Chris Hedges's Blog, page 248

How California Egregiously Failed Its Care Workers

Across California, at least 20 companies providing care for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill continue to operate illegally after being cited for failing to pay their workers more than $1.4 million in back wages and penalties.

“There’s no accountability,” said Hina Shah, an associate law professor at Golden Gate University who directs the Women’s Employment Rights Clinic, which represents low-wage workers on issues of wage theft, discrimination and harassment. “Many of the cases that are being brought by workers are challenging flat-rate pay for 24 hours of work, conditions that are akin to modern-day slavery.”

In 2015, former Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Fair Day’s Pay Act, which aimed to thwart wage theft in California. It barred companies with outstanding wage theft judgments from conducting business in the state.

But the state Department of Social Services’ Community Care Licensing Division, which is in charge of licensing facilities for the elderly and disabled, has not acted, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting found.

The agency received debtors’ names from the state labor commissioner’s office over the last year or so. However, the companies continue to operate despite their outstanding wage theft judgments, Reveal found. Meanwhile, employees who won tens of thousands in judgments remain unpaid.

“The law says if you have an unpaid judgment, you can’t conduct business in the state,” said Gideon Baum, the consultant who analyzed the bill for the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee before it became law in 2016. “I think the law can’t be any clearer. Given that these are licensed by the Department of Social Services, the agency should be enforcing the law.”

Pat Leary, acting director of the Department of Social Services, declined through spokesman Michael Weston to be interviewed. But in a phone interview, Weston said the agency’s hands are tied when it comes to revoking the licenses of companies that fail to pay wage theft judgments.

“If the department wants to put someone out of business, we have to show cause that there’s a direct threat to the health and safety of residents,” he said.

Weston declined to discuss what his agency is doing about the debtors: “I’m not going to speculate on what enforcement actions we’re taking. We’re aware of the lists. We do look into those cases, but I’m not going to get into specifics.”

Inspection records available online show no indication that licensing officials considered debtors’ outstanding wage theft judgments when they visited the facilities in recent months, Reveal found.

Legal experts say proving a connection between residents’ health and safety and wage theft is not required under the Fair Day’s Pay Act for state licensing officials to take action. In addition, some argue that licensing officials could revoke the licenses of care homes that fail to pay judgments because wage theft inflicts harm on workers and seniors, a violation of the state’s health and safety code.

“If DSS (the Department of Social Services) shut some facilities down, it would have a big impact,” said Aquilina Soriano Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California, an advocacy organization in Los Angeles. “There is not enough consciousness about the worker conditions and how they connect to patient care.”

“When there is rampant wage theft and workers are working unsustainable working hours, it’s leading to poor quality of care,” Shah said. “There’s an increase in risk to the health and safety of both the workers and the residents. The Department of Social Services has the authority to act, to revoke or deny licenses.”

One company with outstanding wage theft judgments is Catuira Home Inc., which runs a care home in Clovis in the Central Valley. In 2017, the state labor commissioner issued separate orders for Catuira to pay five caregivers more than $870,000 in unpaid wages and penalties.

Soon after, in October 2017, company co-owner Edwin Catuira filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Less than four months later, Catuira Home also filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustees in both cases concluded that neither Edwin Catuira nor Catuira Home had enough assets to pay their creditors, effectively erasing their debt. Edwin Catuira sold the real estate where the home is located in 2014, records show.

The care home continues to operate under the same name, and the workers still have not been paid what they were owed.

Among those waiting for their back wages is Fidel Japos, 71, of Fresno. Catuira hired him in 2014 to work day and night as a caregiver. He effectively earned about $3 an hour. All the while, he said, his boss swore at him and his co-workers.

“She would yell at us, ‘You’re lazy, you’re a son of a bitch,’ ” Japos said in a telephone interview. “That was her nature. That’s the way she managed.”

After Japos complained about his rock-bottom pay, the labor commissioner’s office ordered Catuira to pay more than $63,000 in back wages and penalties. But Japos never received his money, records show.

“I could have used that money to buy a car or put a down payment on a house,” said Japos, who is now retired.

Edwin Catuira did not return two messages requesting comment.

Residential care facilities receive among the largest wage theft judgments of any industry, according to Matthew Sirolly, a staff attorney with the California labor commissioner’s office who advises the agency on how to enforce wage theft judgments.

There currently are about 400 open investigations into wage theft involving residential care homes for the elderly and disabled, according to the labor commissioner’s office. At least 150 workers who filed successful claims against such facilities still have not received their wages, according to the agency. Some of these companies now are closed.

Without effective enforcement, the judgments are worthless, legal advocates say.

“It sends a message that it’s not a priority for DSS (the California Department of Social Services) to make sure workers are being paid properly,” said Renée Amador, a board member of the Wage Justice Center, which contracts with the labor commissioner’s office to enforce judgments. “If there are debts owed to workers, they should not continue to operate. “You don’t get to keep your golden goose if you’re not paying the wages that you owe.”

Currently, there is no requirement that care-home operators undergo any training around wage and hour laws.

Since enactment of the Fair Day’s Pay Act, the labor commissioner has issued more than 50 stop orders to companies owing unpaid wages, essentially ordering them to shut down.

Stop orders can be effective. For example, after the labor commissioner’s office imposed a stop order last year against Venture Recycling Group Inc., which runs four recycling facilities in Southern California, the company paid more than $18,300 including interest for an outstanding wage theft judgment. The company continued operating after making the payment.

But the labor commissioner cannot issue stop orders for wage theft violations in the long-term care industry. That’s because the law states that the commissioner cannot shut down a facility if it will “imperil public safety or the life, health and care of vulnerable individuals.”

