Senate bill holds ground against Trump environment assault

The fossil fuel industry has had serious influence over American politicians for decades. This has not changed with the Trump Administration. In fact, it seems that Trump is even more brazen in his courting of the fossil fuel industry, instead of “draining the swamp” of corporate lobbying as he had promised during his campaign. Trump has been relentlessly undoing every environmental regulation possible, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord and has invited into his cabinet, with open arms, fossil fuel industry executives and lobbyists. However, Trump's cozying up to the fossil fuel industry and his attacks on the environment have not gone unchallenged.

Bill in Senate challenges fossil fuel industry

Trump's attacks on science and the environment prompted a massive populist response in the form of the March For Science. This worldwide event in April inspired hundreds of thousands to march against Trump's climate science-denying agenda. It also inspired the People's Climate March in late-April which saw more than 150,000 people march on Washington D.C. to protest Trump's attack on Mother Earth. It was during this march on Washington D.C. that Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA) announced the Keep It in the Ground Act of 2017 (S. 750) which Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced in the Senate.

What does the bill propose to do?

The Senate bill, a version of which was originally introduced in the House by Congressman Huffman in February 2016, would seriously slowdown Trump's anti-environment agenda by making it more difficult for the fossil fuel industry to continue exploiting nature for profits. The legislation would immediately ban any new leases of Federal lands for the purposes of extracting coal, oil, gas, oil shale and tar sands. It would also terminate any already-existent non-producing leases for fossil fuel extraction on Federal lands. Additionally, the bill would do the same for offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic and the Atlantic.

As of now only a handful of Senators have co-sponsored the Senate bill. Some of those co-sponsors include Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Despite current lack of support from lawmakers in the Senate, there is significant grassroots support for the bill, particularly coming from former-Ohio state senator Nina Turner and Our Revolution. However, it will take all of us standing together to protect the environment against Trump. You can join in on the effort by calling your Senators and demanding they take a stand for the planet and support the Keep It In the Ground Act of 2017.

The solution to right-wing fake news: college for all

The key to any successful democracy is an informed public. Democracies empower their citizens to influence their government in ways other types of societies, such as dictatorships, do not. However, with this power comes great responsibility. It is imperative that America makes education as accessible as possible to as many people as possible to ensure the public cannot be fooled by conspiracy theories and fake news which played a significant role in the election of Donald Trump.

Conspiracy theories and fake news duped Trump voters

One of the first things one learns in college is how to form logical arguments based upon facts and evidence. Another thing college teaches a person is how to discern credible sources from suspect ones. Unfortunately, the lack of these two abilities allowed many people to fall for far-fetched right-wing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. It also allowed for Trump to spew his nonsense assertions without any evidence, all the while his followers believed every word he said. The problem is so serious and unprecedented that the FBI has decided to investigate possible links between far-right fake news websites, such as Breitbart, and the Trump presidential campaign.

Stop the problem at the root

Although investigating the role of fake news and disinformation in the recent election is essential, it is also important to tackle the root of the problem, which is a lack of knowledge. One bill currently in the the House and Senate aims to address the root of the problem by making sure every American has the right to attend college. The College for All Act of 2017 was first introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) in the Senate and then by fellow progressive Representative Jayapal Pramila (D-WA) in the House.

College for everybody

The bill aims to make community colleges tuition free for everybody. It would also make four-year universities free for those students who are from families earning $125,000 or less annually. Also, those who are still living with student debt would be given the ability to refinance their student loans.

How would free college be funded?

Paying for college for all sounds like a challenging task financially, however it is quite doable. The bill would raise funds for the program by charging an investment tax on Wall Street which is already making record profits while everyday Americans are facing stagnant wages and an unaffordable housing market. 

Who supports college for all?

The only thing left to make college for all a reality is the political will to do so. The proposed legislation has been co-sponsored by seven Democratic Senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. The bill has been co-sponsored by 32 Democrats in Congress including Tulsi Gabbard, Ro Khanna and Raul Grijalva. Currently no Republicans have co-sponsored.

