“Bowman’s nomination for vice-chair for supervision is a gift to the banking industry. Under her leadership we can expect loosening capital requirements, lax bank supervision, and neglect of emerging risks to the financial system, including from climate change.

“At a moment when insurance markets are driving instability across the country, the potential for a financial crisis driven by climate change has never been higher. The Federal Reserve needs a vice chair for supervision who is attuned to the risks climate change poses to financial stability and is willing to exercise their authority to mitigate these risks both for the financial institutions under the Federal Reserve’s supervision as well as the broader financial system and economy. During her tenure at the Federal Reserve, Bowman has been unwilling to take the steps needed to stem these risks.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

A quote, wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, reads:

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Well, that may be true but what is also true is that you can fool most of the people (followers of politicians, political parties, religions, celebrities, stars, social media influencers, businesspersons, and so on) most of the time because followers place blind trust in their heroes, heroines, religious leaders, influencers, etc.

This was visible during the quadrennial spectacles called Republican National Convention (July 15 to July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and Democratic National Convention (August 19 to August 22, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois).

Of course, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party: the Republicans are overtly hostile and will screw you unashamedly in broad day light without any kind of lubrication or apology.

The Democrats are, in that respect, a bit less rough. They’ll beg your pardon; would plead with you to understand the criticality of the situation; but will screw you, nonetheless — of course, in a dim light with a bit of lubricant.

Both the conventions took place during the ongoing Israeli slaughter, displacements, starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza since October 12, 2023. Both parties have supported the Israeli carnage. There is a division in the Democratic Party about supporting Israel, but the strong voices are few and many a times become victims of the Israel Lobby. One of the powerful group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has spent more than $100 million in the 2024 election campaign: $15 million was spent to defeat US House Representatives Jamal Bowman who was critical of Israeli genocide of Gazans and $9 million to oust Cori Bush, another critic of Israeli war.

Danaka Katovich, National Co-Director CodePink, describes how a woman outside the convention center calling out the names of the children killed in Gaza was ignored and laughed at.

“There was a young woman that sat outside the exit of the Democratic National Convention on its third night reading the names of the children Israel has killed in the last ten months. She did it for hours, until her speaker battery died. She did it alone, taking care to pronounce every child’s name correctly and to say their age at the time of their murder. Without her, many of the DNC guests wouldn’t necessarily be confronted with the carnage members of their party is carrying out.

“Outside the gates of the DNC I saw a young woman making sure the children of Palestine weren’t just numbers, and I saw people laughing at her for doing so. They laughed loudly and mocked her voice. They mocked the names of the dead babies. They yelled at her to leave them alone. They left the coronation ceremony livid that they had to even hear about Gaza.”

Things were not too different inside the convention center, either.

The DNC allowed the parents of one of the hostages held by Hamas to speak and highlight their plight but no Palestinian was permitted to talk about the killing of over 41,000 [1] Palestinians (33% of them children and 18.4% women) and about ceasefire. Even a speech which included support for Kamala Harris was disallowed.

The speakers who did talk about Gaza and Palestine knew very well that their speeches were not going to make any difference.

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez):

“She [Vice President Kamala Harris] is working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.”

After five and a half years in the US Congress and as an active member of the Democratic Party, progressive AOC [2] knows damn well that no efforts on part of Kamala or Biden administration is needed to secure a ceasefire — the US just has to stop money and arms flow to Israel and that’s it.

On August 21, AOC posted on X:

“Just as we must honor the humanity of hostages, so too must we center the humanity of the 40,000 Palestinians killed under Israeli bombardment. To deny that story is to participate in the dehumanization of Palestinians. The @DNC must change course and affirm our shared humanity.

Bernie Sanders:

“We must end this horrific war in Gaza. Bring home the hostages and demand an immediate ceasefire.”

Two progressive members devoted a total of 31 words to the more than 10 month old continuing tragedy without mentioning the over 41,000 Palestinians killed!

Senator Raphael Warnock (Georgia) talked about children’s (including Gaza’s) safety.

“I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay — poor inner-city children in Atlanta and poor children in Appalachia.” “I need the poor children of Israel and the poor children of Gaza, I need Israelis and Palestinians, I need those in the Congo, those in Haiti, those in Ukraine. I need American children on both sides of the tracks to be OK. Because we are all God’s children.”

The speakers, including (Barack Obama), touched on various topics, but as Lorraine Ali in Los Angeles Times observed,

“But little was said about Gaza or Israel, and the silence spoke volumes. Let’s talk about everything but that war.”

When hawkish Harris opened her mouth she roared about defending the security of the most powerful and technologically advanced country, Israel, against the broken Palestinians.

“With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock because now is the time to get a hostage deal and cease-fire done.

“Let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on Oct. 7.

“Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again.

“The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that – Israel is secure – the hostages are released – the suffering in Gaza ends – and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity.”

Hamas of the Israeli occupied Gaza is a “terrorist organization” but there is no mention of who caused the loss of “so many innocent lives” or who is making “desperate, hungry people” flee for “safety, over and over again.”
No mention of Israel. This, from one who is the would-be next President of the US.

She said she and Biden are “working around the clock.” The clock must be out of order. The war will only stop when the US decides to halt its support.

Back in July, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress. Many Democrats abstained, Harris included. But then the very next day, she met Netanyahu in private. Her facial expressions didn’t show she was angry in any manner. Now look at Obama’s picture with Netanyahu where Obama’s displeasure is visible. Netanyahu was trying to undermine Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The statement by Harris after her meeting with Netanyahu was the same diplomatic bullshit. [3]

The conventions are basically a feel good exercise to create excitement and hope among supporters and to denigrate and make fun of the opposition. The Democrats did exactly that; made fun of former president and the current Republican Party presidential candidate, Donald Trump and frightened, rightly so, their followers/die hard supporters with fascism replacing “democracy” if Trump gets reelected.

The Democrats, however, didn’t remind their supporters that they (the Democrats), when in power, do act in a fascist manner overseas with their wars, sanctions, embargoes, blockades, seizing money and gold belonging to countries they don’t like.

On domestic issues the Democrats and Republicans differ on certain issues but both support capitalism and get plenty of money from the corporations. The hands of both parties are drenched with blood of foreigners, including children and women. Even within the US, the Democrats are cruel with many segments of the society. Republicans are openly cruel.

Notes

[1] After every Israeli deadly crime, the usual statement, actually a warning, from its major supporter, the United States, is,

“We are engaged in intense diplomacy pretty much around the clock, with a very simple message: All parties must refrain from escalation.”

That is, Israel’s murderous act should remain unpunished or else we’ll jump in to defend Israel. The above warning was for Iran to refrain from any retaliation against Israel which had assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had also ordered killing of Lebanese militia group Hezbollah’s commander Fuad Shukr.

[2] The Democratic leadership was using one of their presidents’ tactic by inviting AOC to speak and thus mainstreaming her but also blunting her voice. President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 – 1973) said the following about FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

“It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”

[3] A couple of paragraphs from Harris’ statement;

“I also expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there, with over 2 million people facing high levels of food insecurity and half a million people facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating — the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time.  We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering.  And I will not be silent.”

Lip service completed, let the one-sided hostilities continue …

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

Tuesday is the culmination of the most expensive primary race in U.S. history in New York’s 16th Congressional District. Democratic Congressmember Jamaal Bowman, a former Bronx middle school principal and one of the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza in October, is being challenged by a former corporate executive, George Latimer, who was encouraged to run by the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC. Outside spending in the race has topped $23 million, much of it from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC. Bowman, a recent guest on Democracy Now!, is a member of the progressive “Squad” in Congress, a coalition of congressional representatives that includes New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who campaigned for Bowman at a reelection rally in New York City Saturday, and Massachusetts’s Ayanna Pressley. Bowman “needs to be decisively returned” to Congress, says Pressley, who joins Democracy Now! to discuss the final push to get out the vote for Bowman and characterizes him as the “pro-peace, pro-humanity, pro-justice candidate.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Photograph Source: U.S. Department of Defense – Public Domain

I grew up in northern Westchester County, New York. Nearly twenty years ago I came to DC, thinking it’d be for just a few months. Instead, I got swept up in DC’s activist scene and haven’t left the area.

First as an activist, then as a journalist, my focus was on the city’s local power structure, the DC Council in particular. But with Congress right here, I’d occasionally visit the Capitol and sit in on random committee hearings.

No hearings frustrated me more than those of the House Foreign Relations Committee, where the panel’s top Democrat, Congressman Eliot Engel, seemed to back every war, while opposing diplomatic advances like President Obama’s Iran deal.

But what made me angriest about Engel was that he represented, in addition to a sliver of the Bronx, the southern half of my home county of Westchester. And I knew that most of Engel’s constituents had no idea that he was misusing his powerful post to push for more war.

So in 2020, when Engel drew a serious primary challenge, I was thrilled. Even if the first-time candidate, a Black middle school principal named Jamaal Bowman, had no chance of winning, at least Engel wouldn’t waltz into his seventeenth term without a fight. Then the impossible happened, and Bowman won.

In the ensuing three-and-a-half years, Bowman has proven to be every bit as peaceful on foreign policy as Engel was bellicose. And for that, Bowman is a marked man – particularly by AIPAC and its right-wing donors.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been around over 60 years, but it only began intervening in Democratic primaries in a big way last election cycle. AIPAC’s move came on the heels of a string of corporate Democrats losing primary contests to progressive “Squad” members, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, and Bowman two years later.

To stop this trend, AIPAC – backed by millions from Republican donors – quickly became the top outside spender in Democratic primaries, dropping $26 million in 2022. This year, AIPAC plans to spend a cool $100 million, and the group’s top target is Bowman, whose primary is Tuesday, June 25.

“[I]n barely a month, an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC has spent $14.5 million — up to $17,000 an hour — on the race, filling television screens, stuffing mailboxes and clogging phone lines with caustic attacks,” the New York Times reported. “With days to go, the expenditures have already eclipsed what any interest group has ever spent on a single House race.”

Tellingly, AIPAC’s ads rarely mention Bowman’s views on Israel, which are thoughtful and nuanced, and supported by many progressive Jews. “Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” Bowman said at a protest outside the White House late last year. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”

Of course, Bowman isn’t perfect. He infamously pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol Building, reportedly to delay a vote, which led to his censure. And he follows a wide array of folks on social media, including some conspiracy theorists. AIPAC, however, isn’t targeting him for these reasons, but because of his views on Israel and Palestine.

While too much airtime has been given to Bowman’s imperfections, not enough has been given to those of his opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who AIPAC helped recruit to run.