“If caregivers aren’t paid fairly and they’re exhausted, that can present risks to residents and their care and safety,” said Chris Murphy, executive director of Consumer Advocates for RCFE Reform, a San Diego organization for consumers researching long-term care.

In any case, the labor commissioner must report wage theft violators to the social services department, which has the authority to deny or not renew licenses of long-term care facilities. However, in the case of care facilities for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill, which are licensed in perpetuity, Weston said the law precludes his agency from acting.

“There is no scenario for denying the renewal of a license,” Weston said of these facilities.

Legal advocates say state law must be changed to ensure workers are paid what they’re due by violators that are easily able to evade payments and penalties. Lawmakers could amend existing state law to allow the labor commissioner to issue stop orders unconditionally to long-term care facilities. Alternatively, advocates say the Legislature could require more accountability from social services officials and an explanation of why the agency has failed to act in cases involving facilities with outstanding wage theft judgments.

“Making the denial or revocation of licenses a requirement when there are unpaid judgments would go a long way in combating rampant wage theft in California,” workers rights attorney Shah said. “It would also address the widespread challenge in collecting wage theft judgments.”

This story was edited by Narda Zacchino and Matt Thompson and copy edited by Nikki Frick.

Huawei Likely to Be Stripped of Google Services After U.S. Ban

Huawei could quickly lose its grip on the No. 2 ranking in worldwide cellphone sales after Google announced it would comply with U.S. government restrictions meant to punish the Chinese tech powerhouse.

The Trump administration’s move, which effectively bars U.S. firms from selling components and software to Huawei, ups the ante in a trade war between Washington and Beijing that partly reflects a struggle for global economic and technological dominance.

Google said it would continue to support existing Huawei smartphones but future devices will not have its flagship apps and services, including maps, Gmail and search. Only basic services would be available for future versions of the Android operating system on Huawei’s smartphones.

Related Articles





Trump Comments Upend U.S. Approach to Huawei, Trade Talks



by















U.S.-China Talks Are About Much More Than Trade



by

Though the U.S. Commerce Department grants exceptions, the ban announced last week on all purchases of U.S. technology is thus apt to badly hurt Huawei, analysts say.

Washington claims Huawei poses a national security threat, and its placement on the so-called Entity List by the Trump administration last week is widely seen as intended to persuade resistant U.S. allies in Europe to exclude Huawei equipment from their next-generation wireless networks, known as 5G.

“This is major crisis for Huawei. Instead of being the world’s largest handset manufacturer this year, it will struggle to stay two, but probably fall behind,” analyst Roger Entner said. “How competitive is a smartphone without the most well-known and popular apps?”

Huawei will likely use its own, stripped-down version of Android, whose basic code is provided free of charge by Google. But the Mountain View, California, company said Huawei would not be authorized to use other Google software and services if the sanctions go forward as announced.

Google could seek exemptions, but would not comment on whether it planned to do so.

Entner, founder of Recon Analytics, said Google itself won’t feel a large direct impact, “as consumers will shift to other Android devices. The biggest concern is not to be caught in the crossfire of two governments.”

Gartner analyst Tuong Nguyen said 48% of Huawei’s phone shipments last year were outside of China and the company will need to scramble not to lose market share.

Samsung led global smartphone sales in the first quarter of this year with a 23.1% share. Huawei was second with 19%, followed by Apple at 11.7%, according to IDC.

Huawei’s smartphone sales in the U.S. are tiny — and the Chinese company’s footprint in telecommunications networks is limited to smaller wireless and internet providers— so any impact on U.S. consumers of a Google services cutoff would be slight.

Hardware suppliers led by Qualcomm, Broadcom and Intel would also be forced to halt shipments to Huawei under the Commerce Department rule, which requires all U.S. technology sales to the company to obtain U.S. government approval unless exceptions are made.

The Commerce Department on Monday announced a 90-day grace period this week. In a report, the global risk assessment outfit Eurasia Group said that if the sanction process helps persuade European carriers to shun Huawei equipment, a full ban on purchases of U.S. technology products and services could be avoided.

Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., said in a statement late Sunday that it was complying with and “reviewing the implications” of the requirement for export licenses for technology sales to Huawei, which took effect Thursday. “For users of our services, Google Play and the security protections from Google Play Protect will continue to function on existing Huawei devices,” it added.

The U.S. government says Chinese suppliers including Huawei and its smaller rival, ZTE Corp., pose an espionage threat because they are beholden to China’s ruling Communist Party. But American officials have presented no evidence of any Huawei equipment serving as intentional conduits for espionage by Beijing.

Huawei, headquartered in the southern city of Shenzhen near Hong Kong, reported earlier that its worldwide sales rose 19.5% last year over 2017 to 721.2 billion ($105.2 billion). Profit rose 25.1% to 59.3 billion yuan ($8.6 billion).

Huawei smartphone shipments rose 50% in the first three months of 2019 to 59.1 million, compared with a year earlier, while the global industry’s total fell 6.6%, according to IDC. Shipments from Samsung and Apple both declined.

Huawei defended itself Monday as “one of Android’s key global partners.” The company said it helped to develop a system that “benefited both users and the industry.”

“We will continue to build a safe and sustainable software ecosystem, in order to provide the best experience for all users globally,” the company said.

A foreign ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said China will “monitor the development of the situation” but gave no indication how Beijing might respond.

The U.S. order took effect Thursday and requires government approval for all purchases of American microchips, software and other components globally by Huawei and 68 affiliated businesses. Huawei says that amounted to $11 billion in goods last year.

