The Biden administration has informed Russia that the US will not rejoin the Open Skies Treaty, an arms control agreement that allows unarmed surveillance flights over participating countries. “Thursday’s decision means only one major arms control treaty between the nuclear powers — the New START treaty — remains in place,” Associated Press observes.
The Trump administration withdrew from the treaty last year. Russia had been attempting to salvage it, but the Biden administration’s decision appears to be the final nail in the coffin for Open Skies.
Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman informed Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov of the US decision late this week.
As a candidate, President Biden slammed the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the treaty. In May 2020, Biden released a statement that said a US withdrawal from Open Skies would “exacerbate growing tensions between the West and Russia, and increase the risks of miscalculation and conflict.”
In one of his first major foreign policy moves, President Biden spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the two leaders agreed to extend New START, the last nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia. Biden vowed to work on more arms control agreements with Russia, but so far, he has failed to do so.
Biden and Putin are scheduled to meet in Geneva on June 16th amid heightened tensions. US-Russia relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, thanks to hostile US policies. Since coming into office, Biden has slapped sanctions on Russia, expelled Russian diplomats, and supported Ukraine during a tense stand-off with Moscow.
The First American City To Authorize “Reparations” Is Already Regretting It
Evanston, Illinois made headlines earlier this year by becoming the first city in the US to authorize “reparations” in the form of payments to compensate Black Americans for abuses done to family members. The Chicago suburb’ City Council voted back in March to distribute $400K to eligible black households, with each qualifying family receiving up to $25K for homeownership and or improvement grants, as well as mortgage assistance.
But while proponents on the left praised the move as unprecedented, it turns out that those who designed the proposal were careful to ensure the word “reparations” was nowhere near it. In fact, a lengthy Bloomberg piece telling the story of how the proposal came to be shows that its backers were simply hoping to put new revenue from cannabis legalization to use righting historical wrongs in Evanston.
For starters, only 16 people will initially be eligible for the money (only $400K was approved and it will be doled out in increments of $25K). And what’s more, instead of receiving cash payments, the money must go directly to a bank or a contractor to prevent the recipient from incurring a state or federal tax penalty.
In essence, this shows the futility of making ‘reparations’ a reality via a series of local or municipal movements: there are myriad boundaries at the federal level that make it unrealistic.
Right now, the money can only be used to help qualified Black residents buy homes, fix them up, or stay in them. Right now, the priority is the grants go to any Black resident of Evanston from 1919 to 1969, the year after the federal government passed the Fair Housing Act, then any of their direct descendants, then anyone who moved to the city after that and can show that they’ve faced discrimination.
Even supporters of reparations said they were underwhelmed.
“We want cash payments. I want reparations like any Black person” And the big question: How much? They decided on grants of $25,000—not a lot of money in Evanston, where the average home sells for many multiples of that. The $400,000 covers just 16 people to start with. That’s a tough number, another reality check. There are other restrictions: The residents won’t get the cash directly. The city says that would likely require them to pay state and federal taxes on it. Instead, the money will go to the financial institution providing a new mortgage or holding an existing one or to the closing agent handling a down payment. It could go to a contractor making repairs on the recipient’s home or to Cook County to pay property taxes.
At a virtual town meeting held on March 22, Black residents lined up to explain why they supported the program, but didn’t support calling it “reparations”.
At the March 22 City Council meeting, held virtually, so many people had something to say that the mayor limited them to a minute each. The first speakers were the Duke professor Darity and Kirsten Mullen, co-authors of the 2020 book From Here to Equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century. Darity said the program would do little about the equity gap in housing. Mullen challenged the premise. “There are some admirable efforts by municipalities to atone for their own race-based policies,” Mullen said. “However, it is unfortunate when those acts of atonement are confused with reparations.” Cannon said that because she now rents an apartment and at age 73 doesn’t want to take on a mortgage, she wouldn’t benefit, even though she’d qualify. “We want cash payments,” she said. “I want reparations like any Black person.” Kevin Brown, another founder of the Facebook group, said: “The city of Evanston should not willingly mislead our country. … We support the housing program, but we don’t support calling it reparations.”
Now that the program has blown up and become national news, it turns out, everybody in the community has something negative to say about it.
