Archive by Author

Half of Republicans now support tougher gun laws: poll

Half of Republicans in a new poll said they support stricter gun laws, up from 35 percent a year ago and against the backdrop of several high-profile shootings across the country. 

A USA Today/Ipsos poll released Tuesday found that 50 percent of Republicans say they think gun laws should either be a lot more or somewhat more strict than they currently are, compared to 35 percent of Republicans who responded similarly in 2021. 

About 37 percent of Republicans said current gun laws are about right, while 13 percent believe gun laws should be less strict than they currently are.

Comparatively, 88 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Independents believe gun laws should be stricter than they are right now.

The latest poll comes as the nation reels from multiple shootings across the country, including in Buffalo, N.Y., Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa, Okla. 

The House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on gun violence on Wednesday, hearing from witnesses including a pediatrician from Uvalde who recounted the horrific state of some of the 19 children and two adults who were killed last month at a shooting in Robb Elementary School.

“What I did find was something no prayer will ever relieve: Two children, whose bodies had been so pulverized by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart, that the only clue as to their identities was blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them. Clinging for life and finding none,” Roy Guerrero said.

A bipartisan group of senators are working discussing narrow gun legislation that can garner bipartisan support, as the House is slated to vote on a much broader package this week, support for which is likely to split along party lines.

The Senate group is focused on laws to incentivize states to enforce red flag laws, aimed at individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, as well as strengthening background checks for firearm purchases.

The USA Today/Ipsos poll was conducted between June 3 and June 6 with about 1,117 adults surveyed. 

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP rips Yellen after botched predictions on inflation

Congressional Republicans breathed fire at Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen this week during testimony in front of both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee over soaring inflation that has hit near 40-year highs in the wake of the pandemic.  

The former Federal Reserve chair admitted last month she’d been wrong on inflation, which could remain at elevated levels into 2023. 

“Is there a risk of inflation? You responded, ‘I think there’s a small risk,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said to Yellen during a meeting of the Senate finance Committee Tuesday, referring to comments she made early last year.  

“Given that, it makes me wonder why Americans should put any confidence in your pronouncements and decisions and recommendations today.” 

The “small” and “manageable” risk that Yellen thought inflation posed last year turned out to be something much more serious, and she acknowledged the miscalculation in frank terms at the end of May. 

“I think I was wrong then about the path that inflation would take,” she told CNN at the time. “There have been unanticipated and large shocks to the economy that have boosted energy and food prices, and supply bottlenecks that have affected our economy badly that I didn’t, at the time, fully understand. But we recognize that now.” 

Republicans argued that Democratic stimulus packages like the American Rescue Plan, which extended stimulus measures enacted during the Trump administration, were driven by this misunderstanding of the risk of inflation. 

“I think that there’s no question that the $2 trillion bill last year overheated the economy, and it’s why we have the mess that we have today,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said to Yellen, echoing sentiments from several other Senate Republicans. 

The mood from GOP lawmakers in the lower chamber was no less castigatory. 

“As I listened to you here today, and I look at what’s not been done by this administration, it’s really perplexing in a lot of ways on whether the administration is tone deaf or unaware or becoming aware right now,” Darin Lahood (R-Ill.) said during a meeting of the Ways and Means committee Wednesday. 

Lahood pointed to criticism of U.S. monetary policy made last year by Larry Summers, a Democratic economist who’s become a favorite among conservatives for breaking from the party line regarding the health of the economy during its period of recovery. 

“I go back and I look at what President Obama’s treasury secretary, Larry Summers, said, alerting the administration in February of 2021 about the fear of this and what was going to happen, and why something wasn’t done there,” he said. 

In May of 2021, Summers warned about “very substantial risks on the inflation side” and characterized Biden’s fiscal stimulus as “rather overdoing it.” 

Further evidence for the fiscal exacerbation of inflation – which economists agree has been caused by supply chain issues and an excess of consumer demand that extends beyond the regulatory controls of government policymakers – was provided by the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve in March with a research paper often cited by Republicans. 

“Problems with global supply chains and changes in spending patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed up inflation worldwide. However, since the first half of 2021, U.S. inflation has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries. Estimates suggest that fiscal support measures designed to counteract the severity of the pandemic’s economic effect may have contributed to this divergence by raising inflation about 3 percentage points by the end of 2021,” the Fed paper concluded. 

