Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF Protest Against Nancy Pelosi For Pushing War Drive Against China
There is growing anger against Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi for pushing for war in Asia and massive expansion of the military encirclement.Her trip to Taiwan has been strongly supported by the Republicans and she is supporting the Asian Pivot.
Anger is growing against the provocative visit of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan while visiting Asia and a protest rally took place at Pelosi's office at the San Francisco US Federal Building. Speakers pointed out that the drive for war in Asia and sanctions against China have led to an increase in racist attacks on Chinese and Asians in the US. The Republicans have welcomed her visit to Taiwan.
The Republicans along with the Democrats have also. supported the Asian Pivot to militarize countries surrounding China and are selling billions dollars of new weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Pelosi is also supporting Japan dumping Article 9 which prohibits expanding the use of the Japanese military to wars abroad including US and NATO wars. Former Prime Minister Abe was for the Japanese to become a nuclear power and for massive expansion of the military.
The rally took place on August 1, 2022.
Additional media:
STOP US War Funding In Ukraine! Protest At Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Oakland Office
https://youtu.be/znASOrg6nqA
Barbara Lee Supports Tens Of Billions Of Military Aid To Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msIsXUeN2jY
Ukraine, War & Labor: Presentation by Vermont AFL-CIO Executive Director Liz Medina
https://youtu.be/nSfUW7zeGbs
Labor, Imperialism, Fascism & The War In Ukraine With Cliff Smith, LA Roofers Local 36
https://youtu.be/Age3DLZ1TAM
The AFL-CIO, Ukraine, Capitalism & US Imperialism
https://youtu.be/go03XXjZJDM
US Capitalism, The Ukraine & Imperialism With George Wright
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilaiwLrziyM
US Privatization Of Ukraine, Puerto Rico, PG&E & The Natalie Jeresko Ana Montosantos Connections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvHNktE-kAA
Fascism, Imperialism & Labor With Vermont AFL-CIO President David Van Deusen
https://youtu.be/xI5wLyycy3w
Vermont AFL-CIO President David Van Deusen & The Fight To Defend Working People & The AFL-CIO
https://youtu.be/bS152f71t5A
Concerning the War in Ukraine: No Love For Putin; No Guns For Nazis
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/24/concerning-the-war-in-ukraine-no-love-for-putin-no-guns-for-nazis/
Production of Labor Video Project
http://www.labormedia.net
Pelosi Opposed Student Loan Cancellation After Billionaire Ally’s Memo
https://truthout.org/articles/pelosi-opposed-student-loan-cancellation-after-billionaire-allys-memo/?fbclid=IwAR36OW5Ya0lcVgYN7FJAE85BwknICxmNSXqn_YM_eTzoLOcXs9KxAOpXGHo
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at her weekly news conference at the Capitol building on August 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at her weekly news conference at the Capitol building on August 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.
ANNA MONEYMAKER / GETTY IMAGES
BY
Sharon Zhang, Truthout
PUBLISHED
August 6, 2021=
A memo uncovered by The Intercept shows that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) opposed supporting a push for President Joe Biden to cancel student loan debt after billionaire donors, with whom she has close ties, urged her to do so.
Last week, Pelosi announced her opposition to a popular progressive proposal to cancel student loan debt, which advocates say could provide major relief to millions of borrowers and provide a huge boost to the COVID-burdened economy.
“People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” Pelosi said, adding that, though she believes Congress should be in charge of the proposal, she also thinks student debt relief is unfair.
That opinion, which puts her at odds with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and surprised congressional insiders, comes after a powerful billionaire couple circulated a memo saying that the president does not have the power to cancel student debt.
“Recently, there has been heightened fervor around Senators [Elizabeth] Warren and Schumer’s proposal that President-elect Joe Biden could cancel student debt ‘with the pen as opposed to legislation.’ Unfortunately, that cannot happen,” the November memo from Democratic megadonors Steven and Mary Swig read.
Indeed, Schumer and Warren have been lobbying Biden to follow up on campaign promises and cancel student debt, which they say the president could do with an executive order. Despite Pelosi’s statement, many advocates and legal experts say that Biden has the authority to cancel student debt, and that time is of the essence to free up nearly $2 trillion worth of debt for borrowers to inject into the economy.
Pelosi’s view aligns more with the Swigs’ memo than the views of her congressional colleagues, who have cited legal avenues for the president to cancel student debt. But this may be due to the fact that Pelosi evidently maintains a close relationship with the billionaire donors, who have previously lobbied her directly on issues, The Intercept reports.
Pelosi not only keeps political ties to the Swigs, but also financial and professional ones as well. For years the couple has given her the maximum amount allowed under campaign finance law. Steven Swig has served as her campaign treasurer in reelection campaigns since 2012, and their niece worked for Pelosi between 2018 and March of this year.
The Swigs hold huge sway within Democratic circles, according to The Intercept, donating millions of dollars to the Democratic Party over the years. But they’re described by political insiders as “an often well-meaning couple who have donated to worthy causes but are rendered almost comically out of touch by their extraordinary wealth,” write The Intercept’s Ryan Grim and Ken Klippenstein. They didn’t even know until recent years, for instance, that people even had student loans.