If you want to fight against the GOP war on knowledge and right-wing fake news, then you should contact your representatives in Congress and the Senate and demand they support the College for All Act of 2017. This bill could save the American democracy experiment.

Trump immigration policy worsens U.S. housing crisis

Part of the American dream has always been to be able to leave the cycle of constantly paying rent every month through home ownership. However, lately Americans have found this increasingly more difficult to achieve due to the severe housing shortage in the U.S. which is causing real estate prices to skyrocket to price points not affordable for everyday Americans. Unfortunately, President Trump's immigration policies are making the problem worse.

Supply does not meet demand

Currently, there is strong demand for purchasing homes however the supply of homes on the market have been woefully short of meeting this demand. In July, new housing construction starts decreased by 4.8 percent to approximately 1.16 million units which is down from 1.21 million units from the month prior, according to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. June had marked 25 consecutive months that inventory had fallen annually, according to HousingWire. There is a shortage of more than 3.2 million homes in the U.S., according to statistics from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) which had been reported by Huffington Post.

As a result, in accordance with simple supply and demand economics, the lack of adequate supply to meet demand is keeping would-be home buyers from being able to own homes. Affordable homes are now routinely sold after just a few days on the market in many regions of the country, according to Huffington Post.

Trump immigration policy causes labor shortage for home builders

One main factor which home builders have cited as significantly contributing to the inability to create more housing supply is the shortage of labor required for construction projects. In a recent NAHB survey home builders cited significant labor shortages in various occupations related to home construction, according to BuilderOnline.com. Many home builders claim Trump's anti-immigration policies are keeping them from being able to obtain the necessary labor which had been previously filled by foreign immigrant workers, according to Nasdaq.com. Ric Campo, the Chairman and CEO of Camden Property Trust, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the country, recently said in a call with investors that there is a shortage of labor in every market which is causing the cost of land to rise.

This is bad news for the everyday American who is not seeing their wages rise at the rate of overall inflation and definitely not at the rate of skyrocketing home prices. Trump's crackdown on immigration and increased deportation efforts is not only tearing apart immigrant families, but is also making the American dream of owning a home much less attainable for average people in the United States.

IMPEACH: Trump committed obstruction of justice, the evidence is clear

Obstruction of justice is just one of multiple avenues for establishing a legal basis for impeaching Donald Trump. There are several state and federal statutes which define “obstruction of justice.” The applicable federal law in this case is Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503. This federal statute lists the requirements to establish obstruction of justice by stating that any person who “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished.” In other words, Trump's intent is key in deciding whether or not his actions rise to the level of obstruction of justice.

What did Trump do?

Trump committed obstruction of justice when he fired then-Director of the FBI James Comey who had been investigating the Trump presidential campaign for potential collusion with Russia to influence the recent presidential elections. Now, Trump supporters will argue that the President has the legal right to fire the FBI Director at his discretion. Although this is generally true, if Trump's intention in firing Comey constitutes an attempt to obstruct justice it is a crime and an impeachable offense.

Trump's corrupt intentions

As the applicable federal statute states, if Trump “corruptly... endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” then his actions rise to obstruction of justice. The legal definition of corruption is the act of an official to use his or her position to evade the prohibitions of law. It is obvious Trump had intended to conceal his corrupt attempts to influence Comey when he asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Adviser Jared Kushner to leave the Oval Office in order for Trump to talk privately with Comey. Trump was evading the possibility of any witnesses to his private conversation because he knew was doing something wrong.

Trump's last 'hope'

Trump apologists may argue that Trump's own words, according to Comey's written statement and testimony, show that he was not giving Comey a directive, but rather, a suggestion because he used the word “hope.” According to Comey's written statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go.” Trump was requesting that Comey terminate the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn.

However, it is important to understand the context of the situation to properly determine whether or not Comey should have reasonably interpreted Trump's statement as a directive to a subordinate or merely a suggestion. In this case, Trump has the legal authority to fire Comey at his discretion. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that there is an aspect of the Trump-Comey relationship that is similar to an employer-employee relationship. This is also a familiar role for Trump to play, considering Trump's background in the corporate business world.