Latimer’s cheating on his wife with his longtime girlfriend “has been an open secret in Westchester politics for years,” Talk of the Sound, a local blog, reported in 2021, and 2017. While that’s Latimer’s personal business, he made it the county’s when he quietly gave his girlfriend a six-figure job in his administration. Just imagine the salacious headlines we’d be reading right now if Bowman had tried to pull that off.

And that’s not all. When Latimer’s unpaid parking tickets grew so numerous that he was prohibited from driving his own car, he borrowed a subordinate’s. We know this because Latimer proceeded to crash his staffer’s car, injuring another driver in a 2017 accident.

During this period when Latimer was legally barred from driving his car, he thumbed his nose at the law and did so anyway. Questioned about this by The Journal News, Latimer claimed he’d only taken the car on a quick “loop” to keep the engine healthy – and get some coffee.

There’s been radio silence in the media about these incidents, which wouldn’t be the case if Bowman was the scofflaw in question. But as concerning as these transgressions are, it’s Latimer’s earlier political choices that trouble me more.

Yonkers

I was just a kid when my Uncle Len issued his landmark 1985 ruling. The only impact it had on me was that, when visiting Uncle Len and Aunt Ann for a swim in their delightfully cool pool, I now might see US Marshalls in the driveway, which seemed pretty cool at the time.

When my great uncle wasn’t poolside, it turned out he was a federal judge. And Judge Leonard Sand had managed to piss off a lot of people when he required the city of Yonkers to desegregate its housing. (HBO’s mini-series Show Me a Hero dramatizes these events.)

While this may seem like ancient history, it didn’t feel that way as I read Branko Marcetic’s recent story for Jacobin, “George Latimer’s History of Slow-Walking Desegregation.”

Yonkers, after years of foot-dragging, finally came around to the idea of building substantial amounts of affordable housing, as Uncle Len’s ruling required. Only to do so, the city sought to use four-and-a-half acres of local parkland – but Latimer, an up-and-coming legislator at the time, was determined to prevent this.

“Latimer was one of the eight county legislators who narrowly defeated a push in March 1997 to hand the parkland over to the city for housing,” Marcetic wrote. “A month later, he was on the losing end of a 12–3 vote to transfer the parkland, voting alongside two Republicans on the majority-GOP board.”

For several years after that, including as board chairman, Latimer still carried on his fight. “Latimer fought the city’s attempt to abide by a federal desegregation order to the bitter end,” wrote Marcetic, “even when it put him to the right of his own party leadership and much of the New York political establishment, Republicans included.”

Close to home

There’s a final reason why the Bowman-Latimer race hits close to home for me. As a Jew, it’s infuriating to watch AIPAC unleash millions of dollars in attack ads against yet another progressive Black candidate.

While AIPAC boasts of being the top donor to Congressional Black Caucus members, the fact remains that nothing animates the group quite like taking out Black progressives.

I watched this up close two years ago, when AIPAC’s super PAC spent $6 million to stop former congresswoman Donna Edwards from representing her Maryland district abutting DC. And after AIPAC is through with Bowman, its next target is Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, whose primary is August 6.

“‘Shut up or else’ is the message [AIPAC]… is sending to Black lawmakers in America who are critical of what’s happening in Gaza,” Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah wrote in regards to the onslaught Bowman is facing.

“It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Bowman vs. Latimer showdown for progressives… it is a test of how far America’s right wing will go to crush progressive movements. No one should be surprised that a Black politician is the canary in the coal mine.”

The post Tuesday’s Jamaal Bowman Primary Hits Close to Home for Me appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Pete Tucker.

Democratic Congressmember Delia Ramirez of Illinois says “big money in politics” is a threat to U.S. democracy, pointing to Jamaal Bowman’s primary race as an example of how deep-pocketed interest groups can impact election contests. Bowman is a progressive “Squad” member facing a tight nomination race in New York’s 16th Congressional District against his Democratic challenger George Latimer, who has the backing of groups affiliated with the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which have pumped millions of dollars into the primary. Bowman was one of the first lawmakers to call for a Gaza ceasefire after October 7. “They are literally trying to purchase that election because he dared to stand for peace and justice,” says Ramirez.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We speak with Congressmember Jamaal Bowman of New York, one of the top targets for pro-Israel groups seeking to oust lawmakers who have led calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. Bowman is a former Bronx middle school principal who won his seat in 2020 before becoming a member of the so-called Squad of progressives in Congress. The powerful lobby group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, could spend as much as $25 million to support George Latimer, Bowman’s rival for the Democratic nomination in New York’s 16th District, which would make it the most expensive primary fight in U.S. history. “It’s unprecedented,” says Bowman, who calls it “despicable” for the group to target him for his antiwar stance. “They don’t want anyone to be critical of the state of Israel, even though an honest critique will lead to the ongoing safety and security of the people of Israel and hopefully get us a free Palestine.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

At a Black History Month event in New Rochelle over the weekend, George Latimer said Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., whom he is challenging in a Democratic primary, was taking money from the Palestinian militant group Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terror organization. On Tuesday, Bowman’s campaign threatened to sue Latimer for defamation over the remarks and demanded he retract them.

Latimer’s comments came when a constituent, who requested anonymity for personal safety, approached the Democratic challenger with two questions: Why was he running, and why was he taking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? AIPAC had recruited him to run for the congressional seat and, as The Intercept previously reported, is Latimer’s largest campaign funder.

When the constituent said Latimer was “taking money from the devil,” Latimer responded that Bowman was too — that the incumbent was “taking money from Hamas.”

The incendiary charge came in a Democratic primary where AIPAC is playing an outsized role in trying to oust a progressive member of the Squad. The flagship Israel lobby’s quest to unseat Democratic incumbents and replace them with centrist and moderate candidates who vigorously support Israel has become the most prominent theme of the 2024 primary season.

“It’s outright disturbing and dangerous that he has doubled down on his Islamophobic comments,” Bowman said in a statement to The Intercept. “He should apologize to a community he continues to vilify and endanger, not double down on hatred.”

Latimer had offered his broadside against Bowman with little proof. Challenged on the comment, which was first reported by the website Black Westchester, the constituent asked Latimer to offer proof and Latimer took their email. AJ Woodson, who runs Black Westchester and wrote the article, confirmed the constituent’s account of the remarks, which Woodson witnessed from several feet away.

Latimer later sent the constituent a link to an article from the right-wing news website Washington Free Beacon with the headline “They Endorsed Hamas Terrorism. Then They Hosted a Big-Ticker Fundraiser for Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush.” While the article points to controversial remarks made about the October 7 Hamas attack by groups with ties to the campaign donors — one organization, for instance, said acts of resistance should not be condemned — it does not allege that any of the fundraiser’s participants are linked to Hamas in any way.

When asked by the press about his allegation, Latimer did not deny the remarks and again sought to tie Bowman to Hamas. “Let me set the record straight – my opponent takes money from those who endorse Hamas’ terrorism, those who try to justify the murdering of children, the kidnapping of civilian hostages, and the raping of women as acts of ‘resistance,’” Latimer said in statement to City & State. (Latimer did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.)

Republicans for Latimer

Latimer’s comments were part of a strategy by his campaign and AIPAC to stoke fear about Bowman among Westchester’s Jewish residents, said the constituent who confronted the candidate.

“It’s sort of like the northeast version of the southern strategy.”

“It’s sort of like the northeast version of the southern strategy,” they said. “Now the Latimer strategy, or more like the AIPAC strategy, is to link progressives who may want a ceasefire and that recognize what’s in Gaza is terrible, to link them in a racist way to Hamas, when that is not what they’re engaged in.”

Woodson, the Black Westchester writer, was a vendor at the New Rochelle event and said he also spoke to Latimer about frustration that his campaign was courting Republican voters.

AIPAC endorsed Latimer’s campaign just days after he held a fundraiser hosted by a Republican donor who supported former President Donald Trump. An AIPAC donor has also encouraged Jewish Republicans to switch parties to vote in the primary against Bowman.

“I’m against the Republicans telling all their members to register as Democrats so they can vote against Bowman in the Democratic primary,” Woodson said. “If Democrats feel that Latimer is the right candidate, then they should be free to vote for him without outside interference from hundreds or thousands of Republican voters in the Democratic primary.”

AIPAC has ramped up its attacks on members of Congress who have criticized U.S. military support for Israel and voted for a ceasefire resolution introduced in October. Bowman is one of AIPAC’s main targets this cycle, along with other members of the Squad including Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

The Israel lobby group has played a bigger role in congressional elections in recent cycles and launched a Super PAC that plans to spend $100 million against the Squad this year. During the 2020 cycle, AIAPC endorsed more than 100 Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Akela Lacy.

Members of Young Israel of New Rochelle synagogue in suburban Westchester County, New York, received an email Thursday afternoon from a group of congregants. 

“We are all looking to do what we can to help Israel in its time of need,” the email said. “I am part of a group in our shul which is focused on one singular thing we can all do—and that is helping to defeat our current Congressman Jamaal Bowman in the Democratic primary which will take place on June 25, 2024.”

“It is critically important that if you are a registered Republican, at least for this election you should re-register as a Democrat so you can vote in the primary (against Bowman).”

Bowman, whose New York district includes the Bronx and parts of Westchester County, is being targeted in his primary next year for criticisms of Israel and calls for a ceasefire in its war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. His challenger, Westchester County Executive George Latimer, is being backed by pro-Israel groups, including the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The congregant who wrote the email to the New Rochelle synagogue, Jonathan Harris, was urging the synagogue’s Republican members to change parties before the primary so that they can vote for Latimer.

“If you are a registered Republican voter, you are not eligible to vote in the all-important Democratic primary,” says Harris’s email, a copy of which was obtained by The Intercept. “It is critically important that if you are a registered Republican, at least for this election you should re-register as a Democrat so you can vote in the primary (against Bowman).” 

Harris and the congregants responsible for the email went on to lay out three other ways synagogue members could help defeat Bowman. They urged New Israel congregants to donate to Latimer’s campaign against Bowman — asking that they give money through a portal set up by AIPAC. (Neither AIPAC nor Latimer’s campaign immediately responded to a request for comment.)

“Any pledge you can make to support him in the primary will be extremely helpful,” Harris wrote. “Please let me know what you are willing to contribute so I can add it to the list being generated for our shul. Please process the amount of your pledge on the website AIPAC has created to gather donations to Latimer.”

In an interview with The Intercept, Harris said he did not have a “direct connection” with the Latimer campaign. When asked about an indirect connection, he asked to go off the record. Harris declined to answer more questions on the record and did not answer multiple follow-up calls. 

