Chris Hedges's Blog, page 448

In Nod to Farmers, High-Ethanol Gasoline Will Be Sold Year-Round

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is moving to allow year-round sales of gasoline with higher blends of ethanol, a boon for Iowa and other farm states that have pushed for greater sales of the corn-based fuel.

President Donald Trump announced he is lifting a federal ban on summer sales of high-ethanol blends during a trip to Iowa on Tuesday.

“Today we are unleashing the power of E15 to fuel our country all year long,” Trump said at a campaign rally, referring to gasoline blends with up to 15 percent ethanol.

At the White House earlier Tuesday, Trump said: “It’s an amazing substance. You look at the Indy cars. They run 100 percent on ethanol.”

He said he wants more energy production and to help farmers and refiners.

“I want more because I don’t like $74,” Trump said, referring to the current price of a barrel of crude oil. “If I have to do more — whether it’s through ethanol or another means — that’s what I want. I want low prices.”

The long-expected announcement is something of a reward to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman led a contentious but successful fight to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The veteran Republican lawmaker is the Senate’s leading ethanol proponent and sharply criticized the Trump administration’s proposed rollback in ethanol volumes earlier this year.

Grassley called the proposal “a very good victory for agriculture,” ethanol workers and the environment. “Everything about this is good, good, good,” Grassley said Tuesday after he and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, met with Trump at the White House.

The White House said the Environmental Protection Agency will publish a rule to allow high-ethanol blends as part of a package of proposed changes to the ethanol mandate.

Gasoline typically contains 10 percent ethanol. The EPA currently bans the high-ethanol blend, called E15, during the summer because of concerns that it contributes to smog on hot days, a claim ethanol industry advocates say is unfounded.

In May, Republican senators, including Grassley, announced a tentative agreement with the White House to allow year-round E15 sales, but the EPA did not propose a formal rule change.

The White House said the proposed rule intends to allow E15 sales next summer. Current regulations prevent retailers in much of the country from offering E15 from June 1 to Sept. 15.

Lifting the summer ban is expected to be coupled with new restrictions on trading biofuel credits that underpin the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, commonly known as the ethanol mandate. The law sets out how much corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels refiners must blend into gasoline each year.

The Renewable Fuel Standard was intended to address global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil and bolster the rural economy by requiring a steady increase in renewable fuels over time. The mandate has not worked as intended, and production levels of renewable fuels, mostly ethanol, routinely fail to reach minimum thresholds set in law.

The oil industry opposes year-round sales of E15, warning that high-ethanol gasoline can damage engines and fuel systems of older cars and motorcycles. Some carmakers have warned against high-ethanol blends, though EPA has approved use of E15 in all light-duty vehicles built since 2001.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, many from oil-producing states, sent Trump a letter last week opposing expanded sales of high-ethanol gas. The lawmakers called the approach “misguided” and said it would do nothing to protect refinery jobs and “could hurt millions of consumers whose vehicles and equipment are not compatible with higher-ethanol blended gasoline.”

The letter was signed by 16 Republicans and four Democrats, including Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, and Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Environment Committee.

A spokeswoman for the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol industry trade group, said allowing E15 to be sold year-round would give consumers greater access to clean, low-cost, higher-octane fuel while expanding market access for ethanol producers.

“The ability to sell E15 all year would also bring a significant boost to farmers across our country” and provide a significant economic boost to rural America, said spokeswoman Rachel Gantz.

How Trump Voters View the President Now

Editor’s note: This article is a follow-up to this first installment the author published, on Oct. 14, 2016, in which she interviewed a group of Trump supporters. She has annotated her interviews by adding her own comments below the transcript of the interviewees’ answers. Asterisks (*) mark the interview areas on which the writer comments near the bottom of the article.

Two years have flown since November 2016, and it’s time to revisit Trump’s middle-class, college-educated Republican voters.

Two of the original seven I interviewed—Larry, the Pennsylvania optometrist, and Janet, the Philadelphia paralegal, did not want to be re-interviewed, although Janet emailed, “I do not regret my vote.” In their place, I added Sheriff Ken Matlack, from Irrigon, a rural Oregon county.

The others are Judy, 79, from Princeton, N.J., a retired social worker; Cindy, 66, on Cape Cod, Mass., a retired public school teacher and motel owner; Ron, 73, in Abilene, Kan., an evangelical missionary who lived in Mozambique and South Africa for 10 years; Dave, 70, in Worcester, Mass., a retired community savings bank official; and Dane, 58, in Fort Collins, Colo., a semiretired realtor.

All are white and all but one are committed to President Trump. Here’s what they think about his first two years in general, his choice of Brett Kavanaugh and the Judiciary Committee hearings, Trump’s immigration policies, his attempts to scrap Obamacare, his cutbacks to environmental regulations, and his approach to assault rifles, today’s economy, the 2017 tax law, nuclear weapons and the deficit.

All gave me over an hour to hear their thoughts and responded to follow-up calls.

On Trump’s First Two Years

Judy. Trump’s done a wonderful job. He doesn’t hide behind a desk but instead makes the public feel it’s being listened to. He was bold enough to tell the United Nations that America is doing more than its fair share and others [other countries] are starting to pay more.

I still think he can be trusted. But the press does everything it can to make him look bad and focuses on the things that haven’t even been proven. I don’t care about the scandals. And I don’t think most people care about his relationships, which aren’t illegal and happened before he became president.

The whole FBI has been working against him. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were working in the Department of Justice to set up a narrative to demonize Trump, to make it look like he was colluding with the Russians. Someone from Fox News wrote “The Russian Hoax,” showing how people wanted to make sure Hillary got elected. [The full title is “The Russian Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump,” by Gregg Jarrett].

Cindy. He’s made mistakes, but his administration is more scrutinized than any others have been. Anything bad comes to the forefront, while in the past, things happened behind closed doors.

About his appointments, it’s horrible that so many politicians think they can do anything to anyone. And that’s true for Republicans or Democrats. When Trump was a candidate, I thought he was a family man. But he’s not. If he was, he wouldn’t have been in scandals that would embarrass his kids.

Dave. I’m suspicious of Trump because he changes his mind a lot, and his appointments are disturbing. They have to be scrutinized better because they think they’re above the law. I’m disappointed about some things, but I’m glad about the tax cut and the reduced regulations. The rest remains to be seen, like with his trade deals.

Dane. Trump has generally done what he said he’d do. He wanted to repatriate money back to the U.S. and he has. He’s increased jobs and he’s bringing North Korea to the table. I’m disappointed with Congress, because it hasn’t supported his agenda. But I won’t vote Democrat, since I know they’re pushing a hard-left agenda, which is socialism.

