+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

u s government

Yesterday was a dark day for the United States of America. As members of Congress met to officially count the 2020 presidential election votes from the Electoral College, a pro-Trump mob of insurrectionists broke into the Capitol building and stormed both chambers of Congress, forcing Senators and Representatives into hiding, and leaving a path of destruction in their wake.

The threat was, and is, real. United States lawmakers were temporarily prevented from performing their constitutional duty to count the certified election results—a duty that is necessary to ensure the orderly transition of power—by people who had just built gallows outside of the Capitol building and who carried guns and zip ties into Congress chambers. The storming of the Capitol was not a peaceful protest, but an act of terror by people who believe President Trump's delusional rhetoric that he actually won the 2020 election in a landslide.


Unsurprisingly, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Shumer has called for President Trump to be removed from office, either via impeachment or the 25th amendment. Also unsurprisingly, other Democratic leaders have voiced support for the idea.

However, it's not just Democrats who are now calling for such measures.

This morning, Republican representative Adam Kinzinger of the 16th district in Illinois took the bold step of calling for Trump to be removed from office via the 25th amendment.

In a video statement, Kinzinger said:

"Yesterday was a sad day, as we all know. It was the day where fires stoked by the president and other leaders finally leapt out of the pit, and it lit the trees. Thankfully, the strength of our Constitution and democracy help, and we emerge today a little battered, but resolved.

What happened yesterday is a wake-up call to many, but it's a call to accountability for others. In the past few presidencies, the administrations have been so concerned about even a moment of weakness that the 25th Amendment was invoked during minor surgeries, passing the duties to the vice president while the president was under anesthesia, because even for that moment to have the captain of the ship absent could cause a major catastrophe.

Sadly, yesterday it became evident that not only has the president abdicated his duty to protect the American people and the people's house, he invoked and inflamed passions that only gave fuel to the insurrection that we saw here. When pressed to move and denounce the violence, he barely did so, while of course, victimizing himself and seeming to give a wink and a nod to those doing it. All indications that the president has become unmoored, not just from his duty or even his oath, but from reality itself. It is for this reason that I call for the vice president and members of the Cabinet to ensure the next few weeks are safe for the American people and that we have a sane captain of the ship.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows a majority of the Cabinet and the vice president to assume the duties of the office of presidency until the president is able to himself. It's time to invoke the 25th Amendment and to end this nightmare. We will rise from this, but we cannot forget what led us here. The liars and the conspiracy authors are already at it again this morning with false narratives about yesterday's disaster.

Here's the truth — the president caused this. The president is unfit and the president is unwell, and the president must now relinquish control of the executive branch voluntarily or involuntarily. God bless you, and God bless our enduring democracy."

What a time to be an American, when members of a president's own party are calling for his removal two weeks before he's going to lose power anyway. In a truly dark time for our nation, seeing glimmers of truth and reason peeking through offer glimpses of hope for the future of the U.S.

Since 2015, 21 young people aged 8 to 20 have been engaged in Juliana v. the United States, a lawsuit over climate change.

The plaintiffs argue that the federal government has not taken sufficient action to battle catastrophic climate change and that the dire future of the planet infringes on their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They contend that the government has known for decades how carbon dioxide pollution and the greenhouse effect affects the Earth, yet has failed to take action to save future generations from those effects.


BREAKING: Youth seek to obtain testimony from Rex Tillerson in climate lawsuitRead the full press release here: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/s/161229RexTillersonDepoPR.pdf

Posted by Our Children's Trust on Thursday, December 29, 2016

In fact, these kids say, the government has actually taken actionable steps to make climate change worse and has "failed to protect essential public trust resources."

As Earth Guardians — a youth-led environmental group and organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit — states, "We're holding the federal government accountable for putting our future at risk and refusing to act on climate change."

The government, under both Obama and Trump, has made multiple attempts to get the lawsuit tossed out.

Juliana v. U.S. was filed during the Obama administration and has carried over into Trump's tenure. Both administrations have attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed before it reached trial, and unsurprisingly, fossil fuel industries have attempted to join in the effort.

However, the court system rejected the government's appeals to drop the case in April 2016, November 2016, and June 2017. A judge also issued an order in June 2017 that removed the fossil fuel defendants from the case.

BREAKING: U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken presided over a telephonic hearing yesterday to discuss new motions the...

Posted by Our Children's Trust on Thursday, May 24, 2018

Still, the government persisted, with a "drastic and extraordinary" attempt to have higher courts intervene in those judges' decisions. Though ultimately unsuccessful, their actions succeeded in delaying the original scheduled trial date of Feb. 5, 2018.

However, an appeals court again ruled in favor of the kids, finally giving them their day in court.

In a final plea in summer 2018, the government tried again to get a higher court to intervene and put a swift end to the lawsuit, claiming that letting the case go to trial would be too burdensome on the government and would unconstitutionally pit the judicial and executive branches of government against one another.

But on July 20, three judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to allow the case to continue, stating that such arguments were better decided in court. The kids and their lawyers are scheduled to begin trial on Oct. 29 in a federal court in Eugene, Oregon.

Once again, young people are engaging in civic action to make change in their world. Hallelujah!

Suing the federal government may seem like an extreme move, but climate change is an undeniably urgent reality — one this young generation will bear the brunt of.

Thankfully, kids and teens keep proving over and over that they are ready and willing to take collective action to protect their future, no matter what obstacles lie in their path. It takes gumption and diligence to speak truth to power, and these youth seem to have plenty of both.

Go, kids, go. Millions of your fellow citizens will be rooting for you in October.

Another poll shows a majority of people support abortion rights —including Republicans.

