JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A New Book Points the Finger at Social Media
Brief #71 – Technology Policy
By Steve Piazza
One has to wonder how many people would sign on to become addicted to a new technology promising rabbit holes of misinformation and manipulation, alienation from family and friends, and the inability for the government to protect them from it.
The Ukraine Crisis; Situation Update #15
Brief #152 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
At nearly eight months of war the threat of nuclear weapons continues to grow. Putin has repeatedly threatened that use of nuclear weapons was a possibility should he deem their use necessary. On October 13, 2022 EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell warned that Russia’s army would be “annihilated” by the West’s military response if Vladimir Putin used nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
Oh, What a Splintered Web We Weave
Brief #70 – Technology Policy
By Steve Piazza
The Biden Administration recently announced that it was going to ease restrictions on internet usage in Iran following ongoing protests over the killing of Mashi Amini while she was in police custody for violating the country’s stringent dress code. The restrictions had been part of larger sanctions levied against Iran for its nuclear program and for state-supported acts of terrorism around the world.
Will Republican Policy Makers Survive Scandal Post-Roe V. Wade?
Brief #147 – Health and Gender
By Geoffrey Small
Republican policy-makers are facing a post-Roe v. Wade political landscape, where hypocrisy on anti-abortion platforms is in the national spotlight. The Herschel Walker controversy is just the latest scandal to impact the GOP. Examining mainstream abortion-related controversies can provide some insight into the potential consequences today’s Republican politicians and officials may face.
Analyzing the Impact of Reapportionment in the 2022 Mid-Term Elections
Brief #39 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
Control of the U.S. House is up for grabs in the 2022 mid-term elections. Democrats currently have 220 seats and require 218 seats to retain a majority (there are three vacant seats). This brief will examine the impact of reapportionment on the U.S. House races in 2022. It will also discuss some strategies that Democrats can use to mitigate or work around the challenges created by redistricting.
California Joins the Antitrust Chorus Against Amazon
Brief #69 – Technology
By Mindy Spatt
State AGs are coming for Amazon, while major antitrust actions by the FTC and Congress loom. Efforts to rein in Amazon’s market power are ramping up in the nation’s capital and at the state level.
The Nationwide Right to Organize Act: Explained
Brief #141 – Social Justice Policy
By Emily Scanlon
What is the Nationwide Right to Unionize Act?
On September 8th, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA-30) reintroduced the Nationwide Right to Unionize Act. Labor unions are organizations formed by workers who join together and use their strength to have a voice in their workplace.
Americans Find Toxic Water at The Bottom of Their Well
Brief #149 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
Worldwide, 1 in 10 people cannot access clean water within a 30-minute walk from their home and by 2030 this situation is projected to grow and displace up to 700 million. Closer to home, as the water treatment infrastructure in the U.S. continues to deteriorate, many Americans are facing a similar plight.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #14
Brief #151 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
Russia’s President Vladamir Putin on September 30, 2022 signed accession treaties formalizing the annexation of four occupied regions that make up 15% (at least 40,000 square miles ) of Ukraine’s territory.
Supreme Court Permits The Use Of State Taxpayer Funds For Religious Instruction
Supreme Court Permits The Use Of State Taxpayer Funds For Religious Instruction
Civil Rights Policy Brief #189 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | June 23, 2022
Header photo taken from: Education Week
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Institute for Justice
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Petitioners David and Amy Carson and Troy and Angela Nelson are two couples that reside in Maine. Both families wanted to apply for Maine’s tuition assistance program in order to send their children to two separate “sectarian” schools. Both families were denied because Maine had previously determined that using state taxpayer funds to fund tuition for students at sectarian schools was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Maine’s tuition assistance policy was crafted in response to the population sparseness of the State. Because half of Maine’s 260 school administrative units (similar to a school district) do not have enough students to establish a public secondary school in the unit, Maine devised a public program whereby parents can choose another public school in another unit for their child to attend. Maine would then allow families and the school units use of the taxpayer funds to send the child to the school in the other unit. Maine also permits parents to choose a private school that is approved by the Maine Department of Education if they are “nonsectarian.”
The only schools that cannot receive taxpayer funds are “sectarian” schools. Those schools are expressly prohibited from receiving taxpayer funds from the tuition assistance program. The reason is because Maine determined that sectarian schools are “associated with a particular faith or belief system” and “promotes the faith or belief system…and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”
Once the Carson and the Nelson families were denied tuition assistance to send their children to two sectarian schools they chose, they filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Maine. They claimed that their denial to receive tuition assistance for use at a sectarian school violated their rights under the First Amendment.
They lost at the trial court. An appeal was subsequently filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit where the Court ruled against the plaintiffs again. An appeal was subsequently made to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in a 6 – 3 decision that Maine’s denial of funds from the tuition assistance program for the Carson and Nelson families was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The decision by the Supreme Court represents another low point in the Court’s recent decisions concerning the scope and limits of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. What the Court is allowing here is opening up the door for state taxpayer funds to be used for religious instruction. While the majority does not see it, or refuses to see it, the majority opinion is in clear contradiction to the Free Establishment clause’s dictates that there be a separation of church and state.
Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion encapsulates brilliantly what the majority opinion ignores in this case. Giving a quick history lesson of the Court’s prior decisions on the Establishment Clause, Justice Breyer shows how the Court definitively stated that states cannot use “its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths” and how a state may “[not] adopt programs or practices in its public schools…which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion.”
