JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Approved Trump Administration’s Request to Limit Abortion Drug Access
Brief #100—Health and Gender
By Taylor J Smith
During Donald Trump’s final days as president, the US Supreme Court granted a request by the administration to reimplement restrictions on patients attempting to obtain mifepristone, a drug used to terminate early pregnancy. The Supreme Court decision reinstates the requirement for patients to pick up the medication in person. Three lower courts had previously blocked the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement for an in-person pick up. The lower court rulings were fueled by the coronavirus pandemic and assumed risks of entering a hospital, doctor’s office, or clinic at this time. The court split 6-3, with the liberal justices in the opposition.
Biden Infrastructure Plan’s Secret Winner: Public Health
Brief #99—Health and Gender
By Justin Lee
The American Jobs Plan, introduced by President Biden last week, proposes a whopping $2.25 trillion to revamp and modernize multiple industries. As the plan allocates and focuses most on American infrastructure upgrades, significant parts of the plan also directly and indirectly revamps American public health. As capitol hill will likely continue to debate the size and funding of the legislative package, it is important to outline how this package can move American public health into the modern era.
How Biden’s Tax Plan Will Help Bolster the Economy
Brief #113—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
Biden is proposing an ambitious two part tax plan to expand the American economy. The cost will be 2.3 trillion dollars and it will make America more competitive, create jobs, re-establish the infrastructure and help Americans’ quality and standard of living. Biden’s plan is in direct opposition to the prior administration’s massive budget cuts of 2017; that plan benefited only the wealthy and failed to produce promised increases in business investments. The Trump administration cut corporate taxes to 21%, down from 35%. Biden will increase them to 28%. In 2020 the fortune 500 companies paid 11.3% in income taxes and many companies paid nothing; for example, Amazon, Chevron, IBM, and Halliburton. In addition to raising the corporate tax level the plan will stop multinational corporations from avoiding taxes on overseas profits, instead treating them as if they were domestic income. It will establish an effective minimum tax on foreign investment. A large part of this increase will fall to “foreigners” who comprise 40% of shareholders. This will fund phase one of the program which will focus on infrastructure development in highways; mass transit; broadband access; support for electric vehicles; and veteran hospitals. It will also address research and development to fund home healthcare for the elderly and the disabled, an expenditure that can be reduced significantly by keeping people at home rather than institutions.
Shortcomings in Biden’s Diplomacy Towards Russia and China
Brief #106—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
The Biden administration is making dangerous foreign policy decisions in its dealings with Russia and China, choices that may have negative, long-term repercussions. Through an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy, the administration is undermining prospects for geopolitical cooperation, heightening the chances of future war, and bringing its “adversaries” closer together—largely in the name of nationalistic bluster.
The Myanmar Crisis Reflects a Geopolitical Contest for Influence
Brief #105—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
As the world sees rampant authoritarian rollbacks against progressive and democratic freedoms, perhaps no country stands out more in the current moment than Myanmar. For those that have not been tuned in to the realities on the ground over the past two months, the Burmese military has seized power, arrested dissidents and political opponents, and fired upon and killed unarmed civilians to name but a few crimes. Although the Western democratic world and many other world governments have either condemned or expressed concern over the coup, regional powers in Southeast Asia have been reticent about denunciation and many have signaled that they see it as an internal matter for Myanmar to deal with on its own.
The Google Files: How Washington’s Past Failures Paved the Way for Big Tech Dominance
Brief #42—Technology
By Scout Burchill
The loaded but unanswerable question “What if?” popped into the minds of many who follow the tech world last week when Politico published an article exposing 312 pages of confidential internal memos from an Obama-era government investigation into Google. These never-before-seen documents from 2012 raise serious questions about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision not to sue Google over antitrust charges for illegally using its monopoly power to favor its own products and services over those of its competitors.
Georgia’s New Voter Law Does More Harm Than Good; March 2021
Brief #157—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On March 25, 2021 Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed Georgia SB 202, which is known as the “The Election Integrity Act of 2021.” The sweeping 98-page bill purports to make changes to voting and elections in order to make them more secure. The bill was passed by the Georgia Legislature in the aftermath of an election where claims of election fraud and irregularities were made when in fact there has been no evidence of election fraud in Georgia or around the country.
Immigration Policy Recommendations for the Biden Administration
Brief #119—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Thus far, 2021 and the Biden Administration have seen a major increase in unaccompanied migrant children crossing the US Southern Border – more than tripled. In the first 3 months of 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied minors were held by CBP and over 9,000 by the Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas refers to the phenomena as a challenge – as it is not a new phenomenon or crisis – but rather a pattern. During this fragile transition of power – particularly in the immigration sector – there are a few ways the Biden Administration can seek to strengthen the American immigration system, while dismantling the xenophobic Trump-era policies and still remain realistic in scope.
The CDC Under Trump and Biden: What A Difference!
Brief #98—Health Policy
By Erin McNemar
Since the beginning of his administration, former President Donald Trump gave the impression that he was skeptical of the scientific community. This information came to a head when Trump was faced with how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the course of his final year in office, Trump chose to spread misinformation regarding the virus rather than relying on the information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With Trump leaving office and President Joe Biden stepping in, the American people are seeing a change in how the CDC is utilized.
Trump, Pressured to Reject Mining Permit in Alaska, Races to Sell Drilling Leases in the Arctic
Brief # 100; Environment Policy
Trump, Pressured to Reject Mining Permit in Alaska, Races to Sell Drilling Leases in the Arctic
By Jacob Morton
12/7/2020
Policy
Since the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump has had his eye on Alaska, hoping to expand extraction of its rich mineral and fossil fuel deposits. While in office, Trump has overturned Obama era limitations on mining activities in the Bristol Bay Region of Alaska and has pushed for increased oil and gas drilling in the Arctic refuge on Alaska’s northeastern coastal plain. In the summer of 2019, despite overwhelming public opposition and allegations of flawed scientific analysis, the Trump administration revived the notorious Pebble Mine project in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
The Pebble Mine Partnership and its mother company Northern Dynasty Minerals have worked for the past thirteen years to secure the necessary permits to extract minerals from one of the world’s largest gold and copper deposits. If mined, the deposit could produce “70 million tons of gold, molybdenum and copper ore a year.” The extraction, however, would leave a pit 600 meters deep in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed. The project’s opponents have argued for years that the mine would threaten the “world-class” sockeye salmon fishery of Bristol Bay and put “more than $1 billion of revenue and over 10,000 jobs at risk.”