That could certainly create some collateral damage for U.S. companies.

The California chipmaker Xilinx Inc. tumbled 4% Monday. David Wong, an analyst with Nomura, said Xilinx has benefited from demand in next-generation, 5G technologies and “action against a major maker of communications infrastructure equipment like Huawei likely poses risk for Xilinx.”

Don McGahn Defies Subpoena for Testimony, Faces Contempt Vote

WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler gaveled open a Trump-Russia hearing Tuesday with an empty witness chair and a stern warning that former White House Counsel Don McGahn will be held in contempt for failing to appear in defiance of the committee’s subpoena.

“Our subpoenas are not optional,” Nadler said. The panel will hear from McGahn “one way or another,” he said. “This committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him.”

Democrats are facing yet another attempt by President Donald Trump to stonewall their investigations. This time they’re blocked from hearing from McGahn — a chief eyewitness to the president’s handling of the federal Russia investigation — on orders from the White House.

Related Articles





White House Orders Don McGahn to Defy House Subpoena



by

Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, spoke scornfully of Nadler’s position, calling the session a “circus” and saying the chairman preferred a public “fight over fact-finding.”

Democrats are “trying desperately to make something out of nothing,” Collins said, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia probe.

The committee voted to adjourn the hearing immediately after Collins’ remarks.

A lawyer for McGahn had said he would follow the president’s directive and skip Tuesday’s hearing, leaving the Democrats without yet another witness — and a growing debate within the party about how to respond.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, backed by Nadler, is taking a step-by-step approach to the confrontations with Trump. Nadler said the committee would vote to hold McGahn in contempt, and take the issue to court.

“We will not allow the president to stop this investigation,” the chairman said. A contempt vote is not expected until June, as lawmakers are scheduled to leave town for a weeklong recess.

Democrats are encouraged by an early success on that route as a federal judge ruled against Trump on Monday in a financial records dispute with Congress. Trump’s team filed notice Tuesday that they would appeal.

But Pelosi’s strategy hasn’t been swift enough for some members of the Judiciary panel who feel Democrats should be more aggressive and launch a formal impeachment inquiry as they try to get information from the administration. Impeachment hearings would give Democrats more standing in court and could stop short of a vote to remove the president.

The issue was raised in a meeting among top Democrats Monday evening, where some members confronted Pelosi about it, according to three people familiar with the private conversation who requested anonymity to discuss it.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin made the case that launching an impeachment inquiry would consolidate the Trump investigations and allow Democrats to keep more focus on their other legislative work, according to the people.

Pelosi pushed back, noting that several committees are doing investigations already and they have already been successful in one court case. But some members, several of whom have spoken publicly about a need to be more aggressive with Trump, are increasingly impatient. Other Democrats in the meeting siding with Raskin included Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, California Rep. Ted Lieu and freshman Colorado Rep. Joe Neguse.

Just before the start of Monday’s meeting, Cicilline tweeted: “If Don McGahn does not testify tomorrow, it will be time to begin an impeachment inquiry of @realDonaldTrump.”

In the hours after the discussion, Pelosi and Nadler met privately. Shortly afterward, Nadler said “it’s possible” when asked about impeachment hearings.

“The president’s continuing lawless conduct is making it harder and harder to rule out impeachment or any other enforcement action,” Nadler said.

McGahn’s refusal to testify is the latest of several moves to block Democratic investigations by Trump, who has said his administration will fight “all of the subpoenas.” The Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt earlier this month after he declined to provide an unredacted version of special counsel Mueller’s report. And the House intelligence committee is expected to vote on a separate “enforcement action” against the Justice Department this week after Barr declined a similar request from that panel.

McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck, said in a letter to Nadler that McGahn is “conscious of the duties he, as an attorney, owes to his former client” and would decline to appear Tuesday.

Still, Burck encouraged the committee to negotiate a compromise with the White House, saying that his client “again finds himself facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of government.”

McGahn was a key figure in Mueller’s investigation, describing ways in which the president sought to curtail that federal probe. Democrats have hoped to question him as a way to focus attention on Mueller’s findings and further investigate whether Trump did obstruct justice.

If McGahn were to defy Trump and testify before Congress, it could endanger his own career in Republican politics and put his law firm, Jones Day, in the president’s crosshairs. Trump has mused about instructing Republicans to cease dealing with the firm, which is deeply intertwined in Washington with the GOP, according to one White House official and a Republican close to the White House not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.

Administration officials mulled various legal options before settling on providing McGahn with a legal opinion from the Department of Justice to justify defying the subpoena.

“The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers,” the department’s opinion reads.

A federal judge rejected a similar argument in 2008 in a dispute over a subpoena for Harriet Miers, who was White House counsel to George W. Bush. U.S. District Judge John Bates said it was an unprecedented notion that a White House official would be absolutely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress. Miers had to show up for her testimony, but still had the right to assert executive privilege in response to any specific questions posed by legislators, said the judge.

But in 2014, under the Obama administration, the Justice Department issued an opinion arguing that if Congress could force the president’s closest advisers to testify about matters that happened during their tenure, it would “threaten executive branch confidentiality, which is necessary (among other things) to ensure that the President can obtain the type of sound and candid advice that is essential to the effective discharge of his constitutional duties.”

___

Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo, Jonathan Lemire, Eric Tucker and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

GOP Congressman Who Calls for Impeachment Stands Alone

WASHINGTON—He was known in the Michigan statehouse as “Mr. No” for voting against some Republican legislation. But now in Congress, on the question of whether President Donald Trump should be impeached, Rep. Justin Amash is the lone Republican saying “Yes.”