This is explicitly clear and has been followed in subsequent Supreme Court decisions for decades – no weekly religious teachings in public schools, no prayers in public schools, no Bible readings in public schools, no religiously tailored curriculum in public schools, no prayers during public school graduations and no prayers during public school football games.
Photo taken from: Balls and Strikes / Getty
(click or tap to enlargen)
The majority opinion’s mistake is when they reasoned that this is a public benefit available to all Maine residents. The court’s reasoning relied on the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision from the case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc.v. Comer. That decision ruled that the church from the case could not be prohibited from state taxpayer dollars on account of their religious status because the funds were for a public benefit – the resurfacing of the church playground with recycled rubber materials.
The monies could be classified as being used for public safety and not for any type of religious instruction. But the difference from that case and the case from Maine is that state taxpayer funds would now be used for direct religious instruction. Justice Breyer notes this distinction and illustrates the “status-use” distinction that is at the heart of this case.
Justice Breyer points out that it is not the status or classification of the group that is the point but how state taxpayer funds will be used – and in this case it will now be used to directly pay for religious instruction. This isn’t about improving playgrounds or buildings anymore. The tuition monies in Maine would now be used to directly pay for religious materials and to pay the salaries of teachers who advocate for a particular religious viewpoint.
This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause’s prohibition against religion in public schools and Justice Breyer correctly points out why the majority opinion is clearly wrong and against prior Supreme Court precedent. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
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.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Freedom From Religion Foundation – non – profit group’s statement on the Carson v. Makin case.
Americans United For Separation of Church And State – statement from non – profit group on the Carson v. Makin case.
Vive Le Tour de France … Femmes!
Vive Le Tour de France … Femmes!
Foreign Policy Brief #139 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | June 23, 2022
Header photo taken from: RLT info
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Outside Magazine
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Tour de France is the pinnacle of professional cycling. It is the highest level of competition on the biggest stage , in one of the toughest endurance sports out there. Until now, it has been strictly for men. This 21-day stage race has taken place almost every summer since 1903 – with some breaks in competition for the two world wars which devastated much of France.
Like many other major sporting competitions, the Tour de France is a 21-day period of time for France to show off its many glorious features. TV viewers and spectators alike are treated to dazzling images of the Alps and Pyrennees mountains, views over the Atlantic and Mediterranean, mass celebrations and French heroics on Bastille Day, and to end it all – a massive sprint finish down the Champs Elysees in the heart of Paris at dusk with views of the Seine, the Eiffel Tower, and the Arc de Triomphe. The pageantry of the event is similar to that of the Olympics, or the FIFA World Cup; and the global reach that the event has is certainly similar. Not only are many of the teams and athletes from many different countries; the fans and spectators come to France from all over the world to view this race from the side of the road.
The sport of cycling, and the Tour de France, have come under scrutiny for a very long time for its history of performance enhancing drug use (à la Lance Armstrong). The sport has also been a foreign policy pain in the neck for France and many European countries as there have been many multi-national law enforcement operations to curb doping. This summer, however, the Tour de France will be making headlines for a positive event rather than the negative events associated with its history. For the first time, the Tour will be welcoming a female version of the Tour de France. Historically, the women’s professional peloton has had a one-day race while the men enjoy the benefits (and struggles) of a 21-day stage race; this year, the women will race an eight-day stage race at the end of July.
Policy Analysis
The UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), the governing body of global cycling, has staged races for the women’s peloton outside of this new Tour de France Femmes; however, these stage races have long been under criticism for not having the same three weeks of racing that the men are provided. This is not only an issue of gender equality in sports, but also an economic issue as well.
Female professional cycling teams, due to the lack of these long stage races and the lack of television coverage, are oftentimes in greater financial danger and risk than the men’s teams (which are also under a fair amount of risk, as well).
The Tour de France Femmes will be presented by NBC Sports on apps such as Peacock and CNBC, according to VeloNews. This television coverage is unusual for female cycling, especially in the United States. Many cycling races are not televised, especially in the United States, which allows sponsors that create these teams to have much exposure to the global economy which in turn means that many teams fold after a few years and riders are often left scrambling for new teams to ride on every few seasons.
NBC Sports presenting the eight-day stage race on American television should be helpful in allowing these teams to have more exposure and be able to provide a more stable outlook for their athletes.
Many current female professional cyclists, according to a survey produced by Cyclists’ Alliance, make less than $12,000 per year and many female cyclists do not even get paid or have to work a second job.
Photo taken from: Cycling News / Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
These financial burdens are also on top of long training hours, travel to get to races during the season, and also the high physical risk and danger associated with professional cycling. According to Canadian Cycling Magazine, in December 2021, WorldTour male cyclists made a minimum salary of $60,000 per year. The pay disparity between the two sets of elite professional cyclists leaves much to be desired, especially for female athletes.
There have been several attempts at hosting a female Tour de France that dates back to the mid-1980s, but nothing stuck. Christian Prudhomme, the race director of the Tour de France, claims that this is because female racing is a quick way to lose money. While many female riders and team directors have blamed race organizers and other governmental bodies for not supporting, and investing in female cycling for decades.
Le Tour de France Femmes is an opportunity that is not often given to the female peloton; an eight-day stage race on global television, particularly American television, at the same time as the hype and excitement of the Tour de France.