Brown says it wasn’t until earlier this year that some people realized the city was going ahead with reparations.There had been regular public meetings, opportunities to comment, but they’d almost all occurred while the city was locked down, people were struggling, and no one was socializing much. Then there’s the $10 million. It had seemed a smart idea to use the marijuana sales tax to pay for reparations. It’s such a convenient, tidy model that other communities might copy it. That’s the problem, Brown says. “I kind of call it reparations on the cheap. There’s no pain involved. I think it would be a different dynamic if reparations became an element of the city budget—of the core city budget—and the city government was saying, ‘We’re going to allocate a hundred million dollars over this period of time to fund the reparations budget.’ ” The city’s annual budget, for reference, is about $300 million. “This is just not costing anyone anything. So they’re OK.” Percy Berger, 72, a former banker and private equity investor and the owner of a home in Evanston’s Lake Shore Historical District, calls the $10 million inconsequential, arbitrary. A national reparations program would have to calculate African Americans’ economic losses: The lost wages from almost a century of forced labor after America’s independence; or the loss of land, the 40 acres and the mule promised to those formerly enslaved after emancipation. Plus interest. But how, Berger wants to know, were the losses calculated in Evanston? “No one looked at it systematically,” he says. “And if they did and came up with that number it would be even more insulting.”
And with COVID-19 stretching state and local budgets, some are arguing that maybe that money could have been better spent. The community still has another $9 million-plus in weed tax revenue to spend – but it’s unlikely it will go to a continuation of this program.
This is an argument about what’s possible and what’s necessary and how far America will go. It’s happening in Evanston, and it will happen elsewhere. “Black folk have to raise their voices and say what reparations are,” Rue Simmons says. Some of the pushback she expected; some of it, she says, is personal and political. There will be plenty more discussion in Evanston about the remaining $9.6 million. The council’s resolution states it should be spent not only on housing but also on economic development and educational initiatives. Everyone hopes the $10 million is just a start and that 10 years won’t be the end.
It’s just a reminder that those hoping to fight against economic inequality have many other, better options than whatever Evanston is doing.
A judge in Georgia told parties in an election integrity case on May 27 that a previously scheduled meeting at a ballot storage warehouse was canceled after officials filed a flurry of motions in the case.
Media crews film while election workers process absentee ballots at State Farm Arena in Atlanta on Nov. 2, 2020. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)
Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian Amero said a May 28 meeting was no longer taking place because of motions filed by Fulton County, the county’s Board of Registration and Elections, and the county’s clerk of Superior and Magistrate Courts, a spokesperson for the court confirmed to The Epoch Times.
Amero said the motions must be heard before the plaintiffs can gain access to the absentee ballots. He proposed a June 21 hearing, but the order scheduling the hearing hasn’t yet been filed.
“It seems like a desperation move. The silver lining is that we now have more time to perfect the changes we had to make in our inspection plan,” Garland Favorito, the lead petitioner, told The Epoch Times via email.
County officials argued that the complaint filed by voters should be dismissed because the petitioners failed to serve, or even attempt to serve, the county. They also said Fulton County doesn’t have final control over elections, that petitioners aren’t entitled to declaratory judgment, and that petitioners haven’t complied with election contest requirements.
Amero heard in a hearing last week that petitioners weren’t able to properly examine ballot images they’ve received because of their low resolution—200 dots per inch (DPI). Amero granted the petitioners’ request to unseal the mailed ballots and said they could go to where they were stored in order to observe county workers create higher resolution images of the ballots.
Amero mentioned during the hearing that no parties had filed a motion to dismiss, allowing petitioners to obtain some discovery.
During the hearing, lawyers for the county urged the judge not to grant access to the ballots.
Before the latest update in the case, some officials had supported the ballot examination.
“From day one, I have encouraged Georgians with concerns about the election in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues. Fulton County has a long standing history of election mismanagement that has understandably weakened voters’ faith in its system. Allowing this audit provides another layer of transparency and citizen engagement,” he told The Epoch Times in an email.
However, Democrat Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts criticized the attempt to examine the ballots.
“It is outrageous that Fulton County continues to be a target of those who cannot accept the results from last year’s election,” he told news outlets in a statement.