On the Kavanaugh Hearings

Judy. The whole thing is a circus. The problem is, she [Christine Blasey Ford] can’t remember facts—like when it took place or the time. You can sympathize with her, but her testimony isn’t credible.

The Democrats are using her to delay this nomination until the elections. No matter how qualified the candidate is, they’ll do what they can do to delay it. Dianne Feinstein knew about Blasey Ford’s allegation in July and could have talked with him [Kavanaugh] about it in private. But they wanted to demonize him. Also, it doesn’t make sense that she [Ford] is afraid of flying but flies all around the world. And the Democrats’ lawyers coached her, while she was in Delaware. Lots of people who knew Kavanaugh support him.

I’m pro-choice, but there needs to be limits. Roe v. Wade is settled law and I don’t think either [Neil] Gorsuch or Kavanaugh will overturn it.

Cindy. The hearings are a witch hunt. We have to watch the dirty laundry being aired in public and they all bash the Republicans. Why did the woman who said Kavanaugh molested her wait so long to say it? And why did Dianne Feinstein wait until now to bring the letter up? Too much is inconsistent. Kavanaugh was already vetted and this was traumatic. A couple years ago, a girl at Duke University ruined a kid’s career by claiming some things that she made up. When I taught middle school, I had a boss who put his hand on my skirt. Am I now going to say that he touched my skirt?

I’m pro-choice, and I’m fine with Kavanaugh because I don’t think he’ll remove Roe v. Wade. But if what she [Ford] claims is true, I wouldn’t support him being approved.

Ron. The hearings are a total sham. Kavanaugh has the most character of anybody. He’s worked hard all his life, was a judge, and has an impeccable record. We should have a poll to see who was not drinking beer to excess. Who gives a crap what he did at 17? I don’t care, since it has no bearing on whether he’s qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She [Blasey Ford] looked pretty flaky. Even if she’s telling the truth, I still want him approved. What I did 35 years ago has no bearing on what I am now. We were kids and those were different times. Now you have to be politically correct.

Dave. I’m a conservative and I think the hearings are a circus. I don’t know who to believe. But everyone lost a sense of decency. Kavanaugh has to be scrutinized, and they probably should not hold back the documents. But it’s a shame we spend so much time on this, when there are so many problems to fix. Still, we can’t take the Supreme Court appointment lightly.

All this should have been handled earlier and more privately. I’m pleased the FBI is doing more investigating. If anything good comes out of this, people will learn they should tell about what happens to them sooner.

Ken. I like Kavanaugh, since he makes decisions based on the law. Also, he’s pro-life and so am I. I’m sick of how the information comes out at the eleventh hour. If you have information on an applicant, it would have helped to put it on the table two months ago, to give Senate investigators time to look at it. It’s not the FBI’s job, which does background checks, but not of criminal investigations. This is a character issue, not a criminal one. They should have checked this two months ago. All they want to do is postpone it.

Dane. I’m pleased with Trump’s choices of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I’m not pro-choice. People should use birth control to not get pregnant, instead of killing a baby as a method of birth control. Kavanaugh was right to rule against the 17-year-old woman in an ICE detention center who wanted an abortion. She should have been deported. Congress passed a law saying no federal dollars should be spent for abortions. It’s not our responsibility to pay for them.

On Immigration

Judy. I support Trump trying to get a handle on illegal immigration and crime. People used to be carefully vetted at Ellis Island, but we don’t do that now.* I’d like to see legal immigration, with people getting permits that allow them to come. ICE is trying to keep illegals out, but it’s getting a lot of blowback from the Democrats. We don’t need to invite more of them in, since this doesn’t solve our crime problem, like what happened to Mollie Tibbetts, in Iowa, who was murdered this past summer. I know her father said she wouldn’t have wanted her murder to be used politically, but she’d be alive if it wasn’t for the man who was here illegally and stalked her. I’m very opposed to sanctuary cities. And separating kids from parents was started under Bush and Obama. But because of the outcry, Trump is trying to keep them together.

Cindy. People here illegally take jobs from those who are legal and from local people. A book, “Tortilla Curtain,” shows how this happens. They also take advantage of what’s offered, like families of migrant workers, who live in hotels for 30 days. Instead, the governments from where they come should be doing more to help their own people. They shouldn’t be our responsibility. If they bring their children, they know they’re going to be separated. It’s sad. But we need a different policy.

Ron. For years we turned a blind eye to illegal immigration, and it cost the taxpayers a lot.* I’ve lived in Mozambique, South Africa and Mexico, where it’s less than wonderful. But we can’t take everyone into the U.S. and build them a house.* It’s time to honor the law, and the Trump administration is doing a good job. All the bleeding-heart people talk about separating children from parents. We try to make them sound like saints. But lots of parents send their kids to the border so the kids can bring in their parents later. When you start enforcing the laws, there are bound to be unpleasantries.

If you go to Mexico’s side of the border, you see slums and shacks because the government could care less. I know we try to make it look like these poor people are salt of the earth, but they’re trying to do anything they can to get into the U.S., because we live better than anyone in the world.* They come up through Mexico, which is basically a dictatorship* with drug cartels running things. If you come here from South Africa, you have to fill out 40 forms. But you can enter from Mexico in a heartbeat.

Dave. I’m a law-abiding person whose grandmother came through Ellis Island. The politicians have to come up with a plan to legalize the illegals and we have to close the border, which isn’t easy. Neither party has come up with a plan, although they ought to be able to fix it. As for the zero-tolerance policy, it shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all. There should always be exceptions.

Ken. There’s more human trafficking than even two years ago, since it’s a moneymaker and they come with phony IDs. ICE is vetting people better to see if they have criminal records, but the border still isn’t secure. The people who’ve been here for years, worked, raised children and paid taxes are the ones who should be considered for citizenship.

Some kids are separated from their parents because of the crimes they commit. Also, since it’s so dangerous, I don’t know why people would want to endanger their children. You’d think they’d want to get established before they bring them in.

Dane: We need to defend our borders. Otherwise, you encourage people to cross illegally. As for separating children from parents, if an American parent took a child to another country and got arrested for doing something illegal, they’d also be separated from their children.

On the Economy, Taxes, Trade

Judy. I hoped the economy would improve, and it has. I think Trump is responsible for that.

Cindy. The economy doesn’t affect us, because we planned our work, saved, and are frugal.

Ron. The tax law doesn’t affect me because I’m retired and not in the system anymore. As long as they don’t get my Social Security, I’m happy. There’s been lots of rhetoric that they’ll mess with that, but they haven’t. And I don’t think they’ll lower Medicare benefits, although they could.

Dave. I’m a fiscal conservative who ran a community savings bank and I’m very concerned about the economy. Time will tell if the growth we get out of the new tax law will pay for it and I’m not convinced it will pan out the way the politicians said.

