Mediaboss Marketing

The Eli Jackson cemetery is the final resting place for Native Americans, war veterans, freed slaves and Christian abolitionists who shaped the cultural, spiritual and racial history of the Rio Grande Valley.

The historic graveyard is next door to the Jackson Ranch chapel, the oldest Protestant church still standing in the valley.

Both sites are only a mile or so from Mexico, on a long and dusty road flanked by sturdy mesquites. This is where, amid local protest and national condemnation, Donald Trump is pushing to start construction of a new border wall, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The wall will be built on top of a levee just north of the 145-year-old Methodist chapel and cemetery, placing them within the 150ft enforcement zone which the government has said it plans to raze. The church and cemetery, which are designated Texas Historical Markers, would be marooned between Trumps wall and the actual border, just to the south along the Rio Grande.

In an effort to stop the wall, leaders of the Carrizo/Comecrudo tribe and activists live in a makeshift tent village within the shady cemetery. For almost a year, they have burned a sacred log fire, ringed by tribal flags.

On Monday, the Washington DC district court will consider the governments motion to dismiss a case brought by the tribe and six other plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of Trumps executive orders which diverted billions of defense dollars to build a wall on the southern border by declaring a national emergency in February.

The plaintiffs say the wall would disturb unmarked native burial and sacred sites across the river delta where tribal clans lived, traded and buried their dead for centuries before colonization. The last stronghold of the Carrizo/Comecrudo nation an original Texas tribe whose ancestors have inhabited the Rio Grande Valley for at least hundreds of years was in Hidalgo county, where the cemeteries are situated.

The border with Mexico divided our people and now, this new wall shows no regard for our ancestors, beliefs or culture which are tied to these lands, Juan Mancias, 65, tribal chairman, told the Guardian at Yalui (Butterfly) Village campsite, which is monitored by border patrol agents who frequently drive past. Theyre trying to erase who we are, and thats genocide.

These Indian wars arent over, only the battlegrounds have changed. Now were in courtrooms, he added.

The lawsuit alleges that a national emergency was fabricated to seize emergency powers in an attempt to accomplish a longstanding campaign promise a big beautiful wall that Congress, since President Trumps inauguration, has repeatedly and explicitly refused to fund.

The government claims the constitutional challenge has no merit. The justice department declined to comment.

Just last week, a federal court in Oakland, California, ruled in a similar lawsuit that the president acted unlawfully by using emergency powers to divert $3.6bn in military construction funds for the wall.

The damning ruling, which the government will appeal, will be considered by the judge in Washington when deciding whether to dismiss the Texas case, or let it proceed, and therefore force the administration to provide the plaintiffs with confidential documents pertaining to the massive project.

Details about the planned wall are sparse as the government suspended 28 laws mandating protections and oversight, relating to clean air and water, endangered species, public lands and the rights of American Indians, in order to expedite construction. The waiver includes the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Amid growing clamour about the plans, local CBP chiefs in Texas have said the cemeteries will be spared. But in the past few months, surveyors and other technicians have been observed working around the Eli Jackson cemetery, which is manned 24/7 by the tribe and their supporters camped out in the village.

The tribe has filed cease and desist orders to government agencies and private contractors, which stated: We do not want any more division being caused, any more digging of our ancestors. We dont own the land, the land owns us, thats why we lay claim to it. It identifies us.

Yet in what it considers the ultimate injustice, in the eyes of the US government, the Carrizo/Comecrudo tribe does not even exist.

The first documented contact with Carrizo/Comecrudo clans by colonial explorers dates back to the early 1500s. In the 1840s, the tribe fought alongside Texans against Mexico, in an ill-fated attempt to establish the border a hundred or so miles south of the Rio Grande. The Comecrudean language remains alive only through traditional songs.

But for the government, which has used varying criteria and conditions to officially recognize 573 Indian nations, this is not enough.

It can take a million dollars to hire consultants to find the physical documents for federal recognition, which, given the historical violence and displacement, is an almost impossible burden, said Gussie Lord, tribal affairs lawyer, from the legal not-for-profit EarthJustice.

Without federal recognition, the tribe has no official land base and few legal protections, even before the wall and the waiver.