Pelosi’s staff has denied that the Swig memo had influenced her view on the issue — the memo, after all, was supportive of the idea of canceling student debt in general, even if it says that Biden lacks the authority. However, student debt advocates are skeptical that Pelosi wasn’t influenced by the Swigs, especially since the House speaker’s statement shocked many on Capitol Hill.
“The only reason she was for it [legislatively] was because Steve and Mary asked her to,” one student loan debt advocate who is familiar with discussions between the Swigs and Pelosi told The Intercept.
Anti abortion Democrat Henry Cuellar Backed By Pelosi Is Now Seeking to Gut Labor Rights
https://jacobin.com/2022/07/antiabortion-democrat-henry-cuellar-worker-flexibility-choice-act
BYLIZA FEATHERSTONE
Henry Cuellar, the conservative, antiabortion Democratic congressman — who Nancy Pelosi called a “fighter for hardworking families” — has shocked the labor movement with a radical bill seeking to eviscerate workers’ rights.
Representative Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, has introduced a bill eviscerating labor rights that would make the Koch brothers proud.
Cuellar’s bill bears a gaslighting moniker: the Worker Flexibility and Choice Act — joining the Clear Skies Act and the Class Action Fairness Act in the annals of bills whose names are the exact opposite of their actual intent.
Cosponsored with Trumpian Republican Congresswomen Elise Stefanik and Michelle Steel, the bill creates whole new ways for employers to get out of paying minimum wage and overtime, extending the gig economy’s stress and chaos to millions more workers. As employment law professor Veena Dubal of University of California Hastings Law put it on Twitter, this bill would “make earning a living nearly impossible” for workers without bargaining power.
Cuellar, who represents Texas’s Twenty-Eighth District, gets significant funding from Koch organizations. That’s not surprising, since he’s been working to destroy Americans’ already fragile workplace rights for years. The scandal is that the Democratic national leadership fought hard to help him get elected. They did this not in a general election — against a Republican who might well have been even worse — but in a primary against a challenger, Jessica Cisneros, an immigration rights lawyer backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats.
What’s even more confounding is that the Democratic leadership knew what they were getting with Cuellar. Not only is he the most antichoice Democrat in the federal government, as well as a favorite of the fossil fuel industry — Cuellar has made no secret of his anti-labor politics. Last year, Cuellar voted against the PRO Act, which would have made it easier for workers to organize unions.
Cisneros supported the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the PRO Act. Sensibly, the most anti-worker forces lined up behind Cuellar, including the US Chamber of Commerce. Joining them were Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, Hakeem Jeffries, and Steny Hoyer.
Although unions too often back centrist incumbents over left challengers who are better on labor issues, this was not the case in Cuellar’s race against Cisneros. Even organized labor, not always the savviest critics of the Democratic establishment, knew Cuellar was bad news.
This was Cisneros’s second challenge to Cuellar, and in the last two primary cycles, the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union backed Cisneros, as did progressive groups with labor backing, like the Working Families Party. This year, labor was especially incensed by his opposition to the PRO Act. The Texas AFL-CIO supported Cisneros. Other unions supporting her included the United Farm Workers, National Nurses United, and, on the local level, United Steelworkers District 13, UNITE HERE Local 23, and the San Antonio AFL-CIO Central Labor Council.
This loud and unified labor veto of Henry Cuellar didn’t sway the Democratic establishment. Although principled liberals like Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, and Julian Castro joined Bernie Sanders and AOC in backing Cisneros, House leaders were willing to throw abortion rights, the environment, and even labor under the bus just to avoid expanding the Squad and prevent another Berniecrat from joining Congress.
The Democratic leadership proved that they didn’t care about workers in this race. Despite organized labor’s clear rejection of Henry Cuellar, and his own equally clear rejection of workers’ interests with his PRO Act vote, they not only endorsed him but worked extra hard for him. Nancy Pelosi continued to defend him as a “valued member of our caucus,” while distancing herself from his abortion position. Pelosi even recorded a robocall for him, calling Cuellar a “fighter for hardworking families.” House majority leader Steny Hoyer also stood up for Cuellar. House Democratic Caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries, when asked, changed the subject back to himself and his own record. (House leaders did not have to defend Cuellar’s anti-labor politics to the press because, disgracefully, they weren’t asked about that.) House majority whip Jim Clyburn flew to Texas to campaign and rally with Cuellar against Cisneros days after the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked.
Clyburn at the time said the party shouldn’t have “litmus tests” on abortion. This labor bill — and Cuellar’s anti-labor history — highlights the deceptive absurdity of such statements: candidates with reactionary abortion politics are almost always reactionary on labor issues, too, and Cuellar is no exception.
Cuellar’s bill is backed by an unsavory anti-worker lobbying group called the Center for Workforce Innovation (CWI), whose whole strategy is to strip as many workers as possible of labor rights by defining them as independent contractors. The group’s members are large retail, trucking, tech, telecom, and construction companies, including some of the worst employers in America, like Amazon, Walmart, Uber, and DoorDash. The CWI’s agenda is a radical assault on the legal concepts underlying employee protection, chillingly parallel to the Supreme Court’s recent napalming of reproductive choice, the environment, and voting rights. Cuellar’s bill would give the CWI much of what they are seeking, and the group has only been around since 2019.