Even Democratic lawmaker Brian Higgins (N.Y.) asked Yellen about how stimulus affected the economy. 

“Do you subscribe or support the statement that because of what we had to do in the short term, got a lot of money into an economy that’s 70 percent consumption, that we had too much money chasing too few goods? And to what extent is that the reason for the inflationary rate as it is today?” he asked. 

Yellen responded: “That spending produced excellent rewards for Americans and at most it contributed modestly to inflation.” 

Democratic lawmakers have previously grumbled about the Federal Reserve, arguing the central bank didn’t recognize the risk of inflation sooner and work to decrease its balance sheet and raise borrowing rates. 

“I recall urging the Fed late last fall that they would start needing to ratchet these rates up. I wish they would have done earlier,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said during an interview in May. 

The Fed raised its baseline interest rate in the beginning of May by .5 percentage points to a target range of 0.75 to 1 percent.  

International economists have sounded a similar tone to Warner, taking issue with what the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) calls “ultra-loose monetary policies – injecting massive liquidity into the financial system.” 

They’ve also pointed a finger at the U.S. Federal Reserve’s asset-buying program known as quantitative easing, which the bank only started to undo last month. 

“Central banks have relied heavily on unconventional monetary policy tools, especially large-scale asset purchases to respond to the pandemic,” the UN DESA wrote in February. These programs have “contributed to an underpricing of risk and sharp increases in asset prices. Major central banks now face the challenge of unwinding their massive stimulus programs without creating financial market turmoil and destabilising global financial flows.” 

It’s this kind of turmoil that financial markets are currently experiencing. 

Since the Fed’s first interest rate hike in May, the Dow Jones Industrial Average index of major U.S. stocks is down 3.5 percent, the S&P 500 is down more than 4.3 percent, and the technology-heavy Nasdaq is down nearly 7 percent. All three indexes have experienced high volatility during that period. 
 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden’s push to undermine IP rights harms the US and helps Communist China

The Biden administration is partnering with global organizations and foreign countries on an agreement that will undermine the intellectual property (IP) of American businesses. This will both damage American workers and businesses and will be a giveaway to geopolitical rivals like Communist China and Russia.

Intellectual property is important to the American economy. It includes patents on inventions, copyrighted books and movies and computer software. The value added to new products is largely intellectual property and millions of jobs rely on it, so allowing other nations to steal it is economic suicide.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) will soon consider a proposal to “waive” or remove IP protections for COVID-19 vaccines that exist under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). If adopted, foreign countries would be permitted to seize the patents and clinical data belonging to American businesses.

This would set a dangerous precedent across the world that foreign countries can steal IP from Americans with the support of the United States government. This would threaten American innovation and the millions of high-paying jobs that depend on this manufacturing and would certainly undermine the development of vaccines and treatments for future deadly pandemics.

Thanks to American medical innovation, several highly effective COVID-19 vaccines were quickly developed and distributed. One key reason for this success is the existence of strong IP rights which incentivize manufacturers to innovate, ensure medicines are safe and effective and invest in the next generation of cures. 

Developing new medicines is a costly, risky, and time-consuming process. A manufacturer must invest an average of $2.6 billion, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. In all, just 10 to 20 percent of medicines that begin clinical trials are approved.

Surrendering the IP rights of American manufacturers will undermine this system and threaten the next generation of vaccines. There is no reason for this proposal. There is no shortage of vaccines thanks to the extensive investment in production, increased competition and slowing demand. In India, manufacturers have slowed down the manufacture of new vaccines because they created an overproduction of  200 million doses  — far more than was needed.

IP supports millions of high-paying jobs across the country. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), IP-intensive industries accounted for $7.8 trillion in GDP in 2019; 41 percent of the economy. These industries accounted for 47.2 million jobs or 33 percent of total U.S. employment.

Medical innovation is no exception — it directly or indirectly accounts for over 4 million jobs across the U.S and in every state, according to research by TEconomy Partners, LLC. The average annual wage of a pharmaceutical worker in 2017 was $126,587, which is more than double the average private-sector wage of $60,705. 