In tweeted remarks over the weekend, Amash wrote that he’s read special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Trump’s conduct during and after the 2016 presidential election. Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy with Russia, but he revealed startling details about Trump’s efforts to shut down the probe and made no recommendation on obstruction. Amash did, becoming the only Republican in Congress to call for the House to formally charge the president.

“Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash, a longtime Trump critic, tweeted on Saturday after reading the report. Specificially, Amash tweeted, the findings identify “multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice.”

The backlash from Republicans was swift and sharp against a congressman from a key state that Trump swiped from Democrats — by less than a percentage point — for the first time since the Reagan administration. In his bid to keep the state in his column next year, Trump launched a weaponized tweet that could serve as a warning to other Republicans considering defying him. None immediately did so.

Within hours, Trump had called Amash “a total lightweight” and a “loser.”

“He’s been against Trump from the beginning,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “Personally I think he’s not much.”

Related Articles









When Will Enough Republicans Put Loyalty to America Ahead of Loyalty to Party?



by Robert Reich

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy on Fox News questioned whether Amash really belongs among GOP congressmen. But most notably, the fifth-term lawmaker drew a primary challenger for his Grand Rapids-area seat in the 2020 elections. The key disqualification, as they described it across the board Monday, was Amash’s insufficient loyalty to the president on matters ranging from Trump’s wall to Mueller’s “witch hunt.”

“Amash has consistently voted against President Donald Trump on important issues,” said state Rep. Jim Lower, who scrambled to announce his campaign Monday after Amash’s tweets. In a telephone interview later in the day, Lower said, “Most Republican Party primary voters support the president and want a congressman that would work with him to get his agenda done.” He accused Amash of “standing in the way” and said the congressman has moved away from the party over several years.

Amash was elected in 2010 as part of the tea party wave that toppled Democratic control. He was one of the founding members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. He vowed to explain all his votes, and to never miss one.

But many of the Freedom Caucus members are no longer in Congress and the group is now dominated by pro-Trump Republicans. Amash acknowledges that he’s somewhat isolated in Washington as a result, describing himself in the “Liberal Lions” podcast in March as “not personally lonely, but politically lonely.”

Back home in Michigan, establishment Republicans in the business community have long been disenchanted with Amash, saying he does not do enough to solve problems in the district. They backed an unsuccessful primary challenger in 2014. But the dynamics have shifted with Trump’s election, and GOP operatives say the president’s criticism of Amash has hurt the congressman’s standing with the base.

“He’s the most vulnerable in a Republican primary that he’s ever been,” said Greg McNeilly, a Republican strategist in Grand Rapids. “The 3rd District, while much more of a swing district in a general election for the president, is a solidly Trumpian district in a primary. The delta between the president and congressman is the chief source of Justin Amash’s problem.”

Like all Republicans, Amash is well aware of the potential cost of defying Trump. Unprompted in the same podcast interview, he harked back to Mark Sanford, the former North Carolina governor and congressman critical of Trump who became the focus of the president’s twitter fury — and lost the GOP primary ahead of the 2018 elections. A Democrat ultimately won that seat.

So it may come as no surprise that Amash isn’t ruling out challenging Trump on the Libertarian ticket in 2020, in part because he wants to offer people an alternative to the major parties.

For certain, he wasn’t backing down on Monday. At midday, Amash answered his critics on legal and constitutional grounds, tweeting, among other things, that there need not be a statutory crime named in the Mueller report for impeachment to be appropriate.

In the nearly two dozen tweet stream throughout Saturday and Monday, Amash kept one scolding quote pinned at the top.

“‘Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.’ – George Washington.”

___

Associated Press writer David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.

5th Migrant Child Dies in U.S. Custody

HOUSTON—A 16-year-old Guatemala migrant who died Monday in U.S. custody had been held by immigration authorities for six days — twice as long as federal law generally permits — then transferred him to another holding facility even after he was diagnosed with the flu.

The teenager, identified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, was the fifth minor from Guatemala to die after being apprehended by U.S. border agents since December.

Advocates demanded that President Donald Trump’s administration act to safeguard the lives of children in detention as border crossings surge and the U.S. Border Patrol detains thousands of families at a time in overcrowded facilities, tents, and outdoor spaces.

“We should all be outraged and demand that those responsible for his well-being be held accountable,” said Efrén Olivares, a lawyer with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

“If these were white children that were dying at this rate, people would be up in arms,” he said. “We see this callous disregard for brown, Spanish-speaking children.”

John Sanders, CBP’s acting commissioner, said in a statement that his agency was “saddened by the tragic loss of this young man and our condolences are with his family.”

Related Articles









At the Southern Border, an Escape Room With No Exit



by Michael Nigro

“CBP is committed to the health, safety and humane treatment of those in our custody,” Sanders said.

Border Patrol agents said Carlos was apprehended on May 13 in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley after crossing the border illegally. He was taken to the agency’s central processing center in McAllen, Texas, a converted warehouse where hundreds of adults and children are held in large, fenced-in pens and sleep on mats.

CBP said Carlos was processed as a minor unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Federal law and CBP’s guidelines generally require that unaccompanied youth be transferred within three days to a facility operated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

A CBP official who declined to be named in order to brief reporters said Carlos was awaiting transfer to HHS custody on Thursday, three days after his apprehension. At the time of his death, Carlos was supposed to be sent to Southwest Key Casa Padre, a 1,400-person facility inside an old Walmart in Brownsville, Texas, the official said.