The Young Israel of New Rochelle synagogue denied any knowledge of the email. “Please note that the referenced Harris email and solicitation was not done by or on behalf of the Young Israel of New Rochelle or its leadership,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

Over the past three years, Harris has donated $10,500 to AIPAC’s political action committee, according to public election finance records.

AIPAC Versus Bowman

AIPAC has said it plans to spend upwards of $100 million to oust members of the Squad, a group of progressive Democratic members of Congress who have been critical of Israel’s human rights violations. AIPAC and allied groups have become the central players in Democratic Party primaries — a dynamic that kicked into overdrive with Israel’s war on Gaza. 

The email from Harris to his fellow congregants is the latest effort to mobilize voters upset with Bowman’s criticisms of Israel.

AIPAC’s super PAC began recruiting Latimer over the summer, around the same time Bowman boycotted a congressional address from Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Despite AIPAC, which bills itself as a single-issue venture, spurring on his candidacy, Latimer is seeking to draw attention away from his Israel stance. Instead, he has billed himself as a progressive.

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack launched the latest Gaza war, Bowman has been especially vocal in condemning what he sees as a disproportionate response from Israel and joining in protests outside the White House.

Harris’s email also urges congregants to act on a looming decision from the New York State Appellate Court that will result in the congressional lines being redrawn.

“If this happens and the Jewish community is divided amongst different districts, it will highly increase Bowman’s chances of being re-elected,” the letter reads. “Attached here is the text of a form letter you can use to object to redistricting.”

Latimer’s deputy in Westchester County, Ken Jenkins, leads the redistricting commission. Earlier this month, Latimer told City and State that he doesn’t discuss the redistricting with Jenkins, but told Gothamist a day later, “He and I have talked about it a couple times, that’s it.”

New York’s congressional map was redrawn prior to last cycle as well, and it kicked off a long, tumultuous midterm season that left the Democratic Party with four fewer seats than it started out with. Bowman was one of the only members in the tristate area who represents a solidly blue district. He won his primary by nearly 30 points, with 54 percent of the vote. 

To Bowman’s north, Mondaire Jones is running to unseat Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. Jones and Bowman used to do campaign events together, but since announcing his latest bid, Jones — who has said he has a “great relationship with AIPAC” — has declined to endorse Bowman when asked. 

Latimer, for his part, just returned from an AIPAC-funded three-day trip to Israel, where he met with leaders including Herzog, the Israeli president. Herzog has said that it is the “entire nation” of Palestine that bears responsibility for the October 7 attacks.

On the latest war in Gaza, where about 1,300 Israelis and more than 17,000 Palestinians have been killed, Latimer told the New York Times that he did not know enough to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive violated international law.

He said, “I’m not a secretary of state.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Timmy Facciola.

After visiting Israel last week, Westchester County Executive George Latimer on Monday filed paperwork to launch a primary challenge against Democratic New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman, a critic of the Israeli government and its devastating war on the Gaza Strip.

The 70-year-old county executive, who previously served in the New York State Senate and Assembly, has been openly considering a run for the 16th Congressional District—which Bowman has represented since 2021, after successfully primarying former Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel.

Latimer suggested to The Washington Post early last month that if he ran against Bowman, "it might be that this becomes a proxy argument" between "the left and the far left." He later told Politico that Israel would be a "big issue" but "not the whole issue," and his campaign would focus on his record as "the most progressive" county official in the state.

— (@)

Bowman is the fourth "Squad" member to face a serious primary challenger for 2024, joining Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). They are all among the eight progressives who in October voted against a bipartisan House resolution expressing unconditional support for Israel's government as it waged war on Gaza.

The four of them also support a resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza. While the number of House members calling for a cease-fire has grown to more than four dozen as Israeli forces have killed thousands of Palestinians over the past two months, as The Intercept highlighted last week, "a closer look at some lawmakers' statements raises questions about whether they are truly pushing for an end to the violence."

Latimer does not support a cease-fire. As Politico reported on his trip:

The county executive and former state lawmaker said that his time with Israelis, such as meeting with President Isaac Herzog, taught him that there is "no animosity directed toward the Palestinian people."

"There's people that are protesting that they're pro-Palestine, as if the Israeli position is anti-Palestinian," he said in an interview while waiting to board his return flight at Ben Gurion Airport.

"There wasn't a 'let's go get those bastards' kind of mindset," he said. "The anger and fear is directed at Hamas as the terrorist organization that runs the country and that's a differentiation you don't often pick up."

Since declaring war in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israel has killed nearly 15,900 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded another 42,000 in airstrikes and raids, according to health officials in the besieged enclave. At least hundreds of those killings have come after the seven-day pause in fighting that ended late last week.

— (@)

Responding to Latimer's filing on Monday, Slate's Alex Sammon said, "There it is: after weeks of unnecessary hemming and hawing (during which he stockpiled an extra helping of cash from the Israel lobby), George Latimer is challenging Jamaal Bowman, aiming to [replace] one of the party's rising stars as a 70-year-old white freshman congressman."

It was Sammon who reported in mid-November that the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to "spend at least $100 million in 2024 Democratic primaries, largely trained on eliminating incumbent Squad members" including Bowman, Bush, Omar, Lee, and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who had a U.S. Senate candidate reject an offer of $20 million if he instead primaried her, the only Palestinian American in Congress.

Ocasio-Cortez's 2024 campaign said in a Monday email that "AIPAC's top recruit to challenge Jamaal Bowman officially filed his candidacy" and asked supporters to "please chip in right now to help us defend Jamaal and our progressive values."

Along with stressing his support for a cease-fire in Gaza, her campaign pointed out that Bowman is "his district's first Black representative" and "one of the only members of Congress with actual experience working in public education."

Westchester's News 12 reported Monday that while Latimer "is preparing a video announcement over the next 24 hours and will formally launch his campaign by Wednesday," he is not Bowman's only challenger—Democratic "Dobbs Ferry investment banker Martin Dolan also plans to run."

While the contest is considered a test of whether politicians can survive criticizing Israel, some observers noted Monday that in March 2021, as many elected officials—including Bowman and Ocasio-Cortez—called on then-Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign over outrage about his Covid-19 pandemic response and sexual misconduct allegations, Latimer said the claims should be taken seriously but also drew a comparison to Emmett Till, which he later retracted.

— (@)

Who wins the next primary for New York's solidly Democratic 16th District could depend on an effort to replace the GOP-friendly map drawn by a court-appointed expert for the 2022 election cycle. City & State reported last month that a new order could mean "the Independent Redistricting Commission—which is led by Latimer's deputy, Ken Jenkins—will have the opportunity to change the boundaries."

"The district currently includes much of Westchester and a sliver of the northern Bronx and is home to many Jewish voters who have turned against Bowman," the outlet explained. "Should the district lines change, it will change the dynamics of the race."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

You have to be in love with the people that you’re making a project with. I think to be in collaboration with people, it is a kind of love. What’s the bell hooks definition? Wanting to extend myself for another person’s spiritual growth. I feel like I do fall in love with the people I make films about, or I make films with.

There is a historical idea that narrative, that drama, comes from tension and conflict. And what’s really interesting is trying to be a part of the group of people, contemporary filmmakers, who are actively looking for other devices to create a narrative that isn’t about conflict, that’s actually just about giving people the room to be the fascinating, complex, contradictory human beings that they are. And that’s actually what’s interesting. Someone doesn’t need to have their house fall apart for it to be a good story.

You’re telling stories that feel deeply connected to you in some ways, but that you’re still an outsider, too. How do you navigate that role? What is your responsibility as somebody who’s telling stories and documenting lives of people that aren’t your immediate experience and community?

Well, moving to the US was a really interesting experience, because it showed me you are literally a guest. It says that on your visa.

Whoa, I didn’t realize.

Yeah, well it says “alien with extraordinary ability,” but you actually are an outsider. When I lived there, I was living in Crown Heights and Bedstuy which are both historically Black neighborhoods and just being really aware of, okay, I’m an outsider, but I can be a good guest. Honestly, it’s so simple, it’s just listening. It’s literally just listening and connecting with people, and really being aware of what their concerns are.

There might be things that I just don’t have awareness of, but that’s why collaboration’s such an important part of it. Even working with Boiler Room, I was a creative director there [from 2016-18], but we were working with groups of people who were from all over the world making all sorts of amazing music. It was a really great learning experience because it was like, okay, it’s not about what I want. It’s actually about, what is this group of people communicating with their music and how can I facilitate and amplify that?

I spent a lot of time in clubs and I love a group activity. So I always want the filmmaking process to feel like a good party. And I think the best parties are made up of lots of different types of people. And that’s my approach, is just trying to have as many different perspectives involved as possible.

That’s funny because that was literally my next question, how has club culture shaped you as an artist?

Oh my god, totally. The club is the blueprint for my whole creative practice. I had a lot of really formative experiences as a young teen underage in the rave. There’s so many facets to it, but I know I’m always interested in spaces where the social contract changes and we shift from the norms of ‘the real world’ into a different status quo. That’s something I learnt first hand in the club and it’s a dynamic I’m always interested in creating and making room for.

But also a really, really, really passionate belief in the fact that art, in its widest term, can bring people together to have these spiritual experiences, or these meaningful transformative experiences. Where you meet someone that night and then they end up being your best friend, or you find these kinds of environments or experiences that expose these deeper human truths and deeper levels of human connection that are possible, that maybe the societal construct we’re living in currently doesn’t really allow space for. That’s why I try and make work. I want to make work that is able to facilitate that.

Your most recent film, Coming Home, about the Freedom Dabka group. I hadn’t really seen you talk about Palestine before, so it was exciting to see this film from you. How did you find the project?

It was definitely a project where it found me, I didn’t find it. In the pandemic, I got stuck in the UK. So I experienced this extreme displacement, where I couldn’t get back into the US and I didn’t really have any rights even though I had my Visa. Ali Rosa-Salas [associate producer], she’s a really good friend of mine, initially reached out to me because she wanted to make a film about this Irish dancer who lived in Ireland. That didn’t end up happening for various reasons. And I was like, “Well, is there anyone else else you’re interested in? Because I’d love to make something together.” And she was like, there are these guys in New York, Freedom Dabka Group. I looked them up and I was like, “Yeah, I’m down.”

What was great about Coming Home was that we had really different skill sets, Naim [Naif, Bowman’s co-creator]and I. There was definitely an insider-outsider vibe to it. But I feel like that was really important because of the conversations Naim and I had, that level of understanding led us to sharing a lot of roles [directing, productions, and writing] and contributing to them in really symbiotic ways.

