Chris Hedges's Blog, page 283

Trump’s Vicious Crusade Against Asylum-Seekers Is About to Get Worse

President Donald Trump is intensifying his vicious crusade against asylum-seekers from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Last weekend he declared, “Our country’s full.” He ousted Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen by tweet, reportedly because he thought Nielsen, who oversaw the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents and then lied about it to Congress, was not tough enough. Tens of thousands of people are seeking asylum in the U.S., fleeing systemic violence. The desperation and fear that drive them north derives in part from decades of U.S. policy in the region that has overthrown democratically elected governments, destabilized civil society, and trained and armed repressive militaries. The U.S. cultivated this crisis for over half a century; it won’t be fixed by a wall.

The effort to challenge Trump’s policies got a bit harder this week with the death at age 89 of Blase Bonpane, a lifelong peace activist. Based in Los Angeles, Bonpane devoted his life to social justice, and had a deep and hard-earned understanding of Central America, its people and its problems.

The CIA overthrew Guatemala’s democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, largely to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company (now called Chiquita Brands). Bonpane served as a Maryknoll priest in Guatemala in the 1960s, when that country waged a bloody war on its own population that lasted into the mid-1990s. Bonpane and other Catholic missionaries were in the rural areas where violence against the indigenous population was most intense.

At the same time, Pope John XXIII had convened the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), which liberalized many centuries-old church practices, leading to the emergence of “liberation theology” in Latin America. Liberation theology applied a biblical, Christian analysis to the entrenched poverty and inequality that dominated Latin American society, and called for action to change the status quo. Bonpane embraced the challenge. He was lauded by the local population as a “guerrilla of peace.” By 1968, the government of Guatemala expelled Bonpane and other clergy from the country.

Despite Vatican II, the leadership of the Maryknoll Order was not pleased with his activism. “I was put under a gag order,” he said on one of his appearances on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. “I was told not to speak, not to write anything about Guatemala, and as a result of that, I went to The Washington Post and released all the information I had. That went out to some 400 newspapers, proving that the U.S. was engaged militarily in Guatemala, that it was using napalm, that the Green Berets were there, and that this was our Latin Vietnam.”

When he married another peace activist, who was a Maryknoll nun, Bonpane was promptly excommunicated from the Church. But he maintained his commitment to liberation theology. He and his wife, Theresa, founded the Office of the Americas in 1983, continuing to organize in solidarity with Central Americans and other oppressed people for decades.

Ironically, their organization is based in Santa Monica, the same liberal bastion where Stephen Miller grew up. Miller, just 33 years old, is one of Trump’s key White House advisers, and is the driving force behind Trump’s most xenophobic policies, including several attempts at a Muslim ban and migrant family separations. Miller also espouses a chillingly autocratic view of presidential power. Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Feb. 12, 2017, Miller said, “Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

Questioning power is exactly what Blase Bonpane spent his life doing. A former Marine turned priest, Bonpane titled his autobiography “Imagine No Religion,” borrowing the phrase from John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” World renowned linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky said: “I am often asked by young people, deeply disturbed by the state of the world, ‘What can I do to make this sad world a better place?’ An eloquent answer now is, ‘Read Blase Bonpane’s autobiography. If you can aspire to a fraction of what he has achieved, you will look back on a life well lived.'”

As President Trump and Stephen Miller escalate their assault on migrants from Central America, threatening to continue the cruel policy of separating children from their parents, those who would honor the memory of Blase Bonpane should heed the words of early 20th-century labor organizer Joe Hill, quoted prominently on the website of the Office of the Americas: “Don’t mourn. Organize.”

Mnuchin Puts Off Decision on Providing Trump Tax Returns

WASHINGTON—Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says the department hasn’t decided whether to comply with a demand by a key House Democrat to deliver President Donald Trump’s tax returns and won’t meet a Wednesday deadline to provide them.

In a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., who asked for Trump’s returns a week ago, Mnuchin said Treasury will consult with the Justice Department and “carefully” review the request further.

“The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically-motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power,” Mnuchin wrote.

He said Treasury respects lawmakers’ oversight duties and would make sure taxpayer protections would be “scrupulously observed, consistent with my statutory responsibilities” as the department reviews the request.

Neal said in a statement that he “will consult with counsel and determine the appropriate response to the commissioner in the coming days.” Under the law, the IRS commissioner is required to provide access to any taxpayer’s returns when directed by the chairmen of the House or Senate tax-writing committees.

Mnuchin said Neal’s request raised important questions of “constitutional scope of congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy of the asserted legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

He quoted Capitol Hill Republicans in calling the request “Nixonian” and warned that it could set a precedent for disclosing personal tax information for political purposes.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump weighed in, telling reporters that he won’t agree to release his returns while he is under audit.

Trump said, “I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it while I’m under audit.” The IRS says there’s no rule against subjects of an audit from publicly releasing their tax filings.

Neal asked the IRS last Wednesday to turn over six years of the president’s tax returns within a week. Trump has broken with decades of presidential precedent by not voluntarily releasing his returns to the public.

Trump’s position has long been that he is under audit and therefore could not release his returns. But in recent weeks, he has added to the argument, saying publicly and privately that the American people elected him without seeing his taxes and would do so again.

“Remember, I got elected last time — the same exact issue,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people don’t care.”

The president has told those close to him that the attempt to get his returns were an invasion of his privacy and a further example of the Democratic-led “witch hunt” — which he has called special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — meant to damage him.