Ken. The tax cut will put more money in people’s pockets and more people are working than ever. So Trump’s policies have done a good job.

After being abused by countries with unfair trade deals, I’m glad Trump is trying to make things fairer, by putting export taxes on China and Canada. A lot of farmers will support him.

Dane. The tax law has benefited larger companies, which have given bonuses and increased wages—even for low-paying jobs. For smaller companies like mine, it won’t have much effect.

On Obamacare and ‘Medicare for All’

Judy. I don’t have a problem getting health care since I have Medicare and good back-up insurance. But Obamacare wasn’t a good idea and didn’t help people. Much of it benefited insurance companies. I don’t object to expanding Medicaid to vulnerable people, who should have a basic level of care. But there are more options to choose. For example, some are trying to form co-ops that could cross state lines to get the most efficient policy. The Republican Congress could have changed the system and didn’t. Medicare for all would be very expensive and I don’t think universal health care is right. We know that lots of Canadians, who have this kind of system, come here for innovative procedures.

Cindy. If Obamacare was ended, it would be awful to cut off 14 million people. But there have to be checks and balances. About Medicare for all, I go back to my thoughts about people on the dole who think they’re going to be covered no matter what. I worked very hard all my life, and I don’t want to live where there’s a socialist government. But if doctors were their own bosses under Medicare for all, not run by the government, it would be all right. Although some of the things Medicare pays for are not right, it’s been wonderful for my mother and us. We had to get her a hospital bed which would have cost $5,000 if we paid on our own.

Ron. I’m on Medicare and in the VA system and my wife gets Blue Cross/Blue Shield with her job, so neither of us are affected by Obamacare. But we need to get rid of the fraud and close the loopholes. They only passed a law but didn’t pay attention to the system.

Dave. Obamacare has lots of holes but at some point, we have to work toward health care for all. It’s a travesty that we don’t have it. Biggest cause of death in this country is poverty. This has to change.

Ken. The neediest should be covered, but with Trump’s economy and the lowest unemployment rate ever,* there’s more work and people will have the income they need to get health care.

Dane: We need to get rid of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office said 13 million people would lose their medical coverage, but it doesn’t have accurate numbers and is often wrong. I’m against Medicare for all. Why should I be penalized for other people’s lifestyles? If we go to universal health care, low-risk individuals will end up paying for those who don’t have a good lifestyle. It would also add another bureaucratic layer to the system, which will increase the cost of health care.

On the Deficit

Dave. We expect to add another trillion dollars to the deficit, and this is in the good times, when we should have surpluses. So what will we have in the next downturn? We have record revenue coming in, but we also have above-record expenses. The unemployment rate is down, and the economy is adding 200,000 jobs a month. So it might balance out. Sales taxes will be higher, but we need to wait to see if federal revenues are up. I don’t think they’ll be as much as was thought.

Ken. If the economy continues to grow and more people are employed, more will pay taxes. Decent jobs are already happening and more people are paying sales taxes. But a lot of people don’t save, and I say shame on them. If you’re making money, you should be saving.

Dane. I doubt the deficit will increase by $1.5 trillion but Congress hasn’t done its job. We need to bite the bullet and cut the bureaucracy and spending, like on education programs that don’t benefit our schools.

On Climate Change and the Environment

Judy. Climate change doesn’t have anything to do with the severe weather we’ve had. We’ve always had hurricanes. I’m not convinced there’s much difference now or that man can control the climate.

It was good to leave the Paris accord because it didn’t help us. We’re doing a good job on our own, compared with other countries, working to keep our water and air clean. For example, pollution in China is much worse than here.

Cindy. I’m fine with getting out of the Paris agreement because there’s always a better way. And even if we make a little difference in our lifetime, it won’t affect climate change. It has changed before and will happen again. We need to do what we can, but not be extreme. Renewable energy should be the goal, but I’m a realist and it’s not going to happen.

Because Trump got out of the [Paris] accord, more countries are paying their dues. He’s a bully, but what he’s done to get the countries to pay their way is right.

Dave. I don’t know if he should have pulled out of the Paris accord. We could do a lot in this country, promoting renewable energy and being efficient. But we shouldn’t do away with all fossil fuel.

Ken. I don’t believe massive weather events are caused by climate change. They’ve been going on for eons. I’m not disappointed that Trump pulled out of the Paris accord. And we shouldn’t lock the door on the coal industry. Instead, we should use all resources, and if you want to reduce something, replace it with something else. Oregon has lots of wind, but I can’t say how practical it’s been, with the cost of wind farms and the amount of energy generated and sold.

We have a coal plant in Oregon and people kept complaining that when coal was transported to the plant in railroad cars, coal dropped out, which caused fires. But in 40 years, we only had one coal car fire. What are they talking about? No coal is being dropped from the cars.

Dane. The severe weather we’ve had is not linked to climate change. I approve of getting out of the Paris accord because it hurt the U.S., economically, more than any other country. It allowed countries like China to get away with murder.

On Weakened Regulations

Judy. The coal industry was hurt by previous administrations. There’s a value to coal and making it clean, and I understand you can do that. Coal jobs have come back in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and coal is not that harmful to the environment.*

Cindy. Could we protect the environment so things don’t become extinct? In the end, nothing will change this. If the new regulations put more money on the table for people and jobs, I’m for that. But if you have something like Love Canal in Buffalo, where the company knew what it was doing, it should have been fined and put out of business.

Dave. I’m for streamlining the processes for businesses and for fewer regulations. But I don’t want to dump coal ash into streams. Fracking should be allowed, but with safeguards on it. In the same way, we shouldn’t hold up a pipeline, but instead make sure it doesn’t go through waterways. On balance, the less regulations the better.

Dane. We won’t see any major detrimental effects because environmental regulations were weakened.

On Nuclear Weapons

Judy. I’m for the efforts the Trump administration is making with North Korea, to eliminate that country’s nuclear weapons.

Cindy. Nuclear weapons are scary.

Dave. We have to negotiate through strength, but the last thing you want to do is start a nuclear war. Even if all the countries said they wanted to eliminate them, I’m skeptical, since some would want to keep them. You can’t trust governments.

Dane. The U.S. needs to maintain its position of strength to maintain peace worldwide. I’d prefer nuclear weapons not ever be used, but the reality is that somewhere down the line a rogue country will use them, most likely in the Middle East. Pakistan has them and Iran could get access to them.

On the Iran Agreement, North Korea

Judy. I’m absolutely for Trump getting out of the Iran agreement. What the Obama administration did was terrible. We gave money to Iran and the mullahs.* We didn’t have enough controls and propped up a terrible regime. I wish European countries would get out of it, too. Iran is a dangerous country. They keep saying “Death to America,” even after the deal.

