Ocasio-Cortez rails against both Democrats and Republicans who opposed $2,000 direct payments

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a series of tweets on Monday called out her colleagues who oppose $2,000 direct coronavirus relief payments to Americans, asking lawmakers to "err on the side of helping people" as the House voted to increase the aid from the $600 approved last week.

"Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of 'personal responsibility' refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in one of several tweets.

Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of "personal responsibility" refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

The House voted 275-134 Monday evening to up the size of coronavirus aid checks to taxpayers, sending the measure, which is supported by President Trump, to the Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced his intention to pass the legislation on Tuesday if no Republican lawmakers try to block the action, which is likely.

Bloomberg congressional reporter Erik Wasson tweeted that Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.) is against the payments, reportedly saying, "People who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact by Covid-19 do not need checks."

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Wasson, pointing out that aid is set to phase out for people who make more than $75,000.

"Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions," she asked, listing multiple reasons she believed Schrader was wrong for opposing the checks. "If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it's already tied to outdated income info, don't make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Ocasio-Cortez also called out Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) for reportedly saying people would only use the payments to pay off credit card debt or "new purchases online at Walmart, Best Buy or Amazon."

"I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place." - GOP Congressman https://t.co/BpfuvkKg9h- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Fellow progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Monday said he would oppose the Senate's vote to override Trump's veto of the annual defense bill unless the direct payments measure gets a vote in the upper chamber.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez parodied GOP stance against $2,000 stimulus checks in a sarcastic tweet

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., attends a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, July 17, 2019. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clapped back at a GOP congressman who opposed $2,000 stimulus checks, parodying his reason for opposing them.

The House passed a bill boosting the stimulus check totals on Monday. The vote now moves to the Senate, where passage is unlikely.

GOP Rep. Kevin Brady said he opposed $2,000 stimulus checks because the money would go toward paying off credit card debt and "new purchases online at Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Amazon."

The congresswoman from New York replied to Brady's statement with a parodied rephrasing of his reasoning.

"'I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place.' - GOP Congressman," the progressive congresswoman tweeted Monday night.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clapped back at GOP congressman's reasoning against $2,000 stimulus checks in a tweet Monday night.

President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan coronavirus relief package on Sunday, which included $600 stimulus payments for Americans, $300 weekly federal unemployment benefits into mid-March, $25 billion in rental assistance, as well as aid for small businesses and funding for education and vaccine distribution.

Upon announcing that he signed the bill, the president also reiterated his calls on Congress to raise the stimulus checks to $2,000 - a goal he shares with many Democrats and some Republicans.

On Monday, the House achieved the required two-thirds majority to pass a bill boosting the stimulus check totals.

The bill now moves to the GOP-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to pass. Though some in the GOP, like Sen. Marco Rubio, have signaled they support $2,000 checks.

Video: Trump urges $2,000 COVID stimulus payments (FOX News)

Read more: Trump signs bipartisan coronavirus relief bill after calling on Congress to approve $2,000 stimulus checks

Some GOP voices, however, oppose the $2,000 stimulus checks. GOP Rep. Kevin Brady said on the House floor that he did not approve of increasing the stimulus checks, saying that the money would go toward paying off credit card debt and "new purchases online at Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Amazon."

He argued that the money should be spent on helping small and mid-sized businesses. His speech was then paraphrased in a tweet by HuffPost's Matt Fuller.

Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent progressive voice and advocate for increasing the stimulus checks, slammed Brady's reasoning behind his opposition, replying to his statement with a parodied rephrasing.

"'I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place.' - GOP Congressman," the progressive congresswoman tweeted Monday night.

In another tweet, Ocasio-Cortez tore into the group of GOP members who opposed lines of the package pushed by House Democrats, including the $2,000 stimulus checks.

"Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of 'personal responsibility' refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc," the New York congresswoman wrote.

Read the original article on Business Insider

'Err on the Side of Helping People': AOC Slams Blue Dog Democrat for Opposing $2,000 Relief Checks

"Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions?" the congresswoman asked, after Rep. Kurt Schrader claimed direct payments would provide too much support to people "making six figure incomes."

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Common Dreams



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol on December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York pilloried Rep. Kurt Schrader after the Oregon Democrat voted against an amendment to increase one-time direct payments to most Americans from $600 to $2,000, which passed the House on Monday when 44 Republicans joined 231 Democrats in supporting the bill now awaiting action in the Senate.

Schrader opposed the Caring for Americans With Supplemental Help (CASH) Act because, according to the lawmaker—whose net worth hovered close to $8 million in 2018—"people who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact[ed] by Covid-19 do not need checks."

Just over an hour after voicing his disapproval of bigger relief checks for the majority of U.S. households, Schrader voted in favor of overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), greenlighting more than $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021—and perfectly encapsulating what the ostensibly centrist, national security-minded Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of Democratic lawmakers to which Schrader belongs, means by "fiscal responsibility."

"First of all, aid starts phasing out at $75,000," Ocasio-Cortez began in her rebuttal to Schrader's statement, which was riddled with erroneous assertions. "It's already tied to outdated income information, don't make it worse," she continued, alluding to the fact that eligibility is based on 2019 tax returns.

Although individuals with incomes in the six-figure range are in fact not eligible for a full relief check, contrary to what Schrader suggested, Ocasio-Cortez reminded the Blue Dog Democrat that people who made $100,000 or more "also had income disrupted." Besides, she asked, "Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions?"

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it’s already tied to outdated income info, don’t make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you’re going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

According to Schrader, the CASH Act "is an ineffective and poorly targeted approach to aiding Americans in distress." He described the measure as "clearly a last-minute political maneuver by the president and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been largely absent during months of very hard negotiations."

Schrader was one of two House Democrats to vote against the amendment to increase relief checks from $600 to $2,000. He was joined by outgoing Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois and both voted to override Trump's NDAA veto, along with 210 other Democratic representatives.

As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on Monday night applauded the 20 House Democrats who "had the courage... to vote no on the bloated defense budget," which he said contributes to "changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people."

