Chris Hedges's Blog, page 317

In the Age of Trump, Bipartisanship Is Losing Its Allure

President Obama first gained national acclaim with a 2004 speech that encouraged Americans to focus on what united them. In an often-repeated quote, he said we must remember that “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America. There’s the United States of America.” Obama may have won two elections with a message of unity and bipartisanship, but as Gideon Resnick and Sam Stein report in The Daily Beast, some of Obama’s most devoted advisers, as well as the Democratic party’s base, have a message for candidates hoping to do the same: “Don’t.”

“There’s this sort of older way of thinking about politics where it’s all about personal relationships. … That’s not how politics works,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to Obama told Resnick and Stein. He added, “Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell had shared a bottle of whiskey once and McConnell went out and stole a Supreme Court seat from him.”

Ben LaBolt, a former national press secretary for Obama’s re-election campaign, concurred regarding the prospects for a harmonious relationship between the two parties. He told The Daily Beast that “I think all of the pixie dust in the world couldn’t make that happen. Believe me, we tried it. We said it. We prayed for it. It wasn’t going to happen. It’s not going happen now and it’s not going to happen ever.”

Democrats, as a Gallup Poll revealed earlier this year, are increasingly liberal. Forty-six percent surveyed between 2013 and 2018 identified as liberal, compared with 39 percent between 2007 and 2012, and 32 percent between 2001 and 2006. Multiple Democratic candidates for president, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are running on a platform of taxing the rich, which polls from Politico/Morning Consult and The Hill/Harris X show, is a policy with strong public support.

The Democratic base, Resnick and Stein report, “Is eager to see its field of candidates dispense with the notion that a dash of reason and a heaping of fraternizing can be effective in moving legislation.” Current and former lawmakers among the candidates, however, are reluctant to let bipartisanship go.

During a speech in Omaha, Neb., last week, former vice president and potential 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden called current Vice President Mike Pence a “decent guy,” for which he received extensive backlash from activists and lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Warren, who objected to Pence’s anti-LGBTQ record. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who has already announced her candidacy, touted her record of working with Republicans during a speech at the Gridiron Dinner. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said in an interview on “Meet The Press” that he was eager to work with the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

The issue of whether to work with Republicans and to stress bipartisan deal-making abilities, has, Resnick and Stein report, “created a bit of a divide within the party writ large, with one camp believing that voters still yearn for an element of compromise (or an attempt at it) and another arguing it would be criminally stupid for Democrats to waste their time.”

Read the full article from The Daily Beast here.

China Accuses Detained Canadians of Stealing State Secrets

TORONTO—China accused two detained Canadians on Monday of acting together to steal state secrets, just days after Canada announced it will proceed with a U.S. extradition request for a senior Chinese tech executive.

China arrested the two Canadians on Dec. 10 in what was widely seen as an attempt to pressure Canada to release Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies, who was arrested in Vancouver on Dec. 1 at the request of U.S. authorities.

Meng’s arrest set off a diplomatic furor and has severely strained Canadian relations with China.

The U.S. is seeking the extradition of Meng, who is the daughter of Huawei’s founder, to face charges she misled banks about the company’s business with Iran.

China’s official Xinhua News Agency cited unidentified Chinese authorities as saying former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig violated Chinese laws by acting as a spy and stealing state secrets and intelligence with the help of Canadian businessman Michael Spavor. It was the first time the two men’s cases have been linked.

It said Kovrig often entered China using an ordinary passport and business visas, and acquired information from Spavor, his “main contact.”

“Authorities stressed that China is a country ruled by law and will firmly crack down on criminal acts that severely undermine national security,” Xinhua said.

The same information was posted on the official news blog of the ruling Communist Party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission.

No other details were given and Xinhua said further judicial proceedings would “take place based on the case’s progress.”

“We are obviously very concerned by this position that China has taken,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said. “It is unfortunate that China continues to move forward on these arbitrary detentions.”

Kovrig is a former diplomat who was working as an expert on Asia for the International Crisis Group think tank. Spavor is an entrepreneur known for contacts with high-ranking North Korean officials, including leader Kim Jong Un.

Rob Malley, president of the International Crisis Group, said the accusations against Kovrig are unsubstantiated and unfounded.

“Michael worked transparently and openly, keeping Chinese authorities informed of what he did and of his mandate: to advise all parties, Beijing included, on steps they could take to resolve and prevent deadly conflict around the world,” Malley said.

“But false accusations aside, the reality is clear for all to see.  The timing of Michael’s detention and his citizenship leave little doubt as to why he is being arbitrarily detained.  We continue to hope that China will do the right thing and release him so that he can be reunited with his family.”

After Meng’s arrest, a Chinese court also sentenced a Canadian to death in a sudden retrial, overturning a 15-year prison term handed down earlier. Kovrig and Spavor haven’t had access to a lawyer or to their families since being arrested.

Canada said Friday that it will allow court hearings for the U.S. extradition request for Meng to proceed.

David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador to China, said the new allegations against Kovrig and Spavor are a response to that action.

“Every step in the process will be matched by a step by China. The desire is to raise the raise the pressure to extent that we simply give in,” Mulroney said.

Meng is due in court on Wednesday to set a date for the extradition proceedings to start. It could be several months or even years before her case is resolved

Guy Saint-Jacques, also a former Canadian ambassador to China, said Beijing is clearly putting additional pressure on Canada.

“It’s a predictable escalation in the crisis,” he said. “They are probably hoping it will convince the prime minister to free Meng.”

Lawyers for Meng, who is staying at a property she owns in Vancouver after her release on bail, said Sunday she is suing the Canadian government, its border agency and the national police force, alleging she was detained, searched and interrogated before she was told she was under arrest.

Meng’s lawsuit alleges that instead of immediately arresting her, they interrogated her “under the guise of a routine customs” examination and used the opportunity to “compel her to provide evidence and information.”