US Embassies Worldwide Are Flying BLM Flags This Week
US embassies and consulates across the globe this week flew Black Lives Matter (BLM) flags after being authorized and encouraged to do so for the first time ever in a memo by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. It’s now expected to be a regular practice, particularly in instances of race-related events or memorials.
Just ahead of the May 25 one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death, a State Department memo was sent to all diplomatic staff worldwide saying that it “supports the use of the term ‘Black Lives Matter’ in messaging content”. It further encouraged speeches and commemorative events related to diplomatic engagements on the anniversary “and beyond”. Subsequently on Tuesday BLM flags were photographed flying at various US diplomatic compounds across the globe, stretching from east Asia to Greece to Spain and Latin America.
Blinken said in a Tuesday video commemorating the Floyd anniversary that America can only be “credible force for human rights around the world” if it faces “the realities of racism and hatred here at home.”
It’s a reversal of a State Dept. crackdown last year on embassies abroad flying politically charged banners of non-government and partisan organizations, also sparking intense controversy given it’s widely acknowledged BLM is so much more than a mere racial justice organization, and also given the summer’s violent riots and looting in which sections of US cities burned and police were attacked. As The Washington Examiner recalls of BLM leadership’s own words…
Black Lives Matter Global Network has been a lightning rod for many conservatives since one co-founder of the group described the leadership team as “trained Marxists” organizing based on those principles.
And given BLM is also widely recognized as being undergirded by an entire ‘package’ of far left ideologies, the US government flying its flag is tantamount to adopting distinct symbols of a radical political party and movement (even as it would be a violation of the Constitution and the law should embassies promote either the Republican or Democratic parties on a similarly official basis).
We raise this banner in honor of George Floyd, murdered one year ago today, in solidarity with people around the globe seeking a world without racial discrimination and a future with equal opportunity for all. #BlackLivesMatterpic.twitter.com/cVIkfH5Yra
— U.S. Embassy Athens (@USEmbassyAthens) May 25, 2021
On this note of “ideology” – the memo further calls for “building coalitions of like-minded nations” in order “fight against systemic racism and discrimination, to include swift and meaningful responses to human rights abuses and violations of racial, ethnic, and other underserved and mainstream racial equity issues throughout the multilateral system.”
“We actually do have an ideological frame,” BLMGN [or Black Lives Matter Global Network] co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in 2015. “We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
Among these ideologies includes “defunding the police” – among many others.
Commenting on this, Republican Congressman from Arizona Andy Biggs this week ripped the new State Dept. authorization as a huge and brazen step away from the kind of political neutrality that embassies are supposed to represent: “BLM burned down cities and caused billions in property damage. They are the antithesis of American values and do not belong on any of our embassies,”he stated on Twitter.
Displaying a private NGO’s flag like the BLM logo on US embassies is unprecedented.
It violates the Hatch Act, endorses one NGO over another and undermines American security by endorsing calls for defunding the police.
Don’t be outraged later when other presidents do it too.
And veteran diplomat and former Acting Director of National Intelligence under the Trump administration Richard Grenell also blasted embassies for flying the banner, saying, “Displaying a private NGO’s flag like the BLM logo on US embassies is unprecedented. It violates the Hatch Act, endorses one NGO over another and undermines American security by endorsing calls for defunding the police.“
What kind of abysmal social and economic conditions would make at least five separate counties of US voters want to flee a state to join the borders of another state? Well, all it takes is a cult of insane Marxists running the entire state into the ground from the safety of their metropolitan communes while demanding that people submit their undying fealty to the draconian medical mandates of an elitist minority. Yeah, things have to get pretty bad to inspire so many people into leaving and taking half the state with them.
Welcome to Oregon…
I used to live right across the state border from Portland, Oregon through the 1990s, and while the place was always considered a bit of a haven for washout hippies, reject grunge bands and limp-wristed wine sipping progressives, there wasn’t enough of them to take the place over completely and the city was still relatively clean and well kept and peaceful. You rarely heard of crime, poverty or unrest; those were problems reserved for places like California.
I can’t recall any moment during that time when people said they felt “unsafe” in Portland, or when they were desperate to leave Oregon for greener pastures. It used to be a decent place to build a life. A lot has changed since then.