In 2014, the Obama administration had blocked any advancement of the Pebble Mine project, citing its concerns of Clean Water Act violations and the impact on the sockeye salmon industry, including a 2013 Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA) which confirmed that the Pebble Mine could not be operated without impacting the Bristol Bay and harming its salmon population. In 2015, concerns for the welfare of the Bristol Bay Watershed were so strong that the EPA issued a Proposed Determination to permanently limit all mining activities in the region. Polls at the time showed that 89.5% of the country was in support of establishing strong protections for Bristol Bay.
As previously reported by U.S. Resist News, the Trump administration has since thrown out the Obama era Proposed Determination, ignored claims of a faulty and skewed Environmental Impact Assessment, and has resumed permit processing for the Pebble Mine project despite opposition from environmental groups, First Nation tribal leaders, and members of his own political party. Similarly and as previously reported, while controversy erupted over Bristol Bay and the Pebble Mine project, Donald Trump and a republican controlled congress passed a plan to begin leasing tracts of land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge along Alaska’s northeastern coastal plain for oil and gas drilling. Until then, this refuge had been protected for nearly six decades.
As 2020 comes to a close, we have all by now learned to expect the unexpected. And with a lame duck president, infamous for breaking norms and ignoring established protocols, recent developments over the past two weeks have proven no exception. In a surprising turn of events, on November 26 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) rejected a Clean Water Act permit required for the development of the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay. Upon making its decision, the USACE released a statement explaining that the project’s proposed waste management plan for the displaced rock and other waste materials, “does not comply with Clean Water Act guidelines” and that “the proposed project is contrary to the public interest.” Given that President Elect Joe Biden continues to oppose the mine, this decision by the Army Corps effectively kills any near-future plans for continuing the project.
Meanwhile, the outgoing Trump administration has moved its attention northward, making clear its intentions to solidify the sales of multiple drilling leases in the Arctic refuge before leaving office. On December 3, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that the sale of lease agreements will take place on January 6. Typically, before a sale date is officially announced by the BLM, a window of anywhere from 1 to 2 months is reserved for private industry to outline which exact tracts of land they propose to drill in, and for the BLM to review these plans. The agency and the Trump administration cut this window down to 16 days before making the announcement. A traditional timeframe would have produced a sale date just before or just after Joe Biden’s Inauguration day on January 20.
Analysis
Though the rejection of the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay was certainly unexpected, its support among republicans had grown more and more mixed. Typically, republicans and Alaska politicians tend to support the expansion of domestic mineral production, but perhaps the threat to the sockeye salmon industry, as well as world renowned sportfishing and hunting grounds posed too great a concern. According to Politico, “President Donald Trump faced a public pressure campaign from Republicans, including mega-donor Andy Sabin, Bass Pro Shops CEO Johnny Morris, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to block the project.” Alaska senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) both joined the opposition after secretly recorded tapes were released this summer “featuring the then-CEO of the Pebble Limited Partnership, Tom Collier, boasting about how he would influence Alaskan politicians to ultimately support the project,” and that the company was planning a mine much larger than they had requested a permit for.
Alaskan congressman Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) disagrees with the rejection. He believes the issue is one of state’s rights and says he is “disappointed that the federal government gets to decide before Alaskans do.” Young argues, “Now there must be a consideration of how the federal government will compensate the State for the loss of economic potential. The proposed mine has always been subject to political intrigue and the whims of outsiders who simply do not understand our state.” John Shively, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership said the company is “dismayed” at the rejection and has vowed to appeal the decision. Shively argues that the company has worked hard to meet the requirements of the Army Corps, and says, “It is very disconcerting to see political influence in this process at the eleventh hour.”
Opponents of the project, however, are relieved by the decision after over a decade of uncertainty. Nanci Morris Lyon, owner of Bear Trail Lodge in King Salmon, Bristol Bay says, “It is an incredible relief. I felt like sitting down and just crying for a while.” For many Bristol Bay locals, “the prospect of the mine has held the whole region hostage for years. Lodge owners like [Lyon] didn’t know if they could invest in their businesses.” Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate natural resources committee, says he is “pleased” by the decision. Manchin said in a statement, “I understand the important role mining plays in our economy, but the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project did not come near close enough to assuring me this world-class sockeye salmon fishery, which generates $1.5 billion each year and supports 14,000 jobs, would be protected.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and The United Tribes of Bristol Bay, representing 15 area tribal governments, have said they would seek permanent protections for the area.
Northward, however, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drilling leases are being prepared for sale. The American Petroleum Institute praised the Trump administration’s push to expand drilling in the area, claiming “it would provide jobs and add to Alaska’s revenue, which has been suffering as oil production on the North Slope has declined over the years.” Many Alaskan politicians also support opening the refuge to drilling. Environmental groups feel differently. According to Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, “This is a shameful attempt by Donald Trump to give one last handout to the fossil fuel industry on his way out the door, at the expense of our public lands and our climate.”
Despite the support however, it is unclear what level of interest oil companies have for the area. The cost of drilling in the Arctic is much greater than in other states such as Texas, and for many companies, the risk to their reputation may not be worth the hassle. According to the New York Times, “Most experts say it would be at least a decade or longer before any oil or gas was extracted from the refuge. By then, the drive to reduce worldwide fossil fuel use may mean there is little or no market for the oil.” Many major banks have already said they will not lend money to companies for drilling in the refuge.
For companies that do choose to explore the area, it is uncertain how much oil they will find. The most recent exploratory well was drilled in the ‘80’s, with “disappointing” results. In 2017, the Trump administration claimed a potential of $1.8 billion in revenue for the government over a decade of drilling. However, recent independent analyses, “Based on similar sales in Alaska over the past several decades,” have found “potential revenue over the next decade would likely be in the range of tens of millions of dollars,” significantly lower than the original estimate. Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, says, “We will need [Joe Biden] to use all the tools at his disposal to stop the industrialization of this iconic national treasure.”