Cuellar only beat Cisneros by 289 votes, so every bit of support from the Democratic establishment helped. It’s the Democratic leadership’s fault that he’s in office, not only standing in the way of legislation protecting women’s reproductive freedom but also eviscerating everyone’s rights on the job. Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn should face career-threatening pressure to support the pro-worker candidate next time.
Criminal War Monger Nancy Pelosi And Demos Appropriate Millions For War On Venezuela
The US Approves Bill That May Legislate Hybrid Warfare on Venezuela
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/24/the-us-approves-bill-that-may-legislate-hybrid-warfare-on-venezuela/?fbclid=IwAR1tPFW1AdZWcsheZ-Z28Dd_Zs3JcSRy6f5PTNP1XXVO7BO8EZyYEmnNYwU
DECEMBER 24, 2019
by NINO PAGLICCIAFacebookTwitterRedditEmailatoa-print-icon.png
On December 16 both houses in the US approved the appropriation bill to be signed by President Trump. Aside from the mind-boggling amount of $1.4 trillion that was approved in total our interest was in looking at the details concerning Venezuela.
A press release issued by the organization Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is quite misleading in its over optimism suggesting that the appropriations bill “rejects the use of force in Venezuela and endorses a negotiated solution to the country’s crisis”. Another interpretation may be more realistic.
The full bill of 1773 pages includes a section about Venezuela. The first reference to the country is to state that “not less than $30 million shall be made available for democracy programs for Venezuela” and that the funds “shall be made available for assistance for communities in countries supporting or otherwise impacted by refugees from Venezuela, including Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago”. It is not possible to know if this is above the previously reported $52 million announced by Mark Green, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last September. To make it more confusing the same report states that this “is in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars already committed by the US to support the more than 4 million vulnerable Venezuelans who have fled the country’s crisis.”
The 50-page-long section of the bill that codifies legislation about Venezuela is titled ‘‘Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019’’ or ‘‘VERDAD Act of 2019’’. The legislation co-sponsored by senators Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio, was introduced last April in the Senate, and later referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. That same April self-appointed interim president Juan Guaidó staged (another) coup at La Carlota air base in eastern Caracas and called for the military to rise up against Maduro in the hope that the military would defect in mass and join him. The timing of the legislation and the attempted coup may have been carefully planned to coincide, but the coup never happened.
Aside from the $30 million for democracy programs, the VERDAD Act authorises a whopping $400 million for fiscal year 2020 to carry out “humanitarian relief” activities such as humanitarian assistance to individuals and communities in Venezuela and humanitarian aid to Venezuelans and hosting communities in neighboring countries. The US Secretary of State is mandated to provide within 180 days an update to the Venezuela humanitarian assistance strategy in coordination with USAID. Aside from this proviso, the allocation of the expenditures is very vague and leaves the door open to any interpretation or act of faith. For instance, it is not obvious that humanitarian assistance from the US can be provided within Venezuela. What then?
The legislation with the misnomer VERDAD, which means TRUTH in Spanish, is a repetition of untruths to justify the need to provide humanitarian relief. It has the standard US government recognition for the president of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó who was “sworn in” (read, self-appointed) as interim president on January 23, 2019 following the “fraudulent” (read, not suitable to the US) election of May 20, 2018. It further states the US full support for the International Contact Group on Venezuela (European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Uruguay), the OAS and the Lima Group (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia). Relevant comparison here is the almost 120 countries that have recognised the Maduro government.
Moreover, the VERDAD Act calls for “new presidential election in Venezuela that complies with international standards” (read, accepted by the US), with international observers like the OAS (read, the organization that contributed to the military coup in Bolivia), and boosting “independent media outlets” (read, corporate media). To carry out this activity the bill grants an extra $17.5 million to the office of the Secretary of State.
In a nutshell we can safely say that the US government will make large amounts of US tax payers money available for regime change in Venezuela under the guise of “humanitarian relief” for a crisis that the US government created to start with.
The VERDAD Act of 2019 has nothing new that we had not heard or reported before with the exception, perhaps, of the statement referred to by WOLA, “Nothing in this title [Title I – Venezuela Assistance] may be construed as an authorization for the use of military force.” But that does not give any reassurance to Venezuelans because in a Hybrid Warfare scenario it is very easy to create a situation where new conditions – likely fabricated under the pretence of national security – may be used on a whim to trigger a military intervention.
Indeed, a Hybrid Warfare uses some means that are readily recognisable such as infowar, discredit of leadership, recognition of an opposition, implementation of sanctions, financial and economic blockade, among others. These have all been utilised in the case of Venezuela, and the VERDAD Act spells them out with a dollar amount. But there are many other means of a Hybrid Warfare to achieve regime change that are not announced or perceptible, at least not until we see the resulting impact. For instance, the triggering of protests and riots, the arming of the opposition, acts of sabotage, promises of bribery for treason, and others.