Trump has repeatedly asked aides about the status of the House request and has inquired about the “loyalty” of the top officials at the IRS, according to one outside adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Democrats didn’t expect the department to comply, but they haven’t sketched out their next steps. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., speaking before Mnuchin’s response was delivered, said it may take Neal a couple of days to issue his own response. House Democrats are at a party retreat in the Virginia suburbs of Washington.

“We’re not going to fold on this. We feel like this is clearly important to our oversight responsibilities,” Kildee said. “The law says pretty clearly that the chairman can order a return. It doesn’t say ‘for everybody except the president.'”

Neal has adopted a methodical approach to seeking Trump’s returns. He has the option of eventually seeking to subpoena the records or to go to court if Treasury does not comply, but it’s not clear he’ll adopt a more confrontational approach just yet.

Neal’s initial letter, sent a week ago, didn’t lay out any consequences for the IRS if it didn’t comply, and a spokesman said a likely course would be a second, more insistent, letter.

“We intend to follow through with this,” Neal said Wednesday, speaking before Mnuchin got back to him. “I’ll let you know fast.”

The request for Trump’s tax filings is but one of many oversight efforts launched by Democrats after taking back the House in last fall’s midterms. Neal is relying on a 1920s-era law that says the IRS “shall furnish” any tax return requested by the chairmen of key House and Senate committees.

Mnuchin told lawmakers that his department will “follow the law.”

The White House did not respond to questions as to whether the president asked Mnuchin or the IRS head to intervene. The president’s outside attorney also did not respond to a request for comment.

The Israeli Left’s Moment of Reckoning

Last week, on the eve of an election that pitted neo-fascist Benjamin Netanyahu against former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, New York Magazine’s Abraham Riesman posed a provocative question: What has become of the Israeli left?

On Tuesday, the nation’s electorate provided an answer of sorts. While final votes are still being tallied, Netanyahu will eke out a fifth term as prime minister, with Likud securing 65 seats in the Knesset to the opposition Blue and White’s 55. Perhaps more telling, the Labor Party, which governed Israel for the first 29 years of its existence, under different names and alignments, won just 4.5 percent of the vote. Labor’s six seats represents the party’s worst showing in its history. As the New York Times’ David M. Halbfinger observes, “It’s Netanyahu’s Israel now.”

“Benjamin Netanyahu’s apparent re-election as prime minister of Israel,” he writes, “attests to a starkly conservative vision of the Jewish state and its people about where they are and where they are headed.”

Upon reelection, Netanyahu has pledged to pursue the annexation of the occupied West Bank, a move that is flatly illegal under international law. This promise follows President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Israel’s claims to the Golan Heights, which it has occupied since their capture from Syria in 1967. Indeed, throughout the campaign process, Netanyahu has trumpeted his close ties with the American president, featuring him prominently in campaign speeches, billboards and social media videos. (He has even dismissed the potentially indictable corruption charges against him as a “witch hunt.”)

A Nation-State Bill, which the Netanyahu government enacted earlier this year, formerly recognizes the country’s Palestinian population as second-class citizens, declaring Israel “a national nation-state of the Jewish people only.” Meanwhile, millions have been denied the right to vote in Gaza and portions of the West Bank, even as they are subject to the movement restrictions of the Israeli government.

“The Israelis have chosen an overwhelmingly right-wing, xenophobic, and anti-Palestinian parliament to represent them,” Hanan Ashrawi, who serves on the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in a statement. “The extremist and militaristic agenda, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has been emboldened by the Trump administration’s reckless policies and blind support.”

The election alone would appear to substantiate his claims. On Wednesday, the Israeli PR firm behind a Likud Party initiative to place 1200 hidden cameras in voting stations across the country, Kaizler Inbar, openly boasted about intimidating Arab Israelis. “Thanks to us placing observers in every polling station we managed to lower the voter turnout to under 50 percent, the lowest in recent years!” read one of the company’s Facebook posts.

If British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s most lasting victory was the formation of a conservative opposition in the form of New Labour, then Netanyahu’s may prove to be the destruction of Israeli Labor itself. While Blue and White has emerged as the country’s putatively centrist coalition, there is almost no daylight between it and Likud on the Palestinian question. Gantz even campaigned on bombing parts of Gaza “back to the stone age,” with multiple ads featuring the unabashedly authoritarian message that “only the strong win.”

The Labor Party has been denied the prime ministership since Ehud Barak left office in 2001, and its path out of the political wilderness appears unclear. Netanyahu’s victory, which now ensures he will surpass founding father David Ben-Gurion as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, may ultimately present a moment of reckoning for liberal Zionists: They can have a democracy or they can have a Jewish state, but they can’t have both.

EU Offers to Extend Brexit Deadline to Halloween

BRUSSELS — European Union leaders on Thursday offered Britain a delay to its EU departure date until Halloween.

Leaders of the 27 remaining EU member states met for more than six hours before agreeing to postpone Brexit until Oct. 31, two officials said. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door negotiations. European Council President Donald Tusk confirmed in a tweet that an extension had been agreed to, but he did not disclose the date.

May, who had sought a delay only until June 30, still has to agree to the offer.

EU leaders spent a long dinner meeting wrangling over whether to save Britain from a precipitous and potentially calamitous Brexit, or to give the foot-dragging departing nation a shove over the edge.

May pleaded with them at an emergency summit to delay Britain’s exit, due on Friday, until June 30 while the U.K. sorts out the mess that Brexit has become.

Some were sympathetic, but French President Emmanuel Macron struck a warning note.

“Nothing is decided,” Macron said, insisting on “clarity” from May about what Britain wants.

