed by NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. No other comment was immediately made about his departure.

Cox did not immediately return a message seeking comment. However, when he was suspended, Cox said in a statement obtained by The New York Times that allegations he had been part of a group seeking LaPierre’s ouster were “offensive and patently false.”

“For 24 years I have been a loyal and effective leader in this organization,” he said.

Cox played his usual prominent role at the NRA’s annual meeting in Indianapolis in April, and there was little public evidence that he and LaPierre or the NRA’s board of directors were at odds. Infighting spilled out during what is normally a pep rally of sorts among gun-rights enthusiasts when Oliver North , then the NRA president, threatened to expose questionable personal and travel expenses unless LaPierre stepped down. Instead, LaPierre turned the tables on North and accused him of trying to extort him into submission.

Joel Friedman, a longtime NRA board member, told The Associated Press his first reaction when he heard that Cox was stepping down was surprise. He said he saw no indications during the annual meeting that Cox was in a dispute with LaPierre.

LaPierre announced Cox’s resignation in an email sent Wednesday to staff and NRA board members that was obtained by the AP. The letter also said an investigation will continue into allegations that North sought to extort LaPierre and that the storied Marine veteran was aided by Cox, a claim first laid out in a lawsuit filed June 19.

In the past few months, the NRA has filed several lawsuits against Ackerman McQueen, accusing it of refusing to document its billings and of seeking to undermine the association. Ackerman McQueen has countersued, claiming the NRA is trying to renege on its financial obligations and smear the public relations firm.

Last year, NRA began asking all of its vendors for detailed documentation about its billings after New York authorities began threatening to investigate the NRA’s nonprofit status. The NRA was founded shortly after the Civil War and is chartered in New York, giving that state broad authority to investigate its operations.

During its two decades by the NRA’s side, Ackerman McQueen was responsible for crafting the association’s aggressive messaging, including the now-famous “From my cold dead hands” line uttered by actor Charlton Heston in 2000 as he vowed to resist any effort to take away his guns. The line became a rallying cry for gun owners around the country.

Ackerman McQueen also created and operated NRATV. In a statement posted Wednesday on the NRA website, LaPierre said it would no longer be airing live programming and would be evaluating the station’s future. It wasn’t clear what would happen to its prominent hosts but there appeared to be no signs those on-air personalities, who are employees of Ackerman McQueen, would find spots at the NRA.

In a lawsuit, the NRA said some of its members had questioned NRATV’s weighing in on “topics far afield of the Second Amendment.”

In a statement Wednesday, Ackerman McQueen accused the NRA of trying to avoid its financial obligations by shuttering NRATV and implied its financial woes are partly the result of now paying for high-priced lawyers.

“When given the opportunity to do the right thing, the NRA once again has taken action that we believe is intended to harm our company even at the expense of the NRA itself,” the company said.

“For Ackerman McQueen, it is time to move on to a new chapter without the chaos that has enveloped the NRA,” the statement continued. “Ackerman McQueen will continue to fight against the NRA’s repeated violations of its agreement with our company with every legal remedy available to us, but we will always be proud of the work that we completed during our 38-year relationship on behalf of the individual citizens that are the NRA.”

What Russia Rightfully Remembers, America Forgets

On June 6, President Trump commemorated the 75th Anniversary of Operation Overlord, popularly known as D-Day, when approximately 160,000 U.S., British, Canadian and Free French soldiers landed in and around the beaches of Normandy, France. Speaking at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, where the remains of 9,388 American fighting men, most of whom perished on D-Day, are interned, Trump promoted the mythology of American omniscience that was born on the beaches of Normandy. “These men ran through the fires of hell, moved by a force no weapon could destroy,” Trump declared. “The fierce patriotism of a free, proud and sovereign people. They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy and self-rule. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization.”

For Americans, D-Day stands out among all others when it comes to celebrating the Second World War. Immortalized in books, a movie starring John Wayne, and in the HBO series titled “Band of Brothers,” the landings at Normandy represent to most Americans the turning point in the war against Hitler’s Germany, the moment when the American Army (together with the British, Canadian and Free French) established a foothold in occupied France that eventually led to the defeat of Germany’s army.