As the political left and the Democratic Party has become increasingly militant in its regressive ideology and collectivist underpinnings the states these people control have become increasingly dismal financial and constitutional failures. Perhaps it was always there under the skin, but in the past few years the cancer has grown terminal. I really have no interest in ever going back to Oregon and no one I know has any interest in visiting the place either. When I research the local news, this is what consistently pops up:
Portland is now a homeless tent city with walls of garbage in the streets and riots on a regular basis. The city has reported a 2000% rise in homicides, specifically after taking measures to defund local police precincts. Oregon also has a total debt of around $43 billion, which is dramatically higher than red state neighbors like Idaho and Montana. Data for 2020 to 2021 poverty and homeless rates have not been released yet, partially because cities like Portland sought to stall the federally mandated count back in January. I would not be surprised if the numbers have had an epic spike in the past year; the only question will be, is it because of covid, or is it just because of the bumbling of the lefties?
But it’s not just the economic decline that’s the issue in Oregon, it’s also the rampant suppression of individual rights through medical tyranny, along with the special government treatment of Marxist extremist groups like Antifa and BLM.
Thousands of businesses have closed in the state because of pointless lockdowns which did NOTHING to stop the natural spread of Covid, and the businesses that tried to defy the mandates in order to survive were harassed or threatened with fines by state health officials and OSHA. At the same time, local politicians have barely lifted a finger to stop leftist civil unrest. Some people say they are too weak to take action, but their meekness is more likely a show of support, a virtue signal. They want the riots to continue, at least to a certain extent.
That said, nothing tops the announcement this past week by the Oregon Health Authority, which has just issued a rule that businesses must now demand proof of vaccination before a customer may enter. If they do not have proof, they must be forced to wear a mask or they must be made to leave. This is the first time I have heard of a state actually codifying vaccine passports into their enforcement mandates, but I’m sure other blue states will follow Oregon’s lead in the near future.
Keep in mind that these rules are a threat to Oregon businesses as much as they are a threat to the regular public. As one bureaucrat from the Oregon Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration argued:
“We expect employers to comply, whichever route they take–allowing the vaccination exemption or sticking with current requirements….We will take and investigate complaints alleging employers aren’t requiring face coverings, for example, or checking vaccination status.”
Don’t forget that this guy is not a law maker, he’s a nobody. He was never elected. Most of these mandates across the country have not yet been debated by a legislature or voted on by citizens. None of the mandates are real law, they are simply Color of Law controls enforced unilaterally outside of the constitution. This is unacceptable.
As those of us in the liberty media have been warning since the beginning of the pandemic hype, the end game was always going to be vaccine passports; it was always about control of the citizenry, it was never about saving lives. We told people that vaccine passports were coming and the media called us crazy. Now Oregon is proving us right. Of course, Oregon is not the only blue state setting the standard for tyranny. Most leftist dominated states are pushing similar measures.
For example, Illinois officials have said they will not enforce vaccine passports, while at the exact same time admitting they are considering vaccine passports. Meanwhile, Chicago Mayor Lightfoot, a racist who has demanded segregation of white journalists from black journalists in her press interactions, is also using her influence to encourage segregation of vaccinated people from unvaccinated people in local restaurants.
In Virginia, Gov. Northham has stated that vaccine passports are on the table. Most counties in the state are predominantly conservative, but it is run once again from metropolitan areas that are saturated with leftists. This has led many counties to seek nullification of state government controls (including Red Flag gun laws). On top of that, numerous counties of Virginia are considering leaving the state to join West Virginia, just as multiple counties in Eastern Oregon are trying to join with Idaho.
In Blue States across the nation incremental totalitarianism is being implemented, but Oregon is clearly leading the charge in my opinion.
Many states are claiming that they will not enforce vaccine passports while subversively supporting corporations that do the enforcing of the passports for them (by the way, no company has the right to demand access to your private medical history before allowing you to enter their establishment). But this is all a farce – Eventually all leftist governments are going to demand vaccine passports as a rule. Oregon simply leap-frogged ahead of everyone else and went straight to the Orwellian end game.
So, of course we have to ask an obvious medical question here first:
If the experimental mRNA vaccines actually work, then why do we need vaccine passports at all?