Mark Weber, a spokesman for HHS, did not address in a statement why the teenager wasn’t transferred sooner, but said a “minority of cases exceeding 72 hours have generally involved exceptional circumstances.”

CBP said Carlos reported early Sunday morning that he was not feeling well and diagnosed with the flu by a nurse practitioner.

He was prescribed the medicine Tamiflu, then transferred later Sunday to the Border Patrol station at Weslaco, Texas, to prevent his flu from spreading to other detainees.

He was not hospitalized, according to the agency official who briefed reporters. The official said CBP facilities have medical providers who can monitor detainees, though the official did not know what specific symptoms Carlos had.

Carlos had last been checked an hour before he was found unresponsive.

Asked about the death, Trump blamed Democrats, saying they are refusing to approve changes that could improve the system.

“The Democrats are really making it very, very dangerous for people by not approving simple quick 15 minutes legislation, we could have it all worked out,” Trump said.

His administration has called for legislation that would allow it to detain migrant families for longer and expedite deportations, which Democrats oppose

The FBI is investigating the latest migrant death, as are local police and the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.

Guatemala’s foreign ministry said the teenager was from Baja Verapaz, north of Guatemala City, and was seeking to reunite with family in the U.S. already.

The U.S. government has faced months of scrutiny over its care of children it apprehends at the border. A 2-year-old child died last week after he and his mother were detained by the Border Patrol. The agency says it took the child to the hospital the same day the mother reported he was sick, and he was hospitalized for several weeks.

On April 30, a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy died after officials at an HHS detention facility noticed that he was sick. He was hospitalized in intensive care for several days before his death.

After the deaths of two children ages 7 and 8 in December, the DHS ordered medical checks of all children in its custody and expanded medical screenings.

Trump administration officials have said they have passed a “breaking point” in the immigration detention system, with the numbers of parents and children crossing the border dramatically exceeding the capacity at facilities.

That strain is particularly acute in the Rio Grande Valley, which has more unauthorized border crossings than any other region.

The Border Patrol has released photos of adults and children lying in small, military-style tents or on the grass and pavement outside of two of its stations. It also recently opened a 500-person tent near one port of entry and announced plans to open another.

Amnesty International said in a statement that Carlos’ death “leads us to wonder how many deaths it will take for the administration to ensure the safety and security of children.”

“It is dangerous and cruel to detain people, particularly children, in crowded and unsanitary conditions for seeking protection,” the organization said.

Charles Koch’s Cynical Rebranding Shouldn’t Fool Anybody

A majority of Americans support raising taxes on the rich in some form, according to a February poll conducted by SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. Just weeks before, a similar poll by TheHill/HarrisX, asking specifically about Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for an annual 2% tax on people with assets over $50 million, found that 74% of respondents agreed with the idea.

Supporters of wealth taxes generally, and Warren’s specifically, include Trump voters. “I think that raising taxes on the rich should have happened a long time ago,” Virginia Connolly, who voted for Trump and runs a home-cleaning business in Florida, told the Times. “The rich, what are they going to do with all that money?”

As reports Monday, if you’re Charles Koch, billionaire head of Koch Industries, you might use it to rename and reorganize your right-wing empire—funded by you and around 700 of your closest wealthy friends, who pay at least $100,000 annually—into an organization called Stand Together, formerly known as The Seminar Network, emphasizing philanthropy toward such causes as poverty, addiction, recidivism, gang violence and homelessness.

Brian Hooks, former chair of The Seminar Network, will lead Stand Together. In an interview with the Post, he denied that the name change and reorganization is a marketing or rebranding exercise, calling it instead a “natural evolution” of Koch’s work. “For too many years, we’ve let people define us. Going forward, we’re going to define ourselves,” he told the Post.

Charles, along with his brother David (who retired from politics in 2018), helped use the immense profits from their family business to finance a vast network of political, educational, philanthropic and policy organizations. As The Associated Press wrote in January, they were “GOP kingmakers best known for their pro-business agenda, libertarian leanings and support for the tea party movement.” Now, all political and policy activities will be folded into Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, which will continue to lobby for Charles’s political goals.

“We live in a period of unprecedented progress — economic, social, technological — but not everyone has shared in that progress,” Charles Koch wrote in a letter to supporters shared with the Post, sounding almost progressive. “While many people have gotten ahead, too many people are falling behind. Our charge is clear: we must stand together to help every person rise.”

Related Articles









Did the Koch Brothers Take Down the GOP Health Care Bill?



by Emma Niles

Even prior to the rebranding, Koch and Koch donors have worked to promote what are generally considered progressive causes. They are working with liberal pundit Van Jones on criminal justice reform. They’re also supporting undocumented immigrant teens who came to the United States as children, the legalization of marijuana and an end to the war in Afghanistan. Stand Together also is staying out of the 2020 presidential race, though not out of politics altogether. Hooks told the Post that the organization is committed to working with unexpected partners, emphasizing a desire to be pragmatic: “What we’re committed to doing is offering people a different way to stay engaged in policy and in politics but to do it in a way that unites people to actually get things done.”

Hooks says he wants to work across political affiliations, telling the Post, “In a sense, all of us have had to make a choice, right? What do we care more about? Do we care more about helping people to actually break barriers or some of these old attachments? I think more and more people are making the right choice on that.”

Read more about the reorganization and renaming at .

Why Are Democrats So Scared of Impeachment?

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a two-part series examining the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr, and the challenges their assertions of extreme executive authority pose to Congress. Read the first part here.

Why haven’t congressional Democrats moved to impeach Donald Trump? Is their failure to act due to an inexcusable lack of courage and political will, or is the inaction attributable to an understandable fear of failure?