It is more than likely that in Trump's mind he was intentionally giving Comey a directive similar to how a boss would speak to his employee, saying that he “hopes” the employee would take some specific action. Despite the operative verb being “hope,” most people would reasonably infer from the employer's power to terminate the employee from his job that the boss's statement was essentially an order within the employer-employee context. Although the relationship between the President of the United States and the FBI Director is more complicated, the dynamic of a “superior” being able to terminate a “subordinate” from a position of employment still exists and was likely the context within which Trump was operating when he requested Comey drop the Flynn investigation.

Flynn, Trump and Russia

On the other hand, many Trump apologists may try to mitigate Trump requesting Comey drop the Flynn investigation by arguing that this had nothing to do with the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Comey's statement says that Comey himself did not interpret Trump's request to go beyond the Flynn investigation. However, Comey's own interpretation of Trump's words is not a legal basis of proving Trump's actual intent when making the request.

Trump knew he was doing something wrong as shown by his request for Sessions and Kushner to leave the Oval Office for Trump's private conversation with Comey. Therefore, Trump's state of mind would be that of deception. Hence, it is likely Trump was not being completely forthcoming regarding his true intentions when speaking privately with Comey. Also, this is not out of character for Trump whose penchant for lying has been widely reported and documented by numerous media sources as well as in a post published by this blog. Additionally, Trump's own words, in an interview with Lester Holt, confirms that Trump's reason for firing Comey was to stop the investigation into connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Evidence is clear

The body of publicly known evidence, as of now, already proves that Trump's intent and actions rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In this context, it would be considered a "high crime" which forms a legal basis for impeaching Trump. However, the final decision whether or not to impeach Trump lies in the hands of the House and the Senate. Therefore, it is essential to continue to apply political pressure on lawmakers to support impeachment proceedings.

IMPEACH: Legal basis for removing Donald Trump from the White House

Ever since the beginning of Donald Trump's White House Administration there has been talk of impeachment. However, it is important to understand the legal machinations involved in the impeachment process. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole ability of impeaching a sitting President via Article II Section 4 which states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” However, the statute is vague and lends itself to various interpretations of what is necessary to impeach Trump, according to FindLaw.

Impeachment requires a criminal offense

In terms of legal requirements to impeach Trump the key phrase is “treason, bribery or other high crimes.” The phrase implies that some type of criminal offense needs to have been committed in order to legally impeach a sitting President. Other sections in the Constitution seems to support this interpretation.

For instance, Article III Section 2 states that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” This implies that the legal process of impeachment is connected with a criminal offense. Additionally, Article II Section 2 of the Constitution empowers the President to grant pardons “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This implies the criminal nature of the actions necessary to legally bring forth impeachment. One may argue that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, a criminal offense, when he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Misdemeanors and official presidential duties

On the other hand, there are other interpretations of the legal basis for impeachment which does not require a criminal act by President Trump. One interpretation focuses more on the word “misdemeanors” which did not specifically carry criminal connotation when the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Another interpretation is based upon an action, not necessarily criminal in nature, taken by the President specifically related to his official duties. One example may be if Trump is indeed found to have violated the Emoluments Clause through financial conflicts of interests via his investments connected to Russia or other foreign powers. 

Matter of political will

However, ultimately Congress has the sole power to decide whether or not Trump has committed an impeachable act. After an impeachment via Congress it is the Senate which must convict Trump before actually removing him from office. This is why impeachment is more a political question than a legal inquiry. Therefore, those who are looking to remove Trump from power would do well to pressure their congressional representatives and senators to do the right thing.

Trump conned coal country: no jobs, abandons black lung patients

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump made promises to the coal industry and the communities it supports. Trump claimed he could bring the coal industry back to its heyday. However, as President, Trump has not done hardly anything to bring back jobs to the coal industry. His first actions as President have clearly shown that he does not care about helping the coal mining communities. In fact, Trump's agenda shows a clear intent to enact policies which would severely hurt coal mining communities.