“What’s indispensable is that nothing should compromise the European project in the months to come,” he said.

May believes that a June 30 deadline is enough time for Britain’s Parliament to ratify a Brexit deal and pass the legislation needed for a smooth Brexit.

But British lawmakers have rejected her divorce deal three times, and attempts to forge a compromise with her political opponents have yet to bear fruit.

May spoke to the 27 EU leaders for just over an hour, before they met for dinner without her to decide Britain’s fate. In contrast to some testy recent summits, there were signs of warmth and even humor. May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were filmed laughing over a tablet bearing an image showing the two of them speaking to their respective Parliaments on Wednesday wearing similar blue jackets.

Many leaders said they were inclined to grant a Brexit delay, though Macron had reservations after hearing May speak. An official in the French president’s office said the British leader hadn’t offered “sufficient guarantees” to justify a long extension.

Macron is concerned that letting Britain stay too long would distract the EU from other issues — notably next month’s European Parliament elections.

“The no-deal situation is a real option,” said the official, who was not authorized to be publicly named according to presidential policy. “Putting in danger the functioning of Europe is not preferable to a no-deal.”

Others suggested a longer delay would likely be needed, given the depth of Britain’s political disarray.

Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel said he hoped for “an intelligent extension.”

“If it’s a longer extension there is no lunch for free, so we need to know why,” he said.

May signaled she would accept a longer extension, as long as it contained a get-out-early cause should Britain end its Brexit impasse.

“What is important is that any extension enables us to leave at the point at which we ratify the withdrawal agreement,” May said as she arrived in Brussels.

She added that she was hopeful it could be as soon as May 22 — a key date since that would avoid the need for Britain to participate in elections for the European Parliament.

Several months have passed since May and the EU struck a deal laying out the terms of Britain’s departure and the outline of future relations. All that was needed was ratification by the British and European Parliaments.

But U.K. lawmakers rejected it — three times. As Britain’s departure date of March 29 approached with no resolution in sight, the EU gave Britain until Friday to approve a withdrawal plan, change course and seek a further delay to Brexit, or crash out of the EU with no deal to cushion the shock.

If no extension materializes Wednesday, Britain will leave the bloc Friday with no deal, unless it cancels Brexit independently.

Economists and business leaders warn that a no-deal Brexit would lead to huge disruptions in trade and travel, with tariffs and customs checks causing gridlock at British ports and possible shortages of goods.

A disorderly Brexit would hurt EU nations, as well as Britain, and all want to avoid it.

“I don’t anticipate that the U.K. will leave this Friday,” Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said. “I’m very confident that there will be an extension agreed today. What’s still open is how long that extension will be and what the conditions will be.”

But the bloc’s patience is wearing thin.

Several leaders also said they would require assurances of good behavior in return for another delay.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the EU leaders’ decision would hinge on “what her plan is now to get that withdrawal agreement through Parliament, and how we can get guarantees that in the meantime the United Kingdom will stay as a loyal partner.”

The British government insists it won’t be obstructive, since it wants to keep close ties to the bloc. But pro-Brexit British politicians have said Britain should be disruptive. Conservative lawmaker Mark Francois said that if the U.K. remained in the bloc, “then in return we will become a Trojan Horse within the EU.”

May’s future is uncertain, whatever the EU decides.

She has previously said that “as prime minister” she could not agree to let Britain stay in the EU beyond June 30, and she has also promised to step down once Brexit is delivered. Many Conservative Party lawmakers would like her to quit now and let a new leader take charge of the next stage of Brexit. But they can’t force her out until the end of the year, after she survived a no-confidence vote in December.

Every British initiative to get a deal has floundered so far. Several days of talks between May’s Conservative government and the main opposition Labour Party aimed at finding a compromise have failed to produce a breakthrough. Labour favors a softer Brexit than the government has proposed, and wants to retain a close economic relationship with the bloc. The two sides said they would resume their discussions Thursday.

Ireland’s Varadkar, whose country shares a border with the U.K. and would be among the hardest hit by a no-deal Brexit, said Britain was in “a difficult position.”

“It doesn’t want to leave without a deal; at the moment it doesn’t want to vote for the deal. And of course a lot of people, maybe even half the population, don’t want to leave at all,” he said.

____

Associated Press writers Mike Corder and Angela Charlton in Brussels, Danica Kirka in London and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

Liberals Sold Their Souls to the War Machine on Russia

This article was first published on Antiwar.com.

There’s no there there. The Mueller Report is (basically) in and (gasp!) and it seems the special counsel found no evidence of overt collusion between President Trump and Russia. You could almost hear the life force being sucked out of Rachel Maddow and a mainstream liberal crew that had foolishly gone all in on Mueller and impeachment. Many of us predicted this eons ago, warned the cultivated, anti-Trump elites not to count on the Hail Mary pass of indictment or impeachment. We were ignored. Now they look foolish.

Lord knows this author is no fan of Trump, his politics, or his “movement,” such as it is. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious from the start that then candidate Trump and his team of Keystone Cops had neither the discipline nor competence to pull off a treason so complex. Still, coast-dwelling urban “liberal” elites – unable to fathom how such a coarse character as The Donald could possibly win the election – invested almost messianic faith and confidence in Saint Mueller and his holy report. And now they’ve handed a massive political win to their nemesis just as the 2020 presidential campaign gets ready to kick off.