Also Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang accused Canada and the U.S. of abusing their bilateral extradition treaty. He reiterated Beijing’s demand that Washington withdraw its accusations against Meng.

The U.S. has been lobbying its allies to shun Huawei’s products on national security grounds, saying Chinese law requires the company to provide the government with intelligence on its foreign clients whenever requested.

A Chinese government spokesman took issue Monday with the U.S. claims that Huawei poses a threat to other countries’ information security.

Spokesman Zhang Yesui said U.S. officials were taking China’s national security law out of context and “playing up the so-called security risks” associated with Chinese companies.

___

Associated Press writer Rob Gillies reported this story in Toronto and AP writer Christopher Bodeen reported in Beijing.

House Democrats Launch Aggressive New Trump Inquiry

WASHINGTON—Democrats launched a sweeping new probe of President Donald Trump on Monday, an aggressive investigation that threatens to shadow the president through the 2020 election season with potentially damaging inquiries into his White House, campaign and family businesses.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said his panel was beginning the probe into possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power and is sending document requests to 81 people linked to the president and his associates.

The broad investigation could be setting the stage for an impeachment effort, although Democratic leaders have pledged to investigate all avenues and review special counsel Robert Mueller’s upcoming report before trying any drastic action. Nadler said the document requests, with responses to most due by March 18, are a way to “begin building the public record.”

“Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms,” Nadler said. “Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee.”

Trump dismissed the Nadler probe and others as futile efforts “in search of a crime.”

“Ridiculous!” he exclaimed on Twitter.

Separate congressional probes are already swirling around the president, including an effort announced Monday by three other House Democratic chairmen to obtain information about private conversations between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In a letter to the White House and State Department, the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform panels sent broad requests for details about Trump and Putin’s private meetings by phone and in person. In addition to document requests, the committees are asking to interview interpreters who sat in on meetings, including a one-on-one session in Helsinki last summer.

The State Department pledged to “work cooperatively with the committees.”

The new probes signal that now that Democrats hold a majority in the House, Trump’s legal and political peril is nowhere near over, even as the special counsel’s Russia investigation winds down.

They are also an indication of the Democrats’ current strategy — to flood the administration with oversight requests, keeping Trump and his associates on trial publicly while also playing a long game when it comes to possible impeachment. While some more liberal members of the Democratic caucus would like to see Trump impeached now, Democratic leaders have been more cautious.

Trump told reporters after Nadler’s probe was announced that “I cooperate all the time with everybody.”

He added: “You know, the beautiful thing? No collusion. It’s all a hoax.”

Mueller is investigating Russian intervention in the 2016 election and whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia. But the House probes go far beyond collusion. The House intelligence panel has announced a separate probe not only into the Russian interference but also Trump’s foreign financial interests. The Oversight and Reform Committee has launched multiple investigations into all facets of the administration.

The 81 names and entities on the Judiciary Committee’s list touch all parts of Trump’s life — the White House, his businesses, his campaign and the committee that oversaw the transition from campaign to presidency. There are also people connected to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, including participants in a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer before the election.

The committee is also asking the FBI, the Justice Department and others for documents related to possible pardons for Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. All three have been charged in special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

In a request sent to the White House, the committee asks for information surrounding former FBI Director James Comey’s termination, communications with Justice Department officials, the Trump Tower meeting and multiple other matters. Trump Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the White House had received the letter and “the counsel’s office and relevant White House officials will review it and respond at the appropriate time.”

The panel’s list includes two of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and many of his current and former close advisers, including Steve Bannon, longtime spokeswoman Hope Hicks, former Press Secretary Sean Spicer and former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

The letters to Hicks and Spicer ask them to turn over any work diaries, journals or “a description of daily events related to your employment” by Trump. The committee asked McGahn for documents related to any discussion involving Trump regarding the possibility of firing Mueller around June of 2017 “or any conversation in which President Trump stated, in words or substance, that he wanted the Mueller investigation shut down, restrained or otherwise limited in or around December 2017.”

The committee seeks from Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer who called Trump a “con man” and a “cheat” in congressional testimony last week, “any audio or video recordings” of conversations with Trump or conversations about his presidential campaign.

The list of document requests also includes the National Rifle Association and Trump’s embattled charitable foundation, which he is shutting down after agreeing to a court-supervised process.

The committee expects some people to produce right away, and others may eventually face subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The person declined to be named to discuss the committee’s internal process.

Nadler said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” the Democrats are simply doing “our job to protect the rule of law” after Republicans during the first two years of Trump’s term were “shielding the president from any proper accountability.”

“We’re far from making decisions” about impeachment, he said.

The top Republican on the committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, said Nadler was “recklessly prejudging the president for obstruction” and pursuing evidence to back up his conclusion.

___

Associated Press writers Chad Day, Michael Balsamo, Deb Riechmann, Matthew Lee and Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

___

Read the document requests: http://apne.ws/87a9kpP

___

Follow all of AP’s Trump Investigations coverage at https://apnews.com/TrumpInvestigations

Spiked Daniels Story Is Just One Juicy Detail in Bombshell Fox News-Trump Report

During the 2016 election, Fox News’ then-CEO Roger Ailes warned owner Rupert Murdoch about the soon-to-be-president. “Trump gets great ratings,” Ailes said, “but if you’re not careful, he is going to end up totally controlling Fox News,” Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman reported in 2018.

Ailes’ warning is borne out by a new article from The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, which reveals, among other details, that Fox News knew about President Donald Trump’s relationship with pornographic film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 but the story didn’t run. Former Fox executive Ken LaCorte allegedly told reporter Diana Falzone: “Good reporting, kiddo. But Rupert wants Donald Trump to win. So just let it go.”