The potential for teams and riders to showcase their talents on the world’s biggest cycling stage, and with high potential for sponsors and investors to see their achievements is entirely game changing. Let’s hope that this type of investment continues and that we start to see more coverage of women’s professional cycling.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The Cyclists’ Alliance Rider Survey ( https://cyclistsalliance.org/2017/12/the-cyclists-alliance-rider-survey/ )
2022 Tour de France Femmes ( https://www.letourfemmes.fr/en/ )
Preview of US Senate Races in Pennsylvania and Georgia
Preview of US Senate Races in Pennsylvania and Georgia
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #38 | By: Ian Milden | June 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: The Hill
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politcs policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Marc Levy and Seth Wenig / WHYY
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Control of the U.S. Senate will be up for grabs in the 2022 mid-term elections. Competitive races in key states will determine the balance of power. In this brief, I will preview the competitive races in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Policy Analysis
In Pennsylvania, Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman (D-PA) will face Dr. Mehmet Oz (R-PA) in the general election for the US Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA). Fetterman has been elected statewide, initially winning his current job in the 2018 midterm elections. Fetterman hails from Braddock, Pennsylvania in the western part of the state. He has not been campaigning as he recovers from a stroke. Dr. Oz is well-known due to his television show, although he is relatively untested as a candidate for public office. Dr. Oz has faced scrutiny over his business dealings. For example, his family business was fined for hiring undocumented workers. Dr. Oz won his primary over David McCormick by less than 1000 votes.
A recent poll from USA Today and Suffolk University has Dr. Oz down by nine percentage points due to Republicans not being fully consolidated behind Oz’s candidacy after a tense primary. Dr. Oz will have some work to do over the next several months to convince Republicans to support him in November. Expect the race to get tighter in the coming months as Dr. Oz works on repairing the fractures within his own party.
In Georgia, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) is running for a full term against former NFL player Herschel Walker (R-GA). Warnock won the special election to replace retiring Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) after ending up in a runoff with appointed Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA). Warnock is the pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
Photo taken from: NPR
(click or tap to enlargen)
During his time in the Senate, Warnock has advocated for raising the minimum wage and reinforcing voting rights through the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. His opponent, Herschel Walker. became famous for playing college football for the University of Georgia. He later played in the NFL, most notably for the Dallas Cowboys. Walker is untested as a candidate for public office.
Republicans in Georgia largely threw their support behind him after he was endorsed by Donald Trump. A lack of serious vetting of Walker has led to media scrutiny of his personal life. It was discovered that Walker fathered a child with a woman who was not his wife and whom he has largely not been present for. Walker’s campaign later admitted to two additional children that Walker fathered. Walker had previously criticized men who leave their children in a radio interview. He has also been scrutinized for false statements about his career. A recent poll from East Carolina University’s survey research center finds that the race is tied.
According to the poll’s data, Walker has less support than Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) among non-college-educated voters and voters under the age of 65. These could be signs that Walker’s flaws as a candidate are weighing him down, but it is too early to tell. More time and additional data could provide additional insight. Even with Walker’s flaws as a candidate, Warnock will have a tough race in November due to the demographics of Georgia’s electorate, historical midterm trends, and Georgia having a runoff election if nobody gets a majority of the vote.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Fetterman’s Campaign Website
Warnock’s Campaign Website
While Men Fight for Their Land in Ukraine, Their Families Try to Survive in a Foreign Country
While Men Fight for Their Land in Ukraine, Their Families Try to Survive in a Foreign Country
Foreign Policy Brief #138 | By: Yelena Korshunov | June 16, 2022
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
All photos in this brief are provided by ARFA
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
I’m speaking with a man who was on his way to fight for his country, Ukraine, that was invaded by Russia’s troops on February 24, 2022. He packed his bag in his Brooklyn house to cross the Atlantic Ocean, back to the land where he was born. He was almost done with packing when his close relative stepped in. “You can do much more for Ukraine if you stay in America. You can help those who arrive here from Ukraine with a hope to keep their children safe and alive,” she said. “Ultimately, someone should do that here. Someone who speaks their language and has a big heart like you.” This man’s name is Yan Yufit.
I phoned him to speak about his mission. Yan is a founder of ARFA, which stands for American Revival Foundation Alliance. Since Ukrainian refugees started to arrive in the United States, he and his team are first responders to meet the needs of those – mostly women with children, and elderly people – whose lives were ruined by the war.
-When was your organization born? – I asked.
-We started four years ago in Ukraine, mostly helping Holocaust survivors and collecting information about those whose lives were taken then. We planned to open a Holocaust museum in Odessa. That time we were invited to the Babiy Yar anniversary in Kiev where we met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, Israeli and German presidents, and with many other activists and politicians. But when Putin’s army attacked Ukraine spreading enormous violence over this land, we switched our endeavors to help Ukrainian refugees and those who dedicated their lives to protect Ukraine. We don’t really trust big organizations because they spend a significant part of donations to pay their employees, rent facilities, etc. Nobody knows what part of this money goes to those people who are in need of them.
Conversely, we started our activity by spending our own money and attracting volunteers. Here are the names of people in my team who willingly dedicate their time and money: Irina Chmeleva, Yaroslav Litvinov, Natalie Knyazeva, Vadim Mednikov, Ilona Elias, and Tatiana Golyak. One of our friends, Svetlana Zelinskaya, who has a beauty salon, gave us a space on certain days and hours to collect and distribute supplies for refugees, e.g. clothes, kitchen appliances, toys, and many other things. Then we realized that refugees are in dramatic need of legal help, so we found a lawyer and a paralegal who joined the team to voluntarily support refugees with legal advice, filling out applications, and filing them.