Here’s where it gets more complicated: what the two-year failed Mueller crusade did do was expose the cynicism of the establishment Democrats. For the impeachment scheme to work, liberal elites needed you to believe something far greater than Trump collusion. Specifically that Russia – Reagan’s “evil empire” reborn – and its authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, are monsters bent on world domination, are existential threats to the U.S. and the American way of life. And boy did they sell it! So it was that recycled neocons and assorted war-hawks were paraded on the cable news shows – particularly MSNBC and CNN – to remind Americans to afraid, be very afraid, of the resurgent Russia Bear. “Liberal” pundits and politicians sold their souls to the war machine and military-industrial complex rather than accept that Donald Trump is, in fact, president.

The truth, of course, is, for anyone interested in finding it, far different. Yes, Putin is a corrupt tyrant, and yes, the persecution of Russia’s LGBT community is horrendous. And sure, like the United States, Russia “meddles” in the affairs of its neighbors. All that said, Russia possesses neither the intent or capacity – short of a catastrophic nuclear exchange – to dominate the world, heck even dominate any major region. Putin is a master of playing a weak hand strongly, but he holds weak cards indeed. Furthermore, he knows it, and, thus, his goals are far more circumscribed than the alarmists would have you believe.

What, precisely, has Russia done this century that is so great a threat that it requires the U.S. to go on military alert and prepare for measures short of (and including) war? Not quite as much as it may appear, especially when one looks closely and considers context. In 2008, Russia fought a five-day war with one of its former republics, Georgia, but didn’t actually annex the nation. Then in 2014, Putin intervened in Eastern Ukraine (also a bordering former Soviet Republic) and seized Russian-speaking-Russia-favoring Crimea. And … that’s just about it. Of course its spies spy and its diplomats squawk, but that just comes with the territory of being a large power.

Besides, the United States meddles, intervenes, and bombs far more countries far more distant from its homeland than does Russia. Putin knows his limits and generally acts out only in his own neighborhood – it’s all he can do. Imagine the United States’ reaction if another great power muscled in on the Caribbean or Central America. That’s our “sphere of influence” after all, and, apparently, no other nation is allowed their own. Viewed from Moscow, American meddling in Ukraine (oh, it happened) was far more aggressive, given Ukraine’s distance from Washington, than Russian activity in its adjacent neighbor. To be clear: its not that Russia is innocent or that Putin is a swell guy – rather its a matter of perspective and honest context.

One last thing on this matter – isn’t it a bit ironic (and hypocritical) that the U.S. should be shocked, just shocked, that Russia annexed Crimea, when Mr. Trump has officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over the conquered Golan Heights – a region that doesn’t want to be ruled by Israel and is widely recognized the world over as occupied territory? Washington ceded the moral high ground, and demonstrated its duplicity, the moment it did so, and, furthermore, why complain about Putin’s kleptocracy while the U.S. backs a slew of nefarious nations? Trump’s three Mideast favorites include a burgeoning apartheid state led by an indicted prime minister (Israel), a military dictatorship that mows down its own people (Egypt), and perhaps the last absolute monarchy on earth (Saudi Arabia). Now that’s ethical consistency!

Finally, while Russia does possess the requisite nuclear arsenal to destroy human life on this planet, it presents nowhere near the threat the born-again liberal war-hawks would have you believe. Russia is a petrostate, a slave to global oil prices, and has an economy about the size of Spain. It’s shrinking population and veritable demographic crisis will only lessen the influence of a much truncated Russia over the course of the 21st century.

As for military power, yes, Russia is modernizing its armed forces – but so are we and so is…everybody. Nonetheless, the numbers speak for themselves. The Pentagon outspends the next seven world militaries combined, spends about eight times more than the Kremlin, and – if one includes the weight of U.S. allies – far more than that. The U.S. can project power – on sea and in the air – at levels Russia could only dream of. For example, the U.S. counts more than ten large aircraft carriers, whilst Russia has one outdated carrier.

As for power projection and the forward basing of troops, the U.S. counts 800 military bases in 80 countries; Russia has about 20, mostly close to home. Yes, yes, Moscow has that haunting naval base in Syria. But wait, it’s had the base for decades and Syria has long been in Russia (and the Soviet) orbit – so what’s the net gain? I say let Russia have Syria; the place is the biggest mess in a messy region and far from a vital U.S. national interest. Besides, paradoxically, Washington and Moscow actually share some goals in the Mideast. Want ISIS and other terrorists brutally squashed? Leave it to Russia. Putin will oblige.

No doubt, congressional hawks, corporate arms dealers, and – as far as I can tell – my old peers in the military officer class, will be shocked by my assessment. They’ll say I’m appeasing Putin, downplaying Russian malignancy, and underestimating Moscow’s military. They’ll insist, just insist, that the U.S. must “contain” Russia all over again, send more infantry and armor divisions deep into Eastern Europe to “check” Putin. They’re stuck on Cold War language and a Cold War playbook.

See doing so is good for business, it means profits for the merchants of death in the U.S. arms industry, and it gives military professionals a sense of purpose, a tangible enemy they can assure you they’ll protect you from. The dirty little secret is that many military officers miss the simple Manichean diplomatic binary and the conventional tactics of the Cold War era. Screw all this counterinsurgency nonsense, they’ll say; give us a real enemy to train for, plan for, and – if “necessary” – duke it out with on the plains of Europe.

It’s all so exhilarating … and ludicrous. War with Russia would be catastrophic and put the human race at risk. It’s also unnecessary. Putin is a nuclear armed unsavory character – fine, sure. But the U.S. rode out tense nuclear standoffs with the likes of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. I’m pretty sure we’ll survive the cautious saber-rattling of Vladimir Putin. Trump is a nightmare. This author will oppose him at every turn when necessary, but will also choose country over partisanship. Trump has often been right to oppose escalation and seek détente with Russia.