Schrader took a misleading jab at left-leaning lawmakers, accusing them of choosing "to tweet their opinions instead of coming to the table to get aid in the hands of Americans and small businesses that need it most," a bizzare claim given that direct payments to struggling people were "not even on the table" prior to the efforts of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to which Ocasio-Cortez belongs.

In addition to correcting the false information underlying Schrader's stated reasons for opposing the CASH Act, Ocasio-Cortez told the conservative lawmaker: "If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

AOC Rails Against Democrat for Opposing $2,000 Stimulus Checks

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has spoken out against a fellow Democrat who broke with the party in opposing an amendment to increase COVID-19 relief payments to $2,000, which passed in the House on Monday.

© Pool/Getty Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) appears remotely during a House Financial Services Committee oversight hearing in Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2020.

Ocasio-Cortez offered a list of remarks while responding to a tweet from Bloomberg reporter Erik Wasson, who quoted Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) saying that "people who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact by Covid-19 do not need checks" during debate over the bill from the House floor.

"1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, correctly noting that the legislation does not offer checks for individuals who are making "six figure incomes" as Schrader claimed.

"2. it's already tied to outdated income info, don't make it worse," she added. "3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted ... 4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions .... 5. If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it’s already tied to outdated income info, don’t make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you’re going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Schrader is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House who espouse "fiscal responsibility," along with a host of other centrist policies. The politics of Ocasio-Cortez, one of the chamber's most prominent progressives, fall considerably to the left of Schrader.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the Caring for Americans with Supplemental Help (CASH) Act to amend the previously passed $600 relief checks, increasing them to $2,000, on Monday. The move came after President Donald Trump demanded that the amount in the initial bill, which he later signed, be increased by the same amount. Despite Trump's insistence, it is not clear that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to approve the amendment.

A majority of House Democrats were joined by 44 Republicans who also voted in favor of the CASH Act, while Schrader was one of only two Democrats who opposed the measure. Schrader railed against the bill during debate before the vote, calling it a "political maneuver" by Trump and "extremist" Republicans and Democrats, while also taking aim at lawmakers who "tweet their opinions."

"This is an ineffective and poorly targeted approach to aiding Americans in distress," Schrader said. "It is clearly a last-minute political maneuver by the president and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been largely absent during months of very hard negotiations."

"They have chosen to tweet their opinions instead of coming to the table to get aid in the hands of Americans and small businesses that need it most," he added. "We've had nine months to fix this program to get it to people who need it most."

Newsweek reached out to Schrader's office for comment.

New York imposes 6-month moratorium on evictions, foreclosures


The Library Lions outside of the New York Public Library are outfitted with face masks and holiday Christmas wreaths in New York City on December 10. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 29 (UPI) -- New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has signed into law legislation that places a moratorium on evictions and foreclosure proceedings throughout the state in an effort to stop thousands of residents from losing their homes due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Cuomo signed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 on Monday soon after it passed the New York Senate 40 to 21 and the New York Assembly 99 to 47.

"As we fight our way through the marathon this pandemic has become, we need to make sure New Yorkers still have homes to provide that protection," Cuomo said in a statement. "This law adds to previous executive orders by protecting the needy and vulnerable to who, through no fault of their own, face eviction during an incredibly difficult period for New York."

The law places a moratorium on residential evictions for tenants who have "endured COVID-related hardship" until May 1, 2021. The Tenants must submit a declaration or document that states the hardship they have experienced to prevent eviction.

It also prohibits forecloses until May 1, 2021, on homeowners and small landlords who own 10 or fewer residential dwellings. They are also required to file a hardship declaration with their mortgage lender or other foreclosing party or court.

It also prohibits negative credit reporting and discrimination in extending credit for those who have fallen behind on mortgage payments for properties where they reside.

The law, however, does not absolve the financial obligations of renters or homeowners but provides a four-month pause, state Sen. Pete Harckham said in a statement.

"Ensuring that our friends and neighbors can remain in their homes during this extensive and unforeseen economic downturn was a necessary action," he said. "Allowing people to be put out into the streets during a pandemic is inhumane and will exacerbate the public health crisis."

The legislation was signed a day after President Donald Trump signed a $900 billion coronavirus relief bill, which included $1.3 billion in rent and eviction relief for the state that Sen. Chuck Schumer described as "historic and unprecedented."

New York has been one of the hardest-hit states to the pandemic, suffering more than 932,000 infections, including nearly 30,000 deaths.

Cuomo on Monday announced the state had received an 259,000 additional vaccine doses, 139,400 from Pfizer and 119,600 from Moderna.

New York Lawmakers Poised to Pass Nation's Strongest Eviction Ban as Millions Face Housing Insecurity

"It is not just unconscionable to evict people during a pandemic winter, it is deadly."

by Julia Conley, staff writer
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
Common Dreams


Tenants and housing activists gathered at Maria Hernandez Park for a rally and march in the streets of Bushwick, demanding the New York City administration cancel rent immediately as many New Yorkers remain strapped for cash and out of work. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)


Shortly after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced an extension of his eviction moratorium via executive order, the state legislature offered additional protection to renters on Monday, passing a bill that Democratic lawmakers called the strongest in the country.

The legislation passed in a vote of 40 to 21 in the state Senate and at the time of this writing was poised to pass in the state Assembly. 


Proud to preside over the passage of this important bill! New York now has the strongest COVID-19 eviction protections in the United States. pic.twitter.com/XNsqY7a1Zd
— Senator Brian Benjamin (@NYSenBenjamin) December 28, 2020

Both the state Senate and state Assembly convened remotely Monday for special sessions to pass the legislation, a day after President Donald Trump signed the $900 billion coronavirus relief bill which he had delayed approving for several days. As Common Dreams reported Monday, the president's delay could cost millions of people a full week in unemployment benefits, intensifying fears that families will struggle to make ends meet in the new year. 

Under New York's Covid-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act, tenants who are struggling to pay rent due to the coronavirus pandemic will be able to declare that they're facing a financial hardship due to lost income, increased medical or family care expenses, or inability to find employment due to the crisis. 

Tenants will not have to prove their financial hardship and will not be subjected to income limits. 