At the start of 2020, no one in our circle really talked about Palestine with the intersectional understanding of colonization and white supremacy and all of those other things that are these massive global systems, you know what I mean? But in the spring of 2021 when that conversation shifted around Palestine, and that language did get brought into it, it really opened up the conversation for people.

I loved the ways you used family photos throughout Coming Home. It felt like I was being pulled into this family history. Those photos weren’t specifically the families of the Freedom Dabka group, but it still created this feeling of being walked through somebody’s family history, which made it so much more intimate. What influenced the choice to work with the Palestinian Museum?

We were put in touch with Serene Huleileh who’s our associate producer. She’s a Dabka academic and she was in El-Funoun, which was this really iconic Dabka group from the ’70s. She is the one who introduced us to the Palestinian Museum and they were amazing. Anyone can go on it and use the photographs [in a non-commercial context] that are basically donated by families or their people’s estates. We were the first people to use them in a film.

It was so interesting because those are not my family photographs, but I had memories like that. Universalizing the story around these intimate moments, these deeply personal moments, is the complete antithesis of news headlines, bias, media representation. And tragically, the huge amount of just really traumatic images that circulate on social media. I spend a lot of the time thinking, “Okay, what could a film do that social media can’t do?” Film has this ability to allow us to time travel. And that’s what those moments were about, creating time travel and creating history. The [archival] photos being in color was really important because we wanted to show Palestine in color.

Why was it important to show Palestine in color?

From the beginning we really wanted to film the New York scenes in black and white on 16 mm film, because there’s such an iconic history in New York of black and white photography. Incorporating the guys and the Palestinian community into that historical language, using that color choice, embedded them in the history of New York. And then simultaneously, making the history of Palestine or any kind of footage that felt like Palestine being in color was about showing that Palestine has a future and that it’s alive. It’s not something in the past.

In my practice, I use a lot of collage, I come from animation, and it was an an amazing part of the edit just to be like, “Okay, we need an image of a tomato,” and you just put into the archive “tomato” and it’ll be people picking tomatoes, people eating tomato pasta, a kid in a tomato t-shirt. And that was amazing just from a visual perspective… And it was really in line with a lot of the feelings I had about going through COVID and having so much of my own life change. It’s really important to actually archive what’s happening, because it’s not a guarantee that it will be this forever.

How do you navigate working across so many different mediums and forms and genres with such fluidity?

I don’t know. I’m glad it looks fluid, but I think it’s not. You just get opportunities and most of the time if you need the money, you do them. And if you don’t, or it’s super whack, you don’t do it. The best advice, it’s such an obvious one, but making work makes work. And things come to you or people cross your path and opportunities just arise out of that. And when it feels right, you keep doing it. And when it doesn’t feel right anymore, you don’t do it.

When I first came out of art school, I was making a lot of really visually striking, very creative animation and more digital art, new media. And when you are working in that kind of way, you’re just using your intuition about color and shape. You don’t rationalize it. You just choose those things. And as I’ve continued, I’ve tried to trust in my intuition more and more and more. The more I am connected to my body and the more present I can be, the more I hear that voice. Not even hear it, I actually believe it.

Yeah, that’s really interesting. Intuition as your guiding force… your compass through your work as well. It feels like a little superpower, almost.

Totally. And I feel like it’s one that everybody has. It’s just a lot of us just aren’t using it because we haven’t been conditioned to. We live in a society that encourages basically everybody who isn’t a straight white man to doubt themselves, doubt their inner voice. It’s a bit confusing when people say, “You should just trust your gut.” It’s kind of like, what?

But I just did this thing, it’s called Zoe. It’s basically about looking at health through your gut microbiome. I have always struggled with my weight and food. That’s just been a place I’ve taken a lot of stress out and I’ve always wanted to eat peanut butter, but I’ve always stopped myself from eating it because I thought it was bad for me or whatever. And on that list of food that’s good for my gut, me personally, as an individual, peanut butter was in the top 10 foods.

Wow.

Yeah, and it’s like, wow, this thing that I’ve wanted and I’ve denied myself. Because I’ve literally not listened to my gut.

Yeah, it’s like, “I could have been listening to myself this whole time.”

Literally. I literally could have been listening to myself this whole time. I know we touched on this earlier, but it’s kind of about differentiating between your intuition and your ego, and which voice are you actually hearing?

And a friend of mine who’s had way more therapy than I have, but is a great friend to have, she said the ego is “I want, I need, I should,” that kind of angry voice. And your intuition is “what if,” it’s suggesting stuff. “Maybe” or “I could.” The tone is so much more inviting because your intuition is about growth and it’s about joy and you becoming your best self.

In the last few years I’ve really felt like online spaces create more disconnection and isolation. But when I hear you talk about it, you seem to be able to see the possibilities for reconnection that is helping me reframe my own outlook and maybe stop being so… jaded, I guess.

Yeah, I mean, it is bleak for sure. But then do you remember in the wake of summer of 2020, do you remember how Instagram actually became? I just want to caveat by saying that that period was also a really traumatic period in terms of images that were circulating, but I think there was a lot of information being shared and a lot of diagrams being made, that we might see some of them as kind of cliche, but it was phenomenal how a space that had gone from being selfies and holidays and sponsored content turned into this open access MA in post-colonial psychology. There was so much info, it was an amazing total re-imagining of what the platform could be and how it could be used.

It seems like you’ve found a way to create the rules for yourself, or just more on your own terms.

A hundred percent, a hundred percent. I don’t really believe in a world governed by Instagram or TikTok or whatever. That’s not the utopia I’m working towards. So when I post something and it doesn’t get a lot of engagement, I actually see it as a successful piece of work, because it’s not in line with the platform’s values. So it must be in line with my values. That is something that came out of working on Coming Home and seeing how shadow-banning is real, and it is around specific keywords and topics. That experience just laid out for me how biased and ridiculous the algorithm is on social media. After that I was just like, this is a joke, because we would post about the film or about anything related to Palestinian liberation and the numbers are just like meh.

So I think it’s all about us creating these pockets of time to connect with ourselves and with each other outside of productivity outside of anxiety and stress, having these moments to connect to our truest self, the essence of who we are, whether that’s in a nightclub or at the beach or in the cinema, in a forest. Wherever we can activate those spaces, I think there’s so much growth and joy and that’s where the hope is.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Sarah O'Neal.

The bill passed in the Florida House of Representatives by a 70-40 vote on Thursday afternoon, largely along party lines, after approval by the GOP-controlled Senate earlier this month. While the law will not go into effect immediately, the legislation is designed to replace an existing 2022 Florida law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy with a six-week ban containing exceptions for victims of rape, incest, or human trafficking; in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities; or to save the pregnant person's life.

Jezebelreports Republican state lawmakers rejected an amendment to include an exception for a life-threatening condition that recently caused a woman to miscarry in a hair salon and nearly bleed to death. The woman, Anya Cook, is Black; this week is Black Maternal Health Week.

DeSantis, an ally of former President Donald Trump widely expected to seek the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, promised he would sign the six-week ban into law.

"I've said…we're for pro-life," the governor said last month. "I urged the legislature to work, produce good stuff, and we will sign."

S.B. 300 is written so that it will become law if the Florida Supreme Court affirms the 15-week ban. The court is expected to hear a case involving that ban in the coming months.

Responding to Thursday's vote in the state House, Florida Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-32) tweeted that "Florida Republicans have now passed a dangerous abortion ban through both the House and the Senate—choosing to disregard the pleas of women and the doctors entrusted with their care, including two mothers in my own district forced to the brink of death following miscarriages due to the state's current restrictive laws."

"Now, things will get much worse," she added. "Women have been stripped of their rights and access to lifesaving healthcare. Women will undoubtedly die. This is not freedom."

Florida state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-47) took to the legislature floor in pre-vote debate Thursday to propose an amendment to rename S.B. 300, officially the Pregnancy and Parenting Support Act.

"Members," she said, "this amendment renames the bill to the Forced Pregnancy Act, which is basically what it does."

Abortion rights defenders—some of whom were joined by Democratic Florida lawmakers in an impromptu singing of "Lean on Me" in the State Capitol after Thursday's vote—also warned that the six-week ban poses life-and-death risks to Floridians.

"Across the country, pregnant people are being pushed to the brink of death because they can't get an abortion. Yet Florida lawmakers have rushed this dangerous ban through the legislature with no concern for their citizens and how it will harm them," Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

"This bill threatens to end abortion almost entirely amid a growing public health crisis," she continued. "If this ban takes effect, Floridians would be stranded in a vast abortion desert and forced to travel over 1,000 miles to get an abortion. No one should have to face that, and many people will not be able to make that journey."

"Across the country, pregnant people are being pushed to the brink of death because they can't get an abortion."

Common Dreamspreviously reported the ordeal of Nancy Davis, a Louisiana woman forced to carry a fetus with a fatal skull deformity inside her body for six months and then make a 2,500-mile round trip to New York in order to obtain an abortion.

"We also must remember," Smith added, "that Mifepristone is under attack, and if that pill is taken off the market, it will become even harder to get an abortion before six weeks."

Although a panel of the right-wing 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal on Thursday temporarily blocked a Texas federal judge's invalidation of the government's approval of mifepristone—one of two drugs typically taken in tandem to induce medical abortion—reproductive rights campaigners warned that the ruling still poses a grave threat.

Earlier this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) contended that if the U.S. Supreme Court hears the Texas case and the court's right-wing supermajority upholds the ruling, "it would essentially institute a national abortion ban."

Kara Gross, the ACLU of Florida's legislative director and senior policy counsel, said that "in a state that prides itself on being free, this is an unprecedented and unacceptable level of government overreach and intrusion."

"This near-total abortion ban will effectively eliminate legal abortion care in Florida," Gross continued. "It will force hundreds of thousands of pregnant people to have to travel out of state to seek the care they need. Others will be forced to remain pregnant against their will and endure labor and delivery and all of the significant medical risks associated with pregnancy and birth. "

"Floridians deserve better from their elected leaders who are responsible for representing their voices and protecting their freedoms," she asserted. "The government should never be able to force anyone to carry a pregnancy against their will. Every Floridian deserves access to health care and the right to make personal decisions about their own lives, families, and futures."

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju said in a statement that "this ban is dangerous, plain and simple. It will not only cut off abortion access for Floridians but the countless people who have sought care there as extremists in their own states enforce bans."