So, here’s a plea to my many progressive friends: just because you hate Trump and Trump seems to admire Putin, that doesn’t mean Russia is evil, bent on world conquest, or a vital national security threat. It just means you hate Trump, obsessively, to your own and your party’s detriment.

Go ahead and run against Trump and not for something in 2020 – and I’ll see you at The Donald’s second inaugural address!

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

Copyright 2019 Danny Sjursen

Pence: U.S. Wants Maduro Out and ‘All Options’ on Table

UNITED NATIONS — U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told the Security Council on Wednesday the Trump administration is determined to remove President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela, preferably through diplomatic and economic pressure, but “all options are on the table” — and Russia and others need to step aside.

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada said his country is threatened with war by the Trump administration, “and the ground is being laid for an invasion.” He told the council: “We must stop this war of Donald Trump.”

The United States called the emergency meeting of the U.N.’s most powerful body, which is deeply divided over Venezuela, to focus on the worsening humanitarian situation in the South American country. But as with previous meetings, this one was dominated by U.S. efforts to oust Maduro and replace him with Juan Guaidó, head of the country’s opposition-controlled National Assembly.

Pence also said that Trump has made clear Russia needs to get out of Venezuela, stressing that Russian aircraft landing in the country and bringing in security or advisory personnel “is just unacceptable.”

“This is our neighborhood,” Pence told reporters afterward. “And the president has made it clear that whether it be Russia, or whether it be other nations, that they need to step aside. They need to cease efforts to stand in the way of economic and diplomatic pressure, and they need to cease supporting the Maduro regime.”

Pressed on whether “all options are on the table” meant that military intervention was a closer possibility, Pence said, “We have no timetable for the restoration of freedom.”

But he said that since 2017, Trump has made clear that “we’re absolutely determined to see freedom and democracy restored in Venezuela” and to see Maduro step down and democracy restored under Guaidó.

Pence urged the United Nations to recognize Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president and revoke Moncada’s credentials as his country’s U.N. representative. He said the United States would be circulating a resolution that would do this and also stand with the Venezuelan people “as they rise up … against intimidation and violence,” and for freedom.

Looking at Moncada, who was also seated at the horseshoe-shaped Security Council table, Pence said: “With all due respect Mr. Ambassador, you shouldn’t be here.” He then added: “You should return to Venezuela and tell Nicolás Maduro that his time is up. It’s time for him to go.”

Pence left immediately after he spoke and didn’t hear Moncada say later: “My legitimacy depends on the legitimacy of my government as recognized by the United Nations. It is not dependent on the declarations of … the vice president of the United States.”

“There is a clear move here to undermine our rights,” Moncada said.

The United States would need strong support in the 193-member General Assembly to change Venezuela’s credentials from the Maduro government to Guaidó, and with only 54 countries now supporting Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president, it faces an uphill struggle.

Asked what made the U.S. think it has support to give U.N. recognition to Guaidó, Pence said, “I think momentum is on the side of freedom — momentum is on the side of the suffering people of Venezuela.”

Guaidó toured the Caracas area Wednesday telling supporters it is not the time to rest in the fight to oust Maduró, who the U.S. and other nations contend was re-elected illegitimately last year because the main opposition candidates were barred from running.

“We’re living this tragedy,” Guaidó said. “This is a disaster we’re enduring.”

Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, whose country strongly supports Maduro, called the council meeting just “another episode of a tragedy with several acts in the attempt to change regime in Venezuela.”

The United States “has artificially provoked a crisis in this country in order to overthrow a legitimately elected leader and replace him with their own pawn,” he said.

Nebenzia said there are many examples of the United States overthrowing Latin American leaders and he asked Venezuela’s neighbors who support Guaidó: “Don’t you understand that Venezuela is merely a bargaining chip in the geopolitical and geostrategic struggle for influence in the region and the world?”

“We call on the United States to recognize that the Venezuelan people and other people have the right to determine their future,” the Russian ambassador said.

Borrowing Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” Nebenzia said: “If you want to make America great again, and we’re all sincerely interested in seeing that, stop interfering in the affairs of other states.”

“You will only gain respect from that, You don’t like when others interfere in your affairs. No one likes that,” he said.

British Ambassador Karen Pierce said the suffering faced by Venezuelans “is the result of years of mismanagement by the de facto government” and while humanitarian aid is urgently needed “it won’t solve the crisis.”

“Political change is equally urgent,” she said.

Venezuela is wracked by hyperinflation, widespread shortages of food and medicine and struggles in the key oil industry, all problems that the opposition blames on mismanagement and socialist policies of the government.

U.N. humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock said the humanitarian problem has worsened and “the scale of need is significant and growing,” with 7 million people representing 25 percent of Venezuela’s population needing humanitarian aid.

Lowcock told the council the U.N. is working to expand humanitarian aid, but much more is needed.

Dr. Kathleen Page, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, called for the situation in Venezuela to be declared “a complex humanitarian emergency that poses a serious risk to the region.”

She said a report by Johns Hopkins public health researchers and Human Rights Watch found that the combination of severe medicine and food shortages in Venezuela, and the spread of disease across the country’s borders, amounts to a complex humanitarian emergency requiring a full-scale U.N. response.