Mayer lays out the long-term relationship between Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, pointing out that Murdoch “regarded Trump with disdain, seeing him as a real-estate huckster and a shady casino operator,” but that private opinion didn’t get in the way of a professional relationship.

The two were introduced in 1976 by Roy Cohn, the lawyer and power broker who built his career as an attorney for Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Cohn, Mayer writes, “saw the potential for tabloid synergy: Trump could attain celebrity in the pages of the Post as a playboy mogul, and Murdoch could sell papers by chronicling Trump’s exploits.” Murdoch did so frequently, including in the gossip column Page Six. For his part, Trump “loves Page Six and used to have it brought it to him the moment it arrived in his office,” former Post writer Susan Mulcahy wrote in Politico.

Murdoch’s creation of Fox News in 1994, however, was even more critical for building what became Trump’s base in 2016, Mayer writes.

Ailes personally invited Trump to appear on “Fox and Friends” in 2011, when Mayer explains, he did a “trial run of his campaign tactics,” and “used the channel as a platform to exploit racist suspicions about President Barack Obama, spreading doubt about whether he was born in America.”

As a result of this practice and these connections, Mayer explains, “a direct pipeline has been established between the Oval Office and the office of Rupert Murdoch.”

Now, Fox anchor Sean Hannity has appeared on stage at Trump rallies, and as Sherman reported last year, the links among Fox contributors and the Trump administration have only grown:

The administration can feel like a Fox green room on a heavy news day. John Bolton serves as Trump’s national security adviser; former Fox contributor Ben Carson runs HUD; former ‘Fox & Friends’ newsreader Heather Nauert serves as State Department spokesperson; and former Fox President Bill Shine is deputy chief of staff for communications.

Mayer also reports that Trump has a personal ranking system for Fox News personalities on a scale from 1-10. Sean Hannity gets a 10. But he is surprisingly bested by Steve Doocy, a host of “Fox and Friends”: he gets a 12 from the president. Bret Baier, who occasionally challenges Trump, lands a 6.

Of course, there have been plenty of signs of the Fox-Trump relationship in plain sight. Trump regularly tweets about favorably about Fox’s ratings. His Instagram account is filled with reposts of Fox news reports. CNN counted and found that Fox content makes up almost a quarter of his Instagram feed. In 2017, he tweeted, “The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!”

“Fox News’ identity,” as Sherman wrote last year, “is now inseparable from that of the president.”

Read Mayer’s full article here.

 

Putin Suspends Russian Obligations Under Key Nuclear Pact

MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Monday suspended Russia’s participation in a key nuclear arms treaty, in response to Washington’s decision to withdraw.

In a decree, Putin suspended Russia’s obligations under the terms of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty and said it will continue to do so “until the U.S. ends its violations of the treaty or until it terminates.”

Putin’s order came as Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the head of the Russian military’s General Staff, met in Vienna with U.S. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for talks on strategic stability. The INF treaty was one of the issues discussed in what the Russia’s Defense Ministry described as “constructive” talks.

The U.S. gave notice of its intention to withdraw from the INF a month ago, setting the stage for it to terminate in six months unless Moscow returns to compliance. Russia has denied any breaches, and accused the U.S. of violating the pact.

The U.S. has accused Russia of developing and deploying a cruise missile that violates provisions of the pact that ban production, testing and deployment of land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,410 miles).

The move also reflected President Donald Trump’s administration’s view that the treaty was an obstacle to efforts needed to counter intermediate-range missiles deployed by China, which isn’t part of the treaty.

Russia has charged that the U.S. has breached the pact by deploying missile defense facilities in eastern Europe that could fire cruise missiles instead of interceptors — a claim rejected by the U.S.

The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era Europe missile crisis, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent during the 1980s.

Such weapons take shorter time to reach their targets compared to intercontinental ballistic missiles, and their deployment was seen as particularly destabilizing, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning.

Putin has warned the U.S. against deploying new missiles in Europe, saying that Russia will retaliate by fielding new fast weapons that will take just as little time to reach their targets.

At the United Nations, spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres holds a strong hope that Moscow and Washington could resolve their differences over the treaty in the coming months.

“The INF is a very important part of the international arms control architecture,” Dujarric said.

“It has contributed tangibly to the maintenance of peace and stability, notably in Europe.”

Did Bernie Sanders’ Critique of U.S. Policy in Venezuela Go Far Enough?

What follows is a conversation between among journalists Jacqueline Luqman, Eugene Puryear, Truthdig contributor Norman Solomon and The Real News Network’s Paul Jay. Read a transcript of their conversation below, or watch the video at the bottom of the post.

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay.

We’re continuing our discussion from Bernie Sanders’ CNN town hall. Now joining me again to break down some of the issues raised during that town hall, first of all, Jacqueline Luqman. She’s the editor-in-chief of Luqman Nation. Norman Solomon is the co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org, and national coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network. And Eugene Puryear is a journalist and author. He’s the co-founder of Stop Police Terror Project in D.C. Thank you for joining us.

So before we get get started, I’m going to play–it’s a little lengthy clip, about three minutes. But I think it’s worth it. We’re going to talk about Bernie Sanders’ attitude towards Venezuelan policy. And so here’s the clip.

SPEAKER: Good evening. In light of the recent events in Venezuela, you came out against U.S. intervention–a contentious stance, as many in Venezuela are currently suffering at the hands of Maduro through starvation and violence, and it is clear that he will not let humanitarian aid in. Under these circumstances and moving forward, do you have a clear position on U.S. intervention overseas, both economically and militarily, for nations that are under the regimes of these oppressive dictators?

BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you. Good question. There are a lot of awful things happening in the world. And what’s going on in Venezuela is terrible. Their economy is a disaster. People are living in hunger and in fear. I strongly believe there has to be an international humanitarian effort to improve lives for the people. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the last election in Venezuela was not a free and fair election, and under international supervision I want to see a free and fair election.