This matters little to Mancias, who says his peoples history and spiritual identity are rooted across the valley. Thats why he has participated in protests and lawsuits to stop environmentally destructive natural gas pipelines, oil production and fracking.

The colonizers cut off our hands and feet, killed us, and took our land, and now the burden is on us to prove we are a tribe. Its the constant connection with our land and ancestors that sustains and strengthens our identity and culture, not what the US federal government decides, and thats what were struggling to save.

Eli Jackson, after whom the cemetery was named, was the eldest son of Nathaniel Jackson, a farmer and devout Protestant, and Matilda Hicks, an emancipated slave, who arrived in 1857 from Alabama as part of a caravan of mixed-race families escaping mounting hostilities against African Americans in the deep south as civil war edged closer.

The Jackson family established a ranch on the river bank, which became an important stop on the Underground Railroad a network of secret routes and safehouses used to help enslaved Americans escape to the free north and Canada.

Nathaniel built a small house of worship on the ranch, which was replaced in 1874 by the existing Jackson Ranch chapel, built by another son, Martin Jackson. The deed is currently held by Martins great grandson, Dr Ramiro Ramirez, a plaintiff, who grew up attending the church and learning about the family history from his grandmother.

The enforcement zone around the wall would extend to the third row of pews in the chapel, which is still used for funerals. This could mean the chapel is marooned in the no-go patrol area or bulldozed.

I grew up believing this would be where I am buried with my ancestors, and my children and grandchildren too. Now what will happen to us? It will be devastating, said Ramirez, 72, unable to stop the tears as he pointed to his future tombstone.

Ramirez added: I come here every week to be with my abuelos, and pray for a miracle, that the president shows a little compassion and understanding. Ive lived next to the river my whole life, this is not a dangerous place, the wall is not needed.

Environmentalists warn of potentially devastating consequences along the Rio Grande a 1,900-mile long international river that divides the US and Mexico, providing drinking water to about 6 million people, and habitat for hundreds of diverse species of birds, mammals, fish and insects.

Another of the plaintiffs, Elsa Hull, 51, lives with her daughters on a three-acre lot a stones throw from the river, 140 miles north-west of Mission in Zacapa county. The planned wall would cut off their access to the river which they use for leisure activities like kayaking, stargazing and birdwatching, disrupt wildlife, create light pollution, exacerbate flooding and reduce the value of her property.

The wall would affect every single aspect of our lives, said Hull, an environmental protection officer.

An entire river will be walled off, it will cause ecological destruction, disrupt communities and wildlife this is a beautiful safe place, people have to stop buying into the hype and do something.

After months of campaigning by the plaintiffs, next years homeland security budget proposed in the House of Representatives includes a clause blocking the use of funds for border wall construction in several areas, including historic cemeteries and the nearby National Butterfly Centre, which is trying to stop a separate, privately funded three-and-a-half-mile barrier on the riverbank.

So far, the Senate version doesnt include the cemeteries. The deadline to agree a compromise is 20 December. Regardless of the bill, if the wall is built on the levee as planned, it is unclear how the cemeteries could be spared from inclusion in the enforcement zone.

As the sun rose over the Yalui Village, Mancias was sleep-deprived and livid about the noisy industrial groundwater pump left running in a grassy plot over the road.

Theyre destroying everything native and natural, he said. Were here to educate people, and stand our ground were still here and not going anywhere, and have a right to speak out. This is our land.

Read the rest here:
'That's genocide': ancient tribal graves threatened by Trump border wall - The Guardian

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

President Donald Trump's so-called phase-one trade deal with China achieved almost nothing even after American consumers and farmers footed the bill for his trade war over the past 18 months, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on Sunday.

"Trump is going to be claiming victory in his trade war," the Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist said in a Twitter thread. "The truth is that there are almost never winners in trade wars but there are losers. And however Trump may try to spin this, he lost."

As part of its agreement with China, the US agreed to scrap planned tariffs on $160 billion of Chinese goods and halve the tariff rate on another $120 billion worth of Chinese goods to 7.5%.

In exchange, the Trump administration said that China would spend at least $16 billion more on agricultural goods in each of the next two years and that overall US exports to China would nearly double. Experts, however, are skeptical whether those volumes are realistic, and China hasn't publicly committed to specific targets.