While this will harm U.S. workers and businesses, it will help America’s rivals like Communist China who could use this proposal to seize IP and trade secrets. China has an extensive record of violating property rights, costing the U.S. $225 billion to $600 billion each year in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets. 

There is nothing in the WTO proposal to stop further IP theft — although the draft proposal “encourages” countries like China to opt out of the waiver if they do not need vaccines, every country would be eligible to participate in the waiver if they so choose. Even if a more geographically restricted waiver were implemented, China would still acquire U.S. trade secrets and technology via other countries.

Given that this proposal harms American businesses and workers and helps foreign rivals, it should be alarming that the Biden administration has been rushing it through. In fact, the administration has even failed to properly consult Congress as noted by a bipartisan group of senators including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

They recently sent a letter to the U.S. Trade Representatives (USTR) urging the office to improve transparency and consultation with Congress on pending trade negotiations including the proposed WTO IP waiver.

The Biden administration should withdraw its support for the proposal to undermine IP rights of COVID-19 vaccines. This would undermine the efforts of American innovation and high-paying jobs that rely on IP. Instead, it would help foreign governments like China and serve as an implicit endorsement of the rampant theft of American IP.

Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court shields Border Patrol agents from excessive force suits

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that Border Patrol agents are generally shielded from lawsuits that allege the use of excessive force, the latest in a series of decisions narrowing the legal avenue for alleged victims of abuse by federal officers.

The 6-3 ruling, penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, broke along ideological lines, with the court’s conservatives comprising a majority over the dissent of the court’s three liberals. 

The case concerned whether a lawsuit should be allowed to move forward against a Border Patrol agent accused of using excessive force during his search of an inn located just south of the U.S.-Canada border.

The conservative majority, citing national security concerns, declined to extend a judge-made rule that allows plaintiffs to sue federal officers for certain constitutional violations. That relief, referred to as Bivens, is generally disfavored by judicial conservatives. 

“Because matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention,” Thomas wrote, “we reaffirm that a Bivens cause of action may not lie where, as here, national security is at issue.”

The dispute decided Wednesday arose in 2014 when Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert entered the property of an inn located in Blaine, Wash., near the U.S.-Canada border, and refused to leave after a request from innkeeper Robert Boule and despite having no search warrant.

Boule alleges that Egbert shoved him, which prompted Boule to lodge a complaint with Egbert’s supervisors. According to Boule’s account, Egbert later retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule. Boule sued, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has allowed civil suits for monetary damages over alleged constitutional violations to proceed against federal officers in only a limited set of circumstances since its 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, a case that also alleged excessive force.

The justices have expanded their criteria for permissible suits only twice over the intervening 40 years — in a gender discrimination case against a member of Congress, and in a suit against jailers over an alleged violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) backed the federal agent in the case. DOJ urged the justices to deny relief because, unlike Bivens, the case involved national security concerns that risked chilling the U.S.-Canadian security relationship at the border.

The court’s three liberals dissented from the majority’s rejection of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim and accused the conservatives of distorting precedent. 

“If the legal standard the Court articulates to reject Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim sounds unfamiliar, that is because it is,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. “Just five years after circumscribing the standard for allowing Bivens claims to proceed, a restless and newly constituted Court sees fit to refashion the standard anew to foreclose remedies in yet more cases. The measures the Court takes to ensure Boule’s claim is dismissed are inconsistent with governing precedent.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats find that oil and gas industry is ‘failing’ to address methane leaks

The oil and gas industry is “failing” to address leaks of a planet-warming gas called methane, House Democrats said in a new report on Wednesday. 

A report from Democrats on the Science, Space and Technology Committee is not using the latest science to inform their approaches to tackle leaks of the greenhouse gas.

“Existing oil and gas sector [leak detection and repair] programs are failing to mitigate methane emissions from super-emitting leaks. The principal cause of this failure is the unwillingness of oil and gas companies to prioritize super-emitting leaks,” they wrote. 

In particular, the committee found that all of the ten companies it surveyed do not track, identify or maintain records on super-emitting leaks “in any organized manner.”

The committee also found that innovative leak detection and repair technologies were being used in pilot programs, but were not yet being used at a wider-scale, limiting how effective it would be. 