But to answer your question, let me say this. I am old enough to remember the war in Vietnam. And I was as active as I could trying to keep the United States from going to war in Iraq. I was in the Congress at that point. And I am very fearful of the United States continuing to do what it has done in the past. As you know, or may know, the United States overthrew a democratically-elected government in Chile, and in Brazil, and in Guatemala, and in other countries around the world. So as someone who fervently believes in human rights and democracy, we have got to do everything that we can. But I think sometimes you have unintended consequences when a powerful nation goes in and tells people who their government will be.

So my view is that whether it is Saudi Arabia, which is a despotic regime, or whether it is Venezuela, I think we have got to do everything that we can to create a democratic climate. But I do not believe in U.S. military intervention in those countries.

WOLF BLITZER: Why have you–Senator, why have you stopped short of calling Maduro of Venezuela a dictator?

BERNIE SANDERS: I think it’s it’s fair to say that the last election was undemocratic. But there are still Democratic operations taking place in their country. The point is what I am calling for right now is internationally supervised free elections. And I do find it interesting that Trump is very concerned about what goes on in Venezuela. But what about the last election that took place in Saudi Arabia? Oh, there wasn’t any election in Saudi Arabia. Oh, women are treated as third-class citizens. So I find it interesting that Trump is kind of selective as to where he is concerned about democracy. My record is to be concerned about democracy all over the world. So we’ve got to do everything we can. But at the end of the day, it’s going to be the people of Venezuela who determine the future of their country, not the United States of America.

PAUL JAY: Hi. OK. So, Jacqueline, what’s your response to Bernie Sanders?

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Well, Sanders ended on the right note. He said it’s going to be up to the responsibility of the people of Venezuela to determine the course of their country. Well, that’s what they did when they voted–overwhelmingly, 6 million people voted for the current administration under Maduro; 6 million Venezuelans voted to continue the Bolivarian revolution. And no one, not one Venezuelan, voted for the self-appointed opposition president Juan Guaido.

So I’m troubled by Sanders continuing to repeat the American imperialist narrative that Maduro is not democratically elected, that there were not democratic elections, free and fair elections, in Venezuela. Where is the proof of that? That Maduro needs to allow in humanitarian aid–he has. China, Cuba, other countries, Russia, have actually provided more humanitarian aid–actual aid, and not aid that is used as cover, as a political prop, provided more aid to Venezuela than the United States. So it’s like he ended on the right note, but he still felt like he needed to start with that, with the American imperialist talking points. And that’s really troubling.

PAUL JAY: OK. Norman?

NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, If you look at what he said about the economy of Venezuela, I think the omission that would have been much better for him to provide would be the effect of U.S. sanctions, which have been damaging and crippling, antihumanitarian, for many years. I think it’s notable as a backdrop that almost two years ago, Bernie Sanders voted against sanctions on North Korea, Iran, and Russia, you know, a package. And it was a courageous vote, because he pointed out that these sanctions in those cases reduced the chance of bringing about peaceful relations, and increased the chance of military conflict.

I think it’s notable in the clip that we just heard that Bernie condemned not only military intervention, but he cited three examples of non-military, subversive, CIA-type undermining of democratically-elected governments. He cited Brazil. He cited Guatemala and Chile. And this is the kind of historical context and understanding that conveyed a very clear point. And we’re not going to get that, we haven’t gotten that, from other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I don’t think what we need most of all from government leaders in the United States, particularly in the Congress at this point, I don’t think what we need is to say that Maduro is flawless. And frankly, I don’t think he is. I think what we need from those leaders is to say we must not have the United States intervene militarily, or any other way. If you look at the actual phrasing of what Bernie has been saying, he says that he supports humanitarian aid going into Venezuela. He doesn’t say U.S. humanitarian aid. And as Jacqueline pointed out, there has been humanitarian aid flowing in from various other countries.

So you know, frankly, I think that when you take as a whole what Bernie is saying, it is conveying to the mass media against ferocious propaganda that we need nonintervention in Venezuela. And one more point. Bernie has been savagely trashed by many corporate Democrats in the last week for refusing to call Maduro a dictator, for refusing to go along with what I think really are the main mass media-type talking points in this country.

PAUL JAY: Eugene?

EUGENE PURYEAR: Well, I think that certainly I agree that it is good that Senator Sanders ultimately is against military intervention. I also would have liked to see him speak more about the issue of sanctions. And also, quite frankly, the role the Federal Reserve in backing up these speculative dollar websites, like Dollar Today and AirTM that are having a devastating role on the exchange rate and people’s purchasing power.

But be that as it may, I think the other factor that is important to me, though, is it’s it’s crucial, I think, for someone in the position of Senator Sanders, and also vis a vis educating the populace in I think what is a ferocious media war, to also tell the facts, and start from the point of view of the facts. And sometimes it feels like to me, and really all the time when Bernie’s speaking about Venezuela, he’s really trying to get votes in Florida. I mean, it is true that he said ‘humanitarian aid,’ but didn’t specify a country. But he didn’t also debunk fact that there is humanitarian aid coming in. And then let’s just get the facts correct, here. Since 2016, Venezuela has been working with United Nations and then subsequently the Pan American Health Organization to bring in humanitarian aid, along with other countries that are bringing it. So it’s not as if this is even a new thing. In fact, it’s an older thing. You look at the Global Hunger Index, Venezuela’s 49. They’re actually above Malaysia. You look at the Human Development Index, they’re above Colombia.

So I think it’s incumbent also to debunk a lot of this propaganda, because I think it really goes to the point not just of being opposed to intervention, being opposed to sanctions, but also recognizing that influences on foreign policy in the United States from these malign factors that want to overthrow the government of Venezuela and loot the country. And I’ll also just add, this issue of the elections–I mean, the only real credible claim, or semi-credible claim–I don’t really consider it credible–about the elections at the time of the elections is from the company that made voting machines, who claimed they had evidence, which they never showed. The day after they announced that they closed down their office and they completely disappeared. All the information that is up for that election in 2018, it’s online, I’ve never seen a statistical analysis presented by any force to say that this is somehow fraudulent. But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we had that. So somehow in the DRC we have a Catholic Church-funded effort that can say exactly how it was. In Venezuela we just have claims.