We distributed food that was randomly donated, but recently we made an agreement with the Food Bank of New York, and last Saturday they delivered food that was distributed to many refugees and the other people in need. Our efforts have now started to attract politicians’ attention. Steven Simblevitz, NYS assemblyman of District 45, helped us to partner with KingsBay Y which provided us with a facility for food distribution on Saturdays.
We are located in Brooklyn, New York, and about 2,000 refugees have already applied to us for different kinds of help. ARFA helps them to get medical insurance, open a bank account, and get a driver license. We have opened free English language classes that are voluntarily led by professional educators. We even have a children psychologist who helps kids who went through the horror of war and suffer from psychological trauma. Recently, the HRA representative came to us to consult people, and we expect him to do that soon on a weekly basis.
-You don’t spend much money on advertising ARFA, so where do you find volunteers?
-It’s mostly a word of mouth. Many people with diverse backgrounds and nationalities come to us offering their hands and time. Pediatrician Boris Ripa donated twenty boxes with baby meals. There are several businesses that donated twenty multi cookers and twelve boxes with new children’s clothes. At the Ukrainian event at Times Square we met a famous Ukrainian actor Vladimir Goryanskiy who will direct the Children’s School of Arts. Eight refugees created crafts that were sold at the Ukrainian festival on Staten Island.
ARFA earned there more than $1,000 to spend for refugees’ needs. We bought and sent to the hospital in Kropyvnytskyi (a city in Ukraine) a 3D Printer that is unique for that area and will be used for making medical first aid supplies. We also sent supplies to the Ukrainian regiment in Mykolaiv, and we sent warm blankets to another regiment. We also bought free food for people in Kyiv and Kharkiv that was distributed by local volunteers.
-I’m wondering what ARFA’s challenges are, if there are any?
-The biggest problem is that we do all these things with our own limited money, and we don’t have any financing except for private donations. Another big challenge is finding a facility where we could collect, store, and distribute things for refugees, provide them with legal help, and conduct classes for children and adults.
A lot of refugees arrive in the US without having any money and basic necessities, like hygiene products. Our friend that offered us space in her beauty salon got in trouble with her landlord who couldn’t believe that we do so much work for so many people for free, without getting a profit. If we have financing, we could attract more professionals and offer more support to Ukrainians who drastically need it.
-Although refugees have multiple vital needs, which of them is a priority?
-The priority is housing and work. The biggest problem is that without work and good credit history they can’t rent a room or apartment. Some homeowners want them to pay for half a year ahead. But how can people who were forced to escape their homes under shelling have so much money? All they have is clothes on them and their terrified children.
-How long does it take to get a status that permits refugees to work in the US?
-It’s a very long process. Within four months since the war in Ukraine started and refugees ran to the US, none of these people who applied to us received a document that allows them to legally work. Our attorneys filed applications for many refugees more than three months ago, but they are still waiting and struggling to survive. They are in unbelievable poverty, many of them don’t even have money to ride a subway. They walk miles to get free food that we deliver, or to receive legal advice.
-It’s so hard even to imagine what these people are going through.
-There are so many stories that are terrifying. There is a female refugee in Brooklyn who worked as a police officer in Kyiv. Her parents live in occupied Kherson. Someone brought information about her police service to the Russian occupants’ headquarter in Kherson, and now they are treating her parents demanding that she must come back to Kherson and be prosecuted, otherwise they will be in real trouble. And there is no way for these poor people to escape occupied territory and save their lives.
There is another woman with three children (one of them is autistic) whose husband was killed the second day of the war. There are many other Ukrainian children here, in Brooklyn, whose dads fight in Ukraine against its occupants or have already lost their lives in the war.
Policy Analysis
Recently, after the war started, NYS governor Kathy Hochul stated “On behalf of 20 million New Yorkers, I am here to say with resolve in my heart, that we stand against this tyranny, and condemn Putin’s unjust and inhumane violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. And we will stand with Ukraine and its people now, and forever more. New York is with you. We will always be with you. The United States of America will be with you.”
But beyond these pathetic words, there are thousands of Ukrainian refugees that don’t have a place to live in, and don’t have basic needs, like food and medical help. They can’t even obtain permission to work to be able to buy food for their kids.
There is a website with some resources created for “Ukrainian people” by New York State, offering translation in eleven languages, including Russian, but paradoxically none of these languages is Ukrainian. And in fact, sadly, after reaching out to these resources, refugees run into a wall of bureaucracy.
As a result of this nonsense, we have many hardworking people who are not allowed by our slow bureaucratic machine to earn money for rent and for even simplest human living, while people like Yan Yufit and his ARFA team members who work hard on full-time jobs spend money from their own pockets, time after work, and endeavor to help these people.
Patriotic speeches don’t protect, feed or cure hungry, frightened kids, whereas giving their caregivers permission to work would make a big difference in their lives.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Uniting for Ukraine. https://www.uscis.gov/ukraine
Help Center ARFA: American Revival Foundation Alliance.
https://www.facebook.com/ARFAhelps/
Governor’s Website with Resources for Ukrainian People. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-launches-website-resources-ukrainian-people-and-their-allies-new-york
NYS Stands with Ukraine: Resources for Ukrainians and how New Yorkers can help. https://www.ny.gov/new-york-state-stands-ukraine-resources-ukrainians-and-how-new-yorkers-can-help
New Charges Filed Against Proud Boys
New Charges Filed Against Proud Boys
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #37 | By: Stephen Thomas | June 13, 2022
Header photo taken from: ABC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & poltics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Click Orlando
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As of this writing, none of the five members of the Proud Boys who received two additional Capitol riot charges June 6 have pleaded guilty. The group faces nine charges in all in connection with the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The case is before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The riot interrupted the congressional counting of the electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election, which President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris won—despite Republican lies to the contrary.