" Ron DeSantis talks about the 'Free State of Florida,' but it's clear that if he signs this bill as he has signaled he will, he'll be selling out our freedoms for his own personal ambition, stooping to new lows to win the 2024 GOP primary," Timmaraju added. "He should have listened in November when voters made it clear they don't support abortion bans—he can count on hearing it again when he's on the ballot next."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman vocally condemned his Republican colleagues in a hallway outside the House chamber on Wednesday, calling them "freaking cowards" and "gutless" for refusing to support basic control measures in the wake of the nation's latest mass shooting—the 130th of the year.

As Bowman railed against GOP obstructionism, saying that Republicans "won't do anything to save the lives of our children," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) stopped to ask the New York Democrat, "What are you talking about?"

"I'm talking about gun violence!" Bowman responded.

Massie—who in 2021 posted a Christmas photo in which he and his family members are holding guns—proceeded to tout a dangerous, NRA-backed proposal that Republicans float after virtually every school shooting in the U.S.: Arming teachers. (A number of states already allow teachers to carry firearms under certain conditions.)

Bowman, a former teacher and middle school principal, derided Massie's suggestion, replying: "More guns lead to more death. Look at the data." A study published in The BMJ in 2019 found that states with more lax gun regulation—and higher rates of gun ownership—experience higher rates of mass shootings.

Watch the heated exchange between Bowman and Massie, one of the most fervent opponents of gun regulations in Congress:

\u201cReps. Jamaal Bowman and Thomas Massie in a shouting match outside the House chamber on gun violence\u201d

— Ellis Kim (@Ellis Kim) 1680129701

Bowman later posted the exchange to his Twitter account, writing: "Republicans won't do SHIT when it comes to gun violence, but try to tell me to calm down."

"We can't calm down," he added. "People are dying every day while we wait."

There's no indication that Republicans intend to drop their opposition to popular gun control measures in the wake of the deadly shooting at a Christian elementary school in Nashville earlier this week.

"The things that have already been done have gone about as far as we're going with gun control," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told CNN.

In an appearance on that same network on Tuesday, Bowman called gun violence "an American disease."

"We must vote anyone out of office who does not support a ban on assault rifles," he said. "Gun violence is the number one killer of children in America today. We have to do something about that."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Sen. Bernie Sanders are circulating a letter this week urging the Biden administration to "undertake a shift in U.S. policy in recognition of the worsening violence, further annexation of land, and denial of Palestinian rights" by Israel.

The letter, which was first obtained and published by Alex Kane at Jewish Currents, was written by Bowman (D-N.Y.) and is being circulated by Sanders (I-Vt.) in order to gain support from other senators. So far, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) have signed it.

In the letter, the lawmakers expressed their "deep concern" over the "rapidly escalating violence" perpetrated by Israeli occupation forces and settler-colonists against Palestinians. It notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government includes people like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish supremacist security minister who "openly encourages and praises violence against Palestinians," and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who "responded to the recent Israeli settler attacks on the Palestinian town of Huwara" by calling for the whole town to be "wiped out."

The letter—which, unlike various human rights groups, does not use the term apartheid—details "shocking violence" that is the "bloody reality" for Palestinians living under illegal occupation in the West Bank.

"On February 22, a daytime raid by the Israeli army into the crowded Palestinian city of Nablus killed 11 Palestinians, among them a 72 year-old-man and a 16-year-old child," the lawmakers wrote. "On February 26, a Palestinian gunman shot dead two Israeli settlers outside of Nablus. Subsequently, hundreds of Israeli settlers attacked the Palestinian town of Huwara."

"The settlers, accompanied by the Israeli army, set fire to homes, schools, vehicles, and businesses, killing one Palestinian and injuring over 300 Palestinians," the letter continues. "The local Israeli military commander called the attack a 'pogrom.'"

The letter notes:

This comes amid an already violent year. Israeli forces and settlers have killed over 85 Palestinians in 2023, including 16 children. At least 14 Israelis have been killed, including two children. The previous year was the deadliest for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since 2004 and included the Israeli military's killings of two American citizens, Shireen Abu Akleh and Omar Assad...

This Israeli government's anti-democratic mission to dismantle the rule of law is a threat to Israelis and Palestinians alike. In addition to explicitly hateful, anti-Palestinian policies, this government is attempting to destroy the independent Israeli judiciary.

The Israeli government's judiciary reforms—which earlier this week were put on hold amid massive protests—"open the path towards further annexation of Palestinian lands," in "violation of international law," the U.S. legislators noted.

The lawmakers urge the Biden administration to:

• Ensure U.S. taxpayer funds do not support projects in illegal settlements;
• Determine whether U.S.-origin defense articles have been used in violation of existing U.S. laws, including for a purpose not authorized by Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act... or to commit or support gross violations of human rights by the Israeli government; and
• Ensure that all future foreign assistance to Israel, including weapons and equipment, is not used in support of gross violations of human rights.

The lawmakers' push was praised by organizations including the Institute for Policy Studies, Win Without War, and Jewish Voice for Peace, whose political director, Beth Miller, called the letter "an important call to action."

"Over 80 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers just since the beginning of 2023, and the Biden administration's statements of 'concern' mean nothing without action and accountability," Miller said in a statement. "Leaders in Congress who join this letter are following the demands of a rapidly growing number of Americans—including American Jews—who want to see the Israeli government held accountable for its decades of oppression of Palestinians."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

"We, again, urge all states to adopt alternatives to immigration detention," said the U.N. human rights office.

The 68 men who were being held at the migration facility were mainly from Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and El Salvador originally, and Reuters reported Wednesday that many migrants had been "rounded up off the streets of Ciudad Juarez on Monday" and taken to the center, which is run by Mexico's National Migration Institute (NMI).

A woman named Viangly Infante told the outlet that her husband was among those detained and that the couple had traveled from their home country of Venezuela last fall with their three children, crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in December into Eagle Pass, Texas.

They were then sent back to Mexico by U.S. immigration authorities and bused to Ciudad Juarez.

"We cannot ignore that many of these migrants continue to wait in border cities like Ciudad Juarez without documentation so they can enter the United States to seek protection—a situation created by successive U.S. administrations' undue restrictions on asylum access," said Rachel Schmidtke, senior advocate for Latin America at Refugees International. "The U.S. and Mexican governments must work together to ensure that migrants receive access to asylum and to fair and efficient processing at the border and are given humanitarian support when forced to wait in Mexico."

The U.N. Refugee Agency in January warned the Biden administration that its expansion of former President Donald Trump's Title 42 policy—under which the White House is expelling up to 30,000 migrants per month unless they arrive in the U.S. via a humanitarian parole program—is "not in line with refugee law standards" by which the U.S. is obligated to abide.

Like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the NMI in Mexico has long been denounced by migrant rights advocates over its treatment of people in its detention facilities, including overcrowding and lack of medical care. Protests broke out last year in detention centers in Tijuana and the southern city of Tapachula, near the border of Guatemala.

The fire that broke out early Tuesday was reportedly started by migrants who were protesting their confinement in a cell intended for a maximum of 50 people in which 68 people were being detained, and the guards' refusal to provide them with drinking water.

Outrage over the fire, in which at least 29 people have been hospitalized in addition to those who were killed, was compounded Wednesday after newly released surveillance footage footage showed guards quickly walking away from the cell where the men were protesting, while smoke filled the room.

The men were trapped behind padlocked doors as they yelled for help, NBC News reported.

"How could they not get them out?" Katiuska Márquez, a Venezuelan woman who was looking for her half-brother, asked the Associated Press.

The deaths of more than three dozen people in the fire "lay bare a truly inhumane system of immigration enforcement," said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International. "How is it possible that the Mexican authorities left human beings locked up with no way to escape the fire? These facilities are not 'shelters,' but detention centers, and people are not 'housed' there, but deprived of their freedom."

Amnesty called on Mexican officials to adhere to a recent ruling by the country's Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), which said on March 15 that people should not be held in migrant detention facilities for more than 36 hours.

"Amnesty International urges the Mexican state to comply with the ruling of the SCJN and to establish protocols to act in fires, as well as evacuation routes in such situations," said the group. "It also calls on the state to investigate the human rights violations, especially the allegations that the migrants were left locked up while the fire occurred, as well as to recognize that the migrants were in its custody and, therefore, it was its obligation both to prevent the fire and to act diligently during the fire to avoid fatal consequences."

The court ruling made clear, said Edith Olivares Ferreto, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico, that the country must "put an end to the practices that have caused untold damage, including torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, to thousands of migrants who have passed through these centers."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

"We, again, urge all states to adopt alternatives to immigration detention," said the U.N. human rights office.

The 68 men who were being held at the migration facility were mainly from Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and El Salvador originally, and Reuters reported Wednesday that many migrants had been "rounded up off the streets of Ciudad Juarez on Monday" and taken to the center, which is run by Mexico's National Migration Institute (NMI).

A woman named Viangly Infante told the outlet that her husband was among those detained and that the couple had traveled from their home country of Venezuela last fall with their three children, crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in December into Eagle Pass, Texas.

They were then sent back to Mexico by U.S. immigration authorities and bused to Ciudad Juarez.

"We cannot ignore that many of these migrants continue to wait in border cities like Ciudad Juarez without documentation so they can enter the United States to seek protection—a situation created by successive U.S. administrations' undue restrictions on asylum access," said Rachel Schmidtke, senior advocate for Latin America at Refugees International. "The U.S. and Mexican governments must work together to ensure that migrants receive access to asylum and to fair and efficient processing at the border and are given humanitarian support when forced to wait in Mexico."

The U.N. Refugee Agency in January warned the Biden administration that its expansion of former President Donald Trump's Title 42 policy—under which the White House is expelling up to 30,000 migrants per month unless they arrive in the U.S. via a humanitarian parole program—is "not in line with refugee law standards" by which the U.S. is obligated to abide.

Like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the NMI in Mexico has long been denounced by migrant rights advocates over its treatment of people in its detention facilities, including overcrowding and lack of medical care. Protests broke out last year in detention centers in Tijuana and the southern city of Tapachula, near the border of Guatemala.

The fire that broke out early Tuesday was reportedly started by migrants who were protesting their confinement in a cell intended for a maximum of 50 people in which 68 people were being detained, and the guards' refusal to provide them with drinking water.

Outrage over the fire, in which at least 29 people have been hospitalized in addition to those who were killed, was compounded Wednesday after newly released surveillance footage footage showed guards quickly walking away from the cell where the men were protesting, while smoke filled the room.

The men were trapped behind padlocked doors as they yelled for help, NBC News reported.

"How could they not get them out?" Katiuska Márquez, a Venezuelan woman who was looking for her half-brother, asked the Associated Press.