The people who are vaccinated would be protected, and the people who are not vaccinated would be taking a “risk”, as is their right. The unvaccinated are no threat whatsoever to the vaccinated if the vaccines do what Big Pharma claims they do.
Of course, being unvaccinated is not much of a risk considering the death rate of Covid is only 0.26% outside of nursing homes according to independent medical studies. And for those that claim “mutations” are a concern, viruses mutate with or without mass vaccination. Just as there are seasonal strains of the flu, there will now be seasonal strains of covid. That’s the beauty of it for those in power; there will have to be new vaccinations every year, and you will have to renew your vaccine passport every year. The controls will NEVER end.
If you want to see what our future will be in America if we allow this totalitarian march to continue just take a look at Australia. Regional lockdowns of millions of people are now a regular occurrence there despite the proliferation of vaccines within the country. All it takes is a handful of covid positive tests and the government has all the excuse it needs to erase people’s rights.
In my recent article ‘Vaccine Virtue Signaling And The Cult Of Woke’, I outlined in detail why it makes little sense to become a guinea pig for an experimental “vaccine” (which is really a form of gene therapy) when 99.7% of people will survive the virus without difficulty. On top of that, why submit to a vaccine today that will probably be declared useless next year anyway?
The future implications of vaccine passports and economic decline are disturbing, but this is the inevitable result when leftists and collectivists are allowed to gather political and social power. As I have noted many times this year, leftists are the ONLY subset of the population seeking and supporting government dominion over American lives. Not only that, but they have consistently partnered with global corporations that they supposedly despise in order to leverage more power.
They are the only people supporting mass censorship, mob intimidation of those with different political views, mass violence against innocent people and businesses, they supported government lockdowns and extensive violations of the Bill of Rights, and now they are supporting vaccine passports which would destroy all personal liberty in this country for all time.
Am I falling into a “left/right” paradigm trap here? Are things just as bad in conservative red states? Why not take a look at a red state like my home of Montana? In Montana, the state government has passed multiple laws and set multiple precedents which now protect the public against covid restrictions. These include:
Court orders which prevent local health departments from forcing businesses to require that customers wear masks. (5 businesses took a stand in Flathead County and the courts sided with them).
The Montana Legislature has passed a law banning employers from requiring that their employees get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs.
A law has been passed which prevents any establishment including schools, colleges and medical facilities from demanding proof of vaccination before offering services. Vaccine passports will not be allowed in Montana.
A law has been passed which protects businesses from lawsuits related to covid if a business does not enforce mandates. A similar law is being forwarded which also protects government buildings and healthcare facilities.
Executive orders by Governor Gianforte are being established which stop city governments from enforcing mandates while the state government has lifted them.
Montana has also passed legislation which prevents any new federal gun law from being enforced in the state.
Montana has seen a rush of people relocating to the state and seeking to escape the suffocating restrictions. I have spoken with many of the people that have moved to my area and most of them are conservatives that can no longer tolerate the path of Marxism that their original states are following.
As it stands right now, Montana is one of the MOST free states in the US. Many other red states are considering or have already passed similar measures to protect the rights of their citizens. So, who are the real fascists? Who are the real power mongers? Leftists or conservatives?
The fact of the matter is, the left/right paradigm is a reality. The political elites at the top of the pyramid have no loyalties to either side, but regular people at the bottom of the pyramid are indelibly separated. The proof is in the actions of blue states vs red states.
Perhaps there are many Democrats out there who do not necessarily agree with the cultism of social justice warriors. Maybe they don’t support the unhinged thirst for vicarious control that vaccine virtue signalers display. But if they don’t support it they are not saying much about it out loud. This is indeed about sides, and “moderation” at this point is a joke. One side is supported by real science, the other side is ignoring the science for the convenience of their ideology. One side is clearly right, and the other side is clearly wrong.
Conservatives want to be left alone, and leftists want to dictate the lives of others. Conservatives are for freedom, and leftists are not. There is no debating this any longer. The question is, which side are you on?
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Daily Caller Sues Racist Chicago Mayor For Blacklisting White Journalists
The Daily Caller News Foundation and one of its reporters, Thomas Catenacci, is suing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) over her decision to only grant interviews to ‘black or brown journalists.’