Trump deregulation will not solve anything

So far the Trump Administration has attempted to fulfill his promises of bringing back jobs to the coal industry via executive order aimed at dismantling numerous environmental standards previously set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, this tactic is short-sighted and is unlikely to have any long-term significant effect, according to a study from Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.

The report reveals that Trump's deregulatory agenda does not address the main causes of coal's decline in the past few decades, which are competing demand for natural gas and renewable energy sources. Any possible positive benefits to Trump's deregulatory policies could be “overwhelmed by the impact of cheaper natural gas” with a worst-case scenario of coal consumption dropping “below levels... projected under Obama administration policies,” according to the report released in April. This blog had previously published a post about how the reality of the dynamics between natural gas and coal do not work in favor of Trump's economic thesis.

Trump budget cuts job retraining for displaced coal miners

Despite the macroeconomic outlook of the coal industry's decline, Trump is attempting to make it more difficult for current and future unemployed coal miners to be retrained with skills better-suited for today's economy. Trump's recently proposed budget would slash at least $1.13 billion from the Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce Economic Revitalization (POWER) Initiative, which helps to train dislocated coal industry workers for occupations in-demand in the current economy, according to The Center for American Progress. The POWER initiative provided over $115.8 million in funding for coal communities in over 20 states over the past two years.

Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare disaster for black lung patients

In addition, to making it challenging for coal miners to survive the job market during the inevitable decline of the coal industry, the Trump agenda is also threatening to make it more difficult for patients suffering from black lung disease to obtain the medical care they need to survive. Trump's staunch support of the GOP effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, would roll back a provision within the ACA which made it drastically easier for coal miners to obtain coverage for black lung disease, according to News and Tribune.

Trump ran his election campaign on the notion that he was somehow more straightforward and honest compared to other more conventional politicians. However, despite his rhetoric, his actions show that his promises made to coal mining communities were only lies made up to gain votes. It is clear that the intention of the Trump agenda is to enact policies that would economically devastate these communities while literally leaving them to die without healthcare.

Trump budget prioritizes war over education, hurts impoverished communities

President Trump's proposed budget would drastically increase spending on the military while making dramatic cuts to numerous social services that mostly benefit impoverished communities. Now with the increasing tensions with Syria and the military actions taken by the Trump administration, the military-heavy budget may pick up some additional political support from war hawk lawmakers. Unfortunately, children from impoverished communities may suffer some of the most devastating effects due to proposed cuts to various education services, such as after-school programs.

Trump budget cuts to after-school programs hurt working families

The proposed budget would increase military spending by $54 billion while cutting $9 billion from education. Not all of the details of the cuts have been released, however $1.2 billion of those cuts would specifically hit 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) which provide after-school and summer learning programs, according to The Center for American Progress. The cuts would put an end to these essential programs. This can be highly detrimental to working parents who rely on the programs to allow them to continue working to make ends meet while also providing their children with the extra learning needed for them to succeed in school. Approximately 80 percent of parents who participated in the after-school services claim that the programs helped them maintain their employment. Over 1.6 million students are currently attending the after-school programs.

Trump's alternative facts on after-school programs

Despite these obvious benefits for working families, the Trump administration still claims that there are no benefits to maintaining these programs. The budget justifies these cuts by asserting that there is no “strong evidence” of meeting the objectives of the programs, such as “improving student achievement.” However, Trump is flat-out wrong and ignores large amounts of evidence showing that these programs do make significant progress on their objectives.

An evaluation of high-quality after-school programs, which included CCLC programs, in low-income elementary and middle schools found that regular participation among the 3,000 students evaluated, resulted in considerable improvements in math test scores as well as work habits. The study also showed that after-school programs reduced behavioral problems, according to a fact sheet published by the Afterschool Alliance. Evaluations conducted on CCLC programs in California, Washington and Wisconsin showed improvements for students in many areas, including test scores, attendance, grades, class participation and motivation.

Be sure to contact your local congresspersons and senators and tell them you oppose these cuts to critical public education services, such as the CCLC. Now with the worsening Syria crisis, it is important voters do not allow lawmakers to sneak these devastating cuts under the cover of patriotic war drums. You can automatically connect to your representatives via various means at Phone2Action.