And that’s my issue with the Bernie Sanders approach here. It’s not necessarily sort of the core basis of opposition to intervention. But the way he phrases it, I think, doesn’t do a good service to those who do look to someone like Bernie Sanders to tell them what’s really going on. But in general, yes, I think it is better than any of the other candidates by obviously being against intervention and against regime change.

PAUL JAY: Norman?

NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, it’s a responsibility of progressive groups, and many of them have stepped up, to fill those gaps. And I think what Bernie has done is to lay out a framework that’s politically powerful in terms of opposing what needs to be most of all opposed. And we can argue about exactly how democratic or undemocratic the last election was in Venezuela. I think there were undemocratic elements. I think there were undemocratic elements in the United States in the election in 2016. These are critiques that need to be made that in no way justify any intervention by the U.S. in any manner, shape, or form.

PAUL JAY: I mean, I’ve got to say, from what I know of the 2018 elections, they were not free and fair as previous elections during the governments of Hugo Chavez. And I was actually on an observer mission during one of the votes under Chavez. But when one says they weren’t free and fair in 2018, I think as much or even more responsibility has to be put at the feet of the opposition. Because free and fair is not just about what the government did. And even if there were, I think, maybe some irregularities, or things in terms of parties not being recognized, using certain technicalities to keep some of the opposition parties from running, I think there are some legitimate issues there, but I also think the underlying strategy of the opposition was not to participate to discredit the elections, in order to create the situation for what’s going on now.

So you know, does one in the end wind up in a conclusion, well, now one way or the other there needs to be free and fair elections? And certainly I would think that’s the case, and I think much of the Venezuelan left that isn’t directly associated with the government thinks so. But that being said, that doesn’t happen because the Americans come in and recognize Guaido, and then they’re going to run the elections? I mean, this is going to–who knows? You know, there’s lots of talk about democracy in Iraq. Saddam falls, the Americans take over. And in fact, the Iraqis wanted to use that moment to have legitimate elections. They were starting to organize, elect democratic committees all over the country to have elections. And in fact, you know, not because of the plan of the Americans. The Iraqis really were going to create a democratic election. But of course, the Americans stopped it, because they couldn’t control the outcome of it. So–and this is one problem I have with Bernie’s–the way he positions this. And I guess it’s tactical. I don’t know. But I don’t like when he says ‘unintended consequences’ of these interventions. No, these were intended consequences. It was intended to create-

NORMAN SOLOMON: I totally agree with that point. I mean, these are not–what happened in Brazil, and that was under Lyndon Johnson, 1964, ushering in fascism, when Goulart was brought down by the CIA’s assistance. That was not intended, as you say. Neither was Chile. Neither was undermining–helping overthrow the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954. I think calling it unintended is just historically wrong. At the same time, that Bernie will cite those examples as malign and terrible instances of U.S. foreign policy is instructive. And it’s up to progressives both to push Bernie to do a better job, even, publicly, and also to educate the public and agitate for change.

PAUL JAY: Go ahead, Jacqueline.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Yeah, I think I disagree with that a little bit. Because it’s as much as progressives have done a pretty good job, I think, of becoming more aware of certain issues that Sanders raised in 2016 that maybe other politicians wouldn’t have raised, and people have become more politically aware about those issues since then, I don’t think it’s our job as progressives, as leftists, to educate the general population, because we’re not going to be able to do that. We don’t have the bully pulpit. And even he has a bully pulpit right now–that’s Senator Sanders does–because he’s on a town hall on CNN, as much as a hostile environment as that is, as the corporate media. We might have social media and The Real News Network and YouTube and our own platforms, but that’s nothing compared to CNN.

So I think Sanders as a candidate, and a very, very popular progressive candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, has more of a responsibility to get that narrative–not the whole history, because he doesn’t have that much time–but at least to get the narrative right about connecting that history, and being very clear that, as you said, Paul, these are not unintended consequences. This was all a manufactured and intended outcome that the United States and other entities in the West were directly responsible for.

NORMAN SOLOMON: I’m going to say it’s not an either-or there. Of course, Bernie should do a better job, and he should be pushed and critiqued to do so. But progressives must never throw in the towel to reach as many people in this country as possible with public education and agitation and protest. Ten years ago, Medicare for All was not on the mainstream media map. It didn’t get there because people in elite positions or elected people decided to educate the public. It’s because of grassroots organizing, and people doing that job day in and day out for years at a time.

Let me give you a quick example, in terms of Bernie Sanders. Three and a half years ago, Bernie was in his first presidential campaign, saying that Saudi Arabia should “get its hands dirty” in fighting “terrorism in the Middle East.” And at RootsAction.org and some other groups as well, we publicly took Bernie to task. We pointed out that Saudi Arabia, with U.S. help, was already massacring people in Yemen. So what has happened in a process of people pushing and challenging and educating the public, as well as critiquing Bernie about Saudi Arabia and Yemen, it’s at a point where, with leadership from Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders in Congress, the Congress has voted to cut off, to demand that the U.S. cut off its aid to the murderous Saudi war in Yemen. So this is a flux situation. It’s not static. And we all have our responsibilities as progressives.

PAUL JAY: Eugene?

EUGENE PURYEAR: Well, I think that’s true. I just think that maybe the Medicare for All example is instructive, because I think it was Bernie, among other people, that exactly what he was able to do is not just articulate what individuals wanted, but I think also articulate why the opposition to something like Medicare for All was, you know, essentially completely bogus. And I think this is a similar piece.