‘Bomb Cyclone’ Storm Hammers Central U.S., Disrupting Travel

Blizzard warnings were posted from Colorado to Minnesota on Wednesday and wildfires were a concern in New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma as the second so-called “bomb cyclone” storm in less than a month hit the central U.S., raising the prospect of renewed flooding in the already drenched Midwest.

Heavy snow began disrupting ground and air travel Wednesday afternoon. Roads became impassable and visibility was down to a few feet in northeastern South Dakota due to snowfall of up to 11 inches. About half of the daily flights at Denver International Airport were canceled.

Up to 2 ½ feet (0.61 meters) of snow was expected to fall in parts of eastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota, the National Weather Service said. Winds in excess of 50 mph (80.46 kph) also were expected, creating life-threatening conditions.

“We’re calling it historic because of the widespread heavy snow. We will set some records,” said Mike Connelly, a weather service meteorologist in Aberdeen, South Dakota.

Transportation officials closed Interstate 29 from east central South Dakota to the North Dakota border and said other stretches of major interstates were likely to close later as conditions deteriorated. Numerous traffic crashes were reported in northeastern South Dakota, though there were no immediate reports of serious injuries. Transportation officials in Colorado said highway closures also were likely in that state.

An unusual but not rare weather phenomenon known as “thunder snow” — snow accompanied by thunder and lightning — was reported in central South Dakota.

“It’s essentially a thunderstorm, but it’s cold enough for snow,” Connelly said.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem closed state government offices in 52 counties. Numerous schools around the state closed, along with several Black Hills National Forest offices in western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said “the National Guard stands ready” to rescue any stranded motorists.

The weather service posted an ice storm warning into Friday morning for a portion of southern Minnesota, saying up to three-fourths of an inch of ice could accumulate on power lines, leading to outages.

To the west, the looming spring blizzard in the Rockies was impacting flights, school classes, government functions and even baseball.

Major League Baseball’s Colorado Rockies postponed an afternoon game against the Atlanta Braves until August. A few school districts in Colorado and Wyoming canceled classes, while others opted for a shortened day and canceled evening activities. Local governments, including in Denver and Cheyenne, Wyoming, and state government in the Denver area closed offices early to give workers time to commute before conditions worsened.

Strong winds associated with the weather system were creating dangerous wildfire and travel conditions in New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma. The weather service issued a high wind warning for the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles.

Winds in excess of 50 mph (80.46 kph) were combining with low humidity and an unstable atmosphere to create critical fire conditions in the three states. Forecasters in New Mexico said the winds also would make travel difficult on north-south oriented roads such as Interstate 25. In southern New Mexico, the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range closed Wednesday because of the high winds.

The storm technically met the scientific definition of what’s commonly known as a “bomb cyclone,” said David Roth, a forecaster at the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center in Maryland.

The weather phenomenon with a complex scientific definition essentially entails a rapid drop in air pressure and a storm strengthening explosively. What is more important than the term is the storm’s impacts, which are likely to be similar to last month’s storm , Roth said.

That blast dropped heavy snow and led to massive flooding in the Midwest that caused billions of dollars in damage in Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa and South Dakota.

“Hopefully this time it will be a slow snowmelt,” Roth said.

Forecasters said this week’s storm will swell rivers again, though likely not to the levels seen last month due to the absence of a wet snowpack on frozen ground this time around.

“We’re not out of the woods,” Walz said.

Even moderate rises in the Missouri River will push more water into drenched Fremont County in southwestern Iowa, Emergency Manager Mike Crecelius said. Last month’s flooding swamped 455 houses and thousands of acres of farmland in his region.

“The problem is that we’re not getting any time for the water to recede and things to dry out, so the levees can’t be fixed; houses can’t be fixed; crops can’t be planted,” he said. “And the last spring forecast I saw does not look favorable for us at all. It looks to be a very wet spring.”

___

Associated Press writers Colleen Slevin in Denver; Alan Clendenning and Danny Pollock in Phoenix; Margery Beck in Omaha, Nebraska; Tim Talley in Oklahoma City; and Steve Karnowski in St. Paul, Minnesota, contributed to this story.

Near-Total Abortion Bans Seek to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Emboldened by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in numerous states are pushing near-total bans on the procedure in a deliberate frontal attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mississippi and Kentucky have passed laws that would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — which means as early as six weeks, when many women don’t even know they’re pregnant. Georgia could join them if Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs a measure that has been sent to him, and a bill in Ohio is nearing final passage.

Similar bills have been filed in at least seven other states with anti-abortion GOP majorities in their legislatures.

Alabama may go further, with legislation introduced last week to criminalize abortion at any stage unless the mother’s health is in jeopardy.

The chief sponsor of the Alabama bill, Rep. Terri Collins, acknowledged that the measure — like the heartbeat bills — is intended as a direct challenge to Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

“To me this is an issue the court simply got wrong years ago,” said Collins, who hopes President Donald Trump’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court lead to a reconsideration of Roe.

Staci Fox, Atlanta-based CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said these bans are “blatantly unconstitutional and lawmakers know it — they just don’t care.” The goal, she said, is to “challenge access to safe, legal abortion nationally.”

Activists and legal experts on both sides of the debate agree that getting a Supreme Court decision on such a defining case is unlikely any time soon.

The bans may face difficulties just reaching the high court, given that Roe established a clear right to an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy. Kentucky’s heartbeat law has been blocked for now by a federal judge; abortion-rights lawyers are seeking a similar injunction in Mississippi before the law there takes effect July 1.

“The lower courts are going to find these laws unconstitutional because the Supreme Court requires that outcome,” said Hillary Schneller, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, some federal appeals courts around the country, such as the 5th Circuit, which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, are viewed as having grown more conservative with the addition of Trump appointees.