If the US premises that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator and that there is no democratic process in Venezuela are false in order to justify its ideological goal, how can we trust Washington’s accountability process in the management of those funds appropriated for “humanitarian relief”? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to end the sanctions? What if those funds are used to co-opt other governments in the region, the Lima Group countries, the OAS, or to create a paid mercenary group such as that proposed by private security firm Blackwater to topple Maduro?
The ultimate question is, is the US government using its legislative power to legitimize a Hybrid Warfare against Venezuela with the VERDAD Act of 2019?
by NINO PAGLICCIA\]\\]\\FacebookTwitter]RedditEmailatoa-print-icon.png
On December 16 both houses in the US approved the appropriation bill to be signed by President Trump. Aside from the mind-boggling amount of $1.4 trillion that was approved in total our interest was in looking at the details concerning Venezuela.
A press release issued by the organization Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is quite misleading in its over optimism suggesting that the appropriations bill “rejects the use of force in Venezuela and endorses a negotiated solution to the country’s crisis”. Another interpretation may be more realistic.
The full bill of 1773 pages includes a section about Venezuela. The first reference to the country is to state that “not less than $30 million shall be made available for democracy programs for Venezuela” and that the funds “shall be made available for assistance for communities in countries supporting or otherwise impacted by refugees from Venezuela, including Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago”. It is not possible to know if this is above the previously reported $52 million announced by Mark Green, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last September. To make it more confusing the same report states that this “is in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars already committed by the US to support the more than 4 million vulnerable Venezuelans who have fled the country’s crisis.”
The 50-page-long section of the bill that codifies legislation about Venezuela is titled ‘‘Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019’’ or ‘‘VERDAD Act of 2019’’. The legislation co-sponsored by senators Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio, was introduced last April in the Senate, and later referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. That same April self-appointed interim president Juan Guaidó staged (another) coup at La Carlota air base in eastern Caracas and called for the military to rise up against Maduro in the hope that the military would defect in mass and join him. The timing of the legislation and the attempted coup may have been carefully planned to coincide, but the coup never happened.
Aside from the $30 million for democracy programs, the VERDAD Act authorises a whopping $400 million for fiscal year 2020 to carry out “humanitarian relief” activities such as humanitarian assistance to individuals and communities in Venezuela and humanitarian aid to Venezuelans and hosting communities in neighboring countries. The US Secretary of State is mandated to provide within 180 days an update to the Venezuela humanitarian assistance strategy in coordination with USAID. Aside from this proviso, the allocation of the expenditures is very vague and leaves the door open to any interpretation or act of faith. For instance, it is not obvious that humanitarian assistance from the US can be provided within Venezuela. What then?
The legislation with the misnomer VERDAD, which means TRUTH in Spanish, is a repetition of untruths to justify the need to provide humanitarian relief. It has the standard US government recognition for the president of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó who was “sworn in” (read, self-appointed) as interim president on January 23, 2019 following the “fraudulent” (read, not suitable to the US) election of May 20, 2018. It further states the US full support for the International Contact Group on Venezuela (European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Uruguay), the OAS and the Lima Group (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia). Relevant comparison here is the almost 120 countries that have recognised the Maduro government.
Moreover, the VERDAD Act calls for “new presidential election in Venezuela that complies with international standards” (read, accepted by the US), with international observers like the OAS (read, the organization that contributed to the military coup in Bolivia), and boosting “independent media outlets” (read, corporate media). To carry out this activity the bill grants an extra $17.5 million to the office of the Secretary of State.
In a nutshell we can safely say that the US government will make large amounts of US tax payers money available for regime change in Venezuela under the guise of “humanitarian relief” for a crisis that the US government created to start with.
The VERDAD Act of 2019 has nothing new that we had not heard or reported before with the exception, perhaps, of the statement referred to by WOLA, “Nothing in this title [Title I – Venezuela Assistance] may be construed as an authorization for the use of military force.” But that does not give any reassurance to Venezuelans because in a Hybrid Warfare scenario it is very easy to create a situation where new conditions – likely fabricated under the pretence of national security – may be used on a whim to trigger a military intervention.
Indeed, a Hybrid Warfare uses some means that are readily recognisable such as infowar, discredit of leadership, recognition of an opposition, implementation of sanctions, financial and economic blockade, among others. These have all been utilised in the case of Venezuela, and the VERDAD Act spells them out with a dollar amount. But there are many other means of a Hybrid Warfare to achieve regime change that are not announced or perceptible, at least not until we see the resulting impact. For instance, the triggering of protests and riots, the arming of the opposition, acts of sabotage, promises of bribery for treason, and others.
If the US premises that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator and that there is no democratic process in Venezuela are false in order to justify its ideological goal, how can we trust Washington’s accountability process in the management of those funds appropriated for “humanitarian relief”? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to end the sanctions? What if those funds are used to co-opt other governments in the region, the Lima Group countries, the OAS, or to create a paid mercenary group such as that proposed by private security firm Blackwater to topple Maduro?