Cindy. I’m glad Trump got out of it. It was unnecessary to give Iran the money it did. What he did with North Korea, meeting with Kim, is commendable. Since then, there hasn’t been nuclear testing. And he helped broker conversations between North and South Korea,* which is good.

Dave. I don’t know all the facts, and under the agreement, in 10 years, would Iran have been able to go back to what they were doing? I read that Iran broke every promise, so who knows if it can be trusted.

Ken. It was fine that Trump pulled out of the Iran agreement. Under it, they got so much money from the U.S. The best thing that could happen is if the people there overthrew that sadistic regime. If they do, I hope the U.S. would side with the people.

Dane. We should never have signed the [Paris] accord, which was one-sided. It gave billions to a regime to put into terrorism, and only helped it support its military goals, which is to control the Middle East. Iran has been working with North Korea on its research. I don’t believe the U.N. inspection groups and others actually know what’s in Iran, since they didn’t allow the U.N. people to come in.* Instead, they were self-examining to see if they were doing research. The whole travesty that Obama put in place with Iran was ridiculous.*

On Assault Rifles

Judy. I’m against assault weapons and it would be fine if they were banned, if it would prevent the shootings. But we have a right to bear arms. The killings in schools and elsewhere are more of a mental health problem. In Florida, the killer was reported to authorities, including the FBI, and no one did anything about it. I understand that teachers say they don’t want to be armed. It’s a law enforcement issue—to have a safety officer in the schools. But I’d like to see more on prevention, too.

Cindy. I have a friend who doesn’t want to teach in a school where someone is carrying a gun. But I don’t have a problem with guns if they’re used appropriately. They serve a purpose, whether you’re in law enforcement or not. There should be regulations about who can purchase them. Assault weapons should be for the military—not for people who go hunting.

Dave. People shouldn’t have weapons that can kill so many at once. The average person doesn’t need an assault rifle. But I’m in favor of having guns. As for killings in the schools, I don’t think arming teachers will solve the problem.

Ken. I like Trump’s support for Second Amendment issues. Every person has a God-given right to protect himself and his family. A lot of police officers want to keep the Second Amendment. Mayors spout off about how bad the Second Amendment is, but they have armed security guards with them. I’d like to see them go to meetings without their bodyguards.

I have no problem with assault rifles, and the Constitution doesn’t have a problem with them either. We’ve had semi-automatic rifles for a long time. Every time you squeeze the trigger only one bullet comes out, not any faster than with any other weapon.* The people who use them are good and lawful.

I support arming teachers. If they are trained and want to protect themselves and their students, they should have the right to do it. School shootings happen quickly, and even schools that have police officers don’t have one in every building. And what happens is always before the police get there. The teachers I know who could use a gun I’d trust with my daughter’s life. With no intervention, people will be killed.

Dane. The Constitution guarantees the right to firearms. The reality is, I’d rather see more people carry guns. There are incidents when guns have actually saved people’s lives, but the press doesn’t report them, since it doesn’t support their agenda.

The Facts

*On Immigration

Immigrants vetted at Ellis Island.

Fact: At the turn of the 20th century, the only limits were on the Chinese, who were restricted from immigrating in 1882. The U.S. needed workers and immigration was encouraged. Only prostitutes, paupers, polygamists, persons with “dangerous and loathsome contagious diseases,” anarchists and radicals, the feebleminded, the insane and illiterate were banned. Immigration services excluded only 1 percent of the 25 million people from Europe who arrived at Ellis Island from 1880 to World War I. Source: The American Immigration Council

*On the U.S. Building Houses for Immigrants

Fact: Private houses are not being built for immigrants. The U.S. Navy plans to build tent cities to house illegal immigrants. ICE now runs 113 detention facilities around the country.

*On Mexico Being a Dictatorship

Fact: Mexico has a multiparty system. Its president is elected for a six-year term, and it has a Senate and Congress. Each of 31 states elects a governor.

*On People Living Better in the U.S. Than Anywhere Else

Fact: The SEDA (Sustainable Economic Development Assessment) score, estimated by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), in July 2016 measured citizens’ well-being, based on a country’s wealth, economics, investment in health, education and infrastructure, and stability (which includes income and employment). Norway ranked No. 1, closely followed by the other Northern European countries; the U.S. was No. 19. Source: The Economist 7-20-16.

The United Nations March 2018 World Happiness Report weighs life expectancy, social support, freedom and trust. Finland was No. 1, Norway No. 2, Denmark No. 3, Costa Rica No. 13 and the U.S. No. 18.

*On Obama and Bush Starting the Separation of Children from Parents

In June 2018, Kirstjen Nielsen, head of Homeland Security, claimed this to be true, but couldn’t give any numbers. Also, Trump has said separating children from parents “has been going on for 50 years.”

Fact: Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at University of Texas Law School, has called this statement “preposterous.” She said a family might have been separated once every six months or a year, but that was due to a possible trafficking situation, or because the person claiming to be the parent was not the parent. Source: NBC News.

*On Obamacare

About people on Medicaid not working.

Fact: Sixty percent of nondisabled people on Medicaid (15 million people) are working. A 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation report found nearly eight in 10 Medicaid recipients live in families with at least one worker. Forty-two percent work full time, 18 percent work part-time, 40 percent don’t work, 65 percent of men and 55 percent of women work. Medicaid recipients of all races work: 59 percent of non-Hispanic whites, 57 percent of non-Hispanic blacks, 63 percent of Hispanics, 62 percent of Asians, and 45 percent of Native Americans.

*On Taxpayers Paying for Undocumented Immigrants

Fact: While Trump claimed undocumented immigrants received $4.2 billion in tax credits, they actually paid state and local taxes estimated at $11.6 billion in 2016—and at least 50 percent of them filed tax returns. Of the $11.6 billion, $1.1 billion was from personal income taxes. Source: Forbes, October 2016, by Niall McCarthy

*On the Current Unemployment Rate 

Fact: It’s now 3.9 percent, but this was also the rate in 2000. It was 1.2 percent in 1944, 1.9 percent in 1943, 2.7 percent in 1952, and 3.4 percent in 1968.

*On the Kavanaugh Hearings; the FBI’s Role in the Investigations

Fact: In 1991, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the FBI investigated Anita Hill for three days. Based on its report, the White House said her allegations were “unfounded.” Hill had testified that Thomas had sexually harassed her when he was her boss at the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

*On Weakened Environmental Regulations

About coal jobs coming back to Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Fact: In 2018, there was a net gain of 1,300 coal jobs.