If even one circuit breaks with Roe v. Wade and upholds a heartbeat ban, that could be enough for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, said Justin Dyer, a political science professor at the University of Missouri.

Alternatively, the high court could agree to hear any of several less sweeping anti-abortion measures. Some would tighten restrictions on clinics; others seek to ban certain categories of abortions.

What might happen at the Supreme Court is far from clear. Legal experts are unsure what effect the Trump appointees might have, or where Chief Justice John Roberts stands in regard to Roe.

Schneller said she is skeptical the reconfigured court will overturn or weaken Roe, as abortion foes are hoping: “Over 45 years, the court has had different compositions, and we’ve always gotten the same answer.”

Michael New, an abortion opponent who teaches social research at Catholic University of America, warned that it is impossible to predict what the court will do but said Kavanaugh’s appointment “gives pro-lifers hope that legislation which offers more comprehensive protection to the unborn will receive a sympathetic hearing.”

Some anti-abortion groups have declined to endorse the heartbeat bills, signaling doubts about their prospects. Texas Right to Life has instead endorsed bills that would curtail late-term abortions and ban abortions based on a fetus’ race, gender or disability.

If the Supreme Court ever did overturn Roe v. Wade, states would presumably be left to decide for themselves whether abortion would be legal.

The renewed challenges come as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has steadily declined since reaching a peak of 1.6 million in 1990. The latest 50-state tally was 926,000 in 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

The heartbeat bills in particular have alarmed many women.

After Kentucky’s governor signed the heartbeat bill, and before it was blocked, “we could feel the fear,” said Marcie Crim of the Kentucky Health Justice Network, which runs a fund supporting Kentuckians who opt to get abortions.

“We had so many phone calls from people trying to save up the money for their procedure,” Crim said. “They were thinking they were safe and could go get this done, and all of a sudden it was snatched away from them.”

For the moment, the spotlight is on Georgia, where Kemp is expected to sign the heartbeat bill soon despite high-profile protests. More than 50 actors, including Alyssa Milano, Alec Baldwin and Amy Schumer, threatened a campaign to pull Hollywood productions out of Georgia — a hub for TV and movie projects — if the ban is enacted.

Other states where heartbeat bills have been filed — and in some cases advanced — include Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia.

___

Associated Press writer Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama, contributed to this report.

Bernie Sanders Unveils His New ‘Medicare for All’ Plan

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont unveiled a new version of his “Medicare for All” plan on Wednesday, shaking up the 2020 presidential race by reopening the debate over his call to eliminate private health insurance.

“It is not a radical idea to say that in the United States, every American who goes to a doctor should be able to afford the prescription drug he or she needs,” Sanders said. “Health care is a human right, not a privilege.”

Four of Sanders’ fellow senators and rivals for the Democratic nomination are set to sign onto the updated single-payer health care proposal. The bill’s reintroduction promises to shine a light on Democratic presidential candidates’ disparate visions for the long term future of American health care.

Under fire from President Donald Trump and Republicans for the astronomical price tag of Medicare for All, some candidates who support the plan tout it as one of several ways to achieve more affordable coverage and lower the number of uninsured people. Others who don’t back it are instead focusing on safeguarding popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as the one that protects coverage of pre-existing conditions.

“Of course, our No. 1 goal should be to make sure we keep in place those protections so people don’t get kicked off their insurance,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who isn’t signed onto Sanders’ bill, said Tuesday. “Then we also have to see the Affordable Care Act as a beginning and not an end.”

Klobuchar supports a so-called public option, versions of which would allow Americans to buy into Medicare or Medicaid. Four other Democratic senators also running for president — Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand — back Sanders’ single-payer plan, which would replace the current mix of private and government health insurance in the U.S. with a new system run by the government. But they also have signed onto at least one version of a public option.

Warren pointed to “a lot of different pathways” to universal coverage during a CNN town hall last month: “What we’re all looking for is the lowest cost way to make sure that everybody gets covered.”

The debate is unfolding in the early stages of a Democratic primary in which some candidates have pointed to their support of Medicare for All to prove their progressive bona fides. But other Democratic contenders, including former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, have criticized Sanders’ measure as politically infeasible.

Under Medicare for All, Americans would no longer pay premiums or face insurance deductibles as the government-run system replaced private health insurance offered through employers, the mainstay of coverage for more than 160 million Americans.

Big tax increases would be needed to finance such a system. The transition is likely to be complicated, dismantling the private health insurance industry and making major changes for hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other medical providers.

“What our system does is get rid of insurance companies and drug companies making billions of dollars in profit every single year,” Sanders told CBS News for an interview set to air Wednesday, adding that private insurance would largely exist solely for elective medical care such as cosmetic surgery.

With Sanders’ idea returning to the forefront, Republicans have a fresh opportunity to slam his plan as too costly and unworkable.

“So-called ‘Medicare for All’ means private insurance for none, kicking 180 million Americans off of their current plans,” said Kayleigh McEnany, spokeswoman for Trump’s re-election campaign. ”‘Medicare for all’ is a euphemism for government takeover of healthcare, and it would increase wait times, eliminate choice, and raise taxes.”

She touted Trump’s “free market policies” as a better alternative.

Trump has said he’ll take up health care after next year’s election , essentially making it a central campaign issue. And his administration is arguing in court for the full eradication of the Affordable Cart Act, former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, often called “Obamacare.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned in a Tuesday floor speech that the cost of Sanders’ proposal “is so steep that even left-leaning analysts are quietly admitting that the tax burden is virtually certain to land on the shoulders of the middle class.”