What Trump overlooked in his presentation was the reality that the liberation of Europe began long before the D-Day landings. And the burden had almost exclusively been born by the Soviets.

In his defense, Trump is not alone in promoting an America-centric version of history; his speech was simply the latest in a series of historically flawed remarks delivered by a succession of American presidents ever since they began giving speeches at Normandy in commemoration of D-Day. President George W. Bush’s address on the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings was typical of the genre, maximizing American glory while ignoring that of the Soviets. “Americans wanted to fight and win and go home,” Bush said. “And our GIs had a saying: ‘The only way home is through Berlin.’ That road to VE-Day was hard and long and traveled by weary and valiant men. And history will always record where that road began. It began here, with the first footprints on the beaches of Normandy.”

But Bush was wrong; the road to Berlin had its origins at the approaches to Moscow, where the Soviet army turned back German invaders in December 1941. It was paved at Stalingrad in 1942 with the blood and flesh of 500,000 dead Soviet soldiers, who had killed more than 850,000 Nazi soldiers and their allies; and it was furthered in the bloody fields of Kursk, in 1943, where at the cost of more than 250,000 dead and 6,000 tanks destroyed, the Soviet army defeated the last major German offensive on the Eastern front, killing 110,000 Germans and destroying more than 1,200 irreplaceable tanks (the total number of U.S. and British tanks lost in Europe from D-Day until VE-Day numbered around 11,500; the total number of tanks lost by the Soviet Union while fighting Germany was more than 85,000, while the Russians destroyed more than 40,000 German tanks from June 1941 to November 1944). By the time the U.S., British, Canadian and Free French forces came ashore at Normandy, the Germans had already lost the war.

That didn’t mean there wasn’t some serious fighting left to do. “The Nazis still had about 50 divisions,” Bush noted, “and more than 800,000 soldiers in France alone. D-Day plus one, and D-Day plus two and many months of fierce fighting lay ahead, from Arnhem to Hurtgen Forest to the Bulge.”

The road to Berlin described by Bush was one where the Soviets simply did not factor into the equation. “The nations that liberated a conquered Europe would stand together for the freedom of all of Europe,” Bush said. “The nations that battled across the continent would become trusted partners in the cause of peace. And our great alliance of freedom is strong, and it is still needed today.” The “trusted partners” Bush referred to was NATO, and the “cause of peace” contained first the Soviet Union, and later Russia.

Related Articles











Trump and Media Join Forces to Falsify WWII History



by

It was as if the road to Berlin had ended with Americans capturing the Nazi capitol, compelling Adolf Hitler to commit suicide and thereby ending the 1,000-year Reich. But that honor fell to the Soviets, who, in a two-week campaign, lost more than 81,000 killed and a quarter of a million men wounded seizing Berlin from fanatical Nazi defenders.

President Obama continued the tradition of minimizing the Soviet role in the Second World War. “Here,” Obama said, speaking on the beaches of Normandy in 2014, the 70th anniversary of D-Day, “we don’t just commemorate victory, as proud of that victory as we are. We don’t just honor sacrifice, as grateful as the world is. We come to remember why America and our allies gave so much for the survival of liberty at its moment of maximum peril. We come to tell the story of the men and women who did it so that it remains seared into the memory of a future world.”

According to Obama’s “story,” “it was here, on these shores, that the tide was turned in that common struggle for freedom. … Omaha, Normandy—this was democracy’s beachhead. And our victory in that war decided not just a century, but shaped the security and well-being of all posterity. We worked to turn old adversaries into new allies. We built new prosperity. We stood once more with the people of this continent through a long twilight struggle until finally a wall tumbled down, and an Iron Curtain, too.”

Obama’s was a stilted, inaccurate version of history. Before the Soviet Union became “an old adversary,” it was a new ally—a fact ignored by the American president. And the implication that the American journey that began on the beaches in Normandy on June 6, 1941, didn’t come to an end until the Soviet Union collapsed is, simply put, ignorant.

