#rep. jerry nadler

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Roger Stone has contested Mediaite’s reporting this week regarding comments he made on tape floating the assassination of two members of Congress.

“I never spoke about assassinating anyone,” Stone wrote in an X post Thursday. “Fake Mediaite can’t produce the recording they claim to have.” In another post he wrote that Mediaite “has produced NO audio of me threatening 2 Dem Congressmen. Where is it? Post it !”

Mediaite is now publishing an excerpt of the audio, which was recorded in person at Caffe Europa, a public restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, weeks before the 2020 election. It has been lightly edited in order to protect our source, who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions from Stone, whom they believe to be dangerous.

“Roger spent election day and the months prior calling for acts of violence,” the source told Mediaite.

The conversation, which can be heard above, was between Stone and his associate Sal Greco, who at the time served as both an NYPD officer and security for the longtime political operative and confidant to Donald Trump. During the discussion, Stone speaks with Greco about assassinating two prominent House Democrats, Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell.

“It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Swalwell or Nadler has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

The source previously told Mediaite that they believed Stone was not joking around. “It was definitely concerning that he was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.

In addition to his posts on X, Stone previously denied making the comments in a statement to Mediaite. “Total nonsense,” he said. “I’ve never said anything of the kind more AI manipulation. You asked me to respond to audios that you don’t let me hear and you don’t identify a source for. Absurd.”

Greco did not deny the claims, writing in a text to Mediaite, “I don’t think your reader is interested in ancient political fodder.”

Mediaite’s source dismissed Stone’s claims the audio was fake. The source pointed to Stone’s past comments apparently calling for violence that were caught on video by a documentary crew which he later claimed were “deep fakes.”

“Any attempts to claim this was AI or recently created would be false,” the source said. “Roger spent election day and the months prior calling for acts of violence, which can be seen on video in the film A Storm Foretold.”

The 2023 documentary followed Stone as he participated in the “Stop The Steal” movement that erupted after Trump’s loss in the 2020 election. The movement reached its bloody apogee when a horde of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 to protest the certification of the election. Some of the film’s footage was provided to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. In one harrowing clip, Stone said, “Fuck the voting, let’s get right to the violence. Shoot to kill.”

Stone claimed the videos were “deep fakes.”

Both Swalwell and Nadler serve on the House Judiciary Committee and have their own histories with Stone, who was convicted of federal crimes in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. His sentence was commuted by then-President Trump days before he was set to report to prison.

A few months before the Caffe Europa audio was recorded, Nadler announced the Judiciary Committee would be investigating why Stone’s sentence was commuted by Trump.

Greco, who was with Stone during the Jan. 6 riot, was eventually fired by the NYPD over his association with the infamous political operative. An NYPD spokesperson confirmed to Mediaite that Greco was terminated in August 2022.

Last week, Mediaite reported on another recording in which Stone told Greco to “abduct” and “punish” Aaron Zelinsky, the prosecutor who led the case against him as part of the Mueller probe.

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Year

1. Belgium approves four-day week and gives employees the right to ignore their bosses after work

Workers in Belgium will soon be able to choose a four-day week under a series of labour market reforms announced on Tuesday.

The reform package agreed by the country's multi-party coalition government will also give workers the right to turn off work devices and ignore work-related messages after hours without fear of reprisal.

"We have experienced two difficult years. With this agreement, we set a beacon for an economy that is more innovative, sustainable and digital. The aim is to be able to make people and businesses stronger," Belgian prime minister Alexander de Croo told a press conference announcing the reform package.

2. Spain makes it a crime for pro-lifers to harass people outside abortion clinics

Spain has criminalized the harassment or intimidation of women going for an abortion under new legislation approved on Wednesday by the Senate. The move, which involved changes to the penal code, means anti-abortion activists who try to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies could face up to a year behind bars.

3. House passes bill to federally decriminalize marijuana

The House has voted with a slim bipartisan majority to federally decriminalize marijuana. The vote was 220 to 204.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, will prevent federal agencies from denying federal workers security clearances for cannabis use, and will allow the Veterans’ Administration to recommend medical marijuana to veterans living with posttraumatic stress disorder.