In particular, it cited one case where company researchers supported permanently deploying the technology, but it was rejected by management. 

It notes that in this case, company researchers described greater awareness of emissions and leaks as one of the “risks” of deployment.

The report also suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) measurements undercount methane emissions from oil and gas. 

It cited a leak from one company in 2020 that it said could be equivalent to more than 80 percent of the total methane emissions the company reported to the EPA from all of its Permian Basin oil and gas activities for that year.  

“The findings of this report make clear that thus far the oil and gas sector is not taking the steps necessary to significantly reduce methane emissions, particularly ‘super-emitting’ leaks that make up much of the sector’s emissions,” said Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), in a statement. 

“The oil and gas companies have a key opportunity—and a responsibility—to be a part of the solution,” Johnson said. 

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is the main component of natural gas. During energy production and processing, it may leak accidentally. Separately, companies sometimes let methane escape on purpose through processes called venting and flaring. 

The gas is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100 year period, but it spends less time in the atmosphere. 

The committee’s report specifically looked at drilling in the Permian Basin — an oil producing region in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico.

It asked 10 companies: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Admiral Permian Resources Operating,  Ameredev II, ConocoPhillips, Coterra Energy, Devon Energy, Mewbourne Oil, Occidental Petroleum and  Pioneer Natural Resources

It said that all of the companies responded sufficiently. While the committee named the companies that participated, many specific details were anonymous in the report. 

In a statement to The Hill, the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas lobbying group, defended the industry’s approach to methane emissions. 

“This industry is committed to tackling the challenge of emissions reductions head-on while continuing to deliver affordable, reliable energy. We support accuracy and transparency in reporting GHG emissions and are continuously improving emissions reporting, including the accelerated deployment of cost-effective direct measurement options,” said an API spokesperson. 

The EPA did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Bipartisan antitrust bill sponsors push for floor vote this month

Bipartisan sponsors of a key antitrust bill in the House and Senate on Wednesday urged leadership in both chambers to call floor votes in June on the proposal targeting tech giants.

In a joint press conference, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said members of Congress have had months to review the legislation and converse about the proposal. 

The bill, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, would bar companies from referencing their own products and services. Based on the definition of dominant platforms in the legislation, defined by market cap value and user base, the bill would likely apply to Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon. 

The lawmakers pushed back on criticism against the legislation that tech companies and industry groups have made, including that it would weaken national security, cause companies to disband services users enjoy or weaken companies’ ability to moderate violative content. 

Cicilline said the arguments are “lies coming from Big Tech.”

“This legislation does not undermine our national security or American economic competitiveness, far from it. It strengthens our national security and our competitiveness. Competitive free markets are a key source of American economic strength, and a core pillar of our national security. This legislation promotes fierce competition, which is the best way to ensure the United States continues to be the most innovative, dynamic economy in the world,” Cicilline said. 

He also highlighted support from the Department of Justice in favor of the bill. The Commerce Department has also backed the proposal. 

Versions of the bill in the House and Senate advanced out of both chambers’ Judiciary Committees with bipartisan support. 

The Senate version advanced earlier this year. The House bill advanced nearly a year ago, along with five other proposals aimed at curbing the power of dominant tech platforms after a marathon markup. 

“Nobody at that point said to us, ‘don’t do this because these bills are never going to hit the floor. In fact, just the opposite. The American people saw it. They liked it. They understand it. They may not understand antitrust law — I don’t understand antitrust law — but they do understand that there is something wrong when companies that are this big control speech platforms in a democracy. That’s what they get. That’s what the thread is here. And yet, the bills haven’t hit the floor,” Buck said. 

“And that’s why I don’t understand why I’m here. I should be here with my colleagues from the Senate and House announcing that the bill has passed and that the president is ready to sign it,” he added. 

The sponsors acknowledged the dwindling timeline to pass the bill — noting that it would be unlikely for the proposal to get a vote after the August recess. 

Asked about the priority of the legislation given the focus on gun reform after nationwide mass shootings, including last month’s fatal shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., and an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, Klobuchar said, “we can do two things at once — and we are ready to have this vote at any time.”