On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany. Some 3.8 million Axis soldiers, backed by more than 6,000 armored vehicles and 4,000 aircraft, launched a surprise attack along a continuous front that ran from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. Known as Operation Barbarossa, the German offensive decimated the defending Soviet forces, breaking through the front lines and driving deep into Soviet territory, initiating a conflict that would last nearly four years. During that time, more than 26 million Soviet citizens would die, including 8.6 million soldiers of the Red Army (these are conservative numbers—some estimates, drawing upon classified information, hint that the actual number of total deaths might exceed 40 million, including more than 19 million military deaths).

The traumatic impact of what became known as the Great Patriotic War cannot be overstated. The complete devastation of entire regions at the hands of the invading Germans is something Americans never have experienced, and as such can never comprehend. Every year following the end of the Great Patriotic War, on June 22, the people of the Soviet Union—and later, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the citizens of Russia and the other former Soviet republics—observed the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow, during which time all entertainment programming is banned from television and radio.

As the number of survivors of the Great Patriotic War diminish, the Russian government, in an effort to keep the memory of those who fought and died alive and relevant to modern times, established the honorary title of City of Military Glory to honor the “courage, steadfast spirit and mass heroism” shown by the defenders of cities so designated “in the struggle for the freedom and independence of their Fatherland.” In 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin, following a wreath-laying ceremony at the Kremlin, gave a speech noting his designation of five Russian cities as Cities of Military Glory.

“June 22 is a special date for Russia and for our people,” Putin said. “On this day, 74 years ago, the Nazis attacked our country in the most devious fashion and the Great Patriotic War began. The Soviet people went through the greatest trials, defended their native soil at the cost of huge sacrifices and privations, achieved an unconditional victory and vanquished a powerful enemy, thanks to their unity and unprecedented love for their homeland.” Putin continued:

Our sacred duty is to remain true to these great values of patriotism, preserve the memory of our fathers’ and grandfathers’ feat, and honor the veterans. The conferral of the title of City of Military Glory has become not just a tradition but also a symbol of our devotion to the generation of victors. Today, this title is being conferred on the towns of Grozny, Feodosia, Petrozavodsk, Staraya Russa and Gatchina. The defenders of these cities made a tremendous contribution to bringing closer the victory over Nazism.

I think that for everyone in these towns this is a welcome event and also a very significant one, because this lofty title does not only help to preserve the historical memory, but, just as importantly, is also an expression of the genetic connection we feel with those whom we honor as heroes.

What kind of echoes does this produce in the hearts and souls of ordinary people today? If here, on this soil, my forebears were heroes, this means that I too carry a piece of all that is my treasure and pride. This is what the link between generations is all about.

Putin’s speech was patriotic. It celebrated past military glory. It honored the dead. But there was no talk about the need to link the sacrifices of the past to the need to defend current Russian policy priorities. For Putin and the Russian people, the memories of the sacrifices incurred during the Great Patriotic War are too deeply seared into their collective psyche—their very genes, to paraphrase Putin—to allow them to be cheapened by the present.

Whether you love Putin or hate him, one thing is for certain: His speech was the epitome of how one honors their dead.

Given the sad state of affairs between the United States and Russia today, it is hard to imagine that during the Second World War the two nations were part of a “Grand Alliance” that included Great Britain (France and China were brought in at the conclusion of the war). But the reality is that the United States and the Soviet Union, while confronting the same enemy in the form of Nazi Germany, fought two different wars. In its fight against Nazi Germany and Italy, the United States lost 183,588 killed in action or missing, 560,240 wounded and 108,621 prisoners of war. In the first six months of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union lost 802,191 killed, 1,336,147 wounded and 2,835,482 prisoners of war.

No American took time out on June 22 to commemorate the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and with it the initiation of a conflict that made the D-Day landings possible through the sacrifice of tens of millions of dead Soviet soldiers and civilians. Nor did any American take time out on the day after, June 23, and give thanks to the people of Russia and the former Soviet Republics for securing our victory at Normandy.