Engagement Resources
Alaska Wilderness League
- The Alaska Wilderness League (AWL) is a nonprofit organization that works to protect Alaska’s most significant wild lands from oil and gas drilling and from other industrial threats. The Alaska Wilderness League galvanizes support to secure vital policies that protect and defend America’s last great wild public lands and waters. https://www.alaskawild.org/
National Resources Defense Council
- Works to safeguard the earth – its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. Combining the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild. https://www.nrdc.org/
United Tribes of Bristol Bay
- United Tribes of Bristol Bay (UTBB) is a tribal consortium working to protect the traditional Yup’ik, Dena’ina, and Alutiiq ways of life in Bristol Bay that depend on the sustainable harvest of our watershed’s renewable resources, most notably Bristol Bay’s wild salmon. http://www.utbb.org/
References
Adragna, A., & Snider, A. (2020, November 26). Trump administration rejects massive Alaska mining project. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/25/trump-administration-alaska-mining-project-440626
Fountain, H. (2020, December 03). Sale of Arctic Refuge Oil and Gas Leases Is Set for Early January. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/climate/arctic-refuge-lease-sales.html?utm_campaign=Hot+News
Lewis, J., & Rosen, Y. (2020, November 25). U.S. rejects permit for Alaska’s Pebble mine, company vows appeal. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-alaska-pebblemine-idUSKBN2852XM
Ruskin, L. (2020, November 25). Trump Administration Rejects Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/939002676/trump-administration-rejects-pebble-mine-project-in-alaska
Young, D. (2020, November 25). Congressman Don Young Issues Statement Following U.S. Army Corps Decision to Deny Permit to Pebble Mine. Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401842
Amazon’s Troubling Worker Surveillance Practices
Technology Brief #27
Amazon’s Troubling Worker Surveillance Practices
By Scout Burchill
December 6, 2020
Summary:
Over the past few months a number of reports and leaks from Amazon have emerged that expose the shocking lengths that the corporation goes to surveil their workers and quell labor organizing efforts. Although Amazon has a history of dangerous working conditions in their warehouses and has taken aggressive actions against unionization attempts in the past, these recent reports shed light on some of the more insidious tactics used by the mega conglomerate.
Back in April, a report from Business Insider revealed how Amazon uses heat maps to track unionization threats at Whole Foods Markets across the country. According to the report, a number of different metrics are quantified and used to measure each store’s unionization risk. These metrics include the racial and financial demographics of the area, employee wages, a store’s proximity to a union headquarters, average store sales, the number alleged of labor law violations, and employee sentiments among other things.
In early September, it was discovered that Amazon had posted two job openings for “Intelligence Analysts” whose responsibilities included the monitoring and tracking of labor organizing threats, activists groups and hostile politicians. After criticism from media outlets and journalists, Amazon removed the two postings.
Most recently, a leak of internal Amazon documents obtained by Vice’s Motherboard has revealed even more details about the extensive surveillance operations Amazon utilizes to combat activists and labor organization threats. The documents detail how Amazon closely tracks union-organizing activity throughout Europe as well as environmental and social justice groups, including Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” organization, by collecting data from Facebook and other social media sites. Additionally, these documents also detail how Amazon works with notorious Pinkerton agents to spy on workers and infiltrate strikes at warehouses in Europe.
Finally, the Open Markets Institute recently published a report outlining the extent that Amazon goes to surveil, track and monitor its employees, which include wristband monitors, navigation software, scanners, thermal cameras and security cameras equipped with artificial intelligence. The report vividly illustrates how Amazon’s surveillance techniques cause substantial harm to the physical and psychological health of employees and enables Amazon to deter workers from organizing or unionizing.
Analysis:
While Amazon’s troubling treatment of its blue collar workers and antipathy towards unionization has long been known, it appears that recently these harmful practices have begun to weigh a bit too heavily on the consciences of some of the higher ups in the company. The COVID-19 pandemic just might have been the tipping point.
Back in late March, at the onset of the pandemic, an employee at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island by the name of Chris Smalls organized a walk out over the lack of coronavirus precautions and protections. Shortly after, Smalls was fired by Amazon for violating social distancing guidelines. According to Amazon, Smalls violated COVID protocols by returning to work after being exposed to a co-worker who tested positive. Smalls, of course, disputes this account. A few days after, leaked notes from an internal meeting attended by Jeff Bezos revealed a coordinated plan to smear Chris Smalls, calling him “not smart or articulate.” Smalls has since gone on to continue fighting for workers’ rights by forming The Congress of Essential Workers, an organization that aims to improve the working conditions and lives of essential workers.
These events, along with others, seem to have been a bit too much for some of Amazon’s white collar workers. Most notably, on May 1st Tim Bray, a distinguished senior software engineer at Amazon, quit after five years at the company over Amazon’s decision to fire employees who criticized the company’s treatment of workers during the pandemic as well as whistleblowers on the frontlines like Chris Smalls. Bray’s resignation may have motivated others within the company to speak out, as a steady trove of leaked internal documents have emerged since then that offer glimpses into Amazon’s battlefield tactics aimed at combating organized labor.
The Open Markets Institute’s report illustrates in startling detail the aggressive surveillance techniques employed at Amazon warehouses that harm the physical and mental health of employees. From the moment workers enter the warehouse, their every move is carefully tracked by a number of metrics and the vast surveillance infrastructure is designed to carefully control and monitor the productivity and behavior of each worker. Not only does the surveillance allow the company to squeeze every ounce of productivity out of its workers, it enables Amazon to deter workers from unionizing and allows them to fire workers easily by relying on a number of metrics collected on each worker.
There are many harrowing stories to be found online detailing the working conditions at Amazon warehouses. The work is uniquely demanding, as well, as it involves miles of walking to retrieve orders. The more one learns about the grueling nature of the job, the harder it is to not see the Orwellien irony of some of these conditions being found in massive warehouses called ‘fulfillment centers.’
A big reason why this story is so important right now is because we are still in the middle of a raging pandemic and Amazon keeps getting bigger. Last week, the New York Times reported that Amazon added a staggering 427,300 new employees to its workforce between the months of January and October. According to the article, that averages out to around 1,400 new employees a day and represents a hiring binge unrivaled in the history of corporate America. At the same time many small and local businesses are shutting down and shedding workers. The most recent job reports indicate a stalling economy still rife with high levels of unemployment and Congress continues to show few signs of rising to meet the moment.