“We wouldn’t be asking for a vote if we didn’t think we could get 60 votes. And if [the House] didn’t think they could get a majority on this bill,” Klobuchar added. 

Cicilline and Klobuchar also said that the bill stands on its own, and should not be tied to discussions around data privacy legislation that would also further regulate tech companies. A draft of a comprehensive data privacy bill, with bipartisan support in the House, was released last week. The House Energy and Commerce committee is holding a hearing on the proposal Tuesday. 

“There’s tremendous support for privacy, but that’s on a very different timeline. Those discussions have restarted — our bill is ready for a floor vote today, and we’re ready to move forward. So we’re not going to tie the two together,” Cicilline said. 

The lawmakers are fighting against a tidal wave of ads from tech industry groups over the antitrust bill.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) launched a series of ads under its “Don’t Break What Works” campaign since the start of the year, targeting the legislation. The group represents Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook. 

The companies themselves have been pushing back more fiercely in recent weeks against the bill, as well. Amazon published a blog post last week slamming the proposal, and Google published one on Tuesday criticizing the legislation.

Source: TEST FEED1

Congress needs to support solar manufacturing capability

Solar energy is the nation’s fastest growing fuel source and is projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration to account for almost half of all new electricity production this year. It is a key component to the Biden administration’s climate goal of 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035. 

Additionally, solar power is not affected by global fossil fuel costs. Gas and oil prices are up by 30 percent in the last year, placing a heavy burden on all sectors of the economy. Increasing the use of solar energy to power our homes, cars and factories will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and increase the stability of our nation’s economy. What’s more, solar energy provides both the price certainty and climate resiliency that low-income households need; these families are least able to afford energy price fluctuations and are least able to adapt when the power goes out during a storm.

That is why I am so concerned about an investigation opened in late March by the U.S. Department of Commerce that threatens the growth of solar energy. The investigation is to determine if Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are using components made in China that should be subject to U.S. tariffs, thereby undercutting the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing companies. The Commerce case was initiated after a complaint by a U.S. solar manufacturer, Auxin Solar, that the solar panels made by these four countries were being sold in the U.S. below fair market value. If the Commerce Department finds in favor of Auxin, these solar panels could be subject to tariffs of between 50 percent and 250 percent. 

The investigation essentially halted the flow of solar panels that make up more than half of U.S. supplies and 80 percent of imports. As a result of the investigation and the threat of retroactive tariffs, solar developers in the U.S. put projects on hold until the Commerce Department issues a final determination. 

The White House issued an executive order on Monday designed to take some of the pressure off the industry by waiving tariffs on solar imports for two years, which should allow projects to go forward without fearing the risk of retroactive tariffs and subsequent higher costs. It will not end the investigation, however, and new tariffs could be imposed after the end of the two year waiver. 

While in the short run the president’s order will increase imports of low-cost solar components, it will not be sufficient in the long term to strengthen a domestic manufacturing capability that can compete with lower cost imports.

The president’s order also invoked the Defence Production Act to accelerate domestic production of solar panel components, but it is not clear if it will be sufficient to encourage companies to make major investments in solar panel manufacturing capabilities, or how those actions will help to offset the price advantage enjoyed by asian imports.

The nation needs to develop a more competitive solar manufacturing industry and reduce its dependence on foreign sources by ramping up domestic production. The Commerce Department ruling in favor of Auxin would be a good first step, but that alone will not be sufficient to grow the domestic manufacturing capacity to meet the nation’s solar energy demand. We also need incentives for companies to invest in the production of solar energy. 

Democrats in Congress are already moving in this direction. The House-passed Build Back Better bill would extend and expand the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit to encourage the production of solar panels along every step of the manufacturing supply chain, from production of polysilicon to solar cells to fully assembled solar modules. Incentives could also be used to support the deployment of solar energy transmission and storage facilities, further driving supply.

The importance of the tax credits cannot be understated. A recent application for a guaranteed loan from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Title 17 loan program submitted by Maxeon Solar Technologies LTD to build a solar cell and module factory is contingent on the passage of tax credit legislation in order to increase the viability of its investment in solar panel production. Title 17 is the same program that provided a guaranteed loan to Tesla during its early days of operation. While the Build Back Better bill has little chance of passage in its current version, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has floated a scaled-back version of the the bill that includes many of it’s predecessor’s important climate provisions. 