And why should they? For decades, Americans have been spoon-fed a version of history that placed American sacrifice, as considerable as it was, above all else. But let there be no doubt that if it weren’t for what transpired on June 23, 1944, the story of the great American victory that “saved civilization” would be much different in the telling, written in the blood of tens of thousands of soldiers whose lives would have been lost if not for the courage and sacrifice of their forgotten, unacknowledged Soviet allies.

While the landing at Normandy had gone well, the advance inland was a different matter. By June 23, 1941—a mere 17 days after the D-Day landings—the U.S. and U.K. forces were stuck in ferocious fighting with German troops dug in behind thick hedgerows that made movement of men and armored vehicles virtually impossible. The port of Cherbourg was still in German hands, which meant that desperately needed supplies were not getting to the troops doing the fighting and dying. Any serious reinforcement of the German position in France would have made the allied beachhead tenuous.

But there wouldn’t be any German troops moving into France, for the simple reason that they were all tied down fighting a life-or-death struggle on the Eastern front, trying to cope with a massive Soviet offensive known as Operation Bagration. The details of the fighting are irrelevant, but it made anything taking place in France pale by comparison. By the time Operation Bagration ground to a halt, in mid-August 1944, some 400,000 German soldiers from Army Group Center—the most highly trained, experienced men in the German army—were either dead, wounded or taken prisoner, and some 1,350 tanks destroyed. The Soviet offensive tore a gigantic hole in the German lines that had to be filled with troops and material that otherwise would have been available to contain the Normandy landings. The cost of this victory, however, was staggering—180,000 Soviet dead and 590,00 wounded, matching in a span of two months the total casualties suffered by the U.S. in the entire European theater of operations, including North Africa, from 1942 to 1945.

Shortly after Operation Bagration ground to a halt outside the gates of Warsaw, Operation Overlord officially came to an end. Denied reinforcements, the Germans were unable to contain the allied buildup at Normandy, and when the breakout from the beachhead began in earnest, in late July, the German forces were routed. Overall, the Germans lost some 240,000 men killed or wounded during Operation Overlord, while the combined allied casualties were around 210,000 men killed and wounded. But it could have been worse—much worse.

Operation Bagration saved D-Day, but you won’t hear any American presidents acknowledging that fact. Nor will any Americans pause and give thanks for the sacrifice of so many Soviet lives in the cause of defeating Nazi Germany. Let there be no doubt that the United States played an instrumental role in the defeat of Hitler—we were the arsenal of democracy, and our lend-lease support to the Soviet Union was critical in the success of the Soviet army.

But the simple fact is that we never faced the German A-team—those men had perished long ago on the Eastern front, fighting the Soviets. The German army we faced was an amalgam of old men, young boys, unmotivated foreigners (including thousands of captured Russian and Poles), and worn-out, wounded survivors of the fighting in the east. We beat the Germans, but because of the pressure brought to bear on Germany by the Soviet Union, the outcome in Western Europe was never in doubt.

Why does this matter? Because facts matter. History matters. The hubris and arrogance derived from our one-sided, exaggerated and highly inaccurate version of the Second World War, where American forces liberated Europe with the assistance of their North Atlantic allies, carries over to this day. It feeds a narrative that gives credence to the fictitious omnipotence of NATO and the total disregard for any Russian perspective regarding the future of a continent the Soviets liberated through the blood and sacrifice of tens of millions of their citizens. While we Americans continue to celebrate a version of events that is highly fictionalized, the Russians commemorate a reality anchored in fact. Given the current geopolitical trajectory in Europe, where the framework of security and prosperity the United States and its North Atlantic allies built in the aftermath of their “grand victory” against Nazi Germany teeters on the brink of collapse, there will come a time when fiction-based arrogance will clash with fact-based realism. If history tells us anything, those who more accurately remember the lessons of the past will fare far better than those who, by their ignorance, are condemned to repeat their mistakes.

A Grim Border Drowning Underlines Peril Facing Many Migrants

MEXICO CITY — The man and his 23-month-old daughter lay face down in shallow water along the bank of the Rio Grande, his black shirt hiked up to his chest with the girl tucked inside. Her arm was draped around his neck suggesting she clung to him in her final moments.