The defendants include Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Fla., the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Wash.; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Fla.; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, N.Y. All are detained.
The two additional charges include one count of seditious conspiracy and one count of conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties, according to the Justice Department.
The other seven charges against this fivesome include conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings; obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting; obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder and aiding and abetting; destruction of government property and aiding and abetting; and two counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers. This list of charges comes directly from the grand jury superseding indictment dated June 6.
A sixth defendant in this group of defendants, Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, N.C., pleaded guilty April 8 to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers, according to a Justice Department news release.
That same news release reads that the Proud Boys describe themselves as a “pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world, aka Western Chauvinists.”
Policy Analysis
The practical definitions of the two added charges come from a plain reading of the United States Code, which is a compilation of federal statutes passed by Congress and signed by the president. These are statutes, not “regulations,” the latter of which are written by government agencies and do not pass through the legislative process.
This is the unedited federal statute that defines seditious conspiracy (Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2384):
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
The following is the unedited federal statute that defines conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging any duties. (This is Title 18 U.S. Code Section 372. The title of the offense differs between the indictment and the statute; nevertheless, this is indeed the code number that the indictment identifies.):
“If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
Photo taken from: KNWA
(click or tap to enlargen)
The indictment contains allegations, which federal prosecutors must prove in any cases that go to trial. Prosecutors have a lot of ammunition to work with. If the government can prove some of the facts contained in the indictment, then it has a solid case against these five defendants.
For instance, on the seditious conspiracy charge alone, according to the indictment, prosecutors believe they can show that the defendants conspired to “oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power.” The indictment alleges the fivesome did the following—and this is the tip of the iceberg:
- Used “programmable handheld radios,” encrypted applications, and other means of communication in the “attack,”
- Mobilized and led the crowd into the Capitol,
- Dismantled and “stormed past” metal barricades (bypassing and even assaulting law enforcement officers), and
- Destroyed property, including fencing and a window.
Then, there is the charge of preventing an officer from discharging any duties. On this additional count, the government must show that the defendants conspired to forcibly “induce” members of Congress and law enforcement personnel “to leave the place where their duties as officers were required to be performed.”
Here, it is obvious that Congress evacuated to safety, in so doing delaying the electoral vote count. Additionally, injury and death were inflicted on law enforcement in the attack. Proving that the defendants were a part of a conspiracy is one thing, but it is a given that the attack resulted in those repercussions.
Keep in mind that the government has a wealth of video footage and witnesses to help make the charges stick, should any of these defendants go to trial. No wonder a sixth defendant who was charged with this group struck a plea deal.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Superseding Indictment
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/download
Justice Department News Release
Seditious Conspiracy
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2384
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
Conspiracy to Prevent an Officer from Discharging Any Duties
This charge is also known as “Conspiracy to impede or injure officer”
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 372
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #9
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #9
Foreign Policy Brief #137 | By: Abran C | June 14, 2022
Header photo taken from: Axios
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Anatolii Stepanov / Politico
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Over 100 days into Russia’s war on Ukraine, there is still no end in sight. Russia now controls a large swath of Ukrainian territory that extends from around Ukraine’s second city of Kharkiv, through the separatist-held cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, and westward to the city of Kherson, forming a land bridge linking the captured territory to the Crimean peninsula. Russia’s focus has turned toward the Donbas and Luhansk regions in Eastern Ukraine, with heavy fighting now centering around Severodonetsk, an industrial city, and the last sliver of the Luhansk region still under Ukrainian control.
Ukrainian and British officials this past weekend warned that Russian forces were using unconventional weapons that have caused mass casualties as they try to make headway in capturing eastern Ukraine. Serhiy Haidai the head of the Luhansk regional military government accused Russian forces of beginning carpet-bombing campaigns across Eastern cities. Additionally, the UK Defense Ministry claimed that Russian bombers have likely been launching heavy Kh-22 missiles, a 1960s-era anti-ship missile that is highly inaccurate but specializes in causing widespread indiscriminate collateral damage and casualties.
Policy Analysis
In an effort to continue support for a war-torn Ukraine, President Biden announced on June 1, 2022, that the US would be sending a more advanced rocket system, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, which launches rockets that can go around 49 miles. This is a far greater range than anything Ukraine has been sent to date. More than $5 billion in security assistance has been sent to Ukraine since Biden took office last year. The Biden administration has been careful to ensure that while supporting Ukraine’s war effort with weapons, it would not send munitions that could be used to strike targets inside Russia and implicate the US in an attack on Russian soil.
Sanctions unfortunately up to now have not halted the military assault, but there is still hope that a promise to lift them could eventually bring Russia to the negotiating table.
Yet as of right now the Russian rouble actually saw an increase in value, it has risen 16% against the greenback and is up 150% since it tanked just days after Russia’s invasion over three months ago.
Photos taken from: Reuters, Getty
(click or tap to enlargen)
This can be explained by the collapse in imports while exports, such as oil and gas, have continued relatively unabated.
Russia has even reopened its now-former Mcdonald’s restaurants after the company cut business ties within the country. The restaurants have been rebranded as Vkusno-i tochka which translates to “Tasty and that’s it” in an obvious effort to present an appearance of normalcy to Russian citizens.