The lawsuit, filed by Daily Caller and Judicial Watch in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that Lightfoot’s denial violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as well as Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
“It’s absurd that an elected official believes she can discriminate on the basis of race,” said DCNF Editor-in-Chief Ethan Barton. “Mayor Lightfoot’s decision is clearly blocking press freedom through racial discrimination.”
Earlier this month Lightfoot announced that she would grant one-on-one interviews “only to black or brown journalists.”
More via the Daily Caller:
Catenacci sought to interview Lightfoot about a variety of topics regarding COVID-19 and the city’s efforts to vaccinate its population.
“On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff Catenacci requested, by email, a one-on-one interview with Mayor Lightfoot,” the DCNF lawsuit said. “Plaintiff Catenacci sent a follow-up email on May 21, 2021. He also sent a third email on May 24, 2021.”
“As of the date of this Complaint, Mayor Lightfoot’s office has not responded to Plaintiff Catenacci’s request nor has Mayor Lightfoot agreed to an interview with Plaintiff Catenacci,” the suit continues.
Lightfoot denied Catenacci’s request by “failing to respond in a timely manner,” the lawsuit said, noting that “on information and belief,” Lightfoot is aware that Catenacci is “not a journalist of color.”
“Racial discrimination has no place in America, especially in the halls of government,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mayor Lightfoot’s admitted policy of race-based discrimination is flagrantly illegal and immoral. Simply put, we’re asking the court to find Mayor Lightfoot’s racist abuse unlawful.”
According to Catenacci, “Preventing journalists from doing our jobs in such a blatantly discriminatory way is wrong and does a disservice to our readers who come from all backgrounds. Every journalist and every person who consumes the news should be concerned by Mayor Lightfoot’s actions.”
Lightfoot’s policy set off a firestorm of protest from local Chicago reporters, with one Chicago Tribune journalist of color canceling a scheduled interview with the mayor in protest.
“I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today,” tweeted the Tribune’s City Hall reporter, Gregory Pratt, adding “However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled. Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them.”
I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today. However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled. Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them. https://t.co/YMW8M8ZgJm
Daily Caller Sues Racist Chicago Mayor For Blacklisting White Journalists
The Daily Caller News Foundation and one of its reporters, Thomas Catenacci, is suing Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) over her decision to only grant interviews to ‘black or brown journalists.’
The lawsuit, filed by Daily Caller and Judicial Watch in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that Lightfoot’s denial violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as well as Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
“It’s absurd that an elected official believes she can discriminate on the basis of race,” said DCNF Editor-in-Chief Ethan Barton. “Mayor Lightfoot’s decision is clearly blocking press freedom through racial discrimination.”
Earlier this month Lightfoot announced that she would grant one-on-one interviews “only to black or brown journalists.”
More via the Daily Caller:
Catenacci sought to interview Lightfoot about a variety of topics regarding COVID-19 and the city’s efforts to vaccinate its population.
“On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff Catenacci requested, by email, a one-on-one interview with Mayor Lightfoot,” the DCNF lawsuit said. “Plaintiff Catenacci sent a follow-up email on May 21, 2021. He also sent a third email on May 24, 2021.”
“As of the date of this Complaint, Mayor Lightfoot’s office has not responded to Plaintiff Catenacci’s request nor has Mayor Lightfoot agreed to an interview with Plaintiff Catenacci,” the suit continues.
Lightfoot denied Catenacci’s request by “failing to respond in a timely manner,” the lawsuit said, noting that “on information and belief,” Lightfoot is aware that Catenacci is “not a journalist of color.”
“Racial discrimination has no place in America, especially in the halls of government,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mayor Lightfoot’s admitted policy of race-based discrimination is flagrantly illegal and immoral. Simply put, we’re asking the court to find Mayor Lightfoot’s racist abuse unlawful.”
According to Catenacci, “Preventing journalists from doing our jobs in such a blatantly discriminatory way is wrong and does a disservice to our readers who come from all backgrounds. Every journalist and every person who consumes the news should be concerned by Mayor Lightfoot’s actions.”
Lightfoot’s policy set off a firestorm of protest from local Chicago reporters, with one Chicago Tribune journalist of color canceling a scheduled interview with the mayor in protest.
“I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today,” tweeted the Tribune’s City Hall reporter, Gregory Pratt, adding “However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled. Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them.”