The combination of tax credits and loan guarantees is important because it will signal a long-term commitment to the development of solar energy in the U.S. and to American manufacturing. In the long-run, combining a package of tax credits with the existing DOE loan programs will give solar investors the confidence they need to finance manufacturing facilities.  In the short-run, the administration must act quickly to resolve the Commerce investigation in a manner that continues to support the rapid growth of solar power in the U.S. and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Mark Wolfe is an energy economist and serves as the executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA), representing the state directors of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. He specializes in energy and housing affordability and related finance issues.

Source: TEST FEED1

House Democrats pass resolution condemning ‘great replacement’ theory

The House on Wednesday passed a resolution that condemns the “great replacement” theory, less than a month after a gunman who reportedly espoused the racist conspiracy fatally shot 10 Black people in Buffalo, N.Y.

The resolution passed the House as part of a rule setting up a vote on gun reforms. The vote on the rule was 218-205. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) joined all Republicans in opposing the rule.

The measure is a direct response to the May 14 mass shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo. The accused gunman — 18-year-old Payton Gendron of Conklin, N.Y. — reportedly cited the “great replacement” theory in a manifesto he published online. The conspiracy theory claims there is an effort underway to replace white Americans with people of color. 

Authorities said the gunman intentionally targeted a predominately-Black neighborhood.

The resolution, introduced by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), specifically “condemns in the strongest terms” the “great replacement” theory, which it described as “a White supremacist conspiracy theory that has been used to falsely justify racially motivated, violent acts of terrorism domestically and internationally.”

The measure also condemns the Buffalo shooting, honors the victims of the massacre and reaffirms the House’s “commitment to combating White supremacy, hatred, and racial injustice.”

The “great replacement” theory sprung into the spotlight on Capitol Hill following the Buffalo shooting. Democrats accused GOP lawmakers of instigating violence by embracing white nationalist views that the accused gunman espoused, but Republicans largely dismissed the charges.

On the House floor Wednesday, Bowman said “the great replacement myth is a racist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, xenophobic, nativist and hateful lie.”

“It’s 2022 and Black people are still being hunted down and killed in America. The same goes for every person of color, Jewish people, the LGBTQ+ community and every marginalized person in this country,” he added, before reading the names of the Buffalo shooting victims.

The congressman continued, saying that “our nation is mourning, and has been mourning since this country was founded.”

“We cannot continue to carry on as if this hatred is an undeniable part of American culture and cannot change. We must combat white supremacy. I refuse to be complicit in his hatred because we have failed to take a stand as a nation,” he added.

The House passed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act in the aftermath of the Buffalo shooting. The measure, which cleared the lower chamber in a mainly party-line vote, calls for creating domestic terrorism offices in departments throughout the federal government that would monitor and examine potential terror activity.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) was the only GOP lawmaker to support the bill.

Senate Republicans ultimately blocked the legislation, arguing that the offices are not necessary to monitor and prosecute domestic terrorism because laws currently in existence have authority over politically motivated violence.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House condemns threat against Kavanaugh near his home

The White House on Wednesday condemned the actions of a man who was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh carrying weapons and threatening to kill the judge.

“The president condemns the actions of this individual in strong terms and is grateful to law enforcement for quickly taking him into custody,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One.

“As the president has consistently made clear, public officials, including judges, must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety or that of their families, and any threats of violence or attempts to intimidate judges have no place in our society,” Jean-Pierre continued.

Police arrested a man earlier on Wednesday near Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland. Charging documents said the man had called police to say he was suicidal and came to kill Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the court in 2018.

Documents said the man was carrying a pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, a tactical knife, zip ties, duct tape, a hammer and other materials.

The man was said to be upset about a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would overturn the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a woman’s right to access an abortion, as well as recent mass shootings.

The draft opinion, which was leaked in May, sparked demonstrations outside the homes of Supreme Court justices and Republican lawmakers as activists denounced the potential decision and demanded a woman’s right to an abortion.

The White House at the time said it supported protests as long as they remained peaceful, despite Republican criticisms about demonstrators gathering outside the homes of public officials.

Source: TEST FEED1