"Trump tried to bully them; they hung tough; and are basically ending up where they started, buying agricultural products while selling us increasingly sophisticated manufacturing goods," Krugman tweeted.

Read more: We interviewed Wall Street's 7 top-performing investors to get their secrets for success and their best ideas for 2020

During the trade war, US exports to China have dropped in price by more than Chinese exports to the US have. The trend suggests US consumers paid for the tariffs and the Chinese found it easier to source substitutes for US goods, Krugman continued.

The upshot is that "farmers have suffered, with a number going bankrupt, despite a bailout *twice the size of Obama's auto bailout,*" he tweeted.

Even if the US and China strike a comprehensive deal, their trade war will have two long-run costs, Krugman said. First, businesses will remain uncertain about capricious US trade policy. Second, the Chinese have "learned the same lesson North Korea's Kim learned: Trump talks loudly but carries a small stick, and can be rolled."

"Trump has made us weak, neither trusted by our allies nor feared by our enemies," he added.

The president has also backed down from another tariff battle with Mexico, Krugman pointed out.

"Trump wimped out early on trade war with Mexico, basically leaving NAFTA intact but trying to stick his name on it," he tweeted, referring to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Originally posted here:
'Trump has made us weak' Paul Krugman says the US-China trade deal achieved almost nothing, and consumers and farmers paid the price - Business...

President Trump famously asked, Wheres my Roy Cohn? Demanding a stand-in for his old personal lawyer and fixer, Mr. Trump has actually gotten something better with Bill Barr: a lawyer who like Cohn stops seemingly at nothing in his service to Mr. Trump and conveniently sits atop the nations Justice Department.

Mr. Barr has acted more like a henchman than the leader of an agency charged with exercising independent judgment. The disturbing message that sends does not end at our borders it extends to countries, like those in the former East Bloc, struggling to overcome an illiberal turn in the direction of autocracy.

When Mr. Trump sought to have President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce an investigation of his political opponent, he likely expected a positive response. After all, politicized prosecutions had been part of Ukraines corrupt political culture for years.

On Monday, when Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the Justice Department, released a report that affirmed the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was justified, Mr. Barr immediately turned on his own agency in defense of the president.

The F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken, he said.

Similarly, Mr. Barrs response to the report from Robert Mueller on Russian interference and Mr. Trumps purported presidential misconduct was to cast doubt on his own staff, questioning their work product as well as their ethics and legal reasoning. Even before he became attorney general, Mr. Barr questioned Mr. Muellers investigation of the president for obstruction of justice in a 19-page legal memo he volunteered to the administration.

And where he could have neutrally passed Mr. Muellers findings to Congress, he instead took the widely criticized and unusual step of making and announcing his own legal conclusions about Mr. Muellers obstruction inquiry. He followed up this Cohn-like behavior with testimony in the Senate, where he insinuated that the United States government spied on the Trump campaign. Mr. Barr apparently has decided that, like Cohn, he serves Donald Trump and not the Constitution or the United States, flouting his oath of office and corrupting the mission of the Justice Department.

In the past, the United States has, however imperfectly, advanced the rule of law and supported governments committed to an anti-corruption agenda. According to George Kent, a State Department official who testified in the House impeachment inquiry, Russia sees corruption as a tool to advance its interests. So when the United States fights a kleptocratic culture, it serves not only lofty humanitarian goals but also our national security. Mr. Zelensky ran a campaign and was elected on a platform that put fighting corruption at the forefront. He should have received extensive and unmitigated support in that effort.

In the former East Bloc countries, despite the hopes of many for a post-Soviet era where democracy would thrive, the parties and politicians in power have consolidated their control in a manner reminiscent of the Communist era.

Autocrats understand that supposedly independent institutions such as the courts and prosecutors are vital to locking in their power. In Romania, a crusading anti-corruption prosecutor who was investigating top government officials was fired at the same time as the government advanced legislation to cabin the ability of other prosecutors to pursue cases against political officials. Polands right-wing populist Law and Justice Party has attacked the independent judiciary and has sought to remove judges who do not follow the party line. Hungary has followed suit. Bulgarian politicians have persecuted civil society groups that have criticized their abandonment of the rule of law.