*On Coal Being Nonpolluting

Fact: Besides carbon dioxide, coal also produces sulfur dioxide (acid rain); nitrogen oxide (smog, burned lung tissue, asthma); particulates, soot or fly ash (bronchitis); and mercury (brain damage and heart problems). Until now, no technology exists to clean coal, despite research around the world. Union of Concerned Scientists: Coal and Air Pollution.

*On Leaving the Iran Agreement and Billions Given to Iran

Fact: Although Trump said the deal gave Iran $150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash, the U.S. didn’t “give it.” After 1979, U.S. sanctions against Iran froze its assets, most of which were in overseas banks. The 2016 agreement freed up these funds, which are not $150 billion but rather $25 billion-$50 billion. As for the $1.8 billion (actually $1.7 billion), Iran had paid this amount to the U.S. before 1979 for arms it bought but that were never delivered. Source: A 2018 Congressional Research Service report.

*On Korea

About Trump brokering conversations between North and South Korea.

Fact: The U.S. has not played a role, and Vice President Pence sat stonily at the Olympics, when the Koreans marched under one flag.

*On Nuclear Weapons

About Iran cheating the inspectors.

Fact: IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, launched under President Eisenhower in 1957) inspectors were in Iran for a collective total of 3,000 days (in 2018) and verified that Iran was implementing its nuclear commitments.

*On Errors the U.S. Made Concerning the Iran Agreement

Fact: The agreement was arranged by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council—China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.—plus Germany and the EU.

*On Assault Rifles

About these being no faster than other weapons.

Fact: When bump stocks are fitted onto semi-automatic rifles, they shoot almost as fast as fully automatic machine guns. At the Las Vegas concert shooting, Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured 851 in 10 minutes. He had modified his rifle with a bump stock.

A Former Oil Lobbyist Quietly Wields Power Behind the Scenes at the Interior Department

Former Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt had a private plane problem. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson couldn’t explain how he came to own a $30,000 dining table bought on the government’s dime. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is facing at least six ethics investigations.

Many of President Trump’s Cabinet secretaries have been plagued with, and in Pruitt’s case, ousted by, scandals, grabbing massive media attention along the way. They’ve also been portrayed as examples of Washington outsiders finally getting their moment of power. But they’re not always the ones pulling the policy strings, nor do the policies they enact differ much from those enacted by the Republican mainstream.

A Mother Jones profile by Rebecca Leber describes how this pattern fits Zinke’s second in command at the Department of the Interior, former oil lobbyist David Bernhardt. “Unlike many in the nation’s capital,” Leber writes, “acknowledgement seems less important for Bernhardt than behind-the-scenes power.”

Leber goes on to describe how, during a recent town hall meeting for staff members at the Department of the Interior, “As Zinke ticked off the accomplishments of his first year—fulfilling the president’s vision for ‘energy dominance,’ selling off public lands, and taking on the Endangered Species Act—he might as well have been naming feathers in Bernhardt’s cap.”

Bernhardt, unlike his boss, is no Washington outsider. In fact, Leber reports, “Interior watchdogs say Bernhardt is the ultimate DC swamp creature. Zinke is relatively new to Interior; Bernhardt, who spent eight years at the department earlier in his career, knows the ins and outs of its labyrinthine bureaucracy.”

That knowledge means Bernhardt has the expertise to guide policies that control nearly a fifth of the United States’ landmass, and a range of competing priorities, including land, oceans, Native American affairs and even wildlife.

During the Bush administration, when Bernhardt ran Interior’s congressional and legislative affairs office, Leber says he:

… [H]elped provide the legal underpinning for some of the Bush administration’s headline-grabbing initiatives, including its attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and to allow snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. He also played a key role in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempted the fracking industry from certain water regulations.

After the Bush administration, Bernhardt worked for Brownstein Farber, a lobbying and law firm, where he lobbied on behalf of oil industry clients, the same ones his decisions can benefit today.

Leber reports that he also knows how to work the system and how to conceal his activities:

His calendars often have little detail in them; the environmental group Western Values Project has noted how few of his emails turn up in their frequent Freedom of Information Act requests to the Interior. “Kind of amazing that he can do anything without leaving a paper trail behind him,” said Aaron Weiss, media director of Center for Western Priorities, another conservation group.

Right now, Bernhardt is consolidating his power behind the scenes, but he could be gearing up for something bigger. “Much like Andrew Wheeler,” Leber says, “the technocrat who succeeded Scott Pruitt after his rocky stint atop the EPA, Bernhardt could seamlessly take command should Zinke succumb to ethics challenges or, as some speculate, exit to run to be Montana’s governor in 2020.”

It’s a stark reminder of how, in the Trump administration, the person with the highest title may not always be calling the shots. As Leber reminds us, “some of the most radical changes under Trump have come from the many behind-the-scenes appointees, the government insiders, who have come out of the swamp the president pledged to drain.”

Read the entire article here.

The CIA Has Its Fingerprints on Brazil’s Election

Editor’s note: Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro won the first round of Brazil’s presidential election with 46 percent of the vote. A runoff will be held Oct. 28.

The growth of Bolsonarian fascism in the final stretch of the election campaign, turbo charged by an avalanche of fake news disseminated on the internet, is not surprising. It is an old tactic developed by American and British intelligence agencies, with the goal of manipulating public opinion and influencing political processes and elections. It was used in the Ukraine, in the Arab Spring and in Brazil during 2013.

There is science behind this manipulation.

Some people think that elections are won or lost only in rigorously rational debates about policies and proposals. But things don’t really work that way. In reality, as Emory University Psychology Professor Drew Weston says in his book “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”, feelings are commonly more decisive in defining the vote.

Weston says that, based on recent studies in neuroscience on the theme, contrary to what is commonly understood, the human brain makes decisions mainly based on emotions. The voters strongly base their choices on emotional perceptions about parties and candidates. Rational analysis and empirical data normally plays a secondary role in this process.

This is why there is great manipulative power in the production of information with strong emotional content and fake news.

The documents revealed by Edward Snowden prove that the US and UK intelligence services have specialized and sophisticated departments that are dedicated to manipulating information that circulates on the internet to change the direction of public opinion. For example, the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, has a mission and scope that includes the use of “dirty tricks” to destroy, negate, degrade and run over its enemies.

The tactics are, in short: 1) To disseminate all kinds of false information on the internet to destroy the reputation of its targets; and 2) Use social sciences and other psycho-social techniques to manipulate the online discourse and activism, with the goal of generating desirable results.

But this isn’t just any type of information. The information is chosen to cause great emotional impact, not to promote debate or rebut concrete information. One of the most common techniques is the manipulation of photos and videos, which has a strong and immediate emotional effect and tends to quickly go viral. Vice Presidential candidate Manuela D’Àvila, for example, has been the constant target of these manipulations. Fernando Haddad has also been a constant victim of absolutely false declarations and manipulated images and discourse.