I completely agree with Norman that we have to do everything we can to reach everyone. But I think people have been pushing Bernie. And I think if you look, in fact, quite frankly, at some of those who are around him and their social media accounts, you can see that some of that critique in real time is, to some degree, being either engaged with, and also–you know, maybe maybe not directly acknowledged, but at least people try to have evolved positions or use social media to give caveats to things that they’d like.

So I think the reality is the information is there. It’s there for Bernie Sanders, I think, to have. I think he’s actually aware that the way he’s framing it is the way he’s framing it, and I think it is in the context of the elections. I think it is practical, from that perspective. And I think that, quite frankly, what we need from our candidates is more mythbusting of the things that are out there, because of that bully pulpit element. But absolutely, I think it’s up to those of us who care about these issues to push every single candidate until we hear what we want to hear. And if not, I guess support other candidates who will say what we do want to hear.

PAUL JAY: Yeah I’d like to agree with this, too. Like, it’s three years ago Bernie Sanders called Hugo Chavez a dictator. Now, three years later, he won’t use that word with Maduro. And one assumes he wouldn’t anymore with Chavez. There’s been a progression in his foreign policy thinking, it seems, certainly the way he articulates it. Three, four years ago, he was very, what’s the word, uncommitted, in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He would often vote for measures that one would say supported right-wing policies in Israel, and didn’t come out very strongly. He’s very changed on that. And certainly appointing Cornell West to the Democratic Party Platform Committee to fight for the language of Palestinian rights within the Democratic Party platform, I think that was quite a transformation of his–at least, the expression of his politics. I mean, I say it that way because I’m never sure what Bernie really believes, and where he’s tactically taking certain positions.

And I give him the benefit of the doubt, partly because I see this progression. Partly because I am not guarding the gates of heaven and don’t decide, have to decide, about his moral character, and whether he gets into heaven or not. What we–in terms of the practical politics of America, no one else has that kind of platform saying the kinds of things he’s saying. And so, yeah. Do we–and that’s why we’re doing this segment–do we need to critique where we think he’s still limited? Where, you know, to talk about hunger and fear in Venezuela. Well, there is hunger. But not at the scale that’s being portrayed; as far as we can tell, anyway. We just had–two of our journalists were down there, and just got back in the last couple of weeks. And no doubt there is some scarcity, especially in the poorer neighborhoods in Venezuela. But in Caracas, life is proceeding fairly normally. It’s not this crazy dystopian vision that’s being created in Western media. So he’s kind of feeding into that. On the other hand, he hasn’t been there. And a lot of what he knows, he’s relying on the same media filter that everyone else is. So anyway, what’s our job? At The Real News, our job is just to try to get at as much of the truth of this as we can. So a really quick final word on this, and we’re going to do another segment. Norman, a final word from you?

NORMAN SOLOMON: I would point to an article that the journalist Zaid Jilani did for Truthout a couple of weeks ago, where he really maps out a lot of the terrain that you just covered, Paul, in terms of the progression of Bernie’s foreign policy positions over the last four years. And there’s no doubt, whether it’s in terms of Palestine, whether it’s in terms of U.S. militarism overall and intervention, those positions have become better and better. We want them to become even better than they are now. But the role that he has taken in educating the public, much better than he did before. And to deepen his own positions so that he is moving the discourse in a much more progressive, antimilitarist direction, I think it’s very important. He’s now talking routinely against what he calls, refers to, as the military industrial complex. And we need that sort of discussion for the future.

PAUL JAY: Eugene?

EUGENE PURYEAR: Yeah, I think we need to continue to build the antiwar, antimilitarist, anti-imperialist movement in this country. I think, you know, as we’ve seen on a number of issues, that’s what’s going to pull Bernie, every politician, in the broader society, I think, more in that direction. So those of us who really care about it, I do think, obviously, you know, compared to many other people in Congress, certainly, Bernie Sanders is on the better end of things. But at the end of the day, Congress is sort of a no-go zone for a lot of these ideas. And I think the reality is that’s because we don’t have the type of manifestations on the streets, in the social networks, or whatever it may be, against these sort of policies. So I think if we continue to build that movement, we’re going to start to move the needle.

PAUL JAY: Jacqueline, last word.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN: Yeah, I don’t want to suggest that those of us in the progressive movement or on the left should not be responsible for educating the people around us, and being involved in building an antiwar movement, being involved in learning everything we can about these issues so that we can continue to broaden our knowledge and broaden the knowledge of people around us. What I am saying is that we cannot, I don’t think, hedge our criticism of candidates–not just Sanders, but all of them–on issues that are critical to the survival of people on this planet because they’ve gotten better over time. We can acknowledge their progression in the right direction. But if we’re going to be honest and really get to the kind of policies that we need to sustain a quality of life that is decent for people around the world, especially in this country but also around the world, then we have to be honest where these politicians fall short, especially if they’re supposed to be the so-called favorites.

PAUL JAY: OK. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Ilhan Omar Faces Renewed Smears for Criticism of Israel

A firestorm over comments critical of Israel by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) continued to engulf the Democratic Party and American politics over the weekend.

Omar continues to stand firm in her assertion that criticism of the Israeli occupation does not constitute anti-Semitism. And the blowback she’s received from Republicans and Democrats alike sheds light on the absence of questioning over Israel’s special treatment in U.S. foreign policy.

The controversy over Omar’s criticism of Israel’s influence on American politics began on February 11 and hasn’t let up since then. Omar endured renewed accusations of anti-Semitism on Friday for remarks made last Wednesday at a Washington bookstore.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K. for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar reportedly said.

In an opinion piece for the Guardian in February, president of the National Iranian American Council Trita Parsi and historian Stephen Wertheim cautioned against playing into prejudice and racism but noted that “concern about lobbyist influence is legitimate and poised to intensify.” Wertheim reconfirmed that position on Sunday.