The answer, unfortunately, is a bit of both. Given the president’s thoroughgoing corruption and reckless disregard for the rule of law, impeachment is imperative.

But impeachment is a two-step process, and that’s where the fear sets in. Even if the current Democratic majority in the House votes to impeach Trump, there is little prospect that the Senate will convict the president and remove him from office following an impeachment trial conducted in the upper chamber.

Sooner rather than later, Democrats will have to find the fortitude to set aside their fears. The president and his new attorney general, William Barr, are daring them to initiate impeachment proceedings, refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and document requests seeking, among other items, Trump’s tax returns, and the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.

As New York Times reporters Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt recently noted, “As the White House and Congress escalate their constitutional showdown, President Trump and his team are essentially trying to call what they see as the Democrats’ bluff. The message: Put up or shut up. Impeach or move on.”

Related Articles









Robert Reich: Democrats Have a Duty to Impeach Trump



by Robert Reich

On May 15, White House counsel Pat Cipollone upped the ante in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., in response to the committee’s request for additional information related to the Mueller probe. Cipollone threatened to invoke executive privilege to block the committee’s demands for documents. He also threatened to block the committee’s efforts to summon testimony from current and past administration officials.

Contending that the committee’s demands violate “the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the President,” and alleging that Trump had fully cooperated with the special counsel, Cipollone wrote:

“Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents. … The Committee’s requests repeatedly run afoul of the Constitution by encroaching upon authorities that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the Executive Branch. These requests have no legitimate legislative purpose and exceed Congress’s limited authority.”

If any of this sounds familiar, it’s because it has happened before. On May 22, 1974, President Richard Nixon, faced with House subpoenas seeking the infamous secret Watergate tape recordings, penned a similar letter to then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, D-N.Y., protesting:

“Thus it is clear that the continued succession of demands for additional Presidential conversations has become a never-ending process, and that to continue providing these conversations in response to the constantly escalating requests would constitute such a massive invasion into the confidentiality of Presidential conversations that the institution of the Presidency itself would be fatally compromised.”

Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, not only to the House, but also to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, sparking a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court (United States v. Nixon), which Nixon lost. Shortly thereafter, he resigned.

The current Democratic leadership, guided by Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, fears that a Trump impeachment will more closely resemble the failed campaign to remove President Bill Clinton from office than the successful effort against Nixon. After his impeachment by the House in 1998, Clinton’s public approval rating spiked 10 points, to an astounding 73%. Clinton was subsequently acquitted by the Senate and served out the remainder of his second term.

Pelosi’s impeachment trepidations are not unfounded. Although Trump’s overall approval rating remains mired in the 42% range, she and other top Democrats believe that even a modest post-impeachment boost for Trump could prove decisive in the 2020 election.

The truth, of course, is that no one actually knows how impeachment would affect Trump’s popularity or the next election. Given the scope of his malfeasance, impeachment proceedings may well cause his approval ratings to plummet, replicating Nixon’s demise. Nixon began his second term with a lofty approval rating of 68%. But by August 1974—following Senate and House hearings, respectively, on Watergate and impeachment, and the Supreme Court’s ruling on the White House tapes—57% of Americans thought Nixon should be removed from office.

In the end, the decision to impeach Trump shouldn’t be based on predictions about poll numbers, however worrying they may be. It should be rooted in principle.

Like all of his predecessors, Trump took an oath on Inauguration Day pursuant to Article I, Clause 3 of the Constitution to “take care” that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed.

Trump has violated that oath in myriad ways, by:

● Defying the oversight authority of Congress.

● Attempting to obstruct the Mueller investigation.

● Using the presidency to enrich himself, his family and the Trump Organization in violation of the Constitution’s “emoluments clause.”

● Refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act, imperiling the health insurance available to millions of Americans.

● Undermining environmental protections and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, endangering the health and safety of generations.

● Reneging on the Iran nuclear deal, bringing the nation to the brink of another war in the Middle East.

● Refusing to enforce the Voting Rights Act, promoting voter suppression and sowing racial hatred and resentments.

● Promising tax relief for middle-class and working families, but sponsoring a massive giveaway to the superrich.

● Incarcerating undocumented children in cages, and declaring a national emergency to fund his border wall.

Through it all, he has lied incessantly about these and other misdeeds, much as Nixon lied about Watergate. Nixon was cited for deceiving the public in the Articles of Impeachment ratified by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Trump should be as well.

All things considered, the real issue is not whether Trump should be impeached, but when and how impeachment should unfold.

As for when, there is no better time than the present. Trump and Barr show no signs of relenting in their crusade to expand presidential power. The sooner they are put on the defensive, the better.

As for how, the gravity and breadth of Trump’s derelictions warrant lengthy and public hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. Congress’ authority to subpoena documents and witnesses is at its greatest in impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, we should hear from constitutional scholars, and such key witnesses as Robert Mueller and former White House counsel Don McGahn. We should also hear from scores of ordinary Americans who have been victimized by Trump’s misconduct.

In the Senate, the House would be represented by a team of managers who would present the case against Trump. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside.

Among other demands, the managers should request a trial in open session in the well of the Senate—something that hasn’t happened since the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. This would expose Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” for all the world to see, even if House managers do not ultimately prevail in the Senate. If the trial is properly handled,  Trump’s reelection prospects should tumble.

As Alexander Hamilton postulated in Federalist Paper No. 65, impeachment is the constitutional remedy for the removal of federal officials for behavior  that violates the “public trust.” Our 45th president has long exceeded that critical threshold.

