Coal CEO requests health benefits for black lung disease he opposed

Robert Murray, a coal CEO who for decades ran the nation’s largest privately held coal mining company, has filed to obtain benefits from the Labor Department for black lung disease, according to a report from the Ohio Valley ReSource and West Virginia Public Broadcasting (WVPR).  

The request is notable because Murray, the former CEO and president of Murray Energy, for years opposed regulations aimed at making mining safer for workers, and that were intended to prevent people from getting the disease.

Ohio Valley ReSource, which is a regional journalism collaborative that is supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, reported that Murray has submitted the initial paperwork to the federal government to obtain worker compensation benefits for black lung.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I founded the company and created 8,000 jobs there until the move to end coal use. I am still chairman of the board,” he wrote on his application. “We’re in bankruptcy, and due to my health could not handle the president and CEO job any longer.”

Murray, 80, wrote in his claim that he heavily relies on an oxygen tank and is “near death.”

When reached by the Ohio Valley ReSource for comment on his claim, Murray reportedly threatened to sue if a story was published indicating he had fought federal regulations and benefits.

The coal baron on Thursday spoke with The Intelligencer, a local outlet based in West Virginia, and confirmed that he had filed the disability claim with the Labor Department “a few weeks ago” but acknowledged that he may not be approved for benefits. 

He told the outlet that doctors who specialize in black lung disease suggested he may have it, but said they would not know for certain until an autopsy is performed after his death. 

“I’m entitled to that benefit just like anyone else,” Murray said in a phone interview with The Intelligencer. “I have no income. I don’t own the old company. It’s gone. So I have the right.”

ADVERTISEMENT

His claim to the Labor Department reportedly states that he developed black lung disease in his years spent working underground while supervising operations.

“During my 63 years working in underground coal mines, I worked 16 years every day at the mining face underground and went underground every week until I was age 75,” Murray wrote in his claim.

Murray’s argument appears to contradict what he told The Associated Press in 2017 and NPR in November, in which he said he had a lung disease that was not related to his work in the mines. 

“It’s idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. IPF, and it is not related to my work in the industry. They’ve checked for that,” Murray told NPR. “And it’s not — has anything to do with working in the coal mines, which I did for 17 years underground every day. And until I was 76, I went underground twice a week.”

Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, commonly known as “black lung disease,” is a debilitating illness that results from inhaling coal dust that has no known cure. An estimated 16 percent of coal miners in the U.S. will contract the disease, according to The American Lung Association.

The Black Lung Benefits Act provides monthly compensation and medical treatment benefits who miners who contracted the disease and have becoming disabled. 

Coal companies have been actively attempting to roll back fees that go into the pot for those with black lung disease amid the coronavirus pandemic, with has exacerbated ongoing financial difficulties for the struggling industry. In March, the National Mining Association asked lawmakers to reduce payments the industry must make to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund to 2019 levels after Congress increased that tax by $220 million for this year.

Coal companies deemed responsible for the miner’s disease often contest the payments, triggering lengthy legal battles.

Murray’s companies have a history of disputing the claims to black lung benefits from their miners, according to the Ohio Valley ReSource and WVPR. 

Court filings released as part of Murray Energy’s bankruptcy proceedings reportedly showed that the company could be responsible for as much as $155 million under the Black Lung Act and general workers’ compensation. The outlets noted that the company only offered $1.1 million in collateral. 

Murray was one of the loudest critics of former President Obama and his administration’s attempts to implement environmental regulations, frequently suing over environmental policies. He called Obama the “nation’s greatest destroyer” and said he is “intent on destroying coal and our country for their bizarre personal and political ends.”

In 2014, Murray Energy sued the federal government against regulations aimed at reducing miners’ exposure to coal dust. The Obama-era rule increased the frequency of dust sampling and required coal operators to take immediate action when dust levels were high.  

Murray has since become an outspoken supporter of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump campaign manager tests positive for COVID-19 Trump given Remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 infection ICE launching billboard campaign highlighting ‘at-large immigration violators’ MORE and reportedly donated $300,000 to his inauguration.