The ultimate question is, is the US government using its legislative power to legitimize a Hybrid Warfare against Venezuela with the VERDAD Act of 2019?
The Republicans along with the Democrats have also. supported the Asian Pivot to militarize countries surrounding China and are selling billions dollars of new weapons to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Pelosi is also supporting Japan dumping Article 9 which prohibits expanding the use of the Japanese military to wars abroad including US and NATO wars. Former Prime Minister Abe was for the Japanese to become a nuclear power and for massive expansion of the military.
The rally took place on August 1, 2022.
Additional media:
STOP US War Funding In Ukraine! Protest At Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Oakland Office
https://youtu.be/znASOrg6nqA
Barbara Lee Supports Tens Of Billions Of Military Aid To Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msIsXUeN2jY
Ukraine, War & Labor: Presentation by Vermont AFL-CIO Executive Director Liz Medina
https://youtu.be/nSfUW7zeGbs
Labor, Imperialism, Fascism & The War In Ukraine With Cliff Smith, LA Roofers Local 36
https://youtu.be/Age3DLZ1TAM
The AFL-CIO, Ukraine, Capitalism & US Imperialism
https://youtu.be/go03XXjZJDM
US Capitalism, The Ukraine & Imperialism With George Wright
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilaiwLrziyM
US Privatization Of Ukraine, Puerto Rico, PG&E & The Natalie Jeresko Ana Montosantos Connections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvHNktE-kAA
Fascism, Imperialism & Labor With Vermont AFL-CIO President David Van Deusen
https://youtu.be/xI5wLyycy3w
Vermont AFL-CIO President David Van Deusen & The Fight To Defend Working People & The AFL-CIO
https://youtu.be/bS152f71t5A
Concerning the War in Ukraine: No Love For Putin; No Guns For Nazis
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/24/concerning-the-war-in-ukraine-no-love-for-putin-no-guns-for-nazis/
Production of Labor Video Project
http://www.labormedia.net
Pelosi Opposed Student Loan Cancellation After Billionaire Ally’s Memo
https://truthout.org/articles/pelosi-opposed-student-loan-cancellation-after-billionaire-allys-memo/?fbclid=IwAR36OW5Ya0lcVgYN7FJAE85BwknICxmNSXqn_YM_eTzoLOcXs9KxAOpXGHo
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at her weekly news conference at the Capitol building on August 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at her weekly news conference at the Capitol building on August 06, 2021 in Washington, DC.
ANNA MONEYMAKER / GETTY IMAGES
BY
Sharon Zhang, Truthout
PUBLISHED
August 6, 2021=
A memo uncovered by The Intercept shows that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) opposed supporting a push for President Joe Biden to cancel student loan debt after billionaire donors, with whom she has close ties, urged her to do so.
Last week, Pelosi announced her opposition to a popular progressive proposal to cancel student loan debt, which advocates say could provide major relief to millions of borrowers and provide a huge boost to the COVID-burdened economy.
“People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” Pelosi said, adding that, though she believes Congress should be in charge of the proposal, she also thinks student debt relief is unfair.
That opinion, which puts her at odds with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and surprised congressional insiders, comes after a powerful billionaire couple circulated a memo saying that the president does not have the power to cancel student debt.
“Recently, there has been heightened fervor around Senators [Elizabeth] Warren and Schumer’s proposal that President-elect Joe Biden could cancel student debt ‘with the pen as opposed to legislation.’ Unfortunately, that cannot happen,” the November memo from Democratic megadonors Steven and Mary Swig read.
Indeed, Schumer and Warren have been lobbying Biden to follow up on campaign promises and cancel student debt, which they say the president could do with an executive order. Despite Pelosi’s statement, many advocates and legal experts say that Biden has the authority to cancel student debt, and that time is of the essence to free up nearly $2 trillion worth of debt for borrowers to inject into the economy.
Pelosi’s view aligns more with the Swigs’ memo than the views of her congressional colleagues, who have cited legal avenues for the president to cancel student debt. But this may be due to the fact that Pelosi evidently maintains a close relationship with the billionaire donors, who have previously lobbied her directly on issues, The Intercept reports.
Pelosi not only keeps political ties to the Swigs, but also financial and professional ones as well. For years the couple has given her the maximum amount allowed under campaign finance law. Steven Swig has served as her campaign treasurer in reelection campaigns since 2012, and their niece worked for Pelosi between 2018 and March of this year.
The Swigs hold huge sway within Democratic circles, according to The Intercept, donating millions of dollars to the Democratic Party over the years. But they’re described by political insiders as “an often well-meaning couple who have donated to worthy causes but are rendered almost comically out of touch by their extraordinary wealth,” write The Intercept’s Ryan Grim and Ken Klippenstein. They didn’t even know until recent years, for instance, that people even had student loans.
Pelosi’s staff has denied that the Swig memo had influenced her view on the issue — the memo, after all, was supportive of the idea of canceling student debt in general, even if it says that Biden lacks the authority. However, student debt advocates are skeptical that Pelosi wasn’t influenced by the Swigs, especially since the House speaker’s statement shocked many on Capitol Hill.