For perspective, Amazon now employs a total workforce close to the entire population of Dallas, Texas. The company’s revenues, which topped off at $280 billion in 2019, are greater than the GDP of countries like Greece, Chile, Finland and Vietnam. It operates like its own nation-state and to push the comparison further, it also seems to have its own NSA, designed to surveil and monitor its workforce. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise then that General Keith Alexander, former head of the NSA who lied to Congress about the agency’s mass phone surveillance system of American citizens, just recently joined Amazon’s board of directors.
There are countless angles from which one could criticize Amazon’s monopolistic and harmful business practices , but it seems even white collar employees are disturbed by the treatment of Amazon’s blue collar workers who have been forced into becoming frontline, essential workers during the pandemic. While workplace surveillance is nothing new, Amazon takes it to new levels, revealing what we are all up against in this new age of corporate power.
While dealing with the pandemic will rightly be the incoming Biden administration’s number one priority, the long-term effects of the pandemic will be felt acutely throughout the labor market for years to come. Taking on corporate power and ensuring workers have the right to organize and demand better treatment should be an essential aspect of ameliorating the effects of the pandemic, restoring democratic and economic rights to citizens and building America back better. In the meantime, make sure to shop local this holiday season and support independent, small businesses.
Engagement Resources
Here is a link to some ethical alternatives to shopping on Amazon this holiday season:
https://threshold.us/c/cancelprime/amazon-alternatives#giving-up-amazon
Sources:
Business Insider Article on Heat Maps at Whole Foods Markets:
https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionization-risk-with-heat-map-2020-1
Same report from the Verge (BI has a paywall):
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foods-unionization-heat-map-union
Chris Smalls Incident:
The Congress of Essential Workers:
Amazon’s Surveillance of Labor and Environmental Groups:
Open Markets Institute Report:
Amazon’s Intelligence Analyst Job Postings:
Amazon’s Hiring Spree:
Tim Bray’s resignation post:
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2020/04/29/Leaving-Amazon#p-3
Stories on the working conditions at warehouses:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazon-the-shocking-911-calls-from-inside-its-warehouses
Amazon Corporate Propaganda Pushed on Local News Stations:
https://couriernewsroom.com/2020/05/26/11-local-tv-stations-that-pushed-amazon-scripted-segment/
The Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Brief # 100 Foreign Policy
The Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
By Will Solomon
December 8,2020
Policy Summary:
On November 27, leading Iranian nuclear scientist and IRGC General Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated in the city of Absard, outside Tehran. Details of the assassination are not entirely clear, but the act was almost certainly carried out by Israel, likely with US (and possibly Saudi) foreknowledge. The killing itself may have been done by remote-controlled device. This is the latest, and most high-profile, in a years-long string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.
While Iran has not, as of this writing, militarily retaliated, that may well change. The immediate response in Iran has been to further weaken the “moderate” position in the country; the Iranian Parliament voted shortly after the attack to suspend cooperation with IAEA inspectors unless sanctions are lifted. The medium and longer-term effects of this assassination remain to be seen.
Analysis:
While perhaps not quite as brazen as the January murder of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani, this latest killing marks a serious escalation of the diplomatic and low-level hot war between Iran (and its regional allies), and the United States, Israel, and the Saudi Gulf monarchies. It is almost certain that an act this inflammatory would not be carried out without US assent, and there is speculation that such assent was given during Pompeo’s recent visit to the region, which occurred just before the attack.
Fakhrizadeh’s assassination serves several overlapping purposes. Clearly, the attack is functionally an effort to destabilize potential diplomacy—or detente—with Iran as a new administration appears to be coming into power in the United States. Iran’s moderates will be increasingly marginalized as calls for retaliation and hostility toward the West grow. Given the brutal American treatment of Iran over the last four years—and frankly, much longer—such a response can hardly be unexpected.
On some level, the assassination was done simply because its perpetrators perceived an opportunity. If indeed carried out by Israel, the decision may have been made with the expectation that a Biden administration might withdraw some of the carte blanche/anything goes provided by the Trump administration. (Whether that is correct is up for debate). But Israel has consistently acted with a high degree of impunity towards Iran and others, with the US providing cover, and this particular act fits the pattern. In any event, the Israelis are certainly aware that the Iranians are already quite marginalized in the region—in other words, Iran has few good options for retaliation.
In the event diplomacy still remains possible, Biden must take concrete steps towards pursuing serious de-escalation with Iran. This would mean offering concessions, above all the removal of sanctions, a step which is more than warranted, given the United States’ reneging on the 2015 JCPOA.
While Trump and his administration have consistently demonstrated extreme hawkishness towards Iran, Biden and his advisors are no doves, and there remains a strong bipartisan current in this country for military action—or something very close to it—against Iran. Assuming they come into power, Biden and his administration must be pressured to avoid a militaristic approach and pursue meaningful diplomacy with Iran.
Engagement Resources:
https://aboutfaceveterans.org — “We are Post-9/11 service members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war and the use of military weapons, tactics, and values in communities across the country.”
https://ploughshares.org — “For over 39 years Ploughshares Fund has supported the most effective people and organizations in the world to reduce and eventually eliminate the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.”
https://livableworld.org — “The Council for a Livable World promotes policies to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons and to minimize the risk of war through lobbying and by helping elect and support Members of Congress who share our goals. For more than 50 years, the Council for a Livable World has been advocating for a more principled approach to U.S. national security and foreign policy.”
Georgia Senate Race 1
Brief # 12 Congressional Campaign Update
Georgia Senate Race 1
By William Borque
November 2,2020
Congressional Campaign Updates is an exclusive feature of U.S. RESIST NEWS. Written by reporter William Bourque. The updates will help our readers follow key races in the House and Senate that are key to the ability of democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress.
Reporter William Bourque is U.S. Resist News’s elections correspondent and has had continued coverage of US Elections through election day. We will continue to have coverage of the Senate races in Georgia as control of the Senate remains in the balance.
In Georgia, the battle for the United States Senate rages on, with both races going to a runoff in January. In one race, incumbent David Perdue seems to be faltering and may end up falling to challenger Jon Ossoff, who has been campaigning hard while Perdue seems nowhere to be found. The other race pits another Republican incumbent, Senator Kelly Loeffler, against democratic challenger Raphael Warnock. In Georgia, a runoff election is triggered when none of the candidates for a race hit 50% of the votes. In Ossoff and Perdue’s case, the race was incredibly close in the general election, with Perdue garnering just under 50%, with 49.7%, according to the Associated Press.