After Trump entered office, Murray presented the president with an “action plan” of pro-coal policy requests, including pulling out of the Paris climate accord and repealing the Clean Power Plan.

Murray began working as a miner for the North American Coal Corporation in 1957, a company which is listed as a potentially liable party in his claim. He served as president of another coal company, Ohio Valley Resources Inc., before he went on to establish Murray Energy in 1988.

Murray Energy Holdings emerged last month from federal bankruptcy protection under a new name and ownership group, called American Consolidated Natural Resources, Inc. The company has active mines in Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and Utah.

Murray now serves as chairman of the succeeding company and told The Intelligencer that “I can function in that job.” 

Senate panel votes to subpoena Big Tech executives

The Senate Commerce Committee voted Thursday to subpoena the CEOs of Twitter, Facebook and Alphabet, Google’s parent company.

Committee Chairman Roger WickerRoger Frederick WickerRestaurants brace for long COVID-19 winter The Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by Facebook – Republicans lawmakers rebuke Trump on election Hillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns MORE (R-Miss.) had threatened to subpoena Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Facebook’s Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergFacebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus Hillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Conservative groups seek to block Facebook election grants in four swing states: report MORE and Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai last week but was required to hold a vote after ranking member Sen. Maria CantwellMaria Elaine CantwellHillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns Key Democrat opposes GOP Section 230 subpoena for Facebook, Twitter, Google Hillicon Valley: Zuckerberg acknowledges failure to take down Kenosha military group despite warnings | Election officials push back against concerns over mail-in voting, drop boxes MORE (D-Wash.) opposed the plan.

The unanimous vote will compel the CEOs to appear for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is considered the bedrock of the modern internet.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 1996 law, which has come under increased scrutiny since President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump signs bill averting shutdown after brief funding lapse Privacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches Facebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus MORE targeted it in an executive order in May, gives internet companies immunity from lawsuits for content posted on their sites by third parties and allows them to make “good faith” efforts to moderate content.

Wicker made it clear during Thursday’s executive business meeting that the hearing is required because of allegations of anti-conservative bias on their platforms.

Conservative voices actually dominate many platforms on social media including Facebook, the most powerful of them all.

But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from persistently making the allegation about bias, which the tech companies have also vociferously denied.

Cantwell ultimately agreed to vote for the subpoena after changes by Wicker, allowing privacy and misinformation to be discussed alongside the supposed bias.

ADVERTISEMENT

A spokesperson for Facebook declined to comment on the subpoena vote.

Spokespeople for Twitter and Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the vote.

If they ultimately appear, this will be the second major hearing of the year with some of tech’s biggest executives.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust this summer held a hearing on competition in digital marketplaces featuring Zuckerberg, Pichai, Apple’s Tim Cook and Amazon’s Jeff BezosJeffrey (Jeff) Preston BezosPrivacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches NASA’s Bridenstine: We really are going to the lunar south pole Twitter mandates lawmakers, journalists to beef up passwords heading into election MORE.

The panel is set to release a report on the issue as early as next week.

Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds

Click:全国楼凤论坛

The heads of several House subpanels on Friday called for the Pentagon to turn over documents on how it used $1 billion in coronavirus relief funds, citing the Defense Department’s use of much of the money to pay defense contractors rather than buy medical supplies.

“We are investigating whether the Department of Defense (DOD) inappropriately used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,” lawmakers wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result MORE.

“These funds were intended to prioritize the domestic production and distribution of urgently needed medical supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) – many of which are still in short supply – but DOD has reportedly diverted a significant portion of these funds to provide lucrative contracts to defense contractors for non-medical projects.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter was sent by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis Chairman Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.); Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Maxine Waters and Azar in heated exchange at coronavirus hearing: ‘We’re very unhappy’ MORE (D-Calif.); Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn Bosher MaloneyOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Pelosi, Democrats unveil bills to rein in alleged White House abuses of power MORE (D-N.Y.); and Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Rep. Stephen LynchStephen Francis LynchOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Overnight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers MORE (D-Mass.).

The Washington Post first reported last month that the Pentagon has used most of the $1 billion on defense contractors rather than medical supplies.