The bill also expunges the record of people convicted of non-violent cannabis offenses, which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, “can haunt people of color and impact the trajectory of their lives and career indefinitely.”

4. France makes birth control free for all women under 25

The scheme, which could benefit three million women, covers the pill, IUDs, contraceptive patches and other methods composed of steroid hormones.

Contraception for minors was already free in France. Several European countries, including Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, make contraception free for teens.

5. The 1st fully hydrogen-powered passenger train service is now running in Germany. The only emissions are steam & condensed water.

Five of the trains started running in August. Another nine will be added in the coming months to replace 15 diesel trains on the regional route. Alstom says the Coradia iLint has a range of 1,000 kilometers, meaning that it can run all day on the line using a single tank of hydrogen. A hydrogen filling station has been set up on the route between Cuxhaven, Bremerhaven, Bremervörde and Buxtehude.

6. Princeton will cover all tuition costs for most families making under $100,000 a year, after getting rid of student loans

In September, the New Jersey Ivy League school announced it would be expanding its financial aid program to offer free tuition, including room and board, for most families whose annual income is under $100,000 a year. Previously, the same benefit was offered to families making under $65,000 a year. This new income limit will take effect for all undergraduates starting in the fall of 2023.

Princeton was also the first school in the US to eliminate student loans from its financial aid packages.

7. Humpback whales no longer listed as endangered after major recovery

Humpback whales will be removed from Australia's threatened-species list, after the government's independent scientific panel on threatened species deemed the mammals had made a major recovery. Humpback whales will no longer be considered an endangered or vulnerable species.

Climate change and fishing still pose threats to their long-term health.

Some other uplifting news from last year:

A Cancer Trial’s Unexpected Result: Remission in Every Patient

California 100 percent powered by renewables for first time

Israel formally bans LGBTQ conversion therapy

Tokyo Passes Law to Recognize Same-Sex Partnerships

First 100,000 KG Removed From the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

As we ring in the New Year let’s remember to focus on the good news. May this be a year of even more kindness and generosity. Wishing everyone a happy and healthy 2023!

Thank you for following and supporting this g this newsletter

Buy me a coffee ❤️

[socialjusticeinamerica]

Just wait till they get back into power and start rounding up you and yours.

[schraubd]

The Israeli Right Wants to End America's Israel Bipartisanship

Bibi spoke before Congress today, giving his usual bluster in the face of growing Democratic discontent over his hard-right governance and naked disregard for Palestinian life and rights. Well over a hundred congressional Democrats boycotted his speech, and even some who attended gave scathing reviews (my favorite comment came from Rep. Jerry Nadler, who bluntly described Netanyahu as "the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago."). One comment I've heard many times is that Bibi has been recklessly pissing away the historic bipartisan support Israel has enjoyed in Congress to tie himself ever closer to the GOP. This has been occurring since at least the Obama administration and only seems to be accelerating. Why is he taking this step? At the bad place, Abe Silberstein hypothesizes that this is a "calculated" decision, predicated on the notion that Democrats will eventually abandon Israel anyway. I agree it is calculated (which doesn't mean it isn't reckless), but I actually might make an even more controversial point -- Bibi wants to drive Democrats away. The breakdown of the consensus is, for him, a positive good. The rationale is straightforward. Certainly, in an "ideal" world, both American political parties would support Israel in whatever it does, all the time. But in reality, a bipartisan "consensus" around Israel is going to be inherently moderating -- Democrats prevent it from drifting too far to the right, and Republicans from it drifting too far to the left. It's no accident that in the early 2000s (the apex of the consensus), Democrats and Republicans alike generally coalesced around things like support for two states, veneration of Oslo, and so on. There was, certainly, a lot less in the way of Democratic support for sharp and harsh Israel critique, but you were also less likely to see Republicans openly come out in favor of occupation forever. It was the epitome of a mushy middle. The problem is that Bibi is not part of the mushy middle, and it is affirmatively bad for him if American politics on Israel sit on moderate, middle ground. A theme I've hit on repeatedly in my writing is that polarization actively benefits extremists, and will be pursued by them, even if it reduces overall levels of popular support for their broadly-defined "camp". Polarization gives more space for extremists to flourish, and Bibi is nothing if not a right-wing extremist. Imagine you're Bibi and you have a choice between two worlds: one where 8 out of 10 Americans support Israel, but they're evenly divided between "left" and "right", and another where only 5 out of 10 Americans are pro-Israel, but 4 of them are conservative. He's going to pick the latter, because in the latter universe the pro-Israel faction is dominated by conservatives, and so will be a far more hospitable environment to his brand of unabashed and unapologetic conservatism. In the first world, the parameters of pro-Israel are set via a balance of liberal and conservative interests. In the second, they're set solely by conservatives -- even as the median position of Americans shifts away from support for Israel, the median position of self-described pro-Israel Americans shifts sharply to the right.  For that reason, it should not surprise to see Bibi and his allies seemingly doing everything they can to alienate American Democrats even in the face of stalwart support from Joe Biden. Are they spitting in his eye? Yes, and intentionally so. For them, having Democrats as part of the "pro-Israel" camp is more constraining than it is enabling. They'd much rather the parameters of pro-Israel be set solely by the right -- the better to consolidate their own power. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2k9Rxb0

