Connect with us

Politics

Pentagon Effectively Bans Confederate Flags on Military Bases

Published

on

  • Defense Secretary Mark Esper issued a memo Friday that effectively bans the display of the Confederate flag on U.S. military installations.
  • Notably, the memo does not include the words “ban” or “Confederate flag,” but rather, it omits it from a list of flags that are allowed to be displayed.
  • Officials close to the matter said that the precaution was taken to avoid angering President Trump, who has defended the flag and other Confederate symbols.
  • However, numerous top military officials disagree with Trump and have pressured Esper to ban the flag, as well as to take action to remove other Confederate symbols on military bases.

Pentagon Memo

The Pentagon effectively banned displays of the Confederate flag at all U.S. military installations Friday in a carefully-worded memo that does not use the word “ban” or mention the flag by name.

The memo, issued by Defense Secretary Mark Esper, outlines the flags that are allowed to be displayed, including the American flag, the flags of states and territories, military flags, and flags of U.S. allies. 

The Confederate flag, however, is not on that list, and by omission, it will no longer be allowed in any military installations.

“The flags we fly must accord with the military imperatives of good order and discipline, treating all our people with dignity and respect, and rejecting divisive symbols,” Esper said in the memo, noting that the guidance applies to all public displays of flags by service members and Department of Defense civilians “in all DoD work places, common access areas, and public areas.”

The display of any unauthorized flags will still be permitted in museums, historical exhibits, works of art, and other educational programs.

One defense official told The Washington Post that Esper chose to not list any flags that are explicitly prohibited in order “to ensure the departmentwide policy would be apolitical and withstand potential free speech political challenges but that the services are still free to act on other flags.”

However, other officials familiar with the matter also told reporters that the mention of the Confederate flag was left out in order to not anger or contradict President Donald Trump, who has defended people’s rights to display it.

Trump and Military Officials Divided on Flag

The extreme caution taken by Esper further reflects the growing divide between how the president and top military leaders view the need to respond to the movement for racial justice that has swept the country since the death of George Floyd.

In recent weeks, military officials have been grappling with how to address the long legacy of racism and racist symbols within the institution. Specifically, Esper has faced mounting pressure from military service leaders to ban the Confederate flag, according to POLITICO.

In early June, the Marine Corps officially banned displays of the flag on its military bases. A week later, the Navy announced that it would also prepare its own ban. 

Other top military officials have also been vocal about their desire to change divisive and racist symbols, including Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who was reportedly among those leading the charge to push Esper to ban the Confederate flag.

“Anything that is a divisive symbol, we do want to take those out of our installations and keep that sort of thing out of our formation,” McCarthy told reporters during a call Thursday.

However, the calls to remove Confederate symbols do not just stop at the flag. During a House hearing last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told members of Congress that the Pentagon must “take a hard look at the symbology, the symbols, things like the Confederate flags and statues and bases.”

“There is no place in our armed forces for manifestations or symbols of racism, bias or discrimination,” he said. 

Esper, for his part, has also acknowledged his willingness to remove the names of Confederate officers from ten military bases, but President Trump has fervently defended Confederate symbols and repeatedly argued that they should remain in place.

Trump has openly criticized NASCAR’s decision last month to ban displays of the flag at all future events, claiming the flag is a matter of “freedom of speech.” In early June, he voiced his strong opposition to renaming the ten military bases honoring Confederate military leaders.

“These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” he wrote in a series of tweets. “The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars.” 

“Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations,” he continued. “Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”

Congressional Efforts

However, it is not just top military leaders that disagree with Trump on these matters.

Next week, the Senate is expected to move forward with an amendment to the annual defense bill that would require the Pentagon to change the names of the bases and remove other Confederate symbols from military installations within three years. The House is also expected to go ahead with a similar measure.

In late June, Trump threatened to veto the defense bill if the Senate passed the amendment, which was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). However, top Republican leaders have voiced support for the move.

In an interview earlier this week, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that he would not block the effort to rename the bases. Last month, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), also told reporters that he was “not opposed” to renaming the bases.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (POLITICO)

Politics

Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena

Published

on

The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.


Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.

Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.

Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee. 

That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.

After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.

Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.

Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts

The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.

It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same. 

The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively —  are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.

Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.

As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.  

Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December

Published

on

The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.


Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.

The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.

After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.

The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday. 

The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.

The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession. 

Major Hurdles Remain

While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.

Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain. 

Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.

Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.

Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.

Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.

Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.

In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul. 

As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported. 

It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Politics

California Makes Universal Voting by Mail Permanent

Published

on

California is now the eighth state to make universal mail-in ballots permanent after it temporarily adopted the policy for elections held amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 


CA Approves Universal Voting by Mail

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill Monday requiring every registered voter in the state to be mailed a ballot at least 29 days before an election, whether they request it or not.

Assembly Bill 37 makes permanent a practice that was temporarily adopted for elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law, which officially takes effect in January, also extends the time mail ballots have to arrive at elections offices from three days to seven days after an election. Voters can still choose to cast their vote in person if they prefer.

Supporters of the policy have cheered the move, arguing that proactively sending ballots to registered voters increases turnout.

“Data shows that sending everyone a ballot in the mail provides voters access. And when voters get ballots in the mail, they vote,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto), said during a Senate committee hearing in July.

Meanwhile opponents — mostly Republicans — have long cast doubts about the safety of mail-in voting, despite a lack of evidence to support their claims that it leads to widespread voter fraud. That strategy, however, has also faced notable pushback from some that a lot of Republicans who say it can actually hurt GOP turnout.

Others May Follow

The new legislation probably isn’t too surprising for California, where over 50% of votes cast in general elections have been through mail ballots since 2012, according to The Sacramento Bee. Now, many believe California will be followed by similar legislation from Democrats across the country as more Republican leaders move forward with elections bills that significantly limit voting access.

Newsome signed 10 other measures Monday changing election and campaign procedures, including a bill that would require anyone advocating for or against a candidate to stand farther away from a polling place. Another bill increases penalties for candidates who use campaign funds for personal expenses while a third measure increases reporting requirements for limited liability corporations that engage in campaign activity.

“As states across our country continue to enact undemocratic voter suppression laws, California is increasing voter access, expanding voting options and bolstering elections integrity and transparency,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Last year we took unprecedented steps to ensure all voters had the opportunity to cast a ballot during the pandemic and today we are making those measures permanent after record-breaking participation in the 2020 presidential election.”

The news regarding California came just in time for National Voter Registration day today, giving Americans another reminder to make sure they’re registered in their states. For more information on how to register, visit Vote.gov or any of the other resources linked below.

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (Los Angeles Times) (The Sacramento Bee)

Continue Reading