The searing photograph of the sad discovery of their bodies on Monday, captured by journalist Julia Le Duc and published by Mexican newspaper La Jornada, highlights the perils faced by mostly Central American migrants fleeing violence and poverty and hoping for asylum in the United States.

According to Le Duc’s reporting for La Jornada, Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, frustrated because the family from El Salvador was unable to present themselves to U.S. authorities and request asylum, swam across the river on Sunday with his daughter, Valeria.

Related Articles











The Wall Isn't the Worst of Trump's Immigration Policies



by

He set her on the U.S. bank of the river and started back for his wife, Tania Vanessa Ávalos, but seeing him move away the girl threw herself into the waters. Martínez returned and was able to grab Valeria, but the current swept them both away.

The account was based on remarks by Ávalos to police at the scene — “amid tears” and “screams” — Le Duc told The Associated Press.

Details of the incident were confirmed Tuesday by a Tamaulipas state government official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, and by Martínez’s mother back in El Salvador, Rosa Ramírez, who spoke with her daughter-in-law by phone afterward.

“When the girl jumped in is when he tried to reach her, but when he tried to grab the girl, he went in further … and he couldn’t get out,” Ramírez told the AP. “He put her in his shirt, and I imagine he told himself, ‘I’ve come this far’ and decided to go with her.”

From the scorching Sonoran Desert to the fast-moving Rio Grande, the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border has long been an at times deadly crossing between ports of entry. A total of 283 migrant deaths were recorded last year; the toll so far this year has not been released.

In recent weeks alone, two babies, a toddler and a woman were found dead in the sweltering heat. Three children and an adult from Honduras died in April after their raft capsized on the Rio Grande, and a 6-year-old from India was found dead earlier this month in Arizona, where temperatures routinely soar well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

The search for Martínez and his daughter was suspended Sunday due to darkness, and their bodies were discovered the next morning near Matamoros, Mexico, across from Brownsville, Texas, several hundred yards (meters) from where they had tried to cross and just a half-mile (1 kilometer) from an international bridge.

Tamaulipas immigration and civil defense officials have toured shelters beginning weeks ago to warn against attempting to cross the river, said to be swollen with water released from dams for irrigation. On the surface, the Rio Grande appears placid, but strong currents run beneath.

Ramírez said her son and his family left El Salvador on April 3 and spent about two months at a shelter in Tapachula, near Mexico’s border with Guatemala.

“I begged them not to go, but he wanted to scrape together money to build a home,” Ramírez said. “They hoped to be there a few years and save up for the house.”

El Salvador’s foreign ministry said it was working to assist the family, including Ávalos, who was at a border migrant shelter following the drownings. The bodies were expected to be flown to El Salvador on Thursday.

The photo recalls the 2015 image of a 3-year-old Syrian boy who drowned in the Mediterranean near Turkey, though it remains to be seen whether it may have the same impact in focusing international attention on migration to the U.S.

“Very regrettable that this would happen,” Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Tuesday in response to a question about the photograph. “We have always denounced that as there is more rejection in the United States, there are people who lose their lives in the desert or crossing” the river.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

U.S. “metering” policy has dramatically reduced the number of migrants who are allowed to request asylum, down from dozens per day previously to sometimes just a handful at some ports of entry.

The Tamaulipas government official said the family arrived in Matamoros early Sunday and went to the U.S. Consulate to try to get a date to request asylum. The mother is 21 years old and the father was 25, he added.

But waits are long there as elsewhere along the border. Last week, a shelter director said only about 40 to 45 asylum interviews were being conducted in Matamoros each week, while somewhere in the neighborhood of 800-1,700 names were on a waiting list.

It’s not clear what happened to the family at the U.S. Consulate, but later in the day they made the decision to cross. The Tamaulipas official said the father and daughter set off from a small park that abuts the river. Civil defense officials arrived at the scene at 7 p.m. Sunday and later took the wife to the shelter.

“I was drawn to the girl’s arm on her father,” Le Duc said as she described arriving at the scene. “It was something that moved me in the extreme because it reflects that until her last breath, she was joined to him not only by the shirt but also in that embrace in which they passed together into death.”