The deaths of more than three dozen people in the fire "lay bare a truly inhumane system of immigration enforcement," said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International. "How is it possible that the Mexican authorities left human beings locked up with no way to escape the fire? These facilities are not 'shelters,' but detention centers, and people are not 'housed' there, but deprived of their freedom."

Amnesty called on Mexican officials to adhere to a recent ruling by the country's Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN), which said on March 15 that people should not be held in migrant detention facilities for more than 36 hours.

"Amnesty International urges the Mexican state to comply with the ruling of the SCJN and to establish protocols to act in fires, as well as evacuation routes in such situations," said the group. "It also calls on the state to investigate the human rights violations, especially the allegations that the migrants were left locked up while the fire occurred, as well as to recognize that the migrants were in its custody and, therefore, it was its obligation both to prevent the fire and to act diligently during the fire to avoid fatal consequences."

The court ruling made clear, said Edith Olivares Ferreto, executive director of Amnesty International Mexico, that the country must "put an end to the practices that have caused untold damage, including torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, to thousands of migrants who have passed through these centers."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

A pair of progressives in Congress on Monday led four dozen other lawmakers in calling on U.S. President Joe Biden "to pursue all possible strategies to end corporate price gouging in the real estate sector and ensure that renters and people experiencing homelessness across this country are stably housed this winter."

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) spearheaded the letter to the president, which commends actions his administration has taken so far but also stresses that soaring rent rates are affecting millions of people and more must be done to help them take on profit-driven corporate interests.

"No one should be unhoused in the wealthiest nation on Earth or have to choose between paying rent and basic needs."

The letter highlights various government statistics, including that the cost of shelter rose 0.8% last October, the highest rate in 40 years; median asking rents have jumped 31% while house prices have soared 48% in recent years; and a $100 increase in median rent is tied to a 9% rise in homelessness.

"The cost of rent for Americans is simply too high," Warren said in a statement. "In addition to making robust investments to address the housing shortage, we must use all our tools to protect tenants and reverse consolidation in the housing market that has given corporations unchecked power to inflate rents."

"This is why Rep. Bowman and I are encouraging the Biden administration to make use of these tools and adopt a whole-of-government approach to address the housing crisis in America," she explained.

Specifically, the letter—which comes just three weeks after Biden unveiled a plan to reduce homelessness 25% by 2025—calls on the administration to:

• Direct the Federal Housing Finance Agency to establish protections for renters at properties financed with government-backed mortgages;
• Order the Federal Trade Commission to craft a regulation defining excessive rent hikes as a practice that unfairly affects commerce;
• Require the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue guidance on anti-rent gouging and fair housing to cities and counties receiving federal funds;
• Urge the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Justice, and HUD, to investigate corporate landlords accused of illegally discriminating against tenants;
• Encourage states to enact renter protections as well as use American Rescue Plan funding to invest in affordable homes and emergency rental assistance programs;
• Activate Federal Emergency Management Agency resources to help people experiencing homelessness secure permanent, affordable housing and provide longer-term rental assistance; and
• Create a Federal Interagency Council on Tenants' Rights to identify actions that can be taken to support renters, coordinate policy implementation, and engage with underserved communities.

Along with the 50 lawmakers across both chambers of Congress, the letter is backed by more than 80 housing, climate, education, and immigration groups, including the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Debt Collective, Groundwork Collaborative, National Low Income Housing Coalition, People's Action, Revolving Door Project, Sunrise Movement, and Youth Alliance for Housing.

"My community is being crushed by the burden of high prices and wages that can't keep pace," said Bowman, who represents parts of New York City and communities to the north. "Meanwhile, corporate landlords and other profit-driven companies are bringing in record profits. People simply cannot afford to live anymore."

"We must pursue all options on the table that will help renters stay housed in the short-term, while also continuing to collaborate on efforts to realize long-term investments in our nation's affordable and decommodified housing supply," he added. "I look forward to working with the Biden administration to implement the policies outlined in our bicameral letter and do everything in our collective power to keep renters housed."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

"As you know, the United States is the world's largest historical contributor to climate change."

"Our leadership in supporting loss and damage financing would pave the way for transformative improvements in the global response on climate."

That's how 13 progressive U.S. lawmakers began a Wednesday letter to John Kerry, President Joe Biden's climate envoy, about funding to help the countries that contributed the least to the climate emergency but are disproportionately enduring its impacts.

Loss and damage funding for the Global South is a significant topic at the ongoing United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27), which is set to wrap up in the Egyptian city of Sharm El-Sheikh this week.

"As we've seen with the historic flooding in Pakistan, the fourth consecutive drought in the Horn of Africa, the painfully slow recovery from hurricane damage in Central America, among many other examples, it is the Global South that disproportionately suffers the harms," wrote the lawmakers, led by Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

They argued that "we have both a moral and a strategic responsibility to provide comprehensive support for countries facing climate disaster, including debt forgiveness and reparations. While we work toward those crucial goals, there are also smaller but no less important mechanisms we should be supporting."

"One specific step we urge you to take immediately is to throw the United States' support behind the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the purpose of channeling new, grant-based public finance from developed to developing countries to help them recover from climate catastrophes," the letter continues.

According to the U.S. lawmakers, "Ad hoc humanitarian assistance flows, insurance schemes, debt-based financing, and neglected existing funds under the UNFCCC are wholly insufficient to address the current reality in which countries are facing billions of dollars in loss and damage needs."

The letter stresses the need for "a collaborative international effort… to make more high-quality, accessible, and fit-for-purpose financing available," adding that it "must be supplementary to climate financing for mitigation and adaptation and should be unconditional public funding that does not deepen the debt crises faced by many vulnerable countries."

"We have a momentous opportunity to bring other partner countries to the table and shape an equitable path forward—as you know and have proven repeatedly in your own career, when the United States leads, others follow," they wrote to the former secretary of state, who played a key role in the 2015 Paris agreement. "Our leadership in supporting loss and damage financing would pave the way for transformative improvements in the global response on climate."

The letter was also signed by Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), André Carson (Ind.), Steve Cohen (Tenn), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (Ill.), Raúl M. Grijalva (Ariz.), Andy Levin (Mich.), Betty McCollum (Minn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

Their message to Kerry comes as leaders of top economies are under fire for ignoring pleas from activists and representatives from the Global South to swiftly establish an international mechanism for loss and damage financing.

Reuters on Tuesday obtained a draft proposal from the Group of 77 (G77) and China to create a loss and damage fund for countries impacted by climate disasters. Under their plan, the fund's principles and policies would be worked out by the 2023 climate talks in Dubai.

However, CNN reported from Sharm El-Sheik Wednesday that "the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom are united against establishing a new fund this year to help the world's developing nations."

According to that report:

An E.U. source directly involved in the negotiations at the summit told CNN on Tuesday that the bloc doesn't believe there should be a binding agreement on a new loss and damage fund before the details of how it would work are agreed on.

The source added that the E.U. believes the COP27 agreement could include an agreement that work needs to be done on the issue and a solution should be found by 2024.

Similarly, the U.K. government submitted a document to the conference saying it wants to establish a "process" that would lead to a concrete solution in 2024 at the latest.

U.S. senior administration officials have only committed to having a conversation about loss and damage but have not gone further to explain what kind of fund they would ultimately support. They, too, see 2024 as the deadline for an agreement on loss and damage, but do not support the proposals put forward so far, concerned it could open up developed nations to legal liability in the coming years.

Pressed on what kind of loss and damage fund the U.S. would be open to, officials have repeatedly declined to say. And they want to take the next two years to hammer those questions out, rather than come to an agreement this year.

The outlet noted that a spokesperson for Kerry did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi was quick to weigh in, saying Wednesday that as COP27 "enters the final crucial days, it is a shame that rich countries—especially the U.S.—continue to reject calls" for creating a loss and damage fund at the current conference.

"Oxfam is in full support of the G77's position and is saddened that the inclusion of loss and damage in the COP27 agenda remains a political game for developed countries, who may likely exit this summit with no agreement on the way forward," Dabi continued. "The principles that underpin the global climate discussion—responsibility, equity, justice, fairness—have left the conference room."

Pointing out that over 40 million people in the Horn of Africa are enduring climate-induced hunger crises while Pakistan faces $30 billion in damage from the floods, Dabi declared that "it is crucial that developing countries can access a formal fund to pay for the damages and losses they are already suffering today."

"Rich countries must meet their $100 billion annual goal for climate finance in addition to establishing a new loss and damage fund that is fit for purpose, accessible, and gender-responsive," she added. "It is long overdue."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Stressing the need for a "new economic playbook" that prioritizes human needs over corporate greed, U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced proposed legislation that would tackle excessive profiteering with targeted price controls.

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live."

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live," the New York Democract said in a statement introducing the Emergency Price Stabilization Act. "From impossible rents and utility bills to soaring costs for food, healthcare, and other necessities of life, people in America are being crushed by the burden of high prices and wages that can't keep pace."

Bowman asserted that "we must move with greater speed and agility to protect our constituents from price shocks and corporate profiteering. The Emergency Price Stabilization Act will do exactly that—first, by getting to the bottom of what is driving price increases in key sectors, and second, by designing targeted controls and regulations to rein in those prices."

If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Bowman's bill would:

• Monitor and analyze price changes related to food, energy, housing, healthcare, transportation, and other goods and services that are vital to the country's health and economic security;
• Proactively investigate corporate profiteering in those areas, including price gouging linked to supply chain disruptions, by using subpoena power to open up and examine corporate books;
• Make recommendations to the president for appropriate, strategic controls and regulations to limit growth and reduce volatility in those key prices, which the president is temporarily authorized to implement;
• Engage and mobilize the public as part of the process of monitoring and regulating prices, and harness the expertise of federal agencies, outside experts, unions, and community organizations; and
• Propose complementary measures to ensure adequate supply of relevant goods and services, expand productive capacity, and meet climate and public health standards in the application of any price controls or regulations.

"At every step of the way, we will mobilize and engage the public in the process," said Bowman. "We cannot simply step back and allow the Federal Reserve, which hiked interest rates again last week, to address inflation on the backs of everyday people. That approach means throwing people out of work and risking a recession."

"Here is the question we must ask: Do we have the resources and skills to reach our full productive capacity, make sure everyone in this country has a good job, and manage our economy in the interests of all people? I believe the answer is yes," he added. "But we'll need a new economic playbook to get there, and passing my Emergency Price Stabilization Act would be a major step in the right direction."

Original co-sponsors of Bowman's bill include Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Donald M. Payne Jr. (N.J.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Mark Takano (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).