All that’s left is for the Democrats to take a shot of courage, stop wringing their hands and start wielding their gavels.

 

Bernie Sanders Puts The New York Times to Shame

In response to what one observer described as “anti-American baiting” by a New York Times reporter over the weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders refused to shy away from his record of opposition to Reagan-backed death squads and coup plotters in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s.

During an interview published in the print edition of the Times on Sunday, journalist Sydney Ember repeatedly asked Sanders about supposed anti-American chants that rang out during a rally he attended in Managua in 1985, when the Reagan administration was funneling arms and money to the right-wing Contras in support of their brutal and deadly effort to topple the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

“The United States at that time—I don’t know how much you know about this—was actively supporting the Contras to overthrow the government,” Sanders told Ember, who co-authored a Times story last week detailing Sanders’s foreign policy positions during his tenure as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.

“Of course there was anti-American sentiment there,” Sanders said. “This was a war being funded by the United States against the people of Nicaragua. People were being killed in that war.”

When Ember continued the same line of questioning, asking Sanders whether he “would have stayed at the rally” had he heard the “anti-American” chants from the crowd, Sanders responded, “I think Sydney, with all due respect, you don’t understand a word that I’m saying.”

“I strongly oppose U.S. policy, which overthrows governments, especially democratically elected governments, around the world,” said Sanders. “So this issue is not so much Nicaragua or the government of Nicaragua. The issue was, should the United States continue a policy of overthrowing governments in Latin America and Central America? I believed then that it was wrong, and I believe today it is wrong. That’s why I do not believe the United States should overthrow the government of Venezuela.”

Related Articles









Bernie Sanders Removes the Gloves



by Jacob Sugarman

“Let me just say this: I plead guilty to, throughout my adult life, doing everything that I can to prevent war and destruction,” Sanders said. “That is my view, and I make no apologies for it.”

(Read the exchange between Sanders and Ember below.)

While some characterized Sanders’s sharp responses as “rude” and unbecoming of a presidential candidate, others argued the Vermont senator’s replies were perfectly appropriate given the severity of the issue under discussion and the quality of the questions.

“Reagan backed a vicious anti-Sandinista war that would leave ~60,000 dead. The CIA helped contras lay underwater mines in Nicaraguan ports. But Sanders is the rude one for objecting to ‘anti-American’ baiting?” tweeted Sarah Lazare, web editor for In These Times. “It is not right-wing or ‘like Trump’ to object to NYT’s pro-war bias.”

Author and climate activist Naomi Klein tweeted that while she thought Sanders “should have been more patient and polite,” his angry responses were understandable.

“I certainly get why he had smoke coming out of his ears,” Klein wrote. “My blood pressure soared just reading it.”

Do you seriously think that was a legitimate line of questioning? Anti-Yankee chants are standard fare at protests in LatAm and the Middle East, for very good reasons (U.S.-backed coups, death squads, invasions…) Any U.S. person standing in solidarity needs to grow up and deal. https://t.co/Vzff2eY5Jx

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) May 19, 2019

BTW, I also think Bernie should have been more patient and polite, because that is what is expected of candidates. But I certainly get why he had smoke coming out of his ears. My blood pressure soared just reading it.

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) May 19, 2019

Read part of exchange from the Times:

Q. In the top of our story, we talk about the rally you attended in Managua and a wire report at the time said that there were anti-American chants from the crowd.

The United States at that time—I don’t know how much you know about this—was actively supporting the Contras to overthrow the government. So that there’s anti-American sentiment? I remember that, I remember that event very clearly.

You do recall hearing those chants? I think the wire report has them saying, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die.”

They were fighting against American——Huh huh——yes, what is your point?

I wanted to——

Are you shocked to learn that there was anti-American sentiment?

My point was I wanted to know if you had heard that.

I don’t remember, no. Of course there was anti-American sentiment there. This was a war being funded by the United States against the people of Nicaragua. People were being killed in that war.

Do you think if you had heard that directly, you would have stayed at the rally?

I think Sydney, with all due respect, you don’t understand a word that I’m saying.

Do you believe you had an accurate view of President Ortega at the time? I’m wondering if you’re——

This was not about Ortega. Do you understand? I don’t know if you do or not. Do you know that the United States overthrew the government of Chile way back? Do you happen to know that? Do you? I’m asking you a simple question.

What point do you want to make?

My point is that fascism developed in Chile as a result of that. The United States overthrew the government of Guatemala, a democratically elected government, overthrew the government of Brazil. I strongly oppose U.S. policy, which overthrows governments, especially democratically elected governments, around the world. So this issue is not so much Nicaragua or the government of Nicaragua.

The issue was, should the United States continue a policy of overthrowing governments in Latin America and Central America? I believed then that it was wrong, and I believe today it is wrong. That’s why I do not believe the United States should overthrow the government of Venezuela.

Brazil Just Missed an Incredible Green Opportunity

Cheap and simple do-it-yourself solar power sounds a good way to help poor communities. But try telling that to Brazil’s customs authority.

Since 2009, when the government of President Lula launched a national programme called Luz para Todos  (Light for All), Brazil has extended electricity to almost all corners of this vast country. The extra costs of extending the grid to more distant regions has been spread among all users.

But 47 localities, with a total population of 3 million people, still remain unconnected to the national grid, most of them in small, remote communities in the Amazon.

They include the 300,000 or so residents of Boa Vista, capital of the northernmost state of Roraima, which gets most of its energy from a hydro-electric dam across the border in Venezuela.

Long Haul for Oil

But with that country experiencing increasing chaos, with frequent blackouts, the supply has become unstable. When the power goes down, expensive thermo-electric plants running on diesel oil must be used, the oil brought by road from Manaus, 750 kms (465 miles) south.