Despite this, however, it seems as though Ossoff has the advantage going into the runoff, with Perdue refusing to appear on a debate stage with Ossoff over allegations of insider trading and misuse of power. Additionally, with Georgia flipping to blue in this Presidential election, it seems as though Ossoff has the clearer path to election. Of course, Perdue had a lead of about 90,000 votes, which is no small margin to overcome. However, with the effectiveness of Stacey Abrams’ voter registration campaigns in Georgia it doesn’t seem out of the question that even more voters will be registered for this election. Registration for voters not previously registered ended on December 7th, and early voting will begin the 14th. We don’t see it being out of the question for Ossoff to be able to flip this seat
In the Loeffler race, Reverend Warnock seems to have even more of an uphill battle to overcome, as the main reason that Loeffler didn’t hit the 50% margin was because she faced another Republican, Doug Collins, in addition to Warnock. It is worth noting that Warnock also faced several other democrats, which certainly took away from his vote totals. Loeffler has been more civil than her Republican counterpart Perdue, as she has at least appeared on a debate stage opposite Warnock, albeit hurling insults left and right. Warnock has mostly campaigned on his promises to lead criminal justice reform and climate reform through the Senate. Of course, if both Warnock and Ossoff manage to pull off victories then Congress will be controlled by the Democrats. This has been one of the main pleas that the Loeffler and Perdue campaigns have been campaigning on and it is bound to be a close race.
U.S. Resist News will have continuing coverage of the Georgia Senate races as runoff day approaches.
Supreme Court Sides with Religious Groups Over COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies
Policy
The US Supreme Court upheld challenges from New York Churches and synagogues to state pandemic restrictions on religious services just before Thanksgiving. This 5-4 ruling comes after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted an executive order on pandemic safety measures that applied to houses of worship in early October. This rule created graded color zones, classifying COVID-19 risks, and applying restrictions to those zones. For example, houses of worship in red zones are limited to 10 people in attendance, and in orange zones, the cap is set at 25 people. The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, among others, asked the Supreme Court to block the restrictions on houses of worship, claiming the rules unfairly target religion, as other establishments had different or no caps for capacity.
Analysis
While this official ruling is a win for religious groups, Governor Cuomo had already lifted the restrictions amid criticisms. Supporters of Cuomo’s decision cite the growing COVID-19 cases, the multiple cases of mass infections because of large religious gatherings, and the traditional aspects of religious services (i.e., gathering inside, large gatherings of people, singing and shouting) as strong reasons to limit religious services. Opponents criticize the move as an infringement on religious freedom and an overreach of power. As forementioned, the executive action was already lifted, but the Supreme Court found this case worthy of hearing and ruling on to prevent future infringements on religious rights during the ongoing pandemic.
An important question that has come from this executive order is where do we place religious services, in essential or nonessential services? The order places restrictions on essential businesses and different restrictions on nonessential ones, while placing harsher restrictions on religious institutions. Such actions support the Diocese’s argument that religious institutions are not being treated fairly. Circling back to the initial question, it is imperative to establish where religious institutions fall. Once that is determined, it will be easier to implement fair restrictions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Nevertheless, amid a global pandemic, restrictions are key to preserving public health.
Lawyers for the Church argued that spacious houses of worship are capable of social distancing and an hour-long mass is safer than a typical trip to the grocery store or working a 9-5 in the workplace; Therefore, these restrictions are aggressive, targeting, and unnecessary, and houses of worship should be given the opportunity to operate as other establishments.
Given the rising cases and hospitalizations, all restrictions should be considered to mitigate COVID-19. Without an order like the one enforced by Cuomo it is likely that gatherings for religious services will continue to contribute to the spread of COVID-19.
Engagement Resources:
For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo Decision Hints At Future of Religious Liberty Cases In Supreme Court
Policy Summary: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic Governor Andrew Cuomo of the State of New York enacted regulations that allowed him to identify “hot spots” of COVID-19 activity and to designate areas according to a color – coded scheme. Each colored zone would correspond to a level of restrictions that were designed to limit the number of persons in a gathering, among other restrictions, due to COVID-19. Red zones have the strictest restrictions on the gathering of people and operations of commercial businesses. Areas classified as orange would be areas immediately surrounding red zones and have a less limited tier of restrictions. And yellow zones would be the outlying areas of red zones and have the least strict restrictions.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America brought a lawsuit in Federal District Court arguing that the limitations of 10 people in red zones and 25 people in yellow zones for houses of worship were violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and asked for a preliminary injunction against the State from enforcing these COVID-19 based restrictions. The Federal District Court ruled against the houses of worship and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which denied the petitioners request to issue an injunction. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which issued an unsigned majority opinion issuing an injunction against the State of New York from enforcing the maximum persons regulations. While the majority opinion was unsigned six written opinions total were issued from the case (the majority opinion, three concurring plus two dissenting opinions). LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While this case was technically a procedural case which was to decide whether a temporary injunction should be issued, the discussion of religious freedom and liberties emerged front and center and it revealed how cases on religion in the future might go at the High Court.
The dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stephen Breyer emphasizes forcefully that the deadly nature of COVID-19, the current spike in infections and the uncertainty caused by this pandemic are serious health considerations that needed immediate attention which in turn led to the color – coded regulations imposed by Governor Cuomo. This was not an assault on the Constitution or First Amendment rights as Justice Gorsuch implied but an attempt to save as many lives as possible which Chief Justice Roberts recognized when he said his dissenting colleagues “simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”
Yet the concurring opinions of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signal an approach to First Amendment religion cases that could be troubling down the road. Both Justices view the free exercise of religion as a highly cherished right, as well they should, but they also showed they are reluctant to side against religion even if the exercise of religion might lead to harm to outside third parties. If they are unwilling to uphold limited restrictions and limitations to save human lives in this case then it seems likely that they will side with religion again in highly contested freedom of religion cases. Objections to act or perform duties based on religious beliefs have been used in cases to deny marriage licenses to gay couples, to deny health care services to patients, to discriminate against foster parents and potential adoptions and to even deny contraception in health insurance benefits. If a deadly virus is not enough to convince justices that limited restrictions and limitations are necessary in a situation in New York than it seems likely that these justices will mostly favor religion when it comes to the religious freedom vs. do not harm third parties debate. With this case, that seems like the direction the Supreme Court will be headed especially with a new conservative and deeply religious justice – Amy Coney Barrett – recently installed. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Americans United for Separation of Church and State – press release on Supreme Court NY case.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blog post on issues of faith based discrimination.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Kamala Harris Forges History-Making Path to the Vice Presidency
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Brief # 6 Kamala Harris Forges History-Making Path to the Vice Presidency
By Linda F. Hersey
December 7, 2020
Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is a woman of firsts.