“The only reason she was for it [legislatively] was because Steve and Mary asked her to,” one student loan debt advocate who is familiar with discussions between the Swigs and Pelosi told The Intercept.
Anti abortion Democrat Henry Cuellar Backed By Pelosi Is Now Seeking to Gut Labor Rights
https://jacobin.com/2022/07/antiabortion-democrat-henry-cuellar-worker-flexibility-choice-act
BYLIZA FEATHERSTONE
Henry Cuellar, the conservative, antiabortion Democratic congressman — who Nancy Pelosi called a “fighter for hardworking families” — has shocked the labor movement with a radical bill seeking to eviscerate workers’ rights.
Representative Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, has introduced a bill eviscerating labor rights that would make the Koch brothers proud.
Cuellar’s bill bears a gaslighting moniker: the Worker Flexibility and Choice Act — joining the Clear Skies Act and the Class Action Fairness Act in the annals of bills whose names are the exact opposite of their actual intent.
Cosponsored with Trumpian Republican Congresswomen Elise Stefanik and Michelle Steel, the bill creates whole new ways for employers to get out of paying minimum wage and overtime, extending the gig economy’s stress and chaos to millions more workers. As employment law professor Veena Dubal of University of California Hastings Law put it on Twitter, this bill would “make earning a living nearly impossible” for workers without bargaining power.
Cuellar, who represents Texas’s Twenty-Eighth District, gets significant funding from Koch organizations. That’s not surprising, since he’s been working to destroy Americans’ already fragile workplace rights for years. The scandal is that the Democratic national leadership fought hard to help him get elected. They did this not in a general election — against a Republican who might well have been even worse — but in a primary against a challenger, Jessica Cisneros, an immigration rights lawyer backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats.
What’s even more confounding is that the Democratic leadership knew what they were getting with Cuellar. Not only is he the most antichoice Democrat in the federal government, as well as a favorite of the fossil fuel industry — Cuellar has made no secret of his anti-labor politics. Last year, Cuellar voted against the PRO Act, which would have made it easier for workers to organize unions.
Cisneros supported the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and the PRO Act. Sensibly, the most anti-worker forces lined up behind Cuellar, including the US Chamber of Commerce. Joining them were Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, Hakeem Jeffries, and Steny Hoyer.
Although unions too often back centrist incumbents over left challengers who are better on labor issues, this was not the case in Cuellar’s race against Cisneros. Even organized labor, not always the savviest critics of the Democratic establishment, knew Cuellar was bad news.
This was Cisneros’s second challenge to Cuellar, and in the last two primary cycles, the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union backed Cisneros, as did progressive groups with labor backing, like the Working Families Party. This year, labor was especially incensed by his opposition to the PRO Act. The Texas AFL-CIO supported Cisneros. Other unions supporting her included the United Farm Workers, National Nurses United, and, on the local level, United Steelworkers District 13, UNITE HERE Local 23, and the San Antonio AFL-CIO Central Labor Council.
This loud and unified labor veto of Henry Cuellar didn’t sway the Democratic establishment. Although principled liberals like Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, and Julian Castro joined Bernie Sanders and AOC in backing Cisneros, House leaders were willing to throw abortion rights, the environment, and even labor under the bus just to avoid expanding the Squad and prevent another Berniecrat from joining Congress.
The Democratic leadership proved that they didn’t care about workers in this race. Despite organized labor’s clear rejection of Henry Cuellar, and his own equally clear rejection of workers’ interests with his PRO Act vote, they not only endorsed him but worked extra hard for him. Nancy Pelosi continued to defend him as a “valued member of our caucus,” while distancing herself from his abortion position. Pelosi even recorded a robocall for him, calling Cuellar a “fighter for hardworking families.” House majority leader Steny Hoyer also stood up for Cuellar. House Democratic Caucus chair Hakeem Jeffries, when asked, changed the subject back to himself and his own record. (House leaders did not have to defend Cuellar’s anti-labor politics to the press because, disgracefully, they weren’t asked about that.) House majority whip Jim Clyburn flew to Texas to campaign and rally with Cuellar against Cisneros days after the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked.
Clyburn at the time said the party shouldn’t have “litmus tests” on abortion. This labor bill — and Cuellar’s anti-labor history — highlights the deceptive absurdity of such statements: candidates with reactionary abortion politics are almost always reactionary on labor issues, too, and Cuellar is no exception.
Cuellar’s bill is backed by an unsavory anti-worker lobbying group called the Center for Workforce Innovation (CWI), whose whole strategy is to strip as many workers as possible of labor rights by defining them as independent contractors. The group’s members are large retail, trucking, tech, telecom, and construction companies, including some of the worst employers in America, like Amazon, Walmart, Uber, and DoorDash. The CWI’s agenda is a radical assault on the legal concepts underlying employee protection, chillingly parallel to the Supreme Court’s recent napalming of reproductive choice, the environment, and voting rights. Cuellar’s bill would give the CWI much of what they are seeking, and the group has only been around since 2019.