It’s long past time for an honest debate about these issues. Blaming @IlhanMN for saying the same things in substance as supporters of the Netanyahu government do, only with the normative signs reversed, makes clear how far we are from an honest debate. https://t.co/m3u6VKzB5s

— Stephen Wertheim (@stephenwertheim) March 3, 2019

The congresswoman posted a Twitter thread Sunday defending herself from attacks over that comment, claiming the criticism was at least primarily based on her opposition to Israeli influence in American politics.

“I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel,” wrote Omar, “I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end.”

I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel, I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 3, 2019

Omar pointed out that her willingness to speak out on Israel was generating an avalanche of attacks, primarily from the right, and that those attacks were conflating a perceived otherness to the Congresswoman.

“I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel,” Omar said. “I find that to be problematic and I am not alone.”

I am told everyday that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 3, 2019

An African refugee Muslim woman wearing a headscarf, Omar is often subject to right-wing attacks, and this past weekend proved no exception. The Congresswoman was a target at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference, where provocateurs held a news conference accusing her of traitorous behavior, and in West Virginia, where Omar’s election to the House was analogized to 9/11 by state Republicans.

“My Americanness is questioned by the President and the @GOP on a daily basis, yet my colleagues remain silent,” said Omar. “I know what it means to be American and no one will ever tell me otherwise.”

My Americanness is questioned by the President and the @GOP on a daily basis, yet my colleagues remain silent. I know what it means to be American and no one will ever tell me otherwise.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 3, 2019

Attacks on Omar weren’t confined to the extremists at CPAC.

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens accused Omar of “classic anti-Semitism” for her alleged “charge of dual loyalty” for American Jews.

Someone please write “Antisemitism for Dummies.” Nobody expects @IlhanMN to pledge “allegiance” to Israel. But her attacks on pro-Israel Americans of doing so is a charge of dual loyalty. That is classic anti-Semitism. https://t.co/TTJ1m9kAih

— Bret Stephens (@BretStephensNYT) March 3, 2019

Of course, as critics pointed out, Stephens might not be the right messenger for that accusation. While at the Wall Street Journal, Stephens once wrote an opinion piece referring to “the disease of the Arab mind”—making him possibly not the best judge of racism on the topic of Israel/Palestine. In an April 2017 interview with Vox, Stephens defended the piece by saying that critics of the column didn’t understand his point and were twisting his words.

“I don’t think, unless you are actively and willfully trying to twist what I said into something I didn’t mean,” Stephens said, “that you can read that as in any sense a racist comment or not a fair comment to appear in a major publication.”

Right-wing Democrats joined the pile on as well. Talking Points Memo writer Josh Marshall tweeted that whether or not Omar’s statements came from “misunderstanding or animus,” it was hard for him to care at this point. At New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait wrote that “whatever presumption of good faith [Omar] deserved last time should be gone now” (though, as HuffPost reporter Jessica Schulberg pointed out, Chait’s column “[misled] readers about the timing of Omar’s supposedly anti-Semitic comment”).

Some of Omar’s fellow Democrats were similarly critical. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) criticized Omar on Twitter and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) released a statement calling Omar’s statement a “vile anti-Semitic slur.”

Other Congressional Democrats, however, showed their support for their fellow member in the face of right wing attacks. Omar “shows us real courage,” tweeted Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

.@IlhanMN‘s strength inspires me and so many. She is being targeted just like many civil rights icons before us who spoke out about oppressive policies. As she uplifts my Sity and other Palestinians in the name of justice and peace, she shows us real courage. https://t.co/IItiZ8nkpt

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) March 4, 2019

“We got your back,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).

The inhumane racism and death threats thrown at my friend Rep. @Ilhan are acts of terrorism. Period. We will overcome these threats to our humanity just like we’ve done time & time again. We are resilient. Ilhan – we got your back. https://t.co/IVOeFATIdw

— Rep Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) March 3, 2019

Via Twitter, Omar expressed thanks to supporters on Sunday night and reiterated that her position on Israel was based on policy, not prejudice.

“Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic,” Omar wrote. “I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same.”

Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 3, 2019

4 Ways We Can Boost Wages and Radically Remake Our Economy

The challenges are well known: Working Americans are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of living. Unemployment is low, but wages of most Americans have remained flat. More than three-quarters of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. Most can’t afford a $500 emergency.

There’s a simple and bold solution that would cost about as much as the Trump tax cut. But instead of helping corporations and the rich, it would help millions of working and middle-class Americans by putting money directly in their pockets.

I’m talking about expanding something called the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC. And although it’s been around for decades, it can be the basis of a revolutionary change in the lives of millions of people.

As it now stands, the EITC gives thousands of dollars to the working poor, with the amount of money they receive gradually decreasing as their earnings rise until they reach a cap, which is now a little over $50,000.

It works so well because it directly boosts the incomes of people who need it the most. Cash gives people freedom and dignity— the power to decide, for example, whether to have their car repaired or buy new shoes for their kids or save for a rainy day.

When working people have money to spend, they spend most of it in the communities they live in. This, in turn, causes businesses to hire more people to meet the demand. It’s a virtuous cycle that lessens poverty, makes the tax code fairer, and boosts the overall economy.

A bold new idea would be to expand this successful program in four simple ways:

First: Raise the maximum amount that very poor Americans receive from the Earned Income Tax Credit by several thousand dollars. This would dramatically reduce poverty in all families with someone who works full time.

Right now, a job at a $15 minimum wage plus Medicaid and food stamps still doesn’t meet basic needs in much of America. Raising the Earned Income Tax Credit would ensure that every family with a full-time worker is out of poverty.

Second: Extend the Earned Income Tax Credit into the middle class, so even families earning the median family income – which was just about $76,000 in 2017 – will benefit. This would be a huge help to working-class families, many of whom are now one paycheck away from poverty.