The department awarded contracts for jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms, among other military equipment, which critics argue is in contravention of the CARES Act stipulation that the funds be used to “prevent, prepare for and respond to coronavirus.”

Following the report’s release, the Pentagon defended itself, arguing the money was never intended to be restricted to medical supplies, that it kept Congress fully informed of its plans and that helping the defense industrial bases through the pandemic is an appropriate response to the COVID-19 crisis.

The department had also notified Congress in late May that it planned to use $688 million of the funding to shore up the defense industrial base. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The lawmakers, however, point to medical supplies and PPE shortages which have persisted more than six months after the Trump administration declared the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency.

While DOD may rightly argue that the goal of its spending was to offset financial distress in the defense industrial base caused by the pandemic, the lawmakers say, the use of CARES Act dollars in this manner “runs counter to Congress’ intent that these appropriations be prioritized to address shortages in medical supplies and equipment.”

The lawmakers asked Esper to hand over documents that show how the Pentagon spent its CARES act money, including the recipient of every contract funded by the money, the amount, the date of the award, what was provided and which senior contracting officer signed off on it.

They also want to know whether the contract recipient received other CARES Act funding, whether they had relevant past performance with DOD, and “all documents related to the decision to use CARES Act funding to stimulate the defense industrial base rather than to support production and distribution of PPE.”

The letter asks for the documents and information by Oct. 16, as well as a staff briefing by that time “to address these issues.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter follows calls from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) for the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate how the department used its coronavirus relief funds.

The two in late September asked the watchdog to “review the potential misuse of funds by the department that were meant ‘to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.’”

A coalition of 40 organizations from across the political spectrum also last month called for a congressional investigation into how DOD spent the money.

GOP senators call on Trump to oppose nationalizing 5G

A group of 19 senators is calling on President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump signs bill averting shutdown after brief funding lapse Privacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches Facebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus MORE to bolster private-sector deployment of 5G, expressing concerns about a request for information from the administration that they felt contradicted a free-market strategy.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneSenate passes spending bill to avert shutdown hours before deadline The Hill’s Morning Report – Fight night: Trump, Biden hurl insults in nasty debate Meeting Trump Supreme Court pick a bridge too far for some Democrats MORE (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet, led a letter to Trump on Wednesday following a recent request for information (RFI) released by the Pentagon regarding 5G. 

“Rather than rely on private industry and market forces to foster multiple, facilities-based 5G networks, the RFI seeks information on a government-managed process for 5G networks,” the senators wrote. “Nationalizing 5G and experimenting with untested models for 5G deployment is not the way the United States will win the 5G race.”

ADVERTISEMENT

GOP Sens. John BarrassoJohn Anthony BarrassoEnergy innovation bill can deliver jobs and climate progress Trump’s Teflon problem: Nothing sticks, including the ‘wins’ Senate to push funding bill vote up against shutdown deadline MORE (Wyo.), Shelley Moore CapitoShelley Wellons Moore CapitoCongress must finish work on popular conservation bill before time runs out Second GOP senator to quarantine after exposure to coronavirus GOP senator to quarantine after coronavirus exposure MORE (W.Va.), John CornynJohn CornynGOP senators pan debate: ‘S—show,’ ‘awful,’ ’embarrassment’ Preventing next pandemic requires new bill’s global solutions Big donors fund state parties at record levels MORE (Texas), Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election The Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by Facebook – Trump previews SCOTUS nominee as ‘totally brilliant’ The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Ginsburg lies in repose MORE (Wis.), and Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioGOP online donor platform offering supporters ‘Notorious A.C.B.’ shirts Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election GOP lawmakers distance themselves from Trump comments on transfer of power MORE (Fla.), among others, also signed the letter.

The Defense Department issued the RFI on Sept. 18 from industry, seeking insight into accelerating spectrum sharing and 5G deployment.

“While we recognize the need for secure communications networks for our military, we are concerned that such a proposal threatens our national security.  When bad actors only need to penetrate one network, they have a greater likelihood of disrupting the United States’ communications services,” they wrote. 

The senators also urged Trump in the letter to remain on a free-market path to enable the U.S. to win the global 5G race. 