Cuellar only beat Cisneros by 289 votes, so every bit of support from the Democratic establishment helped. It’s the Democratic leadership’s fault that he’s in office, not only standing in the way of legislation protecting women’s reproductive freedom but also eviscerating everyone’s rights on the job. Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn should face career-threatening pressure to support the pro-worker candidate next time.
Criminal War Monger Nancy Pelosi And Demos Appropriate Millions For War On Venezuela
The US Approves Bill That May Legislate Hybrid Warfare on Venezuela
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/24/the-us-approves-bill-that-may-legislate-hybrid-warfare-on-venezuela/?fbclid=IwAR1tPFW1AdZWcsheZ-Z28Dd_Zs3JcSRy6f5PTNP1XXVO7BO8EZyYEmnNYwU
DECEMBER 24, 2019
by NINO PAGLICCIAFacebookTwitterRedditEmailatoa-print-icon.png
On December 16 both houses in the US approved the appropriation bill to be signed by President Trump. Aside from the mind-boggling amount of $1.4 trillion that was approved in total our interest was in looking at the details concerning Venezuela.
A press release issued by the organization Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is quite misleading in its over optimism suggesting that the appropriations bill “rejects the use of force in Venezuela and endorses a negotiated solution to the country’s crisis”. Another interpretation may be more realistic.
The full bill of 1773 pages includes a section about Venezuela. The first reference to the country is to state that “not less than $30 million shall be made available for democracy programs for Venezuela” and that the funds “shall be made available for assistance for communities in countries supporting or otherwise impacted by refugees from Venezuela, including Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago”. It is not possible to know if this is above the previously reported $52 million announced by Mark Green, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last September. To make it more confusing the same report states that this “is in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars already committed by the US to support the more than 4 million vulnerable Venezuelans who have fled the country’s crisis.”
The 50-page-long section of the bill that codifies legislation about Venezuela is titled ‘‘Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019’’ or ‘‘VERDAD Act of 2019’’. The legislation co-sponsored by senators Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio, was introduced last April in the Senate, and later referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. That same April self-appointed interim president Juan Guaidó staged (another) coup at La Carlota air base in eastern Caracas and called for the military to rise up against Maduro in the hope that the military would defect in mass and join him. The timing of the legislation and the attempted coup may have been carefully planned to coincide, but the coup never happened.
Aside from the $30 million for democracy programs, the VERDAD Act authorises a whopping $400 million for fiscal year 2020 to carry out “humanitarian relief” activities such as humanitarian assistance to individuals and communities in Venezuela and humanitarian aid to Venezuelans and hosting communities in neighboring countries. The US Secretary of State is mandated to provide within 180 days an update to the Venezuela humanitarian assistance strategy in coordination with USAID. Aside from this proviso, the allocation of the expenditures is very vague and leaves the door open to any interpretation or act of faith. For instance, it is not obvious that humanitarian assistance from the US can be provided within Venezuela. What then?
The legislation with the misnomer VERDAD, which means TRUTH in Spanish, is a repetition of untruths to justify the need to provide humanitarian relief. It has the standard US government recognition for the president of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó who was “sworn in” (read, self-appointed) as interim president on January 23, 2019 following the “fraudulent” (read, not suitable to the US) election of May 20, 2018. It further states the US full support for the International Contact Group on Venezuela (European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Uruguay), the OAS and the Lima Group (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia). Relevant comparison here is the almost 120 countries that have recognised the Maduro government.
Moreover, the VERDAD Act calls for “new presidential election in Venezuela that complies with international standards” (read, accepted by the US), with international observers like the OAS (read, the organization that contributed to the military coup in Bolivia), and boosting “independent media outlets” (read, corporate media). To carry out this activity the bill grants an extra $17.5 million to the office of the Secretary of State.
In a nutshell we can safely say that the US government will make large amounts of US tax payers money available for regime change in Venezuela under the guise of “humanitarian relief” for a crisis that the US government created to start with.
The VERDAD Act of 2019 has nothing new that we had not heard or reported before with the exception, perhaps, of the statement referred to by WOLA, “Nothing in this title [Title I – Venezuela Assistance] may be construed as an authorization for the use of military force.” But that does not give any reassurance to Venezuelans because in a Hybrid Warfare scenario it is very easy to create a situation where new conditions – likely fabricated under the pretence of national security – may be used on a whim to trigger a military intervention.
Indeed, a Hybrid Warfare uses some means that are readily recognisable such as infowar, discredit of leadership, recognition of an opposition, implementation of sanctions, financial and economic blockade, among others. These have all been utilised in the case of Venezuela, and the VERDAD Act spells them out with a dollar amount. But there are many other means of a Hybrid Warfare to achieve regime change that are not announced or perceptible, at least not until we see the resulting impact. For instance, the triggering of protests and riots, the arming of the opposition, acts of sabotage, promises of bribery for treason, and others.
If the US premises that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator and that there is no democratic process in Venezuela are false in order to justify its ideological goal, how can we trust Washington’s accountability process in the management of those funds appropriated for “humanitarian relief”? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to end the sanctions? What if those funds are used to co-opt other governments in the region, the Lima Group countries, the OAS, or to create a paid mercenary group such as that proposed by private security firm Blackwater to topple Maduro?