As the highest-ranking female official elected in U.S. history, Harris will be sworn into office as vice president on Jan. 20, 2021, immediately before Joe Biden takes the pledge as president.
Indeed, the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris is an important historical marker achieved by the Oakland-born daughter of immigrant parents whose life epitomizes the American story: After graduating law school in California, she rose to District Attorney in San Francisco and served as California’s 32nd Attorney General before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2017.
Now she is poised to make history as:
- The first woman vice president of the United States;
- The first African American to be U.S. vice president, and
- The first Asian American to hold the office of U.S. vice president.
Harris, 56, grew up in a family that values education and civic contributions. Her late mother, who was from India, served as a cancer researcher with a Ph.D. whose work helped to advance the treatment of breast cancer. Her Jamaican-born father is a retired Stanford economist who holds a doctorate degree.
Her parents met during the civil rights movement, while studying at the University of California at Berkeley.
Harris spent her middle and high school years in Canada, after her parents divorced and her mother accepted a teaching and research post at McGill University. After graduating from high school, Harris earned her undergraduate degree at Howard University, the historically black university in Washington, D.C., where she was active on the debate team and landed an internship with California U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston. The experience made an impression, as she would set her sights on a political career.
Harris returned to California for law school where she earned her JD at Hastings College of Law, at the University of California. After graduating in 1989, she launched her legal career in California and has yet to slow down. Her success has helped to redefine expectations U.S. women in politics can achieve.
District Attorney in San Francisco
Harris went on to serve as District Attorney in San Francisco, having a hand in increasing conviction rates, which brought both praise and criticism. The criticism was largely from leaders in the black community who felt her zealous approach to prosecutions unnecessarily targeted black men, who are arrested at a higher rate than other population groups.
Harris’ office lso was criticized for its aggressive prosecutions of marijuana offenses, she did not pursue jail time for people who were convicted. Her successor ended up wiping clean all of San Francisco’s marijuana convictions dating back to 1975, with the state as a whole legalizing recreational use of marijuana.
Harris received praise and media attention for her activism and support of teens and young adults who are LGBQ. A hate crimes task force she assembled as San Francisco’s District Attorney focused on prosecuting crimes against members of the LGBQ community.
In 2010, Harris made history as an elective female official in California, becoming the first woman, the first African American and the first South Asian American elected Attorney General in that state. Her tenure as AG was distinguished by aggressive prosecutions of fraud and abuse in the mortgage and healthcare industries, with her office recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in excess state Medi-Cal and federal Medicare payments.
‘Creating a Path for Those Who Will Come After Us’
In 2017, Harris sought a U.S. Senate seat – and won — becoming the second African-American woman and the first South Asian woman to hold the office.
‘’My mother would look at me and she’d say, ‘Kamala, you may be the first to do many things, but make sure you are not the last,'” Harris recalled, during a speech at Spelman College. “That’s why breaking those barriers is worth it. As much as anything else, it is also to create that path for those who will come after us.”
Harris is hardly alone among California women breaking barriers in higher office.
- S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California has been the highest-ranking woman in line for the presidency as Speaker of the House, a post she has held since 2019 and previously served in, from 2007-2011. That distinction will change on Inauguration Day, when Harris becomes Vice President.
- Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco has served in the U.S. Senate since 1992, making history when she was first elected. She and Barbara Boxer, now retired, were California’s first female U.S. senators.
The achievements of women elected to Congress, even in 2020, cannot be overstated, with only a quarter of the U.S. Senate seats currently held by women. In the U.S. House, women only hold 23 percent of the seats. California has sent more women to Congress than any other state. Now one of their own is about to be Vice President.
First Second Gentleman Making History, Too
In 2021, Harris will enter office with the nation’s first Second Gentleman – her husband and fellow lawyer, Doug Emhoff. “I’m humbled, I’m honored to have put it all on hold — my career, family life, everything — to help Kamala on this campaign and really help Joe,” Emhoff said in a Glamour Magazine interview.
“Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves,” according to the bio on her Senate office website.
Outgoing and friendly, Harris has the uncanny ability to open doors with ease that previously were double-locked — to women and minorities.
On the campaign trail with Biden, she was candid in her criticism of Donald Trump and his administration: “We need a mandate that proves that the past few years do not represent who we are or who we aspire to be,” she said in the weeks prior to the election.
As is characteristic of her candor, Harris’ views on racial injustice are clear.
In an essay for Cosmopolitan magazine, Harris wrote: “Let’s speak the truth: People are protesting because Black people have been treated as less than human in America. Because our country has never fully addressed the systemic racism that has plagued our country since its earliest days, it is the duty of every American to fix this.”
Given the inclusive style of President-elect Biden, Harris is likely to be an activist Vice President, outlining her own agenda and mindful that she will be much more than a footnote in history.
Engagement Resources
- Oprah Magazine has an article on “Everything You Need to Know About Kamala Harris.”
- Center for American Women in Politics tracks the number of U.S. elected women serving in political office.
- Kamala Harris U.S. Senate website offers background information on the vice president-elect.
The Criminal Liabilities of Our President Once He Leaves Office
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Brief # 5 The Criminal Liabilities of Our President Once He Leaves Office
By Sean Gray
December 7, 2020
If all is equal and the courts are on the level, Donald Trump’s chickens should come home to roost sometime after noon on January 20th. In running for president, Trump shined the brightest light imaginable on a career of shady business dealings. Failing to secure a second term ensured the statute of limitations will not expire on many of the related charges before his presidential immunity does. Trump’s conduct in his time as president also consistently ran afoul of the law. A Justice Department policy dating back to Watergate ensured that he, nor any other sitting president, could be charged with a crime while in office. Following Biden’s upcoming inauguration, those protections are void and Trump becomes fair game for prosecutors in federal and state courts.