The abject manipulation of images of “erotic baby bottles” that were supposedly distributed to toddlers in the São Paulo public pre-school system by the PT, is an example of how low a campaign of the kind of dirty tricks recommended by the North American and British intelligence agencies can sink.

Although this manipulation can seem very low and, to the eyes of a rational person, unbelievable, its has a great and strong penetration of the emotional political brain of vast segments of the population.

Nothing is done by accident. Before they are produced and disseminated, these crude manipulations are studied in order to provoke the greatest damage possible. They are specifically directed to internet groups which, in having little or no fact checking apparatus and strong conservatism, tend to be shocked by and believe in these grotesque manipulations.

The truth is that what is happening in Brazil today reveals a sophisticated level of manipulation, which requires training and larges sums of money. Where did all of this come from? National capital? Or could there be financial, technical and logistical resources also coming from abroad?

It is obvious that this issue requires a serious investigation that will, apparently, not happen.

National and international financial capital, as well as sectors of the productive business class, have already sided with Bolsonaro in the second round. A large part of the media oligarchies have backed him as well. The poorly denominated “center”, which is, in truth, a group of angry, coup-mongering conservatives faced with the threat of political disappearance have also started to partially adhere to Brazilian fascism, trying to survive from the political crumbs it can obtain if Bolsonaro, or “the Thing” as he is known, and Mourão, the “Aryan”, win the election.

This can be viewed as the definitive suicide of Brazilian democracy and a bet on conflict, confrontation, authoritarianism and fascism, which will cause a profound deepening of the Brazilian political and economic crises.

However, the aggravation of the political-institutional and economic crisis, which will inevitably be brought about by the victory of the proto-fascist Bolsonaro, could be useful for those who want to take over Brazil’s strategic resources and companies.

Chaos and insurgency can be useful, mainly to those who are from the outside. We see this frequently in the Middle East. Taken to its farthest extension the coup can be deepened to a “solution of power”, supported by the military and the judiciary. In this manner the door will be opened for much greater rollbacks than those achieved by Michel Temer, mainly from the point of view of national sovereignty.

From the point of view of geopolitical strategy, the promoted automatic alignment between Bolsonaro and Trump would be of great interest to the USA in the region. As we know, one current strategic priority of the USA is a great power game against China and Russia. Bolsonaro, who has already promised to donate the Alacantara rocket launching base to the Americans and to privatize everything, could serve as a focal point of US interests in the region, intervening in Venezuela and countering Russian and Chinese interests in South America.

For this reason, it seems obvious that there is a finger – or an entire hand – of foreign intelligence agencies at work, mainly North American, in the Brazilian elections. The modus operandi shown in this final stretch is identical to that used in other countries and requires technical and financial resources and a level of manipulative sophistication that the Bolsonaro campaign does not seem to have on its own.

The CIA and other agencies are here, acting in an extensive manner.

The progressive forces have to now coordinate to counter this manipulative process. The response cannot merely be to use rational argument to counter manipulative hatred. The response in the dispute for the political brain has to also be emotional.

The anti-PT, anti-left, anti-democratic, anti-human rights, and anti-equality that drives Bolsonaro and was created by coup agents and their fake media, has to be fought through a project of antagonistic feelings like hope, love, solidarity and happiness.

They are projecting a past of exclusion, violence and suffering. We have to project a future of security and realization.

Faced with a sordid campaign of defamation and manipulation, guided from abroad, our strategy should be the same as Adlai Stevenson, the great Democratic politician of the US, who said to the Republicans, “you stop lying about the Democrats and I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”

Bolsonaro, his running mate and his followers communicate through shocking statements and hate speech. This is not fake news, its easy to confirm. Therefore, all we have to do is expose them for what they are and they will melt like vampires in sunlight.

Postal Workers Unite Nationwide Against Trump’s Privatization Plan

As the United States Postal Service (USPS) closed on Monday for a national holiday celebrated by many municipalities as Indigenous Peoples Day, workers across the country held a day of action to protest President Donald Trump’s proposal to privatize the postal service.

We oppose Post Office privatization in Philadelphia!! Privatization will hurt working people, communities, and businesses who are served by the Post Office #NotForSale pic.twitter.com/qRcWk1SPZp

— Rachel Rekowski

CNN Perpetuates Destructive Climate Change Myth

CNN drew the ire of environmentalists Tuesday by focusing its discussion of climate change on what individuals can do—without addressing the influence of corporations’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Scared by that new report on climate change? Here’s what you can do to help:

• Eat less meat (about 30%)

• Swap your car or plane ride for a bus or train

• Use a smart thermostat in your home, and upgrade to more efficient appliances

More: https://t.co/m6JnG7mUsx pic.twitter.com/82rssjms0i

— CNN (@CNN) Oct. 9, 2018

Solutions such as vegetarianism, public transit and smart home appliances ultimately pale in comparison to the harm caused by fossil fuels. The cable news outlet borrowed its suggestions from a report published Monday by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report found the planet to be at risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages by 2030, and it listed a number of ways in which individuals could reduce their carbon footprint. But solving our climate crisis isn’t quite so simple.

reminder that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice. https://t.co/hzQ6o9yS7v

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) October 9, 2018

Scared by that new report on climate change? Here’s what you can do to help:

• Seize the state

• Bring the fossil fuel industry under public ownership, rapidly scale down production

• Fund a massive jobs program to decarbonize every sector of the economy https://t.co/ZZ7lmunfVW

— Kate Scare-onoff (@KateAronoff) October 9, 2018

I don’t eat meat.

I don’t drive.

I live in a 400 sqft apartment in a dense city.

I don’t run the a/c all day

I compost/recycle

I volunteer with habitat restoration.

I do these things and still know it’s not enough.

We have to kill fossil fuel and build a whole new system. https://t.co/0LPWM5iS3U

— kate wagner

Nikki Haley Resigns as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is leaving the administration at the end of the year. Trump spoke as he and Haley met in the Oval Office, shortly after word came of her plans to resign.

He called Haley a “very special” person, adding that she told him six months ago that she might want to take some time off. Trump said that together they had “solved a lot of problems.”

It’s the latest shake-up in the turbulent Trump administration just weeks before the November midterm elections. Haley’s resignation was a closely guarded secret. Congressional Republicans involved in foreign policy matters and some key U.S. allies did not get advance word from Haley or the White House.

No reason for the resignation was immediately provided. Haley, who is speculated to hold aspirations for higher office, said at the White House: “No I’m not running in 2020.”

Haley, 46, was appointed to the U.N. post in November 2016 and last month coordinated Trump’s second trip to the United Nations, including his first time chairing the Security Council.

A rookie to international politics, the former South Carolina governor was an unusual pick for to be U.N. envoy.