Related Articles









Scotland's Green Energy Strides Are Leaving Us in the Dust



by

Although Roraima enjoys even more hours of sunshine and strong winds than the rest of Brazil, these renewable alternatives have been largely ignored.

Boa Vista, though, is an exception. Most of those unconnected to the national grid live in small, isolated communities in the Amazon region. Some have diesel-powered generators, noisy, polluting and expensive, switched on for only 2 or 3 hours a day.

The disadvantages of living without a regular supply of energy are many – children cannot study at night, food cannot be preserved in fridges or freezers, fish catches cannot be sold, because without a freezer they will rot.

Health posts cannot stock medicines or vaccines. There is no TV, no access to the internet. Without a pump, people spend a lot of time on activities like carrying water.

The Ministry of Mines and Energy has plans to “universalise” energy provision, linking even these remote communities to the national grid within the next ten years. In some places photovoltaic panels have been installed, but their maintenance depends on technical assistance from the nearest town, which can be several hours’ boat ride away.

The proposed privatisation of the national energy company Eletrobras could also see an end to the plan to provide universal access, because profit-making companies will not want to spread the costs through higher tariffs.

Villi Seilert, a solar energy researcher, believes this top-down solution is not the answer. Together with engineer Edson Kenji Kondo, of the Universidade Católica de Brasília, he has developed what they call a social solar factory, a system of mini-factories which can be based in low-income communities, making cheap solar panels.

The idea was born during a project for start-ups developing innovative projects in the context of climate change, which at the same time offered decent jobs to people on low incomes.

At first they made solar panels out of recycled cartons. Then they developed a wafer thin panel with 6 photovoltaic cells, just 4.55 mm thick and weighing only 1.75 kg., making it easy to transport and mount. This is called the i920W-Slim.

Meeting Basic Needs

A micro-system of these panels mounted on a roof generates 165 kilowatts of electricity a month, the average consumption of a low-income family in Brazil.

The idea is that local communities will easily be able to understand the technology, produce their own panels and generate their own electricity, without depending on outside companies or technicians.

Seilert reckons that 1,000 such mini-factories could be installed in 5 years – providing not only energy, but jobs as well.

He says two monitors could train up to 10 people in a six-day course, covering general principles, soldering techniques and mounting circuits.

The training venue and the factory can be set up in any available covered space. The kiln for firing the glass can be a pizza oven with a temperature regulator, transportable in the back of a car. Each panel will cost about US$40, $28 of it for components, including several that have to be imported from China.

Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the Brazilian Customs authority insists on taxing these imported components at 50%, as though they are luxury items, not basic elements for a low-cost energy system.

Little Help Offered

The basic cost of setting up a social solar factory varies between $2,000 and $3,000, plus the cost of accumulators or storage batteries.

Seilert is hoping to persuade local authorities, NGOs and local communities to give his project a go. He is trying to persuade the customs authority to lower the import tariff on the imported components, which would reduce the overall cost.

But while solar energy is definitely gaining ground in Brazil, with projects springing up in different places, the government remains wedded to the fossil fuel economy, unwilling to offer to renewables even a fraction of the subsidies, incentives and tax holidays they give to that sector.

So it is left to pioneers like Seilert to battle for recognition, and to NGOs and enlightened local authorities to fund projects,.One of the few mini-factories to have been successfully installed is in a prison in the central state of Minas Gerais, where inmates near the end of their sentences learn to make the solar panels.

Corporate Media Is Gunning for War With Iran

The Washington Post presents the United States as “drifting toward war”—this time with Iran.

The Washington Post editorial’s headline (5/14/19)  had the US “drifting” toward war with Iran—another example, as analyst Nima Shirazi quipped, of the “world’s superpower somehow having no agency over its own imperialism.”

If we can still call things “surreal,” that would describe watching corporate media do the same things they did in the run-up to the Iraq War, things they later disavowed: the credulous repetition of administration claims about the supposed threat; the reliance, for interpretation  of “intelligence,”  on officials with well known records for manipulating intelligence; the stenographic reporting of ‘troubling’ actions by the enemy state, that later have to be walked back.

A May 13 New York Times piece led with the statement that Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan had “presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.” As researcher Derek Davison reminds, in a piece for LobeLog (5/14/19), there is, as the Times has acknowledged on other occasions, no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, at whatever pace.

Later, the piece says:

Some senior American officials said the plans, even at a very preliminary stage, show how dangerous the threat from Iran has become. Others, who are urging a diplomatic resolution to the current tensions, said it amounts to a scare tactic to warn Iran against new aggressions.

Related Articles









War With Iran Is America's Endgame



by Maj. Danny Sjursen

So that’s both sides; Iran is a dangerous threat or it needs to be prevented from “new aggressions,” though the piece doesn’t name any previous ones. Indeed, the Times quotes and leaves unremarked the claim from a National Security Council spokesperson that “the president has been clear, the United States does not seek military conflict with Iran…. However, Iran’s default option for 40 years has been violence”—a frankly mind-boggling statement that surely warranted more than frictionless transmission.

At the very end of the article, Davison reports, the Times throws in that National Security Advisor John Bolton has been pushing for war on Iran since the George W. Bush administration, and has already asked the Pentagon to plan for a military strike at least once, before these new supposed “troubling” moves from the country.  But by that point, readers may have concluded that Iran is an emboldened rogue state, threatening the US and pursuing nuclear weapons—and the revelation that Bolton is trying to drum up a war with them might sound less unreasonable.