The Federal Communications Commission said this month it will approve use of mid-band spectrum solely for 5G, although the Pentagon said in August that mid-band spectrum will be available for 5G “by the end of the summer.” 

The Defense Department has several locations for 5G testing and experimentation.

“DoD recognizes that industry is driving 5G technology with massive investments in the many hundreds of billions of dollars. Because of that, DoD is working closely with industry partners to leverage those investments for military applications,” DoD official Joseph Evans said at a press conference in June.

Barrett participated in 'mock' Supreme Court ruling exercise on Affordable Care Act before Ginsburg's death: report

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Tump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, participated in a “mock” ruling exercise on the Affordable Care Act before Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgPresident Trump, Melania Trump test positive for COVID-19 Barrett participated in ‘mock’ Supreme Court ruling exercise on Affordable Care Act before Ginsburg’s death: report Manchin becomes first Democrat to meet with Trump’s Supreme Court pick MORE‘s death.

Her position on the moot court over the Affordable Care Act, also called ObamaCare, mostly went against the Trump administration’s stance, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Some Democratic critics have argued Barrett’s conservative background and Catholic faith could compromise her decisions on the court bench. However, her mock ruling over the issue indicates contrary to those concerns.

ADVERTISEMENT

The mock trial over the Obamacare appeal lawsuit backed by Trump and Texas Republicans was conducted one week before the death of Ginsburg, whom Barrett has been nominated to replace.

None of the participants on the eight-judge panel of the mock trial ruled in favor of the administration and Republican states’ request to strike down the ACA; however, five of the judges ruled that the law’s individual mandate, which Congress already effectively nullified, was unconstitutional.

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership

It is unknown which side Barrett was on because the participants’ votes were not revealed, according to a person who viewed the session and declined to be identified.

Barrett has been publicly critical of the Supreme Court’s opinion to uphold the act.

She wrote in an a 2017 essay that Chief Justice John Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

The mock trial was held at William & Mary College, where law professor Allison Orr Larsen told attendees, “You should not take the questions we ask or the arguments we make as personal endorsements,” according to a post on the school’s website.

Mock courts are meant to be educational role-playing displays and do not indicate or telegraph how a judge might vote in an actual scenario.

Manufacturing slows in September: ISM

Growth in the manufacturing sector unexpectedly slowed in September, adding to weakness in the economy as the coronavirus pandemic rages on in the U.S.

The monthly PMI Manufacturing index from the Institute for Supply Management, a widely watched gauge of the nation’s manufacturing health, slid to 55.4 percent from 56 percent in August. Economists had forecast a 56.3 percent reading.

Figures above 50 percent indicate growth, and the sector has been in positive territory for five months since COVID-19 first took hold in the U.S. But September’s retreat exposed potential weaknesses for factories as they try to navigate a slowing recovery.

ADVERTISEMENT

New orders dropped 7.4 points to 60.2 percent, production fell 2.3 points to 61 percent, and employment remained in contraction territory, at 49.6 percent. Factory employment has been contracting since July 2019, posing a challenge to President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump signs bill averting shutdown after brief funding lapse Privacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches Facebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus MORE and his reelection bid after promising to revive American manufacturing.

“While certain industry sectors are experiencing difficulties that will continue in the near term, the manufacturing community as a whole has learned to conduct business effectively and deal with the variables imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Institute for Supply Management Chair Timothy R. Fiore in a statement Thursday.

While manufacturing only accounts for about 10 percent of the country’s output, the sector’s health carries political implications — all the more so with the election just over a month away.

The latest manufacturing figures come ahead of a Friday jobs report that is expected to show a slowing recovery in the broader labor market, with unemployment projected to remain above 8 percent. The jobless rate was at 3.5 percent before the pandemic hit.

Click Here: los jaguares argentina

Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said there will be no litmus tests for candidates as Democrats seek to find a winning roster to regain the House majority in 2018.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In taking the position, Luján and Democrats risk alienating liberals, as well as groups dedicated to promoting access to abortion and reproductive health services that represent the core of the party’s base.