Trump’s impeachment saw him acquitted by a feckless, Republican-led Senate, unwilling to hold him to account for his misdeeds. The federal statute for extortion is defined as ‘’extracting a thing of value from another person them in fear of injury.” Trump’s attempt to strong-arm Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden (a thing of value) whilst withholding $400 million in Congressionally approved military aid (which placed Ukraine in a precarious war-time position with hostile neighbor, Russia) seems to easily meet that standard. Through all phases of the process, Trump ignored lawful subpoenas to produce evidence related to the inquiry. Refusal of witnesses to testify or produce documents is also a criminal offense under federal law, punishable by up to a year in prison. Given the partisan acrimony that accompanied the impeachment, it is unlikely to be rehashed in the form of a criminal trial, but serves as an excellent example of Trump’s abnormal lawlessness and ‘’what are you gonna do about it’’? reflex.
Robert Mueller was unable to establish a criminal conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government. He was however able to uncover a host of overarching contacts between the two. More significantly, he outlined 10 instances where the president may have committed obstruction of justice in his attempts to thwart and/or shutdown the Special Counsel’s investigation altogether. Mueller was caught between a rock and a hard place, being neither able to indict a sitting president and therefore not wanting to formally accuse him without the chance to adjudicate the case in court. Come January 20th, Trump is eligible to be charged with any or all instances in which he attempted to shutdown the investigation into his team’s collaboration with a hostile foreign government.
Trump committed numerous violations of the law his during tenure that don’t necessarily entail criminal penalties. In destroying documents relevant to his administration, he has violated the Presidential Records Act. In the run-up to the election, his hand-picked stooge, Louis DeJoy, attempted to sabotage the USPS in a contest where a record number of voters were expected to cast ballots through the mail. He regularly flouted the separations of powers and threatened war crimes against Iran on Twitter. California Representative Eric Swalwell has called for a Presidential Crimes Commission once Trump leaves office to investigate the full scope of his malfeasance.
All of these scenarios are powder kegs of political backlash. The country finds itself dangerously divided politically, and taking up any of these cases may be seen as doing more harm than good. President-elect Biden has demonstrated little appetite for pursuing what may be viewed as politically motivated investigations against an ex-president. He has said he would leave the decision to his chosen Attorney General, but it is unfathomable that the subject of prosecuting Trump would not be discussed during the vetting process for the person who becomes Biden’s AG.
All charges at the federal level could be rendered moot by the president himself. Trump’s pardon powers are near absolute and he has not been shy about issuing them to allies in his own self-interest. Already, the idea of preemptive pardons for himself and his family members have reportedly been discussed behind closed doors. No precedent exists for a president attempting to pardon himself, but no language in the Constitution explicitly forbids it. Trump’s former fixer and confidante, Michael Cohen, has predicted that before he is scheduled to leave office, Trump will sign in order for Mike Pence to take the mantle of president and issue him a pardon free and clear. Such a remedy would inevitably invite outrage and reek of corruption, but would put Trump in the clear without it ever needing to be decided by a court if a president’s pardon powers extend to himself.
Broad those powers may be, they are exclusive to potential criminal charges on a federal level. Upon leaving office, Trump would be as vulnerable to prosecution on state charges as any other American citizen. In his home state of New York, both he and the Trump organization have been under investigation for the bulk of his presidency.
Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., would appear to be the most likely candidate to haul Trump before a jury of his peers. His office is currently overseeing an investigation that began with hush-money payments made to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen at the behest of Donald Trump. It has since expanded and probed into Trump’s personal finances and potential illegalities at his family business. When Vance subpoenaed eight years of financial records from Donald Trump’s bankers, the result was a landmark Supreme Court decision that determined a sitting president is not immune from investigation, including his activities before he took office. Per the decision, Mazars USA, must turn over the requested records to prosecutors. The charges most likely to trip up a post-presidency Trump are tax and bank fraud related. In separate stories, two years apart, the New York Times reported that Trump had inherited much of his wealth through legally dubious tax dodges and that in the years preceding his election he paid just $750 in federal taxes, and no federal taxes at all in three of the four years before his presidency. Michael Cohen, in his lengthy testimony before the House in 2018 stated that it was common practice at the Trump organization to inflate the value of properties when using them as collateral for loans and to deflate the value to tax assessors for the sake of lower liability. If those charges are accurate, and substantiated in court, it is a textbook case of continuous fraud.
Political deference and unscrupulous pardons may keep Trump from ever facing the music in federal court. They will do him no good should any prosecutor at the state or city level be inclined to charge him with a crime. Trump received a stunningly low 14% of the popular vote in Manhattan, where the DA’s office is up for grabs in a 2021 election. Prospective Democratic candidates have all made holding Trump to account a key part of their platform. This is to say nothing of the dozens of pending civil suits against Trump with allegations ranging from sexual assault, defamation and unpaid campaign bills. Trump’s presidency ends in a little over a month as of this writing, at which point his legal troubles are likely to intensify.
Effective COVID-19 Vaccines Emerge as the Pandemic Rolls On
Brief #84 – Health and Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
Brief Title: Effective COVID-19 Vaccines Emerge as the Pandemic Rolls On
The Policy
As the globe inches towards month ten of the coronavirus pandemic, promising vaccine advancements were announced last week. Companies Pfizer & BioNTech and Moderna released trial results deeming their vaccines to be 90%* and 94% effective, respectively. Both Companies have requested emergency FDA authorization in the US, with the hopes of distributing by the new year. The United Kingdom approved the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine earlier this week.
This news comes after the US reported record smashing 217,664 new cases, and over 100,000 of hospitalizations and 2,978 deaths on Thursday. With the continuous increase in cases and deaths, more than a quarter of a million people in the US have died from the disease, surpassing the White House’s projections. Experts like top infectious disease official, Dr. Anthony Fauci, conclude that the globe is reaching troubling waters and warned that January will be exceptionally terrible. To mitigate the current outlook, another lockdown in states is being considered. Just Thursday, Californian Governor Gavin Newsom announced a second round of regional stay-at-home orders for the state. This comes as intensive-care beds fill up across California, the lockdown will take effect in communities with intensive-care bed capacities below a 15% threshold. As cases rise from Thanksgiving holiday, it is expected that other states will follow suit.