"By enacting this comprehensive residential eviction and foreclosure moratorium, we are delivering real protection for countless renters and homeowners who would otherwise be at risk of losing their homes, adding to the unprecedented hardship that so many are facing," state Sen. Brian Kavanagh, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said Sunday as the special session was announced.

Cuomo's eviction moratorium is set to expire on January 1, and currently blocks landlords from evicting tenants only if the renter can prove financial hardship. 

After courts in the state "have been remarkably unsympathetic to tenants' situations," Ellen Davidson, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society, told the New York Times, the new legislation is "going to save a lot of people's homes. It's going to save lives."

Under the legislation, which the Democratic governor is expected to sign, landlords will be barred from evicting tenants for the next 60 days in cases that are already underway in the court system. For renters who submit a new "Standardized Hardship Declaration Form" explaining their circumstances related to the pandemic, landlords will not be able to begin eviction proceedings until May 1. 

The bill will also protect landlords against foreclosure and tax liens if they own 10 or fewer properties and will prohibit negative credit reporting and credit discrimination against owners who fall behind on mortgage payments due to the pandemic. 

Ahead of the special sessions, Marcela Mitaynes and Jabari Brisport, who were recently elected to the state Assembly and the state Senate, respectively, wrote at New York Focus that a long-term eviction moratorium is "a matter of life and death" during a pandemic that has killed more than 37,000 New Yorkers. 

"The most basic task of legislators in a deadly pandemic is to keep as many people alive as possible," Mitaynes and Brisport wrote. "If we take that task seriously, we must stop all evictions immediately. What greater hypocrisy could there be than to urge people to socially distance and stay at home—and then stand by as they're forced out of those homes?"

On Twitter, New York City Council member Brad Lander added, "It is not just unconscionable to evict people during a pandemic winter, it is deadly."

It is not just unconscionable to evict people during a pandemic winter, it is deadly. https://t.co/0tlPLUftZl
— Brad Lander (@bradlander) December 21, 2020

Judith Goldiner, attorney in charge of the Civil Law Reform Unit at the Legal Aid Society, said in a statement ahead of the special sessions that the legislation "will establish a bulwark against eviction that is one of the, if not the, strongest moratoriums in the country."

Goldiner warned, though, that lawmakers must remain committed to helping struggling New Yorkers for the duration of the pandemic and the economic recession—however long it lasts.

"House lawmakers must remain open to enhancing this legislation if we find ourselves still severely mired in the pandemic come May," she said.

Coalition Sues Trump Administration Over 'Outrageous Assault' on Tongass National Forest Protections

"Trump's reckless plan to clearcut old-growth trees in the Tongass will irreversibly damage our climate, kill wildlife, and devastate Southeast Alaska communities."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, December 23, 2020
by Common Dreams


A humpback whale uses its tail to launch itself out of the water and then lands back on the surface with a splash in Frederick Sound at Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska. (Photo: Wolfgang Kaehler/LightRocket via Getty Images)

A coalition of Indigenous groups, businesses, and conservation organizations on Wednesday sued the Trump administration over its "arbitrary and reckless" removal of roadless protections for the nearly 17 million-acre Tongass National Forest in Alaska, warning that the rollback could devastate local communities, wildlife, and the climate.

Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed the lawsuit (pdf) in the U.S. District Court in Alaska on behalf of regional tribes, businesses, and conservation groups. The complaint notes that the largest national forest, located in Southeast Alaska, "is central to the life ways of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people who have lived in and depended on the forest since time immemorial."

The U.S. Forest Service's move to exempt the forest from the Roadless Rule, finalized just days before President Donald Trump lost reelection to President-elect Joe Biden, would open up more than nine million acres of the Tongass—with its centuries-old trees that provide crucial carbon sequestration—to logging and roadbuilding.

Here's the legal complaint, which lists just about everyone under the sun as a plaintiff: https://t.co/0Vmazdm6hM #akleg #akgov https://t.co/XzIpowfFDL
— James Brooks (@AK_OK) December 23, 2020

"The Tongass Forest is my home. Home to the ancient Tlingit and Haida Indigenous Nations, it is where my ancestry originates. My bloodline is Indigenous to this land—its DNA is my DNA," said Kashudoha Wanda Loescher Culp, a Tlingit activist and Tongass coordinator for the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN). "The air we breathe, the water we depend on, the land we live upon, all pristine. It is a life to cherish. It is a way of living worth fighting for."

"The repeal of the Roadless Rule will only lead to the destruction of our homelands, and subsequently the destruction of our communities who depend upon the abundance of the forest," she said. "This is an attack on our peoples and the climate. The Trump administration's decision to open the Tongass to roads, logging, and mining is an underhanded misuse of congressional authority and the battle will go on—we will continue to rise in defense of our homelands."

Robert Starbard, tribal administrator of the Hoonah Indian Association, declared: "The need for this litigation is a mark of shame upon the federal government for violating the trust and responsibilities it has to the Indigenous peoples of the Tongass. It is equally a stain upon the state of Alaska, which colluded with the Trump administration to circumvent scientific analysis to achieve a desired political outcome."

Though the Hoonah Indian Association had accepted a government invitation to weigh in during the rulemaking process, "we ultimately withdrew as a cooperating agency when it became clear that our involvement was purely to provide political cover and lend legitimacy to a corrupted process with a preordained outcome," Starbard explained. "The Roadless Rule decision is fatally flawed and ignores the advice and expertise of the tribal cooperating agencies and omits significant issues and concerns."

This is yet another example of a flawed process that ended with a flawed result.
We encourage the incoming Biden administration to reverse the roadless rule decision in Alaska and protect the Tongass National Forest’s 9 million acres of old-growth forest. https://t.co/r9nkoCW5J9
— The Wilderness Society (@Wilderness) December 18, 2020

Andrea Feniger, Sierra Club Alaska chapter director, emphasized that "preserving the Tongass is a matter of survival."

"It is essential to the subsistence culture and food security of Indigenous peoples," she said. "As one of the planet's major carbon sinks, it is also essential for mitigating the climate crisis that threatens us all."