“It was a blessing to go into the U.N. every day with body armor,” Haley said, saying her job was to defend America on the world stage.

At the U.N., Haley helped spearhead the Trump administration’s efforts to combat what it alleged to be anti-American and anti-Israel actions by the international body.

Trump said he was considering many candidates for Haley’s job and that a successor would be named in two to three weeks.

Last month Haley wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post discussing her policy disagreements but also her pride in working for Trump. It came in response to an anonymous essay in The New York Times by a senior administration official that alleged there to be a secret “resistance” effort from the right in Trump’s administration and that there were internal discussions of invoking the 25th amendment to remove him from office.

“I proudly serve in this administration, and I enthusiastically support most of its decisions and the direction it is taking the country,” Haley wrote. “But I don’t agree with the president on everything.”

The daughter of Indian immigrants, Haley clashed with then-candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign, denouncing “the siren call of the angriest voices” who disrespected America’s immigrants. Trump tweeted that “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley.”

“Before she was named by Trump to her U.N. post, Haley was elected the first female governor of South Carolina. She was re-elected in 2014.

As governor, she developed a national reputation as a racial conciliator who led the charge to bring down the Confederate flag at the Statehouse and guided South Carolina through one of its darkest moments, the massacre at a black church.

Dark Money Is Flooding This Year’s Midterm Elections

Allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used a blind spot in campaign finance laws to undercut a candidate from their own party this year — and their fingerprints remained hidden until the primary was already over.

Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums of money in elections, are supposed to regularly disclose their funders. But in the case of Mountain Families PAC, Republicans managed to spend $1.3 million against Don Blankenship, a mustachioed former coal baron who was a wild-card candidate for a must-win West Virginia Senate seat, in May without revealing who was supplying the cash.

The move worked like this: Start a new super PAC after a deadline for reporting donors and expenses, then raise and spend money before the next report is due. Timed right, a super PAC might get a month or more undercover before being required to reveal its donors. And if a super PAC launches right before the election, voters won’t know who’s funding it until after they go to the polls.

The strategy — which is legal — is proving increasingly popular among Democrats and Republicans. The amount of super PAC spending during the 2016 congressional primaries in which the first donor disclosure occurred after the primary election totaled $9 million. That figure increased to $15.6 million during the 2018 congressional primaries and special elections.

Backers of Mountain Families PAC didn’t respond to a request for comment. It is one of 63 super PACs this election cycle that have managed to spend money to influence races and postpone telling voters who funded them, according to an analysis by Politico and ProPublica of Federal Election Commission data.

Voters bear much of the cost when they head to the polls without information on who funded a PAC that tried to sway their votes, said Meredith McGehee, executive director at the nonpartisan watchdog group Issue One.

“The whole idea behind disclosure is that one of the factors that voters can, and understandably should, take into account in judging the message is who the messenger is,” McGehee said.

In total, super PACs have spent at least $21.6 million this cycle in 78 congressional races before disclosing who donated that money — $15.7 million of it during primary races. In many cases, that disclosure came after voters had gone to the polls.

Super PACs were created after the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision ruled that people and corporations had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures such as funding ads or mailers, but that they couldn’t hide that spending from the public.

But while they can’t keep donors secret forever, super PACs are increasingly figuring out methods of temporarily masking donor identities that are either legal or fall into gray areas that rarely attract regulators’ attention.

One tactic is the one Mountain Families PAC used, which is likely to be replicated for the general election. A new super PAC that starts between Oct. 18 and Nov. 6 could spend money right before Election Day without having to disclose its donors until after the midterm results are tallied. (There are 11 super PACs that together have spent at least $5.8 million since the primaries but should begin disclosing their donors on Oct. 15, when the next FEC filing is due.)

Another involves going into debt to pay for advertising and other campaign-related activities, and fundraising later to pay off those debts. A super PAC that does this would not have to disclose donors until well after the money is spent.

In the case of Mountain Families PAC, Blankenship was increasingly popular among the state’s anti-Washington set. So D.C. Republicans behind the PAC avoided disclosing they were behind ads attacking Blankenship — “Isn’t there enough toxic sludge in Washington?” asked one of them — until after the primary.

Then they revealed their identity and dissolved the super PAC entirely.

Here are more examples of PACs that have delayed disclosing their donors this cycle — and how they did it:

As Republican Martha McSally battled two opponents in the Arizona Senate primary, a super PAC called Red and Gold spent $1.7 million attacking McSally, airing television ads that said McSally had supported an “age tax” on older people’s health insurance. But shortly after filing its initial paperwork with the FEC, Red and Gold notified the commission it was going to file on a monthly basis, which meant its first disclosure wasn’t due until Sept. 20, three weeks after the primary election.

When Red and Gold finally disclosed its funders, it was revealed that Senate Majority PAC, which is aligned with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, was the main funder of Red and Gold and had meddled in the primary in an attempt to hurt McSally’s chances of victory and boost a weaker Republican. Chris Hayden, spokesman for Senate Majority PAC, said that “Senate Majority PAC and Red and Gold have followed the FEC reporting schedule and follow the law governing super PACs.”

A super PAC called Ohio First PAC has been in operation since the start of April and has spent $774,822 helping Republican Jim Renacci in the Ohio Senate race. But it has only disclosed raising $79,200 from donors. Instead of disclosing donations, Ohio First’s filings with the FEC show the committee has hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to vendors for advertising and mailers, and almost no fundraising yet. The PAC did not respond to a request for comment.

The FEC has sent the PAC two letters about possible late filings for some of its spending; the committee said in correspondence in August that it is working to resolve any issues.

During the week leading up to a seven-way Democratic primary in Illinois in March, a super PAC called SunshinePAC blitzed the battleground 6th Congressional District with $130,000 in mailers and phone calls. Because it started spending money so late in the race, SunshinePAC didn’t have to reveal its donors before the primary.

But nearly a month after the election, SunshinePAC revealed its lone funder: Tom Casten, the father of primary contender Sean Casten — raising questions about whether the super PAC was really independent from the campaign. By then, Sean Casten had eked out a victory in the primary by 2,177 votes.

Tom Casten said in an interview that “there was no effort or conversation about reporting in the delayed form” when he gave to SunshinePAC, and that “I certainly didn’t ask for it.” Greg Bales, campaign manager for Casten for Congress, said in an email that “as with any outside group, there was no coordination between Sean or the campaign and that group on their spending or disclosure practices.” SunshinePAC did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. Student Detained in Israel for Alleged Boycott Support

In a first-of-its-kind case, Israel has held an American graduate student at its international airport for a whole week, accusing her of supporting a Palestinian-led boycott movement against the Jewish state.