The ultimate question is, is the US government using its legislative power to legitimize a Hybrid Warfare against Venezuela with the VERDAD Act of 2019?
by NINO PAGLICCIA\]\\]\\FacebookTwitter]RedditEmailatoa-print-icon.png
On December 16 both houses in the US approved the appropriation bill to be signed by President Trump. Aside from the mind-boggling amount of $1.4 trillion that was approved in total our interest was in looking at the details concerning Venezuela.
A press release issued by the organization Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) is quite misleading in its over optimism suggesting that the appropriations bill “rejects the use of force in Venezuela and endorses a negotiated solution to the country’s crisis”. Another interpretation may be more realistic.
The full bill of 1773 pages includes a section about Venezuela. The first reference to the country is to state that “not less than $30 million shall be made available for democracy programs for Venezuela” and that the funds “shall be made available for assistance for communities in countries supporting or otherwise impacted by refugees from Venezuela, including Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago”. It is not possible to know if this is above the previously reported $52 million announced by Mark Green, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) last September. To make it more confusing the same report states that this “is in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars already committed by the US to support the more than 4 million vulnerable Venezuelans who have fled the country’s crisis.”
The 50-page-long section of the bill that codifies legislation about Venezuela is titled ‘‘Venezuela Emergency Relief, Democracy Assistance, and Development Act of 2019’’ or ‘‘VERDAD Act of 2019’’. The legislation co-sponsored by senators Robert Menendez and Marco Rubio, was introduced last April in the Senate, and later referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. That same April self-appointed interim president Juan Guaidó staged (another) coup at La Carlota air base in eastern Caracas and called for the military to rise up against Maduro in the hope that the military would defect in mass and join him. The timing of the legislation and the attempted coup may have been carefully planned to coincide, but the coup never happened.
Aside from the $30 million for democracy programs, the VERDAD Act authorises a whopping $400 million for fiscal year 2020 to carry out “humanitarian relief” activities such as humanitarian assistance to individuals and communities in Venezuela and humanitarian aid to Venezuelans and hosting communities in neighboring countries. The US Secretary of State is mandated to provide within 180 days an update to the Venezuela humanitarian assistance strategy in coordination with USAID. Aside from this proviso, the allocation of the expenditures is very vague and leaves the door open to any interpretation or act of faith. For instance, it is not obvious that humanitarian assistance from the US can be provided within Venezuela. What then?
The legislation with the misnomer VERDAD, which means TRUTH in Spanish, is a repetition of untruths to justify the need to provide humanitarian relief. It has the standard US government recognition for the president of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó who was “sworn in” (read, self-appointed) as interim president on January 23, 2019 following the “fraudulent” (read, not suitable to the US) election of May 20, 2018. It further states the US full support for the International Contact Group on Venezuela (European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Uruguay), the OAS and the Lima Group (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia). Relevant comparison here is the almost 120 countries that have recognised the Maduro government.
Moreover, the VERDAD Act calls for “new presidential election in Venezuela that complies with international standards” (read, accepted by the US), with international observers like the OAS (read, the organization that contributed to the military coup in Bolivia), and boosting “independent media outlets” (read, corporate media). To carry out this activity the bill grants an extra $17.5 million to the office of the Secretary of State.
In a nutshell we can safely say that the US government will make large amounts of US tax payers money available for regime change in Venezuela under the guise of “humanitarian relief” for a crisis that the US government created to start with.
The VERDAD Act of 2019 has nothing new that we had not heard or reported before with the exception, perhaps, of the statement referred to by WOLA, “Nothing in this title [Title I – Venezuela Assistance] may be construed as an authorization for the use of military force.” But that does not give any reassurance to Venezuelans because in a Hybrid Warfare scenario it is very easy to create a situation where new conditions – likely fabricated under the pretence of national security – may be used on a whim to trigger a military intervention.
Indeed, a Hybrid Warfare uses some means that are readily recognisable such as infowar, discredit of leadership, recognition of an opposition, implementation of sanctions, financial and economic blockade, among others. These have all been utilised in the case of Venezuela, and the VERDAD Act spells them out with a dollar amount. But there are many other means of a Hybrid Warfare to achieve regime change that are not announced or perceptible, at least not until we see the resulting impact. For instance, the triggering of protests and riots, the arming of the opposition, acts of sabotage, promises of bribery for treason, and others.
If the US premises that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator and that there is no democratic process in Venezuela are false in order to justify its ideological goal, how can we trust Washington’s accountability process in the management of those funds appropriated for “humanitarian relief”? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to end the sanctions? What if those funds are used to co-opt other governments in the region, the Lima Group countries, the OAS, or to create a paid mercenary group such as that proposed by private security firm Blackwater to topple Maduro?
The ultimate question is, is the US government using its legislative power to legitimize a Hybrid Warfare against Venezuela with the VERDAD Act of 2019?
For more information:
https://youtu.be/02YkfJ2Y9ZQ
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network