Other advocates from groups that have joined the suit also highlighted how wildlife and the climate could be impacted by what NRDC senior attorney Niel Lawrence called "an outrageous assault on America's environment and all those who benefit from it, now and in future generations."

"Trump's reckless plan to clearcut old-growth trees in the Tongass will irreversibly damage our climate, kill wildlife, and devastate Southeast Alaska communities," warned Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We're in the midst of climate and wildlife extinction crises and the Tongass is a lifeline for our planet."

“Stretching 16m acres…the Tongass is unique for its size and #biodiversity, with thousands of islands, waterways, glacial fjords and green valleys flanked by…mountains and sprawling #forests of old-growth cedar, spruce and hemlock trees.”#ClimateActionhttps://t.co/FlNsGJqhnP
— Lili (@climateleaf) December 23, 2020

As for the impact on local businesses, Dan Blanchard, CEO of UnCruise, a small vessel company providing outdoor recreation experiences, pointed out that "Southeast Alaska hosts two-thirds of all Alaska visitors, making it the most visited region of the state."

"Forest Service lands, particularly inventoried roadless areas, are critical to drawing these visitors, and generate roughly $245 million annually—over two-thirds of Tongass National Forest visitor spending," Blanchard said. "We depend on the ability to market and provide unique recreation experiences, and our clients expect to see 'wild' Alaska and prefer intact natural landscapes."

"Clearcutting and timber road construction would force us to divert our travel routes to avoid seeing or being around clearcuts," he added. "This would negatively affect the outdoor recreation economy and Southeast Alaska's reputation as an adventure travel destination."

According to Earthjustice attorney Kate Glover, "The Trump administration ignored tribes and Alaskans throughout this process, and is instead prioritizing illusive timber industry profits over the interests of Alaska Native people who have stewarded the land since time immemorial, small business operators whose livelihoods depend on an intact forest ecosystem, and everyone who benefits from this national forest's unique ability to serve as a natural buffer against climate change."

Dubbing the Roadless Rule a "landmark achievement in conserving our natural heritage, our climate, and our public resources," Lawrence of NRDC vowed that "we're not going to let Trump get away with this illegal effort to strip America's great temperate rainforest of these vital protections."

Digital Watchdog Says Facebook Behind 'Intentional Decrease' in Traffic to Pro-Palestinian Pages

Sada Social Center says visits to some pages have plummeted by as much as 80%.

by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on Thursday, December 24, 2020
by Common Dreams



A Palestinian man looks at the Facebook page of Avichay Adraee, the spokesman of the Israeli Army to the Arabic media, after hackers replaced his cover photo with that of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigade during the "#Op_Israel" campaign launched by the activist group Anonymous, in Gaza City on April 7, 2013. (Photo: Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images)


Facebook has allegedly been throttling posts concerning Israeli human rights crimes and abuses in occupied Palestine, resulting in an "intentional decrease" in traffic by as much as 80%, an online watchdog group said on Wednesday.

Sada Social Center, a non-government organization that monitors the treatment of Palestinian-focused content on the web, said it has recently received "many complaints from managers of Palestinian and Arab pages on Facebook regarding a sharp drop" of "50% of the general average, and in some cases... more than 80%" in the number of users viewing their posts.

The group also said that the Arabic-language pages have also recently "noticed a marked increase in receiving reports and warning messages from Facebook regarding publications related to the Palestinian cause, and these pages actively participated in covering the matter of Arab normalization with the Israeli occupation."

Social media suppresses up to 80% pro-Palestine content https://t.co/cE2quw1bB6
— Middle East Monitor (@MiddleEastMnt) December 24, 2020

Palestinians have long complained that Facebook and other social media platforms have targeted their accounts, often deleting them without warning or explanation. According to Middle East Eye:


Facebook has previously cooperated with the Israeli government to scrutinise Palestinian content on its platform. In October 2016, an Israeli minister revealed that Facebook complied with around 95% of requests submitted by the Israeli government to delete the accounts of Palestinian civilians, almost 88% of whom consume their news and get their information from social media platforms like Facebook.

In October, Sada Social—citing 139 violations of what it said were international law and basic human rights by Facebook—helped launch the #FBBlocksPalestine campaign to broaden awareness of what it called "the threat posed by Facebook against Palestinian content... as well... the double standard policy of Facebook management in dealing with Israeli and Palestinian incitement on its site."

That double standard was evident when Facebook suspended the account of Fatah, the ruling Palestinian party in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, in February 2017 after it posted a photo of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat holding a rifle. A cursory glance at the Facebook page of the Israel Defense Forces, in contrast, reveals many photos of its troops holding guns.

Also in October, Sada Social reported that Twitter had shut down dozens of Palestinian and sympathetic accounts one day after the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs published a report on what it said were fake online profiles trying to delegitimize Israel.

The problem goes beyond mere social censorship. In recent years, Israel's Cyber Unit has been cracking down on what it calls "incitement" by arresting Palestinians over their social media posts. In 2018, the Palestinian Prisoners' Centre reported that more than 500 people, including children, had been taken into custody for their posts.



Spoke today @7amleh #PDAF2019 forum in Ramallah on routine arbitrary arrests by Israel, PA & Hamas based on social media commentary-Palestinians stuck between authorities intolerant of dissent. My remarks began at 15:00, followed by fascinatingly heated QA https://t.co/YAhk2olA5U pic.twitter.com/dsN7qSLr1I
— Omar Shakir (@OmarSShakir) January 16, 2019

Sada Social is calling on Facebook to "clarify its reason" for throttling pro-Palestinian posts, which it called a "clear infringement and manipulation" of users' rights. The group also urged "international human rights bodies to follow up [on] the case and the flagrant infringement it reflects on freedom of opinion and expression."

'A Blatant Violation': Sahrawis Dismiss Pompeo's Announcement of US Consulate in Moroccan-Occupied Western Sahara

The move comes two weeks after the U.S. became the first country to recognize Morocco's claim of sovereignty in the illegally occupied territory.

by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on Friday, December 25, 2020
by Common Dreams

Protesters march as they display a banner reading "Colonialist Morocco out of the Sahara" during the demonstration in San Sebastian, Spain on December 20, 2020. (Photo: Javi Julio/SOPA Images/Light Rocket via Getty Images)

Sahrawi independence advocates defiantly dismissed an announcement Thursday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the United States would open a "virtual" diplomatic mission in Western Sahara as a first step toward establishing a permanent consulate in the Moroccan-occupied territory.