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”

Luján, serving his second term as the DCCC’s chairman, has cast a wide net for candidates. A map on his office wall highlights districts held by dozens of Republican that he hopes to oust in the 2018 midterm elections.

“To pick up 24 [seats] and get to 218, that is the job. We’ll need a broad coalition to get that done,” Luján said. “We are going to need all of that, we have to be a big family in order to win the House back.”

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have both argued against party litmus tests, saying there’s room for people with different opinions on abortion. Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Milley apologizes for church photo-op Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness MORE (I-Vt.), another influential voice, has echoed that argument.

Democrats are unlikely to win the 24 seats they need to recapture control without contesting more conservative districts. The last time Democrats won control, in the 2006 midterm elections, the party recruited — and supported financially — a significant number of Democrats who did not entirely support abortion rights, including former Reps. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Heath Shuler (N.C.) and Jason Altmire (Pa.).

“Both [then-DCCC Chairman] Rahm Emanuel and [then-Democratic National Committee Chairman] Howard Dean with his 50 state strategy understood that in order to win districts that had eluded Democrats in previous cycles, they were going to have to field candidates who didn’t look like national Democrats,” Altmire told The Hill. “People understood the class of ’06 was driven largely by the centrist candidates.”

Luján said he had spoken with Emanuel, now the mayor of Chicago, about Democratic efforts to retake the House.

The fight over abortion and what it means to be a Democrat has boiled over in recent months. Prominent national Democrats, including Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez and Sanders, campaigned with Heath Mello, a candidate running to serve as mayor of Omaha who did not support abortion rights.

Perez said at the time the DNC’s job is “to help Democrats who have garnered support from voters in their community cross the finish line and win.” In a statement days later, Perez said the party’s support for abortion rights were “non-negotiable.”

A DNC aide told The Hill at the time that Perez was not establishing a litmus test in that subsequent statement.

Abortion rights were notably absent from the party’s new policy push announced last week, meant to unify the party around an agenda outside of opposition to Trump. That plan, called “A Better Deal,” focused on economic policy largely related to jobs, wages and reducing the burden on families.

After the dispute over the Omaha mayoral race, party leaders worked behind the scenes to mend fences with those outside groups that back abortion rights. Senior DCCC officials have met with groups like EMILY’s List and NARAL, both to maintain relations and to coordinate on the party’s “Better Deal” platform.

Pro-abortion rights groups cast reproductive health issues as an economic concern.

“At the core of the Democratic Party is our commitment to a better economic future for the working people of our country. Reproductive choice is fundamental to our platform. One of the most important financial decisions a woman makes is when and how to start a family. It’s also why we recruit pro-choice Democratic women and work tirelessly to elect them — because they stand up for that critical choice,” Leila McDowell, a spokeswoman with EMILY’s List, told The Hill.

“Democrats don’t need to choose between coal miners in Ohio, nurses in Georgia, or home healthcare workers in Arizona. This isn’t a choice Democrats need to make. It’s a coalition we need to win.”

They also argue the advantage gained by backing candidates who oppose abortion rights is negligible.

“Anyone who actually thinks that Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE and the GOP candidates won in 2016 because of their opposition to abortion rights is sorely mistaken,” NARAL’s Stille said.

“A small minority of voters vote strictly on an anti-choice platform. Those same voters just aren’t going to vote for Democrats anyway — they fundamentally disagree with just about everything Democrats stand for.”

Luján, a close ally of Pelosi, would not rule out supporting a candidate who does not back Pelosi’s bid to become Speaker.

“We want to win back the House. Once we win back the House we can have the conversation as to who we’re going to elect as the new Speaker of the House,” Luján said. “The only way that we’re able to have that real conversation is if we’re able to put the majority in play and win it back.”

Democrats feel the political winds are there for the party to take back the House.

More than 200 Democratic candidates running for Republican-held seats have reported raising more than $5,000 for their campaigns so far, according to an analysis by University of Albany political scientist Michael Malbin, an unprecedented pace so far. At this point in 2009, the year before Republicans won control, 78 Republican candidates had raised more than $5,000 for their campaigns.