“It’s a horrifying image,” Maureen Meyer, a specialist on immigration at the Washington Office on Latin America, which advocates for human rights in the region, said of the photograph. “And I think it speaks so clearly to the real risks of these U.S. programs that are either returning people back to Mexico seeking asylum or in this case limiting how many people can enter the U.S. every day.”

The United States has also been expanding its program under which asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their claims are processed in U.S. courts, a wait that could last many months or even years.

This week Nuevo Laredo in Tamaulipas, the same state where Matamoros is located, said it will become the latest city to receive returnees as soon as Friday.

Many migrant shelters are overflowing on the Mexican side, and cartels hold sway over much of Tamaulipas and have been known to kidnap and kill migrants.

Meanwhile, Mexico is stepping up its own crackdown on immigration in response to U.S. pressure, with much of the focus on slowing the flow in the country’s south.

“With greater crackdowns and restrictions,” said Cris Ramón, senior immigration policy analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank in Washington, “we could see more desperate measures by people trying to enter Mexico or the U.S.”

___

Associated Press writers Marcos Alemán in San Salvador, El Salvador, and Alfredo Peña in Ciudad Victoria, Mexico, contributed to this report.

Heat Records Tumble as Europe Bakes

BERLIN—Torrid weather gripped large parts of western and central Europe on Wednesday, setting new June temperature records in Germany and the Czech Republic and forcing drivers to slow down on some sections of the famously speedy German autobahns.

Authorities imposed speed limits on some autobahns due to concerns the high heat would cause expressway surfaces to buckle. Some French schools stayed closed as a precaution due to worrying hot weather.

German weather agency Deutscher Wetterdienst said a preliminary reading showed the mercury reached 38.6 degrees Celsius (101.5 F) in Coschen, near the Polish border. That’s a tenth of a degree higher than the previous national record for June, set in 1947 in southwestern Germany.

Related Articles











We Could Solve the Climate Crisis With One Radical Change



by

The Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute said the temperature reached 38.5 Celsius (101.3 F) in Doksany — a Czech Republic high for the month. New daily records were set at some 80% of local measuring stations.

And it’s about to get even hotter.

Authorities have warned that temperatures could top 40 degrees Celsius (104 F) in parts of continental Europe in the coming days as a plume of dry, hot air moves north from Africa.

The transport ministry in Germany’s eastern Saxony-Anhalt state said it has imposed speed limits of 100 kph or 120 kph (62 mph or 75 mph) on several short stretches of highway until further notice. (same as autobahn above?)

Those stretches usually don’t have speed limits, but officials worry they could crack in the heat and endanger drivers.

Professor Hannah Cloke, a natural hazards researcher at Britain’s University of Reading, said the heat along with a build-up of humidity was a “potentially lethal combination.”

“Children, the elderly and people with underlying health conditions are particularly at risk,” she said.

Precautionary measures also were taken in France, where temperatures up to 39 degrees Celsius (102 Fahrenheit) are forecast for the Paris area later in the week.

Similarly baking conditions are expected in much of the country, from the Pyrenees in the southwest to the German border in the northeast.

Because such high temperatures are rare in France, most homes and many buildings do not have air conditioning.

In Paris on Wednesday authorities banned older cars from the city for the day as the heat aggravates pollution problems.

Regional authorities estimated the measure, targeting vehicles including gasoline cars from 2005 or older and diesel cars from 2010 or older, affects nearly 60% of vehicles circulating in the Paris region. Violators face fines.

French charities and local officials were providing extra help for the elderly, the homeless and the sick this week, remembering that some 15,000 people, many of them elderly, died in France during a 2003 heat wave.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe cited the heat wave as evidence of climate destabilization and vowed to step up the government’s fight against climate change.

The scorching heat was felt on the streets of Vienna, too.

“We’re slightly below 35 degrees (Celsius) right now,” said Wolfgang Fasching, driver of one of the city’s traditional horse-drawn carriages. “At 35 degrees we go home because then the horses in Vienna get time off due to excessive heat.”

With temperatures in Milan forecast to hit 40 C, an aid group said it was preparing to distribute 10,000 bottles of free water to the homeless and other needy people. The Civil Protection service in Rome also planned to distribute water to people at risk during the hottest hours of the day.