I am a Latino reporter @chicagotribune whose interview request was granted for today. However, I asked the mayor’s office to lift its condition on others and when they said no, we respectfully canceled. Politicians don’t get to choose who covers them. https://t.co/YMW8M8ZgJm
Federal Government Gives Employers Green Light To “Incentivize” Workers To Get Vaccinated
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just quietly given American companies the green light to to do whatever it takes to “incentivize” American workers to accept the coronavirus vaccine.
As vaccinations continue to slow, and states beef up incentives including lotteries and cash prizes to any adults who agree to get vaccinated who haven’t already, the EEOC has just issued some long-awaited guidance on how far companies can go in pushing workers to be vaccinated. Some companies, including Delta Air Lines, have said they won’t hire anyone who hasn’t already been vaccinated.
Earlier today, EEOC posted updated and expanded technical assistance related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including answers to FAQs concerning vaccinations in the employment context. https://t.co/wUWNs6bG3L
The updated guidelines say employers may offer incentives for employees to provide documentation showing they have been vaccinated since requesting this proof “is not a disability-related inquiry” or an “unlawful request” under federal anti-discrimination laws. What’s more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can’t offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be “coercive”.
The questions, which were by far the most important pieces of the new guidance, were tucked away at the bottom of the update, making the changes an easy thing for reporters to miss before a long holiday weekend.
K.16. Under the ADA, may an employer offer an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a vaccination on their own from a pharmacy, public health department, or other health care provider in the community? (5/28/21)
Yes. Requesting documentation or other confirmation showing that an employee received a COVID-19 vaccination in the community is not a disability-related inquiry covered by the ADA. Therefore, an employer may offer an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation of a vaccination received in the community. As noted elsewhere, the employer is required to keep vaccination information confidential pursuant to the ADA.
K.17. Under the ADA, may an employer offer an incentive to employees for voluntarily receiving a vaccination administered by the employer or its agent? (5/28/21)
Yes, if any incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) is not so substantial as to be coercive. Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information. As explained in K.16., however, this incentive limitation does not apply if an employer offers an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a COVID-19 vaccination on their own from a third-party provider that is not their employer or an agent of their employer.
Employers including Dollar General, Aldi and Instacart have already moved to reward their employees for receiving the Covid-19 vaccine by offering paid time off and cash stipends. And in April, President Joe Biden called on every employer to offer paid time off for workers to recover from potential vaccine side effects.
Will this be the last of the federal government’s pre-MDW Friday news dump? We shall see…
Not to be shown up by the EEOC’s Friday News dump, OSHA will surely release its long-awaited emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 the weekend before the Fourth of July.
“Next Level Dystopian Sh*t”: Amazon Rolls Out Portable Panic Booth For Warehouse Employees To Collect Themselves
After years of reports of Amazon warehouse employees being forced to urinate in bottles, forego medical care, and work through injuries – causing hundreds to launch petitions and revolt, the online retail giant has come up with a solution…
…a special sensory deprivation booth that allows stressed out employees to collect themselves before heading back out to the floor.
Known simply as the “ZenBooth,” the new apparatus, according to a video released by the company on Wednesday, is an “interactive kiosk where you can navigate through a library of mental health and mindful practices to recharge that internal battery.” –daily dot
Amazon’s Leila Brown used her background in sports medicine and her passion in alternative therapies to create a space where our employees could focus on their mental well-being. https://t.co/bvk2bw9Lkepic.twitter.com/cEQhsTH0Od
The “ZenBooth” is part of Amazon’s WorkingWell program, which allows employees to “recharge and reenergize” with a series of “physical and mental activities, wellness exercises, and healthy eating support.”
The panic booth features a small fan, some plants, and a library of meditation videos. Hopefully it features a toilet too.
(Did we mention most COVID-19 transmission occurs via aerosolized particles hanging in the air, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces?)
As the daily dot notes, the announcement received lots of pushback from Twitter users.
“why not just improve working conditions?” said one user.
“Or you could pay your employees well, not treat them like garbage, and accept unionization,” added another.
“This is some next level dystopian shit. Maybe just pay people more and let them have bathroom breaks,” read yet another tweet.