A poll released by NBC News on July 24 shows a resounding 71% of respondents saying abortion rights should be legally protected.

Those numbers are striking, but they are only the latest in a number of other polls showing a large majority of Americans agreeing that the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wadedecision should not be overturned.


Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

President Donald Trump and many other Republicans continue to frame abortion rights as a "50/50 issue" that evenly splits the country.

Even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who has said she will not support a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade,has recently described the abortion debate as being "something like a 51-49" division.

It’s not.

There’s no shortage of issues that genuinely divide Americans right now. But abortion isn’t one of them.

Politicians have been able to get away with governing "in an age of minority rule," where a party that receives less votes controls the White House and both houses of Congress and has a majority edge in the Supreme Court.

There are enough doubts about the future stability of Roe v. Wade that Massachusetts repealed a 173-year-old, largely forgotten abortion restriction in case reproductive rights end up falling back into the hands of the states.

"I think people are beginning to realize these are strange times we live in," Massachusetts Senate President Harriett Chandler said.

With the law long since settled by the nation’s highest court and public opinion having swayed in support, political leaders should respect that choice and stop portraying it as a wedge issue to further divide people for short-term political gain.

Abortion will always be a complex issue. But Americans are increasingly supportive of reproductive rights. Politicians and lawmakers should respect that.

Of course, it will ultimately be up to voters to demand their elected representatives start framing the discussion in a way that reflects reality. Americans have largely embraced reproductive choice, even if they have mixed feelings about abortion itself.

Most Americans think abortion rights should be off the table, and it’s time the government started listening.

In a move that baffled much of the world, the U.S. tried to shut down a global resolution to encourage breastfeeding.

For decades, research has tended to show that human breast milk — when it's possible to use it — is the safest, healthiest food for babies around the world. A 2016 series in the British medical journal The Lancet — the most in-depth analysis of the health impact of breastfeeding to date — concluded that more than 800,000 babies and 20,000 mothers' lives could be saved each year with universal breastfeeding, at a cost savings of $300 billion.

A mother in the Central African Republic breastfeeds her child while they wait to see the doctor in a clinic with no running water. Photo via Florent Vergnes/Getty Images.


So when the U.S. delegation to the World Health Assembly voiced strong opposition to a resolution that encourages breastfeeding — not barring access to formula or curtailing mothers' choices in feeding their children but just encouraging breastfeeding — many were understandably flummoxed. The purpose of the resolution was to prevent misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes and limit the promotion of formula in hospitals around the world.

But at the spring 2018 World Health Assembly, the U.S. tried to shut the resolution down, even going so far as to threaten small countries proposing the measure with trade punishments and military aid withdrawal.

Threatening other nations. Over breastfeeding. Yes, really.

President Donald Trump retorted to the Times report with a tweet, displaying a stunning lack of knowledge on the subject.

"The failing NY Times Fake News story today about breast feeding must be called out," Trump wrote. "The U.S. strongly supports breast feeding but we don't believe women should be denied access to formula. Many women need this option because of malnutrition and poverty."

Each sentence of that tweet contains falsehoods:

1. The New York Times has doubled its stock shares since the 2016 election. It has also won more Pulitzer prizes — the highest award in journalism — than any other news outlet. By no measure is it "failing."

2. Nothing in the breastfeeding resolution suggested denying women access to formula. Formula is sometimes necessary, and women should definitely have the option to choose how they feed their babies — but nothing in the resolution would prevent that. It was about limiting the misleading and predatory marketing and promotionof formula.

3. Malnutrition and poverty are exactly why formula should notbe heavily marketed to mothers, especially in developing nations. Formula is expensive, requires clean water to make, and requires bottles to be sanitized. When moms can't afford it long term, formula gets diluted, and babies don't get the nutrients they need. And unless it's severe, a mother's malnutrition doesn't affect the quantity or quality of her breast milk, so in places where poverty and moderate malnutrition are prevalent breastfeeding is especially important.

So why oppose a measure designed to promote the health and save the lives of infants and mothers? Follow the money.

Since the early 1980s, health advocates have fought to protect vulnerable mothers from predatory baby formula marketers, especially in developing nations. Many resolutions have been passed over the years to promote breastfeeding education and limit such marketing tactics.

But it's not in the baby formula companies' interest to have their product promotion hampered. When the U.S. so clearly puts the interests of corporations over the health of moms and babies, we're in a world of hurt.

Photo via Noel Celis/Getty Images.

To be fair, the Trump administration is not the first to put corporate interests ahead of the public.

Kowtowing to big business isn't new to American politics. A landmark 2014 study from Princeton and Northwestern researchers concluded that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

While the U.S. has been a corporatocracy for much longer than two years, this administration has been far more bold and brazen about it than most. Trump's cabinet has more big business leaders with no government or public service experience than any other president's. Some of them have been leading departments that they directly or indirectly opposed when they were in the private sector. Some (*cough* Ben Carson) have been leading departments they had no experience with. There are real-world consequences to such elections and appointments.

The move to halt the breastfeeding resolution, like so many other moves influenced by corporate money, would have gone unnoticed if not for the Times report.

For a long time, our lawmakers have placed corporate interests above the will of the people — a fact that we would not know were it not for journalists shedding light on what's happening under the radar.

People's faith and trust in the news media has taken a beating with the constant barrage of attacks from Trump and others. But how are we supposed to place faith in our government when we know that policy is being bought and paid for by profit-driven industries?

The press must keep playing its vital role in our democracy — or rather, our corporatocracy — to preserve whatever power the people have left. And the people must use our power at the ballot box if we don't want to continue to be ruled by big business.