About half of Spain’s provinces are on alert for high temperatures, which are expected to rise as the weekend approaches.

The northeastern city of Zaragoza was forecast to be the hottest on Wednesday at 39 C, building to 44 C on Saturday, according to the government weather agency AEMET.

Some tourists sought relief in Madrid’s green spaces. “It is pretty hot right now, we are dealing with it by trying to stay in the shade here in the park,” said Victoria Poliak from San Diego, California.

Congress Is Funding the Destruction of Kids’ Lives

I came to this country from Mexico as a small child because my mother was escaping poverty and wanted to give my sisters and me a better life. She worked hard to make sure we had food on our table and a roof over our heads, often doing two and three jobs at a time.

Because of poverty and systemic racism, undocumented families like mine must work multiple jobs and get paid under the table, and that often comes with mistreatment and discrimination on the job. To get by, people in our community have to develop our own survival methods, such as getting together with neighbors to share meals or take care of each other’s kids.

This difficult situation is made worse by the threat of detention, deportation, and family separation. Reports of sickening conditions in children’s detention facilities, along with renewed threats by the administration to attack migrant families, have cast a dark shadow over the lives of families like mine.

Related Articles











Migrant Children Waiting for Reunification Were Held in Vans Up to 39 Hours



by Ilana Novick

Much of this is made possible by misplaced spending priorities.

I recently traveled to Washington, D.C. from my home in Los Angeles to testify before Congress.  This was an opportunity to tell members of the House Budget Committee that they have tremendous power to shift U.S. priorities to help millions of families lead better lives.

They could decide, for example, that it’s more important to put children into Head Start than into detention centers. Last year, one of the corporations that operate detention centers got $234 million to buy beds for children. With that money, we could instead fund Head Start for more than 26,000 children.

One policy gives children lifelong benefits. The other destroys lives. In fact, at least five migrant children have died in detention this year. Many thousands more will be traumatized.

Congress could also decide that it’s more important to send kids to college than to send more ICE agents to raid workplaces. Many poor people like me would like to go to college, but there’s not enough financial support — even though the benefits of public investment in higher education outweigh the costs by over 4 to 1, according to a California study.

Meanwhile, the government has had no trouble finding money to stop people from pursuing their right to live with dignity and humanity. The United States now spends more than eight times as much annually on immigration, deportation, and border enforcement as it did in 1976.

President Trump claims immigrants are an economic burden — that we steal jobs and public assistance money. The exact opposite is true. The Congressional Budget Office found that if the United States accepted more immigrants and created a path for more undocumented people to get legal status, the benefits would outweigh the costs by nearly $20 billion per year.

Immigrants contribute every day to this society — whether it’s the gardener mowing your lawn, the cook (like my mother) preparing your meal, the farm worker picking your fruits and vegetables, or the nanny helping to raise your children. Many of us, like myself, have become leaders in movements that unite poor people of all backgrounds to fight — not just to survive another day, but for the right to live a full and vibrant life.

My mother crossed a desert to give me a life with dignity and basic human needs — a home, food, and education. I will continue to fight to make sure everybody lives without poverty, systemic racism, ecological devastation, and violent militarism. I hope our elected officials will too.

Furnishing Retailer’s Workers Walk Out Over Detention Center Contract

BOSTON—Employees at online home furnishings retailer Wayfair walked out Wednesday to protest the company’s decision to sell $200,000 worth of furniture to a government contractor that runs a detention center for migrant children in Texas.

The protest triggered a broader backlash against the company, with some customers calling for a boycott. Several hundred people joined the protest at a plaza near the company’s Boston headquarters, a mix of employees and people from outside the company.

Related Articles











Why Don't Americans Care About Democracy at Home?



by

More than 500 employees at the company’s Boston headquarters signed a protest letter to executives when they found out about the contract. Wayfair refused to back out of the contract but told employees Wednesday morning that it would donate $100,000 to the Red Cross.