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Seth Mandel

Yet as exasperatingly counterproductive as Schumer’s remarks were, they could not hold a candle to the performance by Rep. Jerrold Nadler on Tuesday. Nadler was announcing that he would attend Bibi’s speech while also making clear he that he—as-a-Jew—despises the Israeli government that is currently embroiled in a multi-front war against enemies seeking to eliminate the Jewish people from the surface of the earth. Nadler collapsed under the pressure and tweeted what can only be described as a cry for help:

“Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago. The Prime Minister is putting the security of Israel, the lives of the hostages, the stability of the region, and longstanding Israeli democratic norms in perilous jeopardy, simply to maintain the stability of his far-right coalition and absolve him of his own legal troubles. Tomorrow’s address is the next step in a long line of manipulative bad-faith efforts by Republicans to further politicize the U.S.-Israel relationship for partisan gain and is a cynical stunt by Netanyahu aimed at aiding his own desperate political standing at home. There is no question in my mind it should not be happening.”

And yet, he said, “I have not given up on the dream of an Israel that can live in peace with its neighbors.” Therefore, he is attending the speech.

There are three things happening here, all of them deeply destructive. The first has nothing to do with the Jewish angle of this debacle. That is the diplomatic malpractice. America has a serious amount of power and lately an unserious way of wielding it.

Set aside the hysterical tone of Nadler’s post. Does anyone in Congress talk about any other ally this way? We have had a series of incompetent prime ministers in Britain over the past few years, one of whose term was outlived by a head of lettuce. We did not have members of Congress ranting about how Liz Truss was her country’s worst leader since Britain was Roman. That’s because they would look completely insane even publicly contemplating the question. If Nadler wants to retire to become a blogger at The Nation, he is more than welcome to. It’s a low bar, but more is expected of members of the United States Congress, especially those in senior positions.

Or we can turn to Canada, where the remedial-class prime minister likes to play dress-up more than think about politics, like some kind of ancient child-king. Is Schumer out on the floor ranting about how he loves Tim Hortons but the coffee will taste bitter to him until Justin Trudeau resigns to join the Ontario community theater?

[breakingfirst]

Here's why the 2nd Amendment EXISTS! 🎯⬆️

[kp777]

By Edward Carver

Common Dreams

Sept. 12, 2024

"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.

United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.

The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.

"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.

Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.

"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.

The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."

The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.

"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."

Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."

"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.

Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.

[eretzyisrael]

An Israeli cafe in New York City’s heavily Jewish Upper West Side was vandalized over the weekend with fake blood and threatening graffiti, spurring local lawmakers to call for a hate crime investigation.