Sanders’ office released a paper outlining options to pay for his last version of Medicare for All, estimated to cost upward of $1 trillion per year, although none of those options was included in the legislation. He and other supporters of Medicare for All have generally sidestepped the question of how they’d pay for their plan. Instead, they say it offers the best chance for the nation to get control over health care costs by eliminating profiteering. His newest edition of the bill also would cover long term care, an unmet need for most middle class families.

Several independent studies of Medicare for All have estimated that it would dramatically increase government spending on health care, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. But a recent estimate from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst suggests that the cost could be much lower.

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, noted the emphasis by most Medicare for All supporters on “multiple pathways” to universal coverage as a potential point of contrast and “fodder for debate” with Sanders, who is leading the Democratic field in early fundraising and is campaigning as a front-runner.

“I think it really matters what you say to voters,” Tanden said. “That’s the most important thing.”

Her group has proposed a Medicare opt-out plan known as “Medicare for America,” supported by former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, that would allow people to choose to keep employer-sponsored insurance.

Earlier this year, a poll from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that Americans like the idea of Medicare for All but that support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care.

AIPAC Has Bernie Sanders in Its Crosshairs

Bernie Sanders, who made history with his 2016 presidential campaign as the first Jewish American to win a presidential primary and receive an electoral vote for president, is bizarrely being targeted with Facebook ads by The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Certainly, it seems at best counterintuitive for the pro-Israel lobby to be working against a candidate who could become the first Jewish president in U.S. history. As The Intercept reports, the only other Democrat AIPAC is targeting with Facebook ads is Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has come under fire for being openly critical of Israel’s occupation and supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) protest movement.

The sponsored ads about Omar and Sanders are similar in content. While AIPAC’s posts about Sanders, which are being run in California, Florida and Texas—three states with democratic primaries that will be crucial in deciding the party’s 2020 candidate—contain petitions with appeals like, “Tell Sen. Sanders: America stands with Israel,” those targeting Omar feature the somewhat stronger-worded variation, “Tell Rep. Omar: We will not be deterred.”

Sanders and Omar have vastly different takes on Israel. Yet Sanders, who says he “being Jewish is so much of what I am” and publicly expresses his support for Israel’s existence, has been credited with moving the Democratic Party further left on the issue. The Intercept’s Robert Mackey outlines some of the Vermont senator’s comments on Israel:

Sanders, whose father’s family in Poland was nearly wiped out in the Holocaust, has been a frequent critic of Israeli policy. During the 2016 campaign, he called Israel’s use of force during its bombardment of Gaza in 2014 — killing at least 1,473 civilians, including 501 children — had been “disproportionate” and “indiscriminate.”

After he was denounced by Israeli politicians for supposedly giving comfort to Hamas, he told CNN that he favored “a more balanced position” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Israel has a right to live in freedom, independently and in security without having to be subjected terrorist attacks,” he said, “but I think that we will not succeed to ever bring peace into that region unless we also treat the Palestinians with dignity and respect.”

During an interview with the Daily News editorial board that year, Sanders — who lived on a kibbutz as a young man and has relatives who still live in Israel — frankly criticized another aspect of Israeli policy, the building of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank, as a violation of international law. Asked if he would insist on the evacuation of settlements as president, Sanders replied: “I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.” … Last year, Sanders defended the right of Palestinians to demonstrate after Israeli snipers opened fire on unarmed protesters in Gaza.

Last month, it was headline news in Israel when the Sanders campaign released video of his supporter Shaun King saying the senator “spoke out against apartheid in South Africa when crazily that was an unpopular thing to do and even today he speaks out against apartheid-like conditions in Palestine even though it’s not popular.”

And Sanders denounced Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in an interview with NBC News on Sunday in Iowa. “When election time comes in Israel, he always tries going even further to the right by appealing to racism within Israel, I think it’s unfortunate,” Sanders said ahead of Tuesday’s election in Israel. “I’m not a great fan of his, and, frankly, I hope he loses his election.”

But, as Mackey points out, Sanders has also been criticized for not taking an even stronger stance against the Israeli occupation and supporting the BDS movement, as can be seen in the following AJ+ interview where Sanders restates his belief in the possibility of two-state solution. According to Sanders, a one-state solution, “would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.” He also explains why his signature appeared alongside that of  every other U.S. senator on a letter to the United Nations that claimed the international organization is being “exploited as a vehicle for targeting Israel.”

As the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who has openly sided with U.S. Republicans, tacks even further toward the hard right, the time is ripe for an open, multi-faceted debate about the U.S.’ approach to Israel, a country that has for many years received seemingly blind bipartisan support. Sanders isn’t the only 2020 candidate who’s been critical of Israel’s recently re-elected leader, but it can be argued, he’s taken the lead among prominent Democrats in discussing the Mideast nation’s increasingly hard-line approach toward Palestine.

Perhaps with a Jewish candidate as a current front-runner for the 2020 democratic candidacy and a Republican president who has moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognized the disputed Golan Heights as part of Israel, the conversation is inevitable. Lucky for Democrats, who, according to a 2018 poll, have become increasingly sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, the man at the center of this debate at the very least has a more nuanced position on the issue than many of his Democratic peers. When you think of it in these terms, the decision made by AIPAC—which, among others critical of Israel’s often brutal actions against Palestinians, has targeted anti-occupation activists—to single out the democratic front-runner starts to make a lot of sense.