“Last week, we found out about the sale and that we are profiting from this. And we are not comfortable with that,” said Tom Brown, 33, a Wayfair engineer at the protest. “For me personally, there is more to life than profit.”

Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both said they stood by the Wayfair employees who are protesting, as did Congressional Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

Wayfair’s stock initially slipped more than 5% Tuesday as word of the walkout spread. On Wednesday, the stock rose about 1%.

The protest comes amid a new uproar over revelations of terrible conditions at a Border Patrol facility in Clint, Texas, first reported by The Associated Press , including inadequate food, lack of medical care, no soap, and older children trying to care for toddlers. Emotions were also running high one day after photos published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada and distributed worldwide by the AP showed the bodies of a migrant father and his young daughter who drowned while trying to cross the Rio Grande from Mexico to enter the United States without legal permission.

The unprecedented surge of migrant families has left U.S. immigration detention centers severely overcrowded and taxed the government’s ability to provide medical care and other attention. Six children have died since September after being detained by border agents. As the controversy grew, the acting head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection resigned Tuesday, though he did not give a reason for leaving.

In a letter to the employees, Wayfair leaders said that it’s standard practice to fulfill orders for any customer acting within the law.

“We believe it is our business to sell to any customer who is acting within the laws of the countries within which we operate,” said the letter.

Wayfair said it would have no further comment on the protest.

Wayfair sold the beds to Baptist Children’s Family Services, a non-profit with federal contracts to manage some of the camps along the border.

“We believe youth should sleep in beds with mattresses,” the organization said in a brief statement.

Madeline Howard, a product manager at Wayfair, said company leaders had held a town hall earlier this week to listen to employee concerns but would not budge on their stance.

She said the company’s donation to the Red Cross did not satisfy the demands of the employees, who had asked that the profit from the sale — about $86,000 — be donated RAICES, a non-profit that is the largest immigration legal services provider in Texas.

In a statement, the Red Cross said it was “grateful for Wayfair’s generous donation.” The organization said it would put the funds toward “the increased aid we have provided for the past six months to community-based organizations helping with the border crisis in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.”

Brown, the Wayfair engineer, said there is no one answer on what the company policy should be, with some employees calling for the company to stop providing for the detention centers altogether, and others arguing it would be enough for Wayfair to forego profits from such sales.

Mimi Chakravorti, executive director of strategy at the brand consulting firm Landor, said Wayfair must decide whether the damage to their brand from the controversy will ultimately prove more costly than foregoing a $200,000 contract.

“Unfortunately, they are not going to able to get out of this without being burned on one side or the other,” said Chakravorti. “Is it about moral standards? Or is it about the bottom line dollars, and being able to sell to anyone in a legal way?”

Other companies have also been drawn into the controversy over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Last year, American Airlines and United Airlines said they asked the government not to put migrant children who have been separated from their parents on their flights. Employees have protested work by Amazon and Microsoft to assist police agencies and federal immigration agents with facial recognition and other tools. Microsoft executives defended the company’s immigration contract despite a protest letter that circulated through the company over the summer.

The children’s magazine Highlights jumped in Tuesday, with CEO Kent Johnson posting a statement on Twitter condemning the separation of families at the border and calling for “more humane treatment of immigrant children” at detention centers.

The country’s politically polarized atmosphere has become a minefield for many businesses as workers increasingly take on their employers for issues they care about.

At Google, employees walked out of their offices last year to protest the tech company’s mishandling of sexual misconduct allegations against executives. And workers at Amazon.com Inc. publicly published a letter addressed to CEO Jeff Bezos earlier this year to push the online shopping giant to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.

Anne Gilson, a human resources expert at the employee benefits agency OneDigital, said companies have been traditionally more accustomed to handling employee discontent about internal workplace problems, not politics.

“This is new territory for many organizations,” Gilson said, adding that companies need to strive to ensure employees feel they are heard before a controversy spills out into public view.

“Why do people feel they have to take drastic action?” Gilson said. “How was the conversation initially managed? Is the culture, ‘Yeah, thanks Johnny,’ and eye-rolling and sighs?”

___

Olson reported from New York. Associated Press writer Nomaan Merchant in Houston contributed to this report.