"We the Saharawis are fighting [for] our complete sovereignty over our Western Sahara; we don't need your permission to do that."
—Minetu Larabas Sueidat,
National Union of Sahrawi Women

Pompeo said in a statement that the U.S. was "inaugurating a virtual presence post for Western Sahara, with a focus on promoting economic and social development, to be followed soon by a fully functioning consulate."

The State Department said that the virtual post—which will allow U.S. officials to conduct consular and other business remotely—will be managed by the American Embassy in Rabat, the Moroccan capital.

The development came nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump announced an agreement in which the U.S. recognized as legitimate Morocco's illegal occupation in exchange for the North African kingdom's establishing full diplomatic ties with Israel. This made the U.S. the first country to recognize Morocco's claim of sovereignty in Western Sahara.

While Morocco's monarch, King Mohammed VI, hailed U.S. recognition of his country's claim to Western Sahara as an "historic turning point," advocates for Sahrawi independence roundly condemned the move.

The Polisario Front—the United Nations-recognized, Algerian-backed Sahrawi national liberation movement—blasted the U.S. declaration as "a blatant violation of the United Nations charter and the resolutions of international legitimacy."

Additionally, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (pdf) states that an "occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies," a proscription violated by both Israel in the occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories and by Morocco in Western Sahara.

There was widespread indignation following Pompeo's announcement, as Sahrawis and international human rights defenders condemned the move.

When you go low we go up. Your empty slogans on human rights can never impact our future. We the Saharawis are fighting 4 our complete sovereignty over our #WesternSahara, we don’t need your permission to do that
— Minetu Larabas Sueidat (@minetu_larabas) December 24, 2020

Here's to hoping that Biden walks back this ill-considered disregard for international legality, and affirms US support for the human rights of all people in both #WesternSahara and #Morocco . https://t.co/i0cYFBF7Un
— Eric Goldstein (@goldsteinricky) December 24, 2020

Western Sahara belongs to Morocco like Palestinian land belongs to Israel — IT DOESN’T!!!
Join CODEPINK in rejecting occupation and colonialism from the U.S. to Palestine to Western Sahara. Add your name now! https://t.co/NgRkcCb59U
— Ariel Gold אריאל #FriesLatkes (@ArielElyseGold) December 15, 2020

Known as "Africa's last colony," Western Sahara was invaded by Moroccan and Mauritanian troops in 1975 as Spanish colonial troops withdrew from their former territory. In order to solidify Moroccan control over the phosphate- and fishery-rich land, former king Hassan II ordered a "Green March" of hundreds of thousands of Moroccan civilians into Western Sahara to colonize the vast desert territory.

Meanwhile, Moroccan forces committed horrific atrocities (pdf) while driving nearly half the Sahrawi population into neighboring Algeria.

Moroccan occupation forces built a 1,700-mile mostly sand wall to keep Algerian-backed Sahrawi militants out of Western Sahara, while denying Sahrawis inside their occupied homeland the U.N.-backed referendum they've been promised—and awaiting—for decades.

The Polisario Front has resisted the occupation for 45 years and today controls up to a quarter of Western Sahara as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which scores of United Nations member states have recognized since it was proclaimed in 1976. However, more than half of these countries have since either withdrawn or suspended their recognition.

Moroccan settlers today comprise over two-thirds of the territory's population of approximately 600,000.

A fragile U.N.-backed 1991 ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario rebels lasted until last month, when SADR President Brahim Ghali declared it over after he said that Moroccan troops opened fire on peaceful protesters.

Inside occupied Western Sahara, Moroccan forces brutally repress all forms of resistance, severely restricting free expression, movement, association, and press.

According to a 2015 Amnesty International report (pdf), as well as documentation by local and international human rights groups, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, forced disappearances, and torture are some of the tactics employed by the occupation forces to control the territory and its people.

Polisario forces are also accused of serious human rights violations, and some Sahrawis oppose their rule. 

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Palestinians, Advocates Blast New U.S. Rule Requiring 'Made in Israel' Label on Settlement Goods


"Such a decision attempts to legitimize settlement-manufactured goods as well as the theft of Palestinian land and products," said Palestine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.



by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
tPublished on Saturday, December 26, 2020 Common Dreams
Yaakov Berg, the Israeli CEO of the Psagot Winery—located on stolen Palestinian land in the illegal Israeli settler colony of Psagot—with a bottle of his red blend that he named after Mr. Pompeo. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)


Palestinian officials and international peace activists condemned a Trump administration order that went into effect earlier this week requiring goods produced in a large portion of the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine to be labeled "Made in Israel."

"The outgoing U.S. administration [is lying] to the American citizens to make them complicit in the theft of the natural resources and capabilities of the Palestinian people."
—Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol on Wednesday announced that "for country of origin marking purposes, imported goods produced in the West Bank, specifically in Area C under the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement... must be marked to indicate their origin as 'Israel,' 'Product of Israel,' or 'Made in Israel.'"

Area C, which is administered by Israeli occupation forces, comprises over 60% of the West Bank's territory. Under the new U.S. policy, goods produced in areas under Palestinian administration will be labeled "Made in the West Bank," and if manufactured in the besieged coastal enclave of Gaza, "Made in Gaza."

According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, between 180,000 and 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C, alongside at least 325,000 Israeli settlers in more than 225 colonies and outposts.


These are the 112 companies included in the UN database of companies involved in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise.

All institutions should stop contracting, procuring from or investing in these firms to avoid complicity in Israel’s war crimes https://t.co/ni2JGMe5eI pic.twitter.com/edmIMI1dGd
— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) December 22, 2020

The new guidelines were announced by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following an unprecedented visit by the top American diplomat to one of Israel's settler colonies in the occupied West Bank.