This is some next level dystopian shit. Maybe just pay people more and let them have bathroom breaks
A Trump-era commission tasked with combating “false narratives about the American Founding” has urged the Biden administration to drop its proposal to fund history and civics programs that promote critical race theory or related curricula “under the misleading name of ‘anti-racism.’”
Former President Donald Trump holds an executive order he signed at the White House in Washington on June 26, 2020 to establish a 20-person Advisory 1776 Commission under the Department of Education to promote “patriotic education.” The commission was terminated by President Joe Biden on Jan. 20, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
The so-called “1776 Commission,” established in the final months of the Trump presidency before being formally dissolved by President Joe Biden upon taking office, has continued its work in a non-government capacity. The group met on Monday at Hillsdale College’s campus in Washington to discuss civic education curricula, issuing a statement critical of the Biden administration’s proposed rule to issue grants to classroom educational projects that give prominence to so-called “antiracist” ideas such as the controversial “1619 Project.”
“We are concerned that the U.S. Department of Education’s Proposed Rule defining priorities for the American History and Civics Education programs, whether as Critical Race Theory or under the misleading name of ‘anti- racism,’ actually encourages and seeks to direct federal funds to the teaching of racial discrimination in America’s elementary and secondary school systems,” the group wrote.
“This Proposed Rule should be withdrawn, and individual states should oppose any such race-based pedagogy as part of their curricula, especially if that curricula is imposed by the federal government,” it added.
In the proposed rule, released on April 19, the Education Department outlined new priority criteria for a $5.3 million American History and Civics Education grant, as well as exemplary materials for K-12 educators to use. Specifically, the department cited the “1619 Project,” and critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi’s “antiracist idea” as leading examples of the kind of content it wants to use taxpayer dollars to promote in history and civics classrooms across the country.
The Biden administration’s proposal, which was open for public comment until May 19, praises “growing acknowledgement of the importance of including, in the teaching and learning of our country’s history, both the consequences of slavery, and the significant contributions of Black Americans to our society,” but makes clear that such an “acknowledgement” would be “reflected […] in the New York Times’ landmark ‘1619 Project’” and in Kendi’s “antiracist” ideas. The proposal cites Kendi, noting that “antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities,” which is essentially the highly contentious argument that differences in outcomes among different racial groups can be reduced to a single variable—racist policies.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks from the South Court Auditorium at the White House in Washington on May 12, 2021. (Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA)
The “1619 Project,” inaugurated with a special issue of The New York Times Magazine, attempts to cast the Atlantic slave trade as the dominant factor in the founding of America instead of ideals such as individual liberty and natural rights. The initiative has been widely panned by historians and political scientists, with some critics calling it a bid to rewrite U.S. history through a left-wing lens.
The 1776 Commission meeting was hosted by Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, who said in a statement: “History is complete and cannot be changed. These controversies about history can only be resolved by looking at the facts. To help the young know this history is the work of the commission, and its importance has not diminished since inauguration day.”
Matthew Spalding, the 1776 Commission’s executive director, told the Washington Examiner in an interview ahead of the group’s meeting that the commission does not want to whitewash the nation’s history of racism, but rather seeks to emphasize racial equality as America’s foundational principles, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, namely that “all men are created equal.”
“When we start going about dividing people by groups, by social identities, and especially by identities that deal with race, and we’re starting to make those kinds of divisions, all Americans should get very nervous,” Spalding told the outlet.
“It’s a departure away from the historic grounding of civil rights in America, which is that we all are equal.”
“Current arguments about identity politics and critical race theory that … present themselves as merely responding to perceptions of their current assessment of American society, but do so by introducing as their principle that we should look at people based on the color of their skin, strikes us as a fundamental denial of the idea that all men are created equal,” Spalding said.
“And that’s a problem for politics. That’s a problem intellectually and historically.”
The commission’s meeting comes as Republicans across the nation are trying to prevent the teaching of critical race theory and related ideas in the nation’s classrooms.
Proponents of critical race theory have argued that it’s needed to demonstrate what they say is “pervasive systemic racism” and to facilitate rooting it out.
Critics have noted critical race theory’s roots in Marxism, arguing that the concept advocates for the destruction of institutions, such as the Western justice system, free-market economy, and orthodox religions, demanding that they be replaced with institutions compliant with the critical race theory ideology.