Though Russia’s economy has rebounded somewhat, the knock-on effects of sanctions for years to come should still be of great concern to the Kremlin. This is true not only for Russia but Central Asian states which have economies intertwined with it, along with large numbers of international workers in Russia who send back remittances that help prop up Central Asian economies and secure Russian influence in the region.
Remittances in Tajikistan amounted to 34% of GDP in 2021, 33% for the Kyrgyz Republic, and 12% in Uzbekistan. The war and sanctions may also damage Russia’s connections with Central Asian countries in the long term if economic hardship becomes widespread in the region on account of the Kremlin’s actions.
Should Religious Organizations Continue To Receive Federal Grants For Social Service Programs?
Should Religious Organizations Continue To Receive Federal Grants For Social Service Programs?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #188 | By: | June 13, 2022
Header photo taken from: Forbes
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Center for Religion and Civic Culture
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On August 31, 2021 H.R. 5129 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill was the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022. This bill reauthorized a continued funding of the Community Services Block Grant Program which makes grants to States, territories, Indian tribes and other non – governmental entities for government programs to help reduce poverty, empower residents of low – income communities and encourage businesses and other organizations to expand opportunities for all individuals. Included in organizations that are eligible for these grants are faith – based organizations (FBO).
However, the grant of taxpayer monies to faith – based organizations has been controversial. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]” Due to the complications that were likely to develop with FBO’s receiving direct financial assistance from the states and the federal government in spite of a tradition that was supposed to keep church and state separate, a set of rules known as “Charitable Choice” rules were introduced in various statutes and regulations.
Generally, faith – based organizations ran government assistance programs and competed with other non – faith based groups for the award of government monies. The Charitable Choice rules helped to clarify the legal standards for an award of monies to an FBO. The rules required the government to neither favor nor oppose faith – based applicants and not interfere in the internal operations of religious organizations that receive federal funds. As a practical matter, if a beneficiary of a social service program did not want the assistance to be administered by a faith – based group, such as a church, the beneficiary was entitled to be reassigned to a secular organization, hence the “choice” of the Charitable Choice rules. A beneficiary would not be forced to attend a faith based group in order to receive the benefits of a social services program.
With H.R. 5129 just passed by the House, these Charitable Choice rules were suddenly omitted from the reauthorization of funds for the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
So what happened? Why was the framework of “Charitable Choice” rules omitted from the law that sought to continue the flow of federal monies to states and other institutions for social service programs?
One reason why the rules were likely left out is because of pressure from the ongoing debate in the U.S. concerning whether religious organizations and churches can rely on their faith and religious teachings to discriminate against other persons, such as LGBQT people. When faith – based organizations were awarded these grants to run social service assistance programs, there was an understanding that the monies would only be used to provide assistance in much the same manner that secular groups provide assistance. No monies would be used for worship, preaching or proselytizing activities, and most FBO’s did their best to comply.
President George W. Bush helped to clarify the standards used in granting the monies and helped streamline the process of awarding the monies through the creation of the White House Office of Faith Based & Community Initiatives. The Office conducted audits and helped train officials in the process of federal grant applications. But President Bush also made a key move by permitting only religious groups to use an exemption from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This exemption allowed religious groups to discriminate among persons because of their religious beliefs even though they were allowed to continue receiving federal funds. When President Barack Obama in 2014 classified sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class for the purpose of anti – discrimination laws, a conflict with religious groups was set in motion.
Photo taken from: Rolling Stone
(click or tap to enlargen)
Should religious groups who receive taxpayer funds to help administer social service programs be permitted to discriminate against LGBQT groups while receiving those funds? While the Charitable Choice rules first implemented in 1996 seemingly made an accommodation for religious groups to receive taxpayer funds and administer social service programs, it appears that the Democrats in the House are looking to change that framework with H.R. 5129. Allowing a religious group to take federal dollars and then turn its back and discriminate against LGBQT groups will no longer be tolerated and may be coming to an end. Religious groups shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.
If a religious group wants federal dollars then it should be compelled to abide by the anti – discrimination laws that all other groups – secular, non – religious – have to follow. This is the message H.R. 5129 sent when it was passed – that the government will no longer distribute tax payer dollars to religious organizations that refuse to comply with its anti – discrimination laws.
Religious groups may not like it but it seems pointless to continue sending taxpayer dollars to groups who refuse to discontinue their discrimination of other people. While H.R. 5129’s future is uncertain in the Senate it is clear that support for discrimination based on faith and religious reasons may be waning and H.R. 5129 could be the first step to do away with this religious based exemption for good. LEARN MORE
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.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Freedom From Religion Foundation – non – profit’s group on the passage of H.R. 5129.
Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance – history of Charitable Choice rules and how the government deals with federal funds for religious groups.
The Center Lane is Wide Open
The Center Lane is Wide Open
U.S. Resist News Op Ed | By: John Halpin |
June 7, 2022
Header photo taken from: Mike Blake / Reuters
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more U.S. Resist News Op Eds from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Mod DB
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After the Democratic primaries in 2020, Joe Biden’s comeback victory over more left-leaning opponents was hailed as a triumph for his traditional brand of pragmatic centrism and bipartisan cooperation that later enabled him to win a decisive popular vote majority over Donald Trump in the general election. Biden swooped into office promising to “end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.”
A year and half later, this center ground appears all but abandoned and out of reach—for both President Biden and former President Trump.