Dozens of advocacy groups also support the proposed legislation.

Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said that "though Wall Street tycoons would have us believe otherwise, retail prices for essential goods like food and energy are not set by simple supply and demand. They are egregiously manipulated by corporate giants that have achieved monopoly-level dominance over their markets."

"Setting reasonable maximum prices for everyday needs would reduce out-of-pocket costs to consumers while curbing excessive profiteering by opportunistic corporations," she added. "This commonsense legislation is needed more than ever."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement that "even before the pandemic, millions of America's lowest-income and most marginalized households were struggling to keep roofs over their heads, always just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and being threatened with eviction, and in the worst cases, homelessness."

"Today, these same households are facing new threats with historic levels of inflation and skyrocketing rents," she added. "Just as some states have in place laws to prevent price or rent gouging after natural disasters, Congress should consider similar protections like those included in the Emergency Price Stabilization Act for renters coming out of a global pandemic."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Stressing the need for a "new economic playbook" that prioritizes human needs over corporate greed, U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced proposed legislation that would tackle excessive profiteering with targeted price controls.

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live."

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live," the New York Democract said in a statement introducing the Emergency Price Stabilization Act. "From impossible rents and utility bills to soaring costs for food, healthcare, and other necessities of life, people in America are being crushed by the burden of high prices and wages that can't keep pace."

Bowman asserted that "we must move with greater speed and agility to protect our constituents from price shocks and corporate profiteering. The Emergency Price Stabilization Act will do exactly that—first, by getting to the bottom of what is driving price increases in key sectors, and second, by designing targeted controls and regulations to rein in those prices."

If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Bowman's bill would:

• Monitor and analyze price changes related to food, energy, housing, healthcare, transportation, and other goods and services that are vital to the country's health and economic security;
• Proactively investigate corporate profiteering in those areas, including price gouging linked to supply chain disruptions, by using subpoena power to open up and examine corporate books;
• Make recommendations to the president for appropriate, strategic controls and regulations to limit growth and reduce volatility in those key prices, which the president is temporarily authorized to implement;
• Engage and mobilize the public as part of the process of monitoring and regulating prices, and harness the expertise of federal agencies, outside experts, unions, and community organizations; and
• Propose complementary measures to ensure adequate supply of relevant goods and services, expand productive capacity, and meet climate and public health standards in the application of any price controls or regulations.

"At every step of the way, we will mobilize and engage the public in the process," said Bowman. "We cannot simply step back and allow the Federal Reserve, which hiked interest rates again last week, to address inflation on the backs of everyday people. That approach means throwing people out of work and risking a recession."

"Here is the question we must ask: Do we have the resources and skills to reach our full productive capacity, make sure everyone in this country has a good job, and manage our economy in the interests of all people? I believe the answer is yes," he added. "But we'll need a new economic playbook to get there, and passing my Emergency Price Stabilization Act would be a major step in the right direction."

Original co-sponsors of Bowman's bill include Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Donald M. Payne Jr. (N.J.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Mark Takano (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).

Dozens of advocacy groups also support the proposed legislation.

Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said that "though Wall Street tycoons would have us believe otherwise, retail prices for essential goods like food and energy are not set by simple supply and demand. They are egregiously manipulated by corporate giants that have achieved monopoly-level dominance over their markets."

"Setting reasonable maximum prices for everyday needs would reduce out-of-pocket costs to consumers while curbing excessive profiteering by opportunistic corporations," she added. "This commonsense legislation is needed more than ever."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement that "even before the pandemic, millions of America's lowest-income and most marginalized households were struggling to keep roofs over their heads, always just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and being threatened with eviction, and in the worst cases, homelessness."

"Today, these same households are facing new threats with historic levels of inflation and skyrocketing rents," she added. "Just as some states have in place laws to prevent price or rent gouging after natural disasters, Congress should consider similar protections like those included in the Emergency Price Stabilization Act for renters coming out of a global pandemic."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Stressing the need for a "new economic playbook" that prioritizes human needs over corporate greed, U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced proposed legislation that would tackle excessive profiteering with targeted price controls.

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live."

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live," the New York Democract said in a statement introducing the Emergency Price Stabilization Act. "From impossible rents and utility bills to soaring costs for food, healthcare, and other necessities of life, people in America are being crushed by the burden of high prices and wages that can't keep pace."

Bowman asserted that "we must move with greater speed and agility to protect our constituents from price shocks and corporate profiteering. The Emergency Price Stabilization Act will do exactly that—first, by getting to the bottom of what is driving price increases in key sectors, and second, by designing targeted controls and regulations to rein in those prices."

If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Bowman's bill would:

• Monitor and analyze price changes related to food, energy, housing, healthcare, transportation, and other goods and services that are vital to the country's health and economic security;
• Proactively investigate corporate profiteering in those areas, including price gouging linked to supply chain disruptions, by using subpoena power to open up and examine corporate books;
• Make recommendations to the president for appropriate, strategic controls and regulations to limit growth and reduce volatility in those key prices, which the president is temporarily authorized to implement;
• Engage and mobilize the public as part of the process of monitoring and regulating prices, and harness the expertise of federal agencies, outside experts, unions, and community organizations; and
• Propose complementary measures to ensure adequate supply of relevant goods and services, expand productive capacity, and meet climate and public health standards in the application of any price controls or regulations.

"At every step of the way, we will mobilize and engage the public in the process," said Bowman. "We cannot simply step back and allow the Federal Reserve, which hiked interest rates again last week, to address inflation on the backs of everyday people. That approach means throwing people out of work and risking a recession."

"Here is the question we must ask: Do we have the resources and skills to reach our full productive capacity, make sure everyone in this country has a good job, and manage our economy in the interests of all people? I believe the answer is yes," he added. "But we'll need a new economic playbook to get there, and passing my Emergency Price Stabilization Act would be a major step in the right direction."

Original co-sponsors of Bowman's bill include Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Donald M. Payne Jr. (N.J.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Mark Takano (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).

Dozens of advocacy groups also support the proposed legislation.

Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said that "though Wall Street tycoons would have us believe otherwise, retail prices for essential goods like food and energy are not set by simple supply and demand. They are egregiously manipulated by corporate giants that have achieved monopoly-level dominance over their markets."

"Setting reasonable maximum prices for everyday needs would reduce out-of-pocket costs to consumers while curbing excessive profiteering by opportunistic corporations," she added. "This commonsense legislation is needed more than ever."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement that "even before the pandemic, millions of America's lowest-income and most marginalized households were struggling to keep roofs over their heads, always just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and being threatened with eviction, and in the worst cases, homelessness."

"Today, these same households are facing new threats with historic levels of inflation and skyrocketing rents," she added. "Just as some states have in place laws to prevent price or rent gouging after natural disasters, Congress should consider similar protections like those included in the Emergency Price Stabilization Act for renters coming out of a global pandemic."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Stressing the need for a "new economic playbook" that prioritizes human needs over corporate greed, U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced proposed legislation that would tackle excessive profiteering with targeted price controls.

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live."

"In my district and across the country, people simply cannot afford to live," the New York Democract said in a statement introducing the Emergency Price Stabilization Act. "From impossible rents and utility bills to soaring costs for food, healthcare, and other necessities of life, people in America are being crushed by the burden of high prices and wages that can't keep pace."

Bowman asserted that "we must move with greater speed and agility to protect our constituents from price shocks and corporate profiteering. The Emergency Price Stabilization Act will do exactly that—first, by getting to the bottom of what is driving price increases in key sectors, and second, by designing targeted controls and regulations to rein in those prices."

If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Bowman's bill would:

• Monitor and analyze price changes related to food, energy, housing, healthcare, transportation, and other goods and services that are vital to the country's health and economic security;
• Proactively investigate corporate profiteering in those areas, including price gouging linked to supply chain disruptions, by using subpoena power to open up and examine corporate books;
• Make recommendations to the president for appropriate, strategic controls and regulations to limit growth and reduce volatility in those key prices, which the president is temporarily authorized to implement;
• Engage and mobilize the public as part of the process of monitoring and regulating prices, and harness the expertise of federal agencies, outside experts, unions, and community organizations; and
• Propose complementary measures to ensure adequate supply of relevant goods and services, expand productive capacity, and meet climate and public health standards in the application of any price controls or regulations.

"At every step of the way, we will mobilize and engage the public in the process," said Bowman. "We cannot simply step back and allow the Federal Reserve, which hiked interest rates again last week, to address inflation on the backs of everyday people. That approach means throwing people out of work and risking a recession."

"Here is the question we must ask: Do we have the resources and skills to reach our full productive capacity, make sure everyone in this country has a good job, and manage our economy in the interests of all people? I believe the answer is yes," he added. "But we'll need a new economic playbook to get there, and passing my Emergency Price Stabilization Act would be a major step in the right direction."

Original co-sponsors of Bowman's bill include Democratic Reps. Cori Bush (Mo.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Danny K. Davis (Ill.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Donald M. Payne Jr. (N.J.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Mark Takano (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).

Dozens of advocacy groups also support the proposed legislation.

Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said that "though Wall Street tycoons would have us believe otherwise, retail prices for essential goods like food and energy are not set by simple supply and demand. They are egregiously manipulated by corporate giants that have achieved monopoly-level dominance over their markets."

"Setting reasonable maximum prices for everyday needs would reduce out-of-pocket costs to consumers while curbing excessive profiteering by opportunistic corporations," she added. "This commonsense legislation is needed more than ever."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement that "even before the pandemic, millions of America's lowest-income and most marginalized households were struggling to keep roofs over their heads, always just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and being threatened with eviction, and in the worst cases, homelessness."

"Today, these same households are facing new threats with historic levels of inflation and skyrocketing rents," she added. "Just as some states have in place laws to prevent price or rent gouging after natural disasters, Congress should consider similar protections like those included in the Emergency Price Stabilization Act for renters coming out of a global pandemic."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

A coalition of climate campaigners and progressive congressional allies on Thursday responded to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that drastically limited the government's authority to reduce greenhouse emissions by urging Congress to expand the high court from nine to 13 justices.

"Congress must act—not just by passing critical climate justice legislation, but by also addressing the six existential threats in judicial robes who brought us this appalling decision."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) joined the Green New Deal Network (GNDN)—a coalition of 15 climate, environmental, and social justice advocacy groups—in calling for the addition of four justices "to restore balance to the Court."