This week, the Center for Disease Control issued new guidelines to curb the spread of the coronavirus. Most notably, specialists advise “universal” mask usage indoors, particularly for Americans, in addition to continued mask use in outdoor-public spaces. The CDC also recommended people avoid non-essential indoor spaces and postpone travel.
*Pfizer later released data stating that their vaccine was in fact 94.5% effective, an increase from the initial 90%.
COVID-19 Internationally
Canada has extended the closure of its shared border with the US until at least December 21st. The border has been closed since March 18th and the closure has been renewed every month since.
UK Health Minister Matt Hancock announced on Wednesday that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has been approved for use within the UK. Initial doses are already en route, with elderly people in care homes and care home staff placed at the top of the list for distribution. The UK government has already ordered 400 million doses of the vaccine, enough to vaccinate 20 million people, which is less than a third of the UK’s entire population of roughly 67 million.
Friday afternoon, Bahrain became the second country to approve the Pfizer vaccine for mass distribution. Officials granted emergency authorization for the vaccine, with little else known regarding roll-out or how many doses were purchased, but 800,000 doses are expected to be distributed next week.
Chinese officials have announced that China will have 600 million doses, produced by two Chinese manufacturers Sinopharm and Sinovac, by the end of 2020. These manufactures are also expected to create and distribute an additional 200 million doses for other nations.
Analysis:
Operation Warp Speed is seemingly meeting expectations, in creating a safe and effective vaccine in such a short period of time. However, as previously discussed, the haste of the operation, while necessary to save lives, has a very real potential of prompting hesitancy and uncertainty for widespread vaccinations.
With the Pfizer / BioNTech being approved for distribution in the United Kingdom, vaccinations are expected to start Tuesday. Some are asking why the UK was first to approve a vaccine and why the US is yet to approve any vaccine. According to UK officials, they simply have “the best medical regulators”, while American officials say the contrary, that the UK is not being as careful as the FDA is being. However, on Friday afternoon, US Vice President Pence announced he was very optimistic that a vaccine may be approved within two weeks’ time. It can be expected that there will be at least one vaccine approved for widespread distribution in multiple countries before the years end, creating some hope in a year of despair.
Here’s how some of the vaccines compare:
| Producers | Type | Doses Needed | Efficacy | Storage | Cost Per Dose |
| Oxford / AstraZeneca | Viral Vector | Two | 62-90% | Regular fridge temp |
$4 |
| Moderna | RNA | Two | 95% | -20C, up to 6 months | $33 |
| Pfizer / BioNTech | RNA | Two | 95% | -70C | $20 |
| Gamaleya (Sputnik V) | Viral Vector | Two | 92% | Regular fridge temp | $10 |
*note not yet peer reviewed, numbers are preliminary phase three results.
Engagement Resources:
For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of December 4, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.
| Nation | Confirmed Cases | Deaths |
| Globally | 65,669,150 | 1,514,387 |
| United States | 14,282,494 | 277,958 |
| India | 9,571,559 | 139,188 |
| Brazil | 6,487,012 | 175,270 |
| Russia | 2,382,012 | 41,730 |
| France | 2,321,492 | 54,858 |
| United Kingdom | 1,694,790 | 60,714 |
| Italy | 1,688,939 | 58,852 |
| Spain | 1,684,647 | 46,252 |
| Argentina | 1,447,732 | 39,305 |
| Colombia | 1,343,322 | 37,305 |
NAACP In Michigan Lawsuit Turns The Tables And Claims President Trump Is The One Engaging In Voter Fraud
Policy Summary: On November 20, 2020 the NAACP Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of three African – American voters in Michigan contending that President Trump and his campaign team in Michigan are trying to suppress the votes of Black voters in the state. The lawsuit alleges that the President and campaign officials are pressuring state and local officials to not tally votes from Wayne County in the state. Wayne County encompasses the city of Detroit, which has a significant number of African – American residents. Joe Biden won the state over President Trump with just over 150,000 votes. In Wayne County, Biden’s margin over the President was over 333,000 votes.
Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides:
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
The case, brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges President Trump and his campaign officials in Michigan are in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: In the aftermath of the November 3rd election and when it became increasingly likely that President Trump would not win re – election to a second term the President brought a number of lawsuits in key swing states hoping to show that vote tallies were not accurate. The President believed that the only reason that he trailed in a number of states was because of voter fraud brought on by the use of mail ballots and the inability of poll observers to watch the tabulation process. The President even concluded that there must have been voter fraud because of the razor thin margin of votes between him and Mr. Biden in some states. However, the President and his team did not have any evidence of this fraud and the courts dismissed many of the cases.
The lawsuit brought by the NAACP in Michigan stands out because it is a case that has not been brought by the President but brought directly against him. And it turns the table on the President and his voter fraud arguments because while the President has been the one who has constantly screamed voter fraud and irregularities in the voting process this lawsuit shows that the President himself is the one who is denigrating the democratic voting process. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is clear that acts of intimidation, threats and coercive attempts against persons for voting are not permitted. Nor are acts of intimidation and threats permitted against election officials for performing the duties of their office. Yet here we have President Trump and his campaign team engaged in acts of intimidation and coercion. Trump has personally called a number of Michigan legislators to “discuss” with them the certification of the election for Joe Biden and has even discussed with aides who else in other states he can call to discuss delays in certification of the election. It is clear that President Trump is trying to exert pressure on these local officials in an effort to manipulate the results of the election in his favor. But the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of people in Michigan cast their ballots and chose Joe Biden over Mr. Trump. By trying to not have their votes counted so he can claim victory in Michigan President Trump is engaging in the kind of voter suppression that only leads to a distortion in the true will of an electorate and is exactly the kind of voter fraud that President Trump has been complaining about (falsely it appears) all along. In this case in Michigan the NAACP lawsuit perfectly shows that acts of voter fraud and suppression are being encouraged by none other than President Trump himself. The lawsuit has just been filed but it will help to illustrate that the President’s claim of voting irregularities are meritless. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – blog post on Trump’s tactics to delay certification of election in swing states.
- Verified Voting – group advocating for the responsible use of technology in elections.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.