Third: Expand the benefits of the Earned Income Tax Credit to two groups of Americans who are working hard but not necessarily collecting paychecks: people (most of whom are women) who are caring for a child or for a senior in their family, and low-income students.

Fourth: Let people receive this money each month rather than in a lump sum once a year at tax time, so it helps with monthly expenses – rent, food, education – or can be saved to build a financial cushion.

Presto. We create a kind of cost-of-living refund to lift the incomes of a third of Americans, the people who need it most, and we also include the working class and lower middle class.

At the same time, we begin to rewrite the tax code in favor of ordinary Americans, instead of large corporations and the wealthy.

Eighty-three percent of the benefits of the Trump tax cuts will go to the top 1 percent of Americans by 2027. Expanding and modernizing the Earned Income Tax Credit can help put things back in balance.

It’s simple. It’s fair. It’s necessary. It’s big and bold. Enlarge and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Biggest Obstacle for Bernie Isn’t the DNC

Some people are attached to the idea that the Democratic National Committee will “rig” the presidential nomination against Bernie Sanders. The meme encourages the belief that the Bernie 2020 campaign is futile because of powerful corporate Democrats. But such fatalism should be discarded.

As Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Of course top Democratic Party officials don’t intend to give up control. It has to be taken from them. And the conditions for doing that are now more favorable than ever.

The effects of mobilized demands for change in the Democratic presidential nominating process have been major—not out of the goodness of any power broker’s heart, but because progressives have organized effectively during the last two years.

“I think I will not shock anybody to suggest that the DNC was not quite evenhanded” during the 2016 race, Bernie said last week on CNN. “I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anybody else.”

One big factor: This time, no candidate can gain frontrunner leverage with superdelegates the way Hillary Clinton did early in the race. Last August, under grassroots pressure, the DNC voted to abolish superdelegates’ votes at the Democratic National Convention for the first ballot of the nominating process. There hasn’t been a second ballot since 1952.

When timeworn polemics insist that what’s now underway can’t really happen, it is time to revise the polemics. For many years, we heard that genuinely progressive Democrats couldn’t make meaningful inroads in Congress. Now, with impacts that far exceed their growing numbers, recently arrived House members are doing a lot to help reshape the political discourse—notably Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

While ill-founded, the line that “the DNC will rig 2020” is apt to have perverse impacts. No doubt sincerely believed by some, the outdated notion serves to demoralize and de-energize.

Is the Bernie 2020 campaign facing a steep uphill climb? Of course it is. Are powerful forces arrayed to crush it? Absolutely.

But let’s be clear. The huge obstacle ahead is not the DNC—it’s the mass media. The corporate-owned and corporate-advertiser-funded media of this country are the biggest barriers between Bernie Sanders and the Oval Office.

Often functioning as propaganda outlets, the major news media serve as an amplification system for corporate power that has long shielded the Democratic Party from the combined “threats” of social movements and progressive populist candidates. The synergies of momentum from the left—outside and inside of electoral arenas—are continuing to accelerate.

It’s crucial that progressives develop more effective challenges to the media serving the predatory big-money system. More than any other force, reflexive spin from corporate media stands between us and a Bernie Sanders presidency.

In sharp contrast to campaigns with enormous budgets for Astroturf, the first Sanders presidential campaign was able to effectively defy the conventional wisdom and overall power structure by inspiring and mobilizing at the grassroots. His campaign was—and is—antithetical to the politics of corporate media.

Two examples of news coverage, exactly three years apart, indicate what the Bernie 2020 campaign will be up against. In early March 2016, at a pivotal moment during the primary campaign, FAIR analyst Adam Johnson documented that the Washington Post “ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours . . . a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin.”

Days ago, when Bernie Sanders launched his campaign with a big rally in Brooklyn, the MSNBC coverage was so slanted that an assessment from Glenn Greenwald appeared under the headline “MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders’ Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them.”

Greenwald’s critique of MSNBC focused on flagrantly inaccurate anti-Sanders commentary from a former Hillary Clinton aide that immediately followed the senator’s Brooklyn speech. No Sanders supporter was included in the discussion. The coverage prompted an email from FAIR founder (and my colleague) Jeff Cohen to an MSNBC vice president: “You have no trouble finding hardcore Clintonite Bernie-bashers; please offer some balance in your analysts. In today’s Democratic Party, there’s clearly more sympathy for Bernie than the Clintons—but not on MSNBC.”

It’s worth noting that the Post is owned by the world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos, while MSNBC is owned by Comcast, “the world’s largest entertainment company.”

To counteract the media propaganda arsenal now in place, we should fully recognize that arsenal as the main weaponry that corporate power will deploy against the Bernie 2020 campaign. We must confront those corporate media forces while vastly strengthening independent progressive media work of all kinds.

Teachers in Oakland Approve Contract Ending Strike

OAKLAND, Calif. — Oakland teachers will be back in their classrooms Monday after union members voted to approve a contract deal with district officials.

The Oakland Education Association voted in favor of the deal on Sunday after postponing the vote for a day. The agreement must also be ratified by the Oakland Unified School District.

“We look forward to being in our classrooms again after having to strike to bring our Oakland students some of the resources and supports they should have had in the first place,” union president Keith Brown said in a statement.

The agreement was reached after 3,000 teachers went on strike Feb. 21, prompting seven days of marathon negotiations for higher pay, smaller classes and more school resources.

The strike effectively cleared out the city’s 86 schools. Oakland teachers were the latest educators in the U.S. to strike over pay and classroom conditions.

The union announced Friday that the teachers won everything they demanded.

“This victory, accomplished through our collective strength on the picket lines with Oakland parents and students, sends the message that educators will no longer let this school district starve our neighborhood schools of resources,” Brown said.

The deal includes an 11 percent salary increase and a one-time 3 percent bonus.