Red paint was doused on the facade of Effy’s Cafe, a Kosher eatery in the borough of Manhattan owned by Israelis, and the phrase “form line here to support genocide” was sprayed on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant.

“Targeting a small business because of who it’s owned by — Israeli, Palestinian, or any other group — is not only wrong, it’s self defeating,” said US Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on X/Twitter. “The recent attack on Effy’s Cafe is a cowardly act of antisemitism that cannot, and will not, be tolerated in our community.”

New York City Councilwoman Gale Brewer said she had called on the New York City Police Department (NYPD)’s Hate Crime Task Force to open an investigation into the vandalism. Other graffiti was found nearby at Riverside Park the same day which said, “Israelism is Terrorism.”

Police said that the vandals have yet to be apprehended.

Just hours after the vandalism, dozens of local residents — some draped in Israeli flags — showed up to Effy’s to help clean the graffiti and dine-in as a show of support.

By Monday afternoon, all signs of the attack had been removed.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michelangelo Signorile at The Signorile Report:

Yesterday, as the sensational corporate media continued to focus on campus protests, Republicans pushed through another piece of political theater in the House, the Antisemitism Awareness Act. While there has been some unacceptable antisemitic rhetoric reported at protests, often from opportunistic haters who are not students—just as there has been anti-Muslim rhetoric from some people mingled among pro-Israel counter-protesters, though it gets less reported on—the vast majority of the campus protests across the country have been civil and peaceful, and a great many of the protestors standing up for Palestinians are Jewish students themselves.

The bill that passed in Congress is a sham, as it conflates being against Israel’s leaders’ actions and its policies with being antisemitic. Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York—my representative, who is Jewish—voted against the bill, saying it would put the "thumb on the scale" in a way that could "chill" constitutionally protected free speech. The worst part of this theater is that the Republicans who spearheaded the bill, like New York’s Mike Lawler, and those like New York’s Rep. Elise Stefanik, who are attacking university presidents they claim are condoning antisemitism (all part of the GOP attack on higher education and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs), have embraced in their votes and/or their rhetoric white supremacist Great Replacement theory as they rail against policies at the border. The antisemitic, racist conspiracy theory, which, as the American Jewish Committee describes it, posits that there is “an intentional effort, led by Jews, to promote mass non-white immigration”—an “invasion”—has gone from the fringes of the racist far right to the heart of the GOP in Congress, as Republican politicians openly claim an “invasion” of migrants (Brown and Black people) is occurring, fomented by Democrats, to “replace” (White) Americans. 

[...] Trump this week also attacked the protests as antisemitic—and said Biden has abandoned Jews and Israel—while he claimed several times this week and last week that the campus protests make the white supremacist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017 “look like a peanut.” Trump is actually embracing and promoting—once again—violent white supremacist actions in which a woman, Heather Heyer, was killed, and where racist marchers promoting Great Replacement theory and carrying torches were literally chanting, “The Jews will not replace us!” Trump also gave an interview to Time magazine this week that is not getting enough attention—as the media is laser-focused on every detail of Trump’s New York trial or the campus protests—in which he lays out many of his authoritarian plans, using the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, if he wins the presidency again. Just like at his rallies, he’s saying it all out loud.

Donald Trump's plan to deport 11M+ undocumented immigrants is based off the racist Great Replacement Theory conspiracies.

Antisemitic maniac Trump also falsely called the college protests over the Gaza Genocide "antisemitic" and baselessly accused President Joe Biden (and the Democratic Party by extension) of "abandoning" Jews and Israel.

[ridenwithbiden]

At least four senior House Democrats told House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday that they are calling on President Joe Biden to step down from the presidential race, according to several sources with knowledge of the discussion on the private call.

Reps. Jerry Nadler, Mark Takano, Joe Morelle and Adam Smith stated Biden should step aside and no longer continue his campaign, sources told ABC News.

This is notable — it means the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, the ranking member of Veteran Affairs, the highest Democrat on the Administration Committee and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have privately conveyed Biden should step aside.

Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, whose wife was a major Biden fundraiser in 2020, expressed some concerns about the president’s path forward, according to multiple sources. A spokesman posted on X that Beyer "supports President Biden and said so on this call and any reporting to the contrary is a misunderstanding of what he said and what he believes."

Jeffries did not express a position, according to one person on the call. That person tells ABC News the Democratic Leader said that he would engage with the caucus throughout the week, starting with these senior Democrats to solicit views on the path forward.

ABC News has reached out to reps for Beyer, Nadler, Takano, Morelle and Smith for comment.

When reached on Sunday, a Biden campaign adviser said the "simple math" shows that the vast majority of the caucus, including House Minority Leader Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, is on Biden's side.

The campaign says they aren't backing down and they are "ready to fight."

On Sunday evening, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Susan Wild said in a statement that she "expressed the same concerns that Americans across the country are grappling with, about President Biden’s electability at the top of the ticket" on the House leadership call.

In her statement, she said, "In the coming days and weeks, I will operate as I always have, continuing to have these important conversations while keeping the best interests of my constituents at the forefront of every decision and statement I make."

Wild, facing a difficult reelection test, has avoided discussing Biden’s debate performance previously, declining multiple times since then to answer ABC News’ questions about the President’s future.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A group of House Democrats is pushing a legislative proposal that would establish an investigative body within the U.S. Supreme Court to probe potential ethical improprieties in the wake of another Court-related controversy.

On Tuesday, New York Democratic Reps. Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler and other lawmakers introduced the “Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act,” which among other things would create an investigative body that reports to Congress and establish an ethics counsel to advise justices on ethics rules, including recusal and disclosure requirements.

Lawmakers say the goal is to provide transparency and accountability after recent incidents raised ethical concerns about some members of the Court.

The group cites the incident involving Justice Samuel Alito as an example. Alito faced calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 and 2020 election-related cases after the New York Times reported in May that his household flew an upside-down flag — a symbol associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement — in January of 2021; and flew another right-wing flag last year.

The incidents prompted Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to send a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts requesting that he take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol “including the question of former President Trump’s immunity from prosecution …” The immunity case is pending before the Court after oral argument was held in April.

In his own letter, Alito responded by blaming his wife for the flags. He also said he would not recuse himself, citing the Court’s code of conduct adopted last year:

“B. DISQUALIFICATION. (1) A Justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified. (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” A reasonable person who isn’t motivated by “political or ideological considerations” would conclude that the incidents don’t warrant a recusal, Alito says in the letter.

But a number of lawmakers and Court observers seem to disagree.

“Ethics policies at the Supreme Court should be robust and consistent,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fix the Court, “and the current hodgepodge … is far from a best practice.”

Past attempts, however, to bring stronger accountability to the nation’s highest court have been unsuccessful. Last year, ProPublica published an investigation detailing the perks and lavish gifts Justice Clarence Thomas received from Harlan Crow, a real estate tycoon and prominent GOP donor, that Thomas did not disclose. Legislation introduced that year that would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate alleged code violations failed to gain traction.

In November, the Court established a code of conduct. But the onus seems to be on the justices to abide by the standards. Alito cited this code — the “Disqualification” section — in his decision not to recuse himself.

[tieflingkisser]

Why American Jews Should Oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act

Hatred in the U.S. is real. The bill that passed the House will only make it worse.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act. But American Jews who care about fighting antisemitism should be against it. HR 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, passed 320–91. Seventy Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against it (including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who noted that she was against antisemitism but wanted to protect her Christian right to say that Jews killed Jesus). The legislation would see the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. There are some who have long opposed codifying this particular definition because it comes with troublesome examples, most of which have to do with Israel. These include things like “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Under this definition, then, Masha Gessen’s New Yorker essay on Holocaust memory and Israeli policy in Gaza would be considered antisemitic under the law. Gessen is a Jewish descendant of Holocaust survivors and victims. There are many, including Zionist Jews, who have long warned that the IHRA standards could be used to chill pro-Palestinian speech. After the House passed the bill, Americans for Peace Now CEO Hadar Susskind warned in a statement:

Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn’t need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places. They aren’t interested in protecting Jews. They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying “antisemite” at everyone, including Jews, who oppose the Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich government.

Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York also opposed the bill:

I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist. … But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel—alone—does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.

I agree with all of this. I think a bill that effectively restricts speech on the country’s foreign policy has no business being passed in the United States. This bill would be a problem if it only restricted Palestinian Americans from describing their families’ histories or present realities. That codifying this definition in a bill fighting antisemitism would also deem many Jews antisemitic—including the quarter of American Jews who in 2021 said Israel is an apartheid state—undercuts its stated reason for being. But I also think you do not have to disagree with the IHRA—you can, in fact, feel that this definition is a sound one—to believe that this law is a mistake. All you have to do is remember that, as a minority in the United States, American Jews have been as safe and secure as we are because of liberalism, pluralism, and civil rights. American Jews take pride in American Jewish participation in the Civil Rights Movement, and for good reason. But it isn’t just that some American Jews have stood up for civil rights, though that is true. Protection of civil rights has also helped American Jews. When American Jews stood up for freedom of expression and the right to be full political participants, they were also standing up for their own rights. In 1963, speaking before the March on Washington, Rabbi Joachim Prinz said, “America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent. Not merely Black America, but all of America. It must speak up and act … not for the sake of the Black community but for the sake of the image, the idea, and the aspiration of America itself.” He might have added “for the sake of every minority community.” Freedom of religion and the right to express that religion in public by, say, freely speaking out against prayer in schools has long protected Jewish equality in American life. The same goes for the freedom to protest American domestic or foreign policy—against, for example, the Vietnam War (as many American Jews did). These fundamental rights are a large part of why American Jews are free to participate in public life as both Americans and Jews.

[keep reading]

[beardedmrbean]

Gov. Kathy Hochul is pushing a New York City tax hike to replace the $15 congestion pricing tolls she indefinitely postponed — a last-minute funding Hail Mary that drew fierce opposition Thursday.

Lawmakers and business groups slammed the prospect of a tax increase, especially after Hochul scuttled congestion pricing Wednesday because it would “break the budget” for the working class.

“Proposing another tax is an insulting joke that will only exacerbate the affordability crisis that Gov. Hochul pointed to as her reason for killing congestion pricing,” Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-Putnam) told The Post.

“The combination of corporate income, payroll and other taxes on New York City businesses already has them paying some of the highest effective rates in the nation,” noted Ken Girardin, director of research at the Empire Center for Public Policy.

Bigwigs and politicos who already felt burned by Hochul’s flip-flop on congestion pricing said the tax proposal shows she had no real Plan B to make up for the $1 billion a year Manhattan tolls would have raised for the flailing transit agency — and they’re not likely to throw her a lifeline.

“I think it does not have support,” state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) said about a vote on the tax.

“No new taxes,” added Assemblyman Brian Cunningham (D-Brooklyn).

The governor’s shock announcement also created turmoil at the MTA’s highest levels.

MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber, along with Hochul’s board appointees, have threatened to resign, a state Senate source told The Post.

Complicating matters is the fact Albany lawmakers are poised to skip town Friday as the legislative session ends — a deadline that could leave major MTA projects in limbo as officials scramble to replace the $15 billion promised by congestion pricing.

Legislative opponents of congestion pricing hailed Hochul’s move as a victory for everyday New Yorkers, but offered no firm solutions for the last-minute funding problem it created.

State Assemblyman Member David Weprin (D-Queens) said hiking the mobility tax is a possibility, along with other vague “proposals” that he wouldn’t elaborate upon when pressed by The Post.

“You’ll find out within a week,” he said. “We’re committed to find a billion dollars.”

The payroll mobility tax is leveled on businesses and self-employed workers in New York City and the surrounding region to help fund the MTA.

Hochul and lawmakers just last year raised the tax on the city’s largest businesses to raise $1.1 billion annually.

The governor, besides a potential mobility tax hike, has floated tapping into state reserves as a replacement, insiders said.

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, a co-plaintiff in one of the lawsuits to block congestion pricing, said tax hikes can’t always be the answer.