"For a long time, the State Department took the wrong view of settlements," Pompeo said at the press conference. "Today the United States Department of State stands strongly to the recognition that settlements can be done in a way that are lawful and appropriate and proper."

Pompeo was referring to the 1978 State Department legal opinion (pdf)—which held until the Trump administration officially repudiated it last year—that as a "belligerent occupant," Israel had no right to establish such settlements. Under international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention, both Israel's occupation and settlements are illegal.

During the same news conference, Pompeo officially declared that the United States would regard the peaceful Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian human rights as "anti-Semitic."

Palestinian officials led international condemnation of the new "Made in Israel" policy, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates on Thursday calling it a "war crime and a violation of all international laws and conventions."

"Such a decision attempts to legitimize settlement-manufactured goods as well as the theft of Palestinian land and products," the ministry said in a statement. "The outgoing U.S. administration [is lying] to the American citizens to make them complicit in the theft of the natural resources and capabilities of the Palestinian people."

Those who sought to boycott illegal Israeli settlement, but not products from Israel itself will now be unable to tell the difference. https://t.co/WqqExrc1tV
— Shibley Telhami (@ShibleyTelhami) December 24, 2020



"Made in Israel" applies even moreso to anything coming out of the US Congress
— Paul Larudee (@larudee) December 25, 2020


The new U.S. rule allows 90 days for importers to implement the policy. The pro-Israel U.S. lobby group J Street said the transition period means that the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden could still reverse it, a move the group favors.

"J Street believes the next administration should quickly reverse moves like this that upend decades of bipartisan American policy and return to the view, held by the rest of the world, that the West Bank is occupied territory and not part of Israel proper for legal purposes," J Street said in a statement.

The U.S. stance on settlements stands in stark contrast to that of the European Union, where a November 2019 European Court of Justice ruling requires products made in Israeli settlements to be clearly labeled as such.

On Wounded Knee: 

We Fight To Mend the Hoop

by

Abby Zimet, Further columnist

 Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Posing in "victory" at the mass graves. 

Front photo: Chief Big Foot dead and frozen in the snow.

On this date 130 winters ago, U.S. soldiers with the 7th Cavalry Regiment murdered nearly 400 cold, hungry, frightened, unarmed Lakota, mostly women and children, on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation - a final slaughter in America's long, brutal "Indian Wars," a "bloodthirsty and wanton massacre," that became an enduring symbol of genocide and historical trauma for Native Americans. History accounts cite the snow and cold the morning of December 29, 1890, when soldiers surrounded a peaceful encampment of Lakota. Their Chief Spotted Elk - Big Foot, or Sitanka - desperately ill with pneumonia, told the white men they were on their way to seek shelter with another Lakota chief, Red Cloud; he convinced his exhausted people to surrender to the soldiers, who accompanied them to an overnight camp at Wounded Knee. That night, more soldiers arrived, celebrating a righteous but bloodless victory of white over color. Starting on their journey the next morning, several soldiers tried to wrest a hunting rifle from a young Lakota, it went off, and the troops opened fire. Uninjured Lakota men attacked soldiers with what they had - knives, fists, snatched guns - as women and children tried to flee soldiers on horseback through the deep snow. Most were cut down; accounts say they were shot at such close range you could see powder burn marks on them. When shooting stopped, close to 400 Lakota lay dead. Soldiers proudly posed for photos with the corpses, which only later were thrown into mass graves. Some of the injured were carried to a nearby church, where a horrified native doctor described women and children "shot to pieces." In the church on the fourth day after Christmas, writes Dee Brown in “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,” "Those who were conscious could see (strung) a crudely lettered banner: 'Peace On Earth, Good Will to Men.'"

Press reports praised the defeat of thousands of "murderous redskins" and "howling savages" by "brave soldiers (in) the storm of battle," with "squaws fleeing in all directions." Decades later,Hitler was reportedly so inspired by "the efficiency of America's  extermination of the red savages" he came to believe in "the practicality of genocide." Faring no better, the U.S. Army at the time gave 20 of the murderers Medals of Honor for "gallantry and intrepidity." Since then, Congress has apologized for the massacre, America has moved to acknowledge a historic atrocity that remains "a stain and a sin on our souls," there have been multiple efforts to rescind the medals, including a House Remove the Stain Act sponsored by Rep. Deb Haaland and several others, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has created a commemoration site for Native peoples seeking to pay tribute to their ancestors. "There was no honor in these murders," says Manny Iron Hawk, whose grandmother survived the massacre at age 12 by hiding in a ravine. "The Lakota live with these traumas to this day." And, many native people stress, going forward. Historian Heather Cox Richardson says she remains haunted by the night before the massacre, when it was avoidable; the curse of history is "we cannot go back," she notes, "but it is never too late to change the future." Native writer Ruth Hopkins echoes her, summoning a future that will heal the past and its "historical trauma": "The sacred hoop of humanity was broken that day. Black Elk said the dream died. We will not let it. We fight to mend the hoop & revive the dream." She offeres a Lakota song: "I have said A thunder being nation that I am/I have said You shall live/You shall live/You shall live/You shall live."

 

For many natives, the image of Big Foot’s frozen, contorted body in the snow "is a symbol for all American Indians of what happened to our ancestors."

 

Keeping the Curtains Drawn on Canada's Secretive Factory Farm Industry

Unlike Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Canada's laws governing animal welfare have barely evolved over the last century.

by

Linda McQuaig

As renowned anthropologist Jane Goodall notes: “Farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement and resentment, depression, fear and pain.”

Many people—meat-eaters included—object to the factory farm practice of confining pigs for virtually their entire lives to metal cages so small they can't even turn around.

"Factory farms exist in a realm largely beyond public scrutiny or control, with almost nothing to protect the animals from miserable conditions imposed by an industry extracting maximum profit from the animals it harvests."

That's why the Canadian pork industry, sensitive about its public image, decided to eliminate the practice—a move hailed by Canada's Humane Society as "a watershed moment for farm animals in Canada."

This led to a rare round of positive coverage for the beleaguered industry, with the media reporting that the move would please Canadian consumers and bring Canadian animal welfare practices in line with more advanced European standards.