Their call came after the Court's right-wing supermajority ruled 6-3 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rulemaking powers under the Clean Air Act, a decision cheered by Republicans and the fossil fuel industry.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissent that "today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'"

Markey lamented that "a stolen, illegitimate, radical right-wing Supreme Court just let polluters turn back the clock on 50 years of reduced pollution and improved air quality all across the country."

"We cannot sit idly by as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution," he added. "Congress must act to protect public health and our planet by passing meaningful climate and clean energy funding to protect our communities and our future. We must also pass my Judiciary Act to expand the Court to restore balance and legitimacy to the bench."

First sponsored in the House by Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), the Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the size of the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices.

"The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA is an attack on our health, safety, and future, and a direct assault on our government's ability to restrain corporate interests," said Bowman.

"In the midst of a world-historic climate crisis that requires an unprecedented public response, the Supreme Court of the United States has undermined our government's ability to respond to the needs of our planet and the people," he continued. "Not only does this ruling show that the Supreme Court 'majority' has been captured by corporate interests, it shows its loyalty to fossil fuel CEOs and right-wing billionaires, not our Constitution or the people."

"It is a very dangerous power grab by the Court, and it could have implications for every kind of regulation," Bowman added. "In response to this judicial overreach, Congress and the White House must restrain this runaway Supreme Court."

Meagan Hatcher-Mays, director of democracy policy at Indivisible—a GNDN member—asserted that "today's ruling is yet another attack on popular policies, supported by the majority of Americans, by justices who were installed by Republicans and special interests who don't care about the future of our planet."

"The impacts of this decision will reverberate throughout the federal government and leave us an executive branch with a significantly reduced authority to protect or enforce basic safety regulations," Hatcher-Mays said.

"Congress must act—not just by passing critical climate justice legislation, but by also addressing the six existential threats in judicial robes who brought us this appalling decision," she added. "Congress must pass the Judiciary Act and add four seats to the Court."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

A coalition of climate campaigners and progressive congressional allies on Thursday responded to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that drastically limited the government's authority to reduce greenhouse emissions by urging Congress to expand the high court from nine to 13 justices.

"Congress must act—not just by passing critical climate justice legislation, but by also addressing the six existential threats in judicial robes who brought us this appalling decision."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) joined the Green New Deal Network (GNDN)—a coalition of 15 climate, environmental, and social justice advocacy groups—in calling for the addition of four justices "to restore balance to the Court."

Their call came after the Court's right-wing supermajority ruled 6-3 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rulemaking powers under the Clean Air Act, a decision cheered by Republicans and the fossil fuel industry.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned in her dissent that "today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'"

Markey lamented that "a stolen, illegitimate, radical right-wing Supreme Court just let polluters turn back the clock on 50 years of reduced pollution and improved air quality all across the country."

"We cannot sit idly by as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution," he added. "Congress must act to protect public health and our planet by passing meaningful climate and clean energy funding to protect our communities and our future. We must also pass my Judiciary Act to expand the Court to restore balance and legitimacy to the bench."

First sponsored in the House by Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), the Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the size of the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices.

"The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA is an attack on our health, safety, and future, and a direct assault on our government's ability to restrain corporate interests," said Bowman.

"In the midst of a world-historic climate crisis that requires an unprecedented public response, the Supreme Court of the United States has undermined our government's ability to respond to the needs of our planet and the people," he continued. "Not only does this ruling show that the Supreme Court 'majority' has been captured by corporate interests, it shows its loyalty to fossil fuel CEOs and right-wing billionaires, not our Constitution or the people."

"It is a very dangerous power grab by the Court, and it could have implications for every kind of regulation," Bowman added. "In response to this judicial overreach, Congress and the White House must restrain this runaway Supreme Court."

Meagan Hatcher-Mays, director of democracy policy at Indivisible—a GNDN member—asserted that "today's ruling is yet another attack on popular policies, supported by the majority of Americans, by justices who were installed by Republicans and special interests who don't care about the future of our planet."

"The impacts of this decision will reverberate throughout the federal government and leave us an executive branch with a significantly reduced authority to protect or enforce basic safety regulations," Hatcher-Mays said.

"Congress must act—not just by passing critical climate justice legislation, but by also addressing the six existential threats in judicial robes who brought us this appalling decision," she added. "Congress must pass the Judiciary Act and add four seats to the Court."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Stressing the imperative to "invest in our youth's future and critical social safety nets" while noting that "the wealthy are more than capable of funding that effort," Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced legislation that would tax the unrealized capital gains of the top 0.01% of U.S. taxpayers with over $100 million in assets.

"Equitable taxation is a critical step to providing much-needed federal investment to strengthen children and families."

"Since the pandemic began, everyday people have borne the brunt of negative public health and economic outcomes," Bowman said in a statement introducing the Babies Over Billionaires Act. "Covid-19 has taken nearly one million lives in the United States alone, forced people to decide between paying rent or buying food, and otherwise upended the livelihoods of millions, especially our youth."

"Meanwhile, American billionaires have shamelessly increased their collective wealth by more than $2 trillion," he continued. "As a society, it's time we center the people's needs who account for most of the American population, instead of roughly 700 billionaires who have swindled us all."

The Babies Over Billionaires Act would:

• Impose an annual 30% tax on ultramillionaires' unrealized gains from publicly traded capital assets at the prevailing long-term capital gains rate;
• Tax 50% of unrealized private capital asset gains at the prevailing long-term capital gains rate every five years;
• Mandate the Internal Revenue Service annually audit filers reporting in excess of $100 million in assets to crack down on rampant tax abuse by the wealthy; and
• Invest the revenue raised by this tax in programs run by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services that support families and children.

Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.)—who, with Reps. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) and Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), is co-leading Bowman's bill—said that "billionaires and working families have had extremely different experiences in the last two years," and that "this bill will address the inequities in our tax code that keep the ultrawealthy from paying their fair share and will invest the revenue raised in those who deserve it most: our children and hardworking families."

Pascrell lamented that "America has a two-tier tax system: one system for the millionaires and billionaires, and one system for everyone else."

"That unfair system is a primary driver of the economic divisions slowly tearing America apart," he added. "This legislation is another sharp tool to rebalance our unfair two-tier tax system and finally begin making those at the top pay their rightful share."

Davis asserted that "billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes—just like everyday workers, just like a grocery clerk, a teacher, a police officer, or a nurse. Equitable taxation is a critical step to providing much-needed federal investment to strengthen children and families."

More than two dozen labor, consumer, and social justice advocacy groups—including Patriotic Millionaires—are supporting the new bill.

Patriotic Millionaires chair and former BlackRock managing director Morris Pearl argued that "our current tax code is ill-equipped to handle the realities of modern wealth. As a result, billionaire wealth in America has skyrocketed while many pay virtually no taxes. Their ability to choose when to pay taxes on their capital gains gives them an enormous advantage over people who pay taxes on every paycheck."

"It's time to require the richest people in this country to pay taxes every year just like Americans who work for a living," he added. "The Babies over Billionaires Act is exactly what this country needs—it would fix one of the fundamental injustices of our tax code and raise hundreds of billions of dollars while costing 99.9% of Americans nothing."

The Babies Over Billionaires Act faces an uphill battle in Congress, where not only Republican lawmakers but also right-wing Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia have opposed similar efforts to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The new bill comes on the heels of a new ProPublica exposé revealing that the 400 highest-paid people in the United States—those whose annual incomes exceeded $110 million—were effectively taxed at a rate of 22% between 2013 and 2018, or just slightly higher than individuals who made between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Stressing the imperative to "invest in our youth's future and critical social safety nets" while noting that "the wealthy are more than capable of funding that effort," Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Thursday introduced legislation that would tax the unrealized capital gains of the top 0.01% of U.S. taxpayers with over $100 million in assets.

"Equitable taxation is a critical step to providing much-needed federal investment to strengthen children and families."

"Since the pandemic began, everyday people have borne the brunt of negative public health and economic outcomes," Bowman said in a statement introducing the Babies Over Billionaires Act. "Covid-19 has taken nearly one million lives in the United States alone, forced people to decide between paying rent or buying food, and otherwise upended the livelihoods of millions, especially our youth."

"Meanwhile, American billionaires have shamelessly increased their collective wealth by more than $2 trillion," he continued. "As a society, it's time we center the people's needs who account for most of the American population, instead of roughly 700 billionaires who have swindled us all."

The Babies Over Billionaires Act would:

• Impose an annual 30% tax on ultramillionaires' unrealized gains from publicly traded capital assets at the prevailing long-term capital gains rate;
• Tax 50% of unrealized private capital asset gains at the prevailing long-term capital gains rate every five years;
• Mandate the Internal Revenue Service annually audit filers reporting in excess of $100 million in assets to crack down on rampant tax abuse by the wealthy; and
• Invest the revenue raised by this tax in programs run by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services that support families and children.

Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.)—who, with Reps. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) and Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), is co-leading Bowman's bill—said that "billionaires and working families have had extremely different experiences in the last two years," and that "this bill will address the inequities in our tax code that keep the ultrawealthy from paying their fair share and will invest the revenue raised in those who deserve it most: our children and hardworking families."

Pascrell lamented that "America has a two-tier tax system: one system for the millionaires and billionaires, and one system for everyone else."

"That unfair system is a primary driver of the economic divisions slowly tearing America apart," he added. "This legislation is another sharp tool to rebalance our unfair two-tier tax system and finally begin making those at the top pay their rightful share."

Davis asserted that "billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes—just like everyday workers, just like a grocery clerk, a teacher, a police officer, or a nurse. Equitable taxation is a critical step to providing much-needed federal investment to strengthen children and families."

More than two dozen labor, consumer, and social justice advocacy groups—including Patriotic Millionaires—are supporting the new bill.

Patriotic Millionaires chair and former BlackRock managing director Morris Pearl argued that "our current tax code is ill-equipped to handle the realities of modern wealth. As a result, billionaire wealth in America has skyrocketed while many pay virtually no taxes. Their ability to choose when to pay taxes on their capital gains gives them an enormous advantage over people who pay taxes on every paycheck."

"It's time to require the richest people in this country to pay taxes every year just like Americans who work for a living," he added. "The Babies over Billionaires Act is exactly what this country needs—it would fix one of the fundamental injustices of our tax code and raise hundreds of billions of dollars while costing 99.9% of Americans nothing."

The Babies Over Billionaires Act faces an uphill battle in Congress, where not only Republican lawmakers but also right-wing Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia have opposed similar efforts to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The new bill comes on the heels of a new ProPublica exposé revealing that the 400 highest-paid people in the United States—those whose annual incomes exceeded $110 million—were effectively taxed at a rate of 22% between 2013 and 2018, or just slightly higher than individuals who made between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.