“We have $300 billion combined between the state and city budget,” said Fossella, suggesting efficiencies can be found elsewhere to fund transit.

“Raising taxes will just hurt businesses more. I just don’t understand it,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who supports congestion pricing, also blasted a New York City-focused tax increase.

“Our transit system serves twelve New York counties and two other states,” he tweeted. “It’s completely unacceptable for the burden of yet another payroll tax increase to be raised on NYC small businesses to fund regional transit projects.”

The legislators weren’t alone in their opposition.

Prominent business groups – including some that stuck their necks out in support of congestion pricing, such as The Real Estate Board of New York – have criticized Hochul’s reversal and funding replacement proposals.

“Unquestionably, there is a cost of living and affordability crisis in New York, which is also deeply felt by small business owners,” said Ashley Ranslow, the New York director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

“Increasing the MTA payroll tax will only exacerbate this crisis and worsen New York’s dismal business climate and lagging economic growth post-pandemic.”

Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the prominent Partnership for NYC, told NY1 Thursday that she personally expressed her “frustration and disappointment” to Hochul.

Her group later that day issued a statement opposing any increase in the payroll mobility tax to replace the $1 billion. 

Business and real estate taxes already account for 44% of MTA revenues, followed by rider fares at 27% and 13% for vehicle tolls – an unfair share that congestion pricing would have corrected, the statement contended.

“Congestion pricing spread the MTA funding burden equitably across all the constituencies that benefit from the mass transit system that supports the tri-state regional economy,” the statement reads.

“The PMT burden is entirely on New York City, which is already the most highly taxed city in the country.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Adam Kredo

Kamala Harris's newly appointed head of Arab-American outreach once accused Zionists of "controlling" American politics, echoing an anti-Semitic trope that suggests Jews nefariously manipulate global affairs.

"The Zionists have a strong voice in American politics," Brenda Abdelall, an Egyptian-American lawyer and former Department of Homeland Security official, said in a 2002 interview with the New York Sun while attending the American Muslim Council's annual convention. "I would say they're controlling a lot of it."

Abdelall, whom Harris tapped earlier this week to help galvanize Arab voters, made the remarks after a speaker at the event, anti-Israel professor Jamil Fayez, said that "Zionists are destroying America." Responding to his remarks, Abdelall said that while "'destroying' is a harsh word," supporters of the Jewish state do control American politics.

The American Muslim Council's 2002 confab also provided attendees with a chance to meet anti-Semitic former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.), who famously blamed Jews for the 9/11 terror attack and attended a 2009 Holocaust-denial gathering in London. Her father similarly blamed Jews when she lost her congressional seat shortly after the 2002 conference. "Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S," he said.

Abdelall's appointment comes as Harris works to appease members of her party's liberal flank who want her to more aggressively confront the Jewish state and undermine its war on Hamas, including by cutting off arms sales. Harris has praised pro-Hamas campus protesters as "showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza." In March, she accused Israel of stoking "humanitarian catastrophe."

Abdelall joins several other Harris campaign advisers who have a history of pressuring Israel and advocating increased relations with Iran. They include Harris's national security adviser, Phil Gordon, who is the subject of a congressional probe into his ties to a member of an Iranian government influence network. Ilan Goldenberg, Harris's liaison to the Jewish community, has faced scrutiny for his ties to the anti-Israel group J Street, as well as championing closer ties to Tehran.

Harris also appointed a veteran Israel critic, the Rev. Jen Butler, to conduct outreach to the faith community. Butler has come under fire for working alongside anti-Semitic activist Linda Sarsour.

Abdelall also is a veteran of the anti-Israel advocacy world.

During the 2002 American Muslim Council event, she suggested that the election defeat of former congressman Earl Hilliard Sr. (D., Ala.) "shows the Jewish influence in politics," according to the Sun. At the time, Hilliard had faced criticism from pro-Israel groups for voting against a congressional resolution condemning Palestinian suicide bombers.

Abdelall's mother founded the American Muslim Council's Ann Arbor branch, helping the anti-Israel advocacy group expand its presence across the country, according to the Sun.