All that happened back in 2014. Yet, six years later, millions of pigs in Canada continue to spend their lives locked in these narrow cages—because the ban doesn't actually come into effect until 2024.

In fact, that leisurely 10-year phase-in period seems about to get longer. The pork industry has decided it needs more time and has indicated its desire to grant itself a further five-year extension.

This is possible because the industry is allowed to make its own rules governing its animals. But it means sows in Canada will continue their lifelong captivity until 2029—a full 15 years after it was announced the practice was to be ended, due to concerns about animal welfare.

Factory farms exist in a realm largely beyond public scrutiny or control, with almost nothing to protect the animals from miserable conditions imposed by an industry extracting maximum profit from the animals it harvests.

And Doug Ford's government just made it easier for the industry to shield its operations from public view, passing legislation last month aimed at cracking down on trespassing activists and journalists who often work undercover on industrial farms in order to take photos and videos.

Such videos, which abound on social media, have helped generate public alarm about the plight of farm animals. One undercover video, aired last month on CTV's national investigative program W5, included graphic footage of adult pigs being hit with heavy objects and baby pigs squealing and squirming in pain as workers cut off their tails and castrate them.

Unlike Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Canada's laws governing animal welfare have barely evolved over the last century, even though the open pastures of traditional family farms have largely been replaced by the confining cages of today's industrial farms.

Instead of updating our animal welfare laws, Ottawa has allowed the industry to draw up its own "codes of practice," which are effectively guidelines with no clear penalties for lack of compliance.

The writing of the codes is overseen by the National Farm Animal Care Council—a private body, funded by government, but dominated by the meat industry and other "stakeholders" in the food supply chain.

The council allows only minimal input from animal welfare groups. Indeed, any group that opposes eating animals is automatically excluded from sitting on its committees.

Once the committees have drawn up their codes, they invite public feedback. But, as University of Alberta law professor Peter Sankoff observes, there’s no evidence the public feedback has any impact, beyond providing the whole process with “a veneer of public legitimacy.”

Of course, one set of "stakeholders" left entirely out of the process are the animals themselves. And while they can't talk, they do feel.

As renowned anthropologist Jane Goodall notes: "Farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement, and resentment, depression, fear and pain."

The intensity of animal emotions has been captured on videos of rescued farm animals experiencing their first taste of freedom. They run, romp and play—even enormous adult pigs—and certainly appear to be experiencing something akin to joy.

Of course, any dog owner can confirm that animals feel emotions. And any dog owner would gasp at the thought of their dog trapped in a confining cage, 24 hours a day, unable to even turn around.

But the factory farm industry is counting on us not making the connection. And the best way to ensure that, as Doug Ford knows, is to prevent us from seeing photos of locked-up pigs looking every bit as sad and scared as our own dogs would be in those cages.

Linda McQuaig is an author, journalist, and former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre in the Canadian federal election. She is also the author of "The Sport and Prey of Capitalists: How the Rich Are Stealing Canada's Public Wealth" (2019), "War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet: It's the Crude, Dude" (2006) and  (with Neil Brooks) of "Billionaires’ Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality" (2012).

© 2020 TheStar.com

Advocates Call for Medical Parole to Avoid 'Unintentional Death Sentences' as Covid-19 Ravages US Prisons


"The bottom line is, there are still thousands of people who are at very high risk of death trapped in a prison system where there's no way that they can avoid the virus."

by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Common Dream

Participants behind a banner reading "COVID BEHIND BARS = DEATH" attend a rally at Rikers Island in New York. Rights advocates have urged state, local, and federal officials to release vulnerable inmates during the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that prisons and jails are equipped with safety measures to prevent outbreaks. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

As the Covid-19 pandemic ravages prisoners worse than nearly every other U.S. population cohort, prison reform advocates and public health experts are renewing calls for the medical parole of inmates—especially those at risk for death or serious complications due to pre-existing health conditions.

"They've got us bunched up together. There's no social distancing at all. We share day rooms, we share showers. We share practically everything."
—Mario Smith, inmate

According to a recent study by the National Commission on Covid-19 and Criminal Justice, U.S. prisoners are three times more likely to be infected with coronavirus than the general population. The situation is even worse in federal prisons, where one in every five inmates is infected, compared with about one in 20 people on the outside.

At least 275,000 inmates in U.S. prisons and jails have tested positive for coronavirus, and at least 1,700 have died—although some correctional authorities say the actual number of both infections and deaths is much higher.

California, which is currently suffering its worst period of the pandemic, is also experiencing an acute Covid-19 crisis in state prisons. The Guardian reports that nearly 9,500 incarcerated people are currently infected, with all 35 of California's state prisons now experiencing outbreaks—most with more than 100 cases.



Social distancing is impossible behind bars. As cases of COVID-19 rise in California prisons, it's critical that incarcerated people are promptly vaccinated as a priority group in California's vaccination plan. https://t.co/EmAkcNJ7Wt

— Prison Policy Init. (@PrisonPolicy) December 29, 2020

Over one-third of California's more than 38,000 total coronavirus infections have occurred in the past two months, a stunning escalation that has sparked renewed calls for the early release of vulnerable inmates, as well as court rulings ordering such paroles.

"I don't think there's another reason to not release them besides political backlash," Donald Specter, an attorney who is suing for the release of California inmates, told The Guardian. "Some are sex offenders, some are lifers who were convicted of murder, and there's general reluctance of politicians to release these people."

"The bottom line is, there are still thousands of people who are at very high risk of death trapped in a prison system where there's no way that they can avoid the virus," he added.

Jennifer Soble, head of the Illinois Prison Project, recently told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that "there is no question that [Covid-19] was going to make it into the prisons."

"The tragedy is the number of people who have become sick and died," added Soble. "That tragedy was preventable.”

In Pennsylvania, the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this month wrote that "prison should not carry the risk of an unintentional death sentence."




"A bill to create medical parole for the release of the sick and elderly was introduced before the pandemic and never received a committee vote" in the state legislature, the editors wrote. "For a state with an ill and aging prison population, having no medical parole makes no sense—in financial or humanitarian terms."