According to fresh new polling from Global Progress and YouGov, conducted among more than 10,000 respondents in 9 leading democracies, an eye-catching 44 percent of Americans today place President Biden on either the very left-wing (30 percent) or somewhat left-wing (14 percent) side of the ideological scale. Only 12 percent of Americans place Biden directly in the center of the political spectrum, with another 14 percent placing him on the center-left.
Perceptions of former President Trump are even more extreme: nearly 4 in 10 Americans place Trump on the very right-wing side of the political scale and another 17 percent see him as somewhat right-wing. A mere 7 percent of Americans place Trump in the ideological center and another 8 percent on the center right.
Likewise, about one third of Americans overall view the Democratic Party as very left-wing and an equal percentage view the Republican Party as very right-wing. Only around 10 percent of Americans place either Democrats or Republicans in the center of the ideological spectrum, respectively.
In stark contrast to perceptions of their national leaders and the two parties, one quarter of Americans place themselves directly in the center of the ideological spectrum, with another 18 percent placing themselves either on the center-left or center-right in equal percentages. Only 1 in 10 Americans place themselves on either the far left or the far right, respectively. There’s clearly a wide gulf between how Americans conceive of their own politics versus those represented by their national leaders and the two political parties.
Part of the explanation for this divergence lies in partisan interpretations of opposition leaders and parties in the United States.
For example, more than 7 in 10 Trump voters place President Biden on the very left-wing side of the ideological scale compared to less than 10 percent of Biden voters who think similarly. In turn, 6 in 10 Biden voters place former President Trump on the very right-wing extreme of the spectrum—nearly double the percentage of Trump voters who label their own guy as far right.
These patterns are repeated on views of the two parties: 73 percent of Trump voters place the Democratic Party on the very left-wing side of the ideological spectrum while 62 percent of Biden voters place the Republican Party on the very right-wing side. In comparison, only 12 percent of Biden voters place the Democratic Party on the far left and only 15 percent of Trump voters place the Republican Party on the far right.
These data suggest that regardless of what national leaders do or say in politics these days, most voters from the opposition party are likely to view them as ideologically extreme.
Policy Analysis
This does not happen to the same degree in other countries according to the new Global Progress/YouGov data.
In the United Kingdom, for example, most British citizens view Labour Party leader Keir Starmer as slightly left-of-center (26 percent) and another 1 in 10 place him directly in the center. Only 8 percent of British people view Starmer as very left-wing—more than three times lower than the percentage of Americans who label Biden as very left-wing.
Even among Conservative voters from 2019, only 15 percent place Starmer on the far left with most seeing him as fairly left-wing or slightly left-of-center. In turn, most British citizens label Prime Minister Boris Johnson as fairly right-wing (28 percent), above the 16 percent who place him on the far right of the ideological scale. Labour voters from 2019 are more likely to view Johnson’s ideology as fairly right-wing rather than as very right-wing.
The pattern is repeated in Germany, Sweden, and Norway where current Social Democratic and Labour party leaders are all seen as more center-left than far left by citizens of their respective countries. Only 4 percent of Germans place Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the far-left side of the ideological spectrum, with most locating him in the center. Only 7 percent of Swedes place Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson on the far left with nearly one third seeing her as slightly left-of-center. Only 6 percent of Norwegians place Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on the very left-wing side of the scale with a plurality seeing him as center-left.
Interestingly, in France nearly 4 in 10 citizens place President Emmanuel Macron on the slightly right-of-center or fairly right-wing side of the ideological scale.
Charts taken from: The Liberal Patriot
(click or tap to enlargen)
So, what’s going on? Why do Americans seem to view their leaders in such extreme ways compared to those in other democracies?
Perhaps citizens in European countries with multi-party systems have a keener understanding of the gradations of political ideology than do Americans with their two-party system. Perhaps citizens in these countries assess their leaders and parties more fairly than do Americans who appear to think most of their leaders are extremists. Perhaps the leaders in these European countries are more centrist in temperament and in practice than those in American politics.
More likely than not, American citizens are not any worse or better than others at understanding political ideology, and a leader like President Biden is not any more left-wing than his social democratic peers in Europe.
The difference in evaluations probably lies in the sorry state of national political discourse in the United States today. Americans operate under a daily barrage of culture war battles in the media along with constant partisan accusations of national treachery and radicalism hurled at opponents. In a context where all politics is presented as a zero-sum ideological fight for moral supremacy, many Americans are primed by media elites, social media trolls, and the billion dollar campaign industrial complex to view their leaders, particularly those from another party, as extremists. Sane Americans respond by tuning out the nonsense and turning away from politics altogether.
Chart taken from: Gallup / Knight Foundation
(click or tap to enlargen)
Yet, for America to flourish and overcome its biggest economic and security challenges, we all need to ratchet down the actual crazy politics—as well as the nonstop accusations of extremism for otherwise normal behavior and policy positions. Americans need to get out of the doom cycle of anger and mistrust that fuels partisan polarization. Those running our media and political institutions also need to relearn the art of measured political coverage and reasonable debate.
Although our politics seems hopelessly divided between the extremes, the center lane is still open to any political leader, party, or citizen willing to move over and occupy the space. To do this, Donald Trump needs an entirely different mode of politics to earn a legitimate second chance from a majority of American voters. In turn, Joe Biden needs to permanently shift back to the center lane where he started out—and be perceived as doing so by more Americans—if he wants to be reelected in 2024. And Americans themselves need to take a break from political combat and start rewarding those leaders who genuinely occupy the political center and stand up for the well-being of the entire nation.