The Harris campaign defended Adelall, saying that as a DHS official, she "worked closely on the implementation of the country's first National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism" and "led efforts for the first United We Stand summit, a White House event to counter hate-fueled violence."

"We are proud to add her to the campaign."

The American Muslim Council has long courted controversy for spreading anti-Israel propaganda.

In 2003, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) blasted the group's former executive director, Eric Erfan Vickers, for claiming "that the recent tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its entire crew was an act of divine retribution against Israel, and attributable to the presence of the first Israeli astronaut on the mission."

Vickers at the time said he saw "a sign in the calamitous destruction of the one hundred and thirteenth space shuttle mission taking place over a city named Palestine, while on board was the first Israeli astronaut." Nadler described the remarks as "unthinkable."

[mariacallous]

The Coup is so totally over

https://x.com/AndrewSolender/status/1810660655436824971

"Rep. Jerry Nadler, who said privately he thinks Biden should withdraw, tells reporters: “Whether or not I have concerns is besides the point. He is going to be our nominee and we all have to support him.” "

So embarrassing and unnecessary for all these people.

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

July 11, 2024

"If Congress does not act, long-standing regulations that have protected consumers, workers, our environment, and public health and safety for years, even decades, could be newly challenged by corporations," said one advocate.

Recognizing the threat posed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down by the right-wing justices earlier this month, a pair of U.S. House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Corner Post Reversal Act.

Proposed by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Subcommittee on Administrative Law, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Ranking Member Lou Correa (D-Calif.), the bill would reverse the 6-3 decision in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The high court's conservative supermajority decided that the Administrative Procedures Act's (APA) statute of limitations period does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by a regulation—making it much easier for corporations to sue government agencies.

"The Corner Post decision was an erroneous and power-hungry move by the MAGA majority on the court, that was intentionally dismissive of the will of Congress expressed in the Administrative Procedure Act," Nadler said in a statement. "The court has opened the floodgates to allow big corporations and private interests to object and challenge commonsense rules that protect our air, water, land, environment, food, medicines, labor, and children."

Correa similarly called out the high court for taking aim at the APA's statute of limitations, which "opened the door to unlimited challenges that may overburden our judicial system while harming Americans and small businesses."

"This piece of legislation is an important and essential step in reestablishing the certainty that comes from the finality that the six-year limitation provided," he added.

Specifically, as the congressmen's offices detailed, their bill:

Reestablishes the statute of limitations found within Section 702 of the APA;

Clarifies congressional intent that agency rules must be challenged within six years after being finalized;

Codifies that the right to seek judicial review accrues under the APA when the agency finalizes the rule;

Protects well-developed and scientifically based agency actions from attacks by private interests, thereby assuring protections for consumers, the workforce, and our environment; and

Assures that our courts are not flooded or strained by claims by actions commenced after the six years following the agency action.

"This bill, in conjunction with the Stop Corporate Capture Act," said Nadler, "addresses the need to protect longstanding and long-working rules established by administrative agencies and protect our federal system from arbitrary and frivolous attacks that would have been welcomed under the Corner Post holding."

The Stop Corporate Capture Act was introduced last year by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is also backing the bill introduced Thursday alongside Reps. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Nikema Williams (D-Ga.).

"Public agencies exist to create rules and implement laws that protect the American people and their families from unsafe working conditions, dangerous food and drug products, and polluted water and air," said Jayapal. "It is imperative that our public agencies are able to enact measures to keep all Americans safe and healthy without being subject to constant lawsuits from bad actors."

The legislation—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled House—is also supported by the Small Business Majority along with the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance that includes the Center for American Progress, Earthjustice, and Public Citizen.

Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, stressed in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's Corner Post decision makes Americans less safe" and argued the new bill "would prevent the disruptive impact" of the recent ruling.

"If Congress does not act," she added, "long-standing regulations that have protected consumers, workers, our environment, and public health and safety for years, even decades, could be newly challenged by corporations that want to boost their profits at the public's expense."