This pandemic has been uniquely horrible for people in prisons and jails — including staff who work at these facilities. Releasing people is a matter of life, death, and flattening the curve in our communities. https://t.co/ADWuapzCWY
— ACLU of Northern CA (@ACLU_NorCal) December 29, 2020

Accusing California prison officials of "deliberate indifference" to inmate health, a state appeals court in October ordered San Quentin State Prison—where thousands of prisoners have been infected—to release or transfer roughly half its population.

"By all accounts, the Covid-19 outbreak at San Quentin has been the worst epidemiological disaster in California correctional history," Presiding Judge Anthony Kline wrote in his decision. "And there is no assurance San Quentin will not experience a second or even third spike."

"By all accounts, the Covid-19 outbreak at San Quentin has been the worst epidemiological disaster in California correctional history."
—Judge Anthony Kline

However, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra—who earlier this month was nominated by President-elect Joe Biden for health and human services secretary—appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which will decide by January 25 whether to review the case.

More than 400 elderly and medically vulnerable San Quentin inmates recently petitioned a state Superior Court for release, and KQED reported last week that a Marin County judge may soon order their release or transfer.

However, prisoner advocates strongly oppose the transfer option.

"My clients are terrified of transferring," Christine O'Hanlon, the deputy public defender of Marin County, where San Quentin is located, told KQED. "They know the transfer process involves being confined in small spaces with several people for several hours and then getting to a new place where they don't know what's there."

"You can't just pack them in like sardines somewhere else," added O'Hanlon. "You have to put them in a place where they can be safely housed, practice social distancing, and avoid dorm settings."

Mario Smith, a prisoner at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan who suffers from asthma, high blood pressure, and obesity, told TIME that he "feared for [his] life" after he fell ill with Covid-19 last month, one of more than 1,400 inmates at the facility to contract the virus.

"They've got us bunched up together," said Smith. "There's no social distancing at all. We share day rooms, we share showers. We share practically everything."

Trump Executive Order on Private School Vouchers Denounced as 'Last-Ditch Effort to Claim Victory' in War on Public Education


"Trump fought against funding for public education for months, then does this as he begrudgingly signs [the] Covid relief bill."

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Common Dreams


Students line up in a hallway during the first day back to school on December 7, 2020 at Yung Wing Elementary P.S. 124 in New York City. (Photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)


Public education champions are denouncing President Donald Trump's new executive order that enables states to use funds from a federal block grant program to provide vouchers to qualifying households to offset some of the costs of private school tuition, homeschooling, or other educational expenses during the coronavirus pandemic, even as critics say the move is more of a symbolic endorsement of school privatization than a serious attempt to subsidize in-person learning.

Trump's executive order, which he signed on Monday, empowers the secretary of health and human services to "allow funds available through the Community Services Block Grant program to be used by grantees and eligible entities to provide emergency learning scholarships to disadvantaged families for use by any child without access to in-person learning."

As Politico reported Monday night, Trump's move comes after school choice provisions sought by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Republican lawmakers were excluded from the coronavirus relief bill the president signed on Sunday.

The White House spun the executive order as an attempt to provide more flexibility to parents amid what Trump called "the public education system's failure to provide in-person learning options." Trump neglected to mention, however, that his administration has failed to create the conditions for a safe reopening of public schools.

Rather than attacking public schools while pushing for privatized alternatives—as critics say the Trump administration has done—President-elect Joe Biden "has vowed to reopen most schools in the first 100 days of his administration by providing more funding for school districts to implement coronavirus safety measures, such as better ventilation and more socially distanced classrooms," Politico reported. "His team is also weighing a multibillion dollar plan to test students, teachers, and staff at least once a week."

In a blog post Tuesday, education scholar and public schools advocate Diane Ravitch cautioned that Trump's executive order reeks of elites using a crisis to advance an unpopular right-wing agenda, a phenomenon that journalist Naomi Klein has dubbed "disaster capitalism."

Trump's executive order declares that "the emergency conditions created by Covid-19 make it vital to use federal funds for vouchers," Ravitch wrote, adding that DeVos "will use her last days in office to throw money out the door to fund vouchers for private and religious schools."

Education Week reporter Andrew Ujifusa, however, said Monday that he would "pump the brakes before assuming this executive order delivers a major (or any) K-12 choice boost." As Ujifusa put it, "The Trump administration tried but failed to get a school choice expansion into the Covid relief package."

Noting that he is unsure whether "Trump can do this through an executive order" because the Community Services Block Grant program "doesn't provide direct grants to individuals," Ujifusa called the president's move a "last-ditch gesture."

Ujifusa's assessment of Trump's executive order, which the reporter considers largely toothless, was shared by Derek Black, an education and constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Black, who specializes in educational equity and school funding for disadvantaged students, said Monday that Trump's effort to divert "block grant money for private school vouchers" is an "apparent last-ditch effort to claim victory in DeVos' war on public education."

Another critic of Trump's executive order was Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), who observed Monday that the measure is "only for private schools." Pointing out that "90% of parents send their kids to public schools," Weingarten posed a series of critical questions: "Why does the Republican Party only want to help parents who send kids to private schools? Why not help with this kind of community grant for all parents? Why not open up more funding for them?"

Weingarten noted that when federal funds in the Community Services Block Grant program, which has an annual budget of roughly $700 million, were aimed at combating poverty, Trump was opposed to assisting low-income Americans, opting instead for massive cuts to discretionary spending.

Now, less than a month before leaving office, the president wants to use public money "to help kids get to private school," Weingarten said. "Why not just help any poor kids use [subsidies] for connectivity [and] for tutoring?" she asked, suggesting that federal block grants could be used to supplement the funding allocated to public schools in the coronavirus aid package.

"Trump fought against funding for public education for months, then does this as he begrudgingly signs [the] Covid relief bill," Weingarten concluded.

Calling Trump's move the "last gasp [of the] privatization agenda" pushed by the president and DeVos, Leonie Haimson—executive director of Class Size Matters and board member of the Network for Public Education—said Tuesday that the executive order "could be immediately reversed" next month by Biden.