Lara Alqasem, a 22-year-old American citizen with Palestinian grandparents, landed at Ben-Gurion Airport last Tuesday with a valid student visa.

But she was barred from entering the country and ordered deported, based on suspicions that she supports a campaign that calls for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel.

An Israeli court has ordered that she remain in custody while she appeals. The weeklong detention is the longest anyone has been held in a boycott-related case, and it was not immediately clear on Tuesday when a decision would be made.

Alqasem is a former president of the University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that supports the boycott movement.

The grassroots boycott campaign, known as BDS, has targeted Israeli businesses, cultural institutions and universities in what it says is nonviolent resistance to unjust and racist Israeli policies. But Israel says its true goal is to delegitimize and even destroy the country.

Israel enacted a law last year banning any foreigner who “knowingly issues a public call for boycotting Israel” from entering the country.

“Lara served as president of a chapter of one of the most extreme and hate-filled anti-Israel BDS groups in the U.S.,” said Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan, who is charge of the Israeli government’s efforts against the boycott group. “Israel will not allow entry to those who work to harm the country, whatever their excuse.”

On Tuesday, Erdan floated a possible compromise, saying in a radio interview that he would drop his efforts to expel her if she apologizes and renounces her BDS support.

The ministry says that during Alqasem’s involvement with Students for Justice in Palestine, the club advocated a boycott against Sabra hummus, an Israeli-owned brand of chickpea dip.

In her appeal, Alqasem has argued that she never actively participated in boycott campaigns, and promised the court that she would not promote them in the future.

“We’re talking about someone who simply wants to study in Israel, who is not boycotting anything,” said her lawyer, Yotam Ben-Hillel. “She’s not even part of the student organization anymore.”

Alqasem is registered to study human rights at Israel’s Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The university has thrown its support behind her, announcing Monday that it would join her appeal.

She also received a boost from her former Hebrew professor at the University of Florida, who described her as an exceptional and curious student. In a letter to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Dror Abend-David said Alqasem had an “open and positive attitude toward Judaism, Jews, and the state of Israel.”

Hurricane Michael Intensifies to Category 3, Aims at Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A fast and furious Hurricane Michael sped toward the Florida Panhandle on Tuesday with 120 mph winds and a potential storm surge of 13 feet, giving tens of thousands of people precious little time to get out or board up.

Drawing energy from the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the storm strengthened rapidly into a potentially devastating Category 3 by evening. It was expected to blow ashore around midday Wednesday near Panama City Beach, along a lightly populated stretch of fishing villages and white-sand spring-break beaches.

While Florence took five days between the time it turned into a hurricane and the moment it rolled into the Carolinas, Michael gave Florida what amounted to two days’ notice. It developed into a hurricane on Monday, and by Tuesday, more than 180,000 people were under mandatory evacuation orders.

“We don’t know if it’s going to wipe out our house or not,” Jason McDonald, of Panama City, said as he and his wife drove north into Alabama with their two children, ages 5 and 7. “We want to get them out of the way.”

Coastal residents rushed to board up their homes and stock up on bottled water and other supplies.

As of 5 p.m. EDT, Michael was 295 miles (470 kilometers) south of Panama City, speeding northward at 12 mph (19 kph). Hurricane-force winds extended outward 45 miles (75 kilometers) from its center.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott warned it was a “monstrous hurricane,” and his Democratic opponent for the Senate, Sen. Bill Nelson, said a “wall of water” could cause destruction along the Panhandle.

“Don’t think that you can ride this out if you’re in a low-lying area,” Nelson said on CNN.

But some officials were worried by what they weren’t seeing — a rush of evacuees.

“I am not seeing the level of traffic on the roadways that I would expect when we’ve called for the evacuation of 75 percent of this county,” Bay County Sheriff Tommy Ford said.

Aja Kemp, 36, planned to stay in her mobile home in Crawfordville. She worked all night stocking shelves at a big-box store that was closing later Tuesday, then got to work securing her yard.

Kemp said the bill totaled over $800 when she and her family fled Hurricane Irma’s uncertain path last year.

“I just can’t bring myself to spend that much money,” she said. “We’ve got supplies to last us a week. Plenty of water. I made sure we’ve got clean clothes. We got everything tied down.”

In the dangerously exposed coastal town of Apalachicola, population 2,500, Sally Crown planned to go home and hunker down with her two dogs.

“We’ve been through this before,” she said. “This might be really bad and serious. But in my experience, it’s always blown way out of proportion.”

Mandatory evacuation orders went into effect in Panama City Beach and other low-lying areas in the storm’s path. That included Pensacola Beach but not in Pensacola itself, a city of about 54,000.

Forecasters said parts of the Panhandle and Florida’s marshy, lightly populated Big Bend area — the crook of Florida’s elbow — could see 9 to 13 feet (2.7 to 4 meters) of storm surge.

About 20 miles in from the coast, in Tallahassee, the state capital, people rushed to fill their gas tanks and grab supplies. Many gas stations in Tallahassee had run out of fuel, including the Quick ‘N’ Save, which was also stripped clean of bottled water and down to about two dozen bags of ice.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, Florida’s Democratic nominee for governor, helped people fill sandbags.

Several people were taken by van from coastal Wakulla County to Tallahassee’s Leon County to the north. Wakulla County’s shelters are not considered reliable against storms stronger than a Category 2.

Annette Strickland, 75, arrived at a Tallahassee high school. While glad to have a safe place to ride out the storm, she wasn’t happy that her home county couldn’t provide shelter.

“I feel like that they should’ve provided something,” she said. “That’s just me. I don’t want to be ugly.”

Michael could dump up to a foot (30 centimeters) of rain over some Panhandle communities before its remnants go back out to sea by way of the mid-Atlantic states over the next few days.

Forecasters said it could bring 3 to 6 inches of rain to Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia, triggering flash flooding in a corner of the country still recovering from Florence.

“I know people are fatigued from Florence, but don’t let this storm catch you with your guard down,” North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper said, adding, “A number of homes have rooftop tarps that could be damaged or blown away with this wind.”

While Florence wrung itself out for days and brought ruinous rains, fast-moving Michael is likely to be more about wind and storm surge.

As the storm closed in on the U.S., it caused havoc in the Caribbean.

In Cuba, it dropped more than 10 inches (27 centimeters) of rain in places, flooding fields, damaging roads, knocking out power and destroying some homes in the western province of Pinar del Rio. Cuban authorities said they evacuated about 400 people from low-lying areas.

Disaster agencies in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua reported 13 deaths as roofs collapsed and residents were carried away by swollen rivers.

___

Lush reported from St. Petersburg, Fla. Associated Press writers Jonathan Drew in Raleigh, N.C., and Jay Reeves in Troy, Alabama, contributed to this report.