Flake not worried 'at all' about Trump's attacks

Sen. Jeff FlakeJeffrey (Jeff) Lane FlakeGOP lawmakers stick to Trump amid new criticism Kelly holds double-digit lead over McSally in Arizona: poll Trump asserts his power over Republicans MORE (R-Ariz.) told reporters on Monday that he is not worried about President Trump attacking him at a rally scheduled in Phoenix on Tuesday.

“I don’t worry about it at all,” he said, according to CNN, which reported the exchange.

Flake has emerged as one of Trump’s most vocal Republican critics and has authored a new book, “Conscience of a Conservative,” urging his fellow Republicans to stand up against the president.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump struck back last week, calling Flake “toxic” and praising conservative candidate Kelli Ward for mounting a primary challenging against the Arizona senator in next year’s midterm elections.

There’s also speculation that Trump may endorse Arizona Treasurer Jeff DeWitt, who served as his Arizona campaign chairman in the 2016 presidential race, to run in the primary against Flake.

But Flake told reporters after a local Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Monday that he’s not spending much time thinking about what Trump may do to influence next year’s race.

Click Here: Bape Kid 1st Camo Ape Head rompers

“That’s not my realm. That’s somebody else’s. … I’m running my own campaign. It’s going well. And what the president does, that’s his prerogative,” Flake said.

Earlier this month, Flake called on Trump to stop attacking Democratic senators if he wants Democratic votes to help pass his agenda.

Trump had called Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal a “phony Vietnam con artist” after the Connecticut lawmaker voiced support for investigating Trump’s ties to Russia.

It was a reference to Blumenthal’s retracted claim about serving in the Vietnam War.

“I don’t think it’s helpful. We in the Senate, we have a 60-vote hurdle to pass almost anything or we need unanimous consent to just move ahead,” Flake told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “It’s tough if we get so personal with them. So I don’t think it’s helpful in terms of legislation moving ahead.

With Failed War on Drugs as Backdrop, Global Day of Action Calls for Reform

As the failures of the so-called War on Drugs become increasingly apparent, people around the world will rally on Thursday and through the weekend, calling for global drug policy reform that prioritizes public health and human rights over criminalization and punitive measures.

Starting with a demonstration on Thursday night in Brooklyn, an array of actions in 100 countries across six continents will take place under the banner “Support. Don’t Punish.” The campaign aims to provide a counter-narrative to the United Nations’ International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on June 26—one that’s more focused on harm reduction than punishment.

Click Here: essendon bombers guernsey 2019

“Drug policies are supposed to pursue the health and welfare of humankind, but instead they have focused on repressive responses which are causing more damage than the drugs they are supposed to eradicate,” said Ann Fordham, executive director of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), which is coordinating the campaign.

The actions come on the heels of the first United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in almost two decades, which took place in April and was billed as a historic opportunity to end the failed War on Drugs.

Alas, at UNGASS, “prohibitionist policies held sway and only token changes in the direction of harm reduction were made,” wrote Amanda Feilding, founder of the Beckley Foundation think tank, in an op-ed at the Guardian on Thursday.

It’s time, she said, for the United Nations to take its own 2016 “theme”—Listen First—to heart: 

Meanwhile, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released its 2016 World Drug Report (pdf) on Thursday—and according to Kasia Malinowska, director of Open Society Foundation’s Global Drug Policy Program, it “does not depart at all from a prohibitionist perspective.”

The report, she told The Influence, doesn’t address economic realities in drug-producing and drug-consuming countries, omits mention of the death penalty for drugs, and fails to acknowledge how the criminal justice system exacerbates drug use and abuse around the world.

What’s more—with its findings that the number of people suffering from drug use disorders increased disproportionally for the first time in six years in 2014, from 27 to 29 million—the report is an abject example of how the War on Drugs has failed.

“The UNGASS proved that change is slow to come to the UN,” wrote Hannah Hetzer, the senior policy manager of the Americas for the Drug Policy Alliance. “But with citizens across the world pushing for reform, and with countries moving ahead with novel drug policies, sooner or later the UN too will have to change to reflect new realities on the ground. And today, in cities around the globe, we will be out in the streets calling for support, not punishment.”