What to Expect During the First January 6th Committee Open Hearings
What to Expect During the First January 6th Committee Open Hearings
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #37 | By: Maureen Darby-Serson | June 6nd, 2022
Header photo taken from: NBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Yahoo
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On Thursday June 2nd, the January 6th committee announced when it would hold its first round of public hearings. The first open hearing will be Thursday, June 9th at 8pm. Primetime. No other details were released, but more information would be made available next week. For example, no witness list was published.
This announcement was made a day after former Republican Congressman Denver Riggleman called text messages on Mark Meadow’s phone scary. He then went on to described Meadows as the “MVP” for the committee and that the texts showed a “roadmap” to the January 6th riots, starting as early as November 3rd.
In addition to the public hearing announcement, the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against Former Trump White House Official Peter Navarro for failing to comply with a subpoena the January 6th committee sent to him months ago. He has spent his time since he was served with the subpoena fighting in court representing himself unsuccessfully. Normally, the DOJ allows an individual to self-surrender, but they considered Navarro a flight risk, so they arrested him at an airport in Nashville. He faces up to one year in prison.
Policy Analysis
So, what should you expect on the first days of the hearings? Assuming it is like most committee hearings, each member will get time to make an opening statement. This will set the stage for the future public hearings and will likely give the first look into the overarching findings of the committee.
They have spent months combing through thousands of emails and text messages, looking through intelligence data, and speaking with witnesses present on that day. These smaller details will likely be presented in later public hearings.
Mark Meadow’s text messages and information from him seem to be a big player in the committee’s investigations and will likely be a large part of these public hearings.
Photo taken from: CNN
(click or tap to enlargen)
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
January 6th Committee Hearings – https://january6th.house.gov/committee_activity
Anderson Cooper Interview with Denver Riggleman
Is Your Drinking Water Safe?
Is Your Drinking Water Safe?
Environment Policy Brief #143 | By: Roarke Cullenbine | May 31, 2022
Header photo taken from: Environmental Law Monitor
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: PBS
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Water pollution is a serious epidemic in the US, impacting hundreds of thousands. With the US ranking twenty-third in the world for tap water safety, great progress is necessary to keep citizens out of the hospital from consuming either lead, diesel, or pathogens in their water supplies. With few additions to the dated 1972 Clean Water Act, impurity of America’s drinking water is not improving. With 50 percent of US water being so polluted that it is unusable, water pollution threatens the health of many Americans, especially minority populations. 75% of African-Americans are more likely to live near facilities that create hazardous waste and communities with 25% or more of Latinx residents live in communities that have double the water purity violation rates. It is essential that both federal and local governments be kept accountable for regulating the water that its citizens rely on for survival.
Some hope may be on the way with the recent passing of President Biden’s $55 billion allocation to improve water treatment systems through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. However, this is set to target the replacement of lead water systems and not to resolve other threats.
Policy Analysis
When your faucet is turned on, how confident are you that the clear, dispensed liquid is truly pure drinking water? If you live in, for example, Austria, Finland, Malta, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom, chances are that your faith was placed in the right hands. However, if you live in Israel, Cyprus, Canada, or the United States, the odds aren’t so favorable.
Why is the United States on this list? With the U.S, being the richest country in the world, why is the quality of its drinking water so disappointing? Why do our water emergencies continue, threatening innocent lives, such as the 1 million citizens having to boil their water in Austin, Texas, or the tap water in Oahu being contaminated with over 350 times the safe amount of diesel fuel for human consumption; or the infamous water crisis in Flint, Michigan, that today still is having adverse effects on its citizens. This is all not to mention the serious adverse impacts water pollution is having on US wildlife such as the ongoing threat to Florida’s manatees or, local to my home, Maryland’s famous blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
With the passing of Biden’s Infrastructure Law, $55 billion was allocated to implement better drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. Despite great historical resistance from the Republican Party, the Infrastructure Law’s passing shows that legitimate access to clean water can be a non-partisan issue.
Those that support clean water accessibility should contact their state representatives, regardless of party, and advocate for this issue to remain on the Congress floor. For those areas currently impacted by polluted waters, direct change can be promoted within the state level through citizen participation in grassroot organizations and speaking when local government is in session. While some organizations to get involved can be found below, a simple Google search for organizations in your area can be all the change necessary to create a better nation for tomorrow.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The NDRC is a legal advocacy group, dedicated to combat issues of climate change and all negative consequences it brings. Founded in 1970, the NDRC has over 700 staff with over 2 million members.
https://naacp.org/know-issues/environmental-climate-justice
Formed in 1909, the NAACP is a legal advocacy group primarily concerned with the elimination of race-based discrimination. As a mission for climate justice, a part of this discrimination includes advocating for the many minority communities that receive the greater weight of adverse climate change effects.
https://environmentamerica.org/
A political lobbying organization, Environment America advocates for new legislation to address the climate crisis within US communities. Founded in 2007, Environment America lobbies as a national network of 30 state environmental groups to better bolster change across the US.
https://bluewaterbaltimore.org/
An example of a local organization, Blue Water Baltimore is a grassroots organization that advocates for the restoration of clean water within the City of Baltimore’s rivers, streams, and famous harbor. With ongoing challenges to the purity of the Chesapeake Bay, local organizations such as Blue Water Baltimore make it possible to combat big problems at the local level.