While several United States ambassadors have attempted to support anti-corruption efforts in the region, they have been continuously undercut by the White House. In addition to firing Marie Yovanovitch, who served as ambassador to Ukraine, in part because of her anti-corruption focus, Mr. Trump hosted Viktor Orban of Hungary in Washington over the objections of national security officials who did not want to elevate a corrupt leader with close ties to the Kremlin; furthermore, the president has tried to cut funding for anti-corruption programs.

Mr. Trumps focus on cultivating foreign leaders who can help his re-election has overwhelmed our national interests in the region. That is certainly a shame for the anti-corruption activists in former Communist countries who have depended on our help and leadership since the end of the Soviet era and who have seen their justice system turned to serve political ends.

But for Americans, we must worry that we face a similar domestic situation: a prosecutor who bends to the political needs of the president. Mr. Trump may no longer be able to call on Roy Cohn, but he now has a stronger ally in the United States top law-enforcement official, who thinks that if the president does it, it cant be wrong.

Read the original post:
Donald Trump Wanted Another Roy Cohn. He Got Bill Barr. - The New York Times

On this trade deal, their interests are aligned

Editors note (December 11th): This article has been updated.

UNION LEADERS and Democratic lawmakers were cool at first towards the USMCA, a replacement for the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which was signed by American, Canadian and Mexican trade negotiators over a year ago. But on December 10th, after months of further talks, they swung behind a reworked version. Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, Americas largest trade-union group, proclaimed a new standard for future trade negotiations. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, called it a victory for Americas workers.

The reversal may seem surprising. The AFL-CIO has not endorsed an American trade deal in nearly two decades, and Ms Pelosi is trying to get President Donald Trump, whose deal this is, impeached. According to polling data provided to The Economist by YouGov and published on December 11th, though 79% of Americans say that trade and globalisation are important to them, only 37% say the same of replacing NAFTA with the USMCA.

But both the politics and the content of the deal have led to unexpected alliances. Supporting the USMCA lets Democrats claim that they are not obstructing Mr Trumps agenda for the sake of it. And on trade, Mr Trump has more in common with the left wing of the Democratic Party than with his own Republicans. Many Democrats agree that previous deals made trade too free, with too few of the benefits going to American workers. And several of the changes secured by the Democrats are meaningful. Some are sure to be to Mr Trumps taste, too.

Among the revisions are an end to intellectual-property protections for biologics, a specific class of drug, and weaker patents for pharmaceuticals in general. Democrats say such protections stifle competition from generics and raise drug prices. Unsurprisingly, those changes went down badly with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry lobby. Its president said they amounted to an abandonment of protections for American companies.

Enforcement has been beefed up. Improvements to NAFTAs dispute-settlement system are probably the most important thing in the whole treaty, says Jess Seade, Mexicos chief negotiator. Under NAFTA, countries could block the appointment of arbiters to hear awkward disputes. This should no longer be possible.

The shared vision of the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers is clearest when it comes to labour standards. The aim was to make it less attractive to move jobs from America to Mexico than had been the case under NAFTA by supporting Mexican workers employment rights. But in the first version of the USMCA, the AFL-CIO complained, the bar for proving a breach of the rules was too high and enforcement mechanisms were too onerous. Critics pointed to the only labour complaint ever to make it as far as a formal dispute as part of an American trade deal: a case against Guatemala in which arbiters agreed that the rules had been broken, but not that any harm to trade or investment had been demonstrated.

The new deal shifts the burden of proof regarding such harm. To avoid penalties, defendants will have to show that it did not happen. Moreover, accusations that manufacturers are breaking Mexican laws covering freedom of association and collective bargaining will be sent for speedy consideration to panels of independent labour experts. Rule-breaking will lead to penalties on exports. Overall, the revised labour provisions are good for Mexico, Mr Seade says, and will reinforce its governments own labour reforms.

The revised USMCA will restrict trade a bit more than NAFTA did. It will probably not live up to the hype. Even if greater use of collective bargaining raises Mexican wages, the USMCAs official impact assessment suggests that American wages would rise by just 0.27% in response. But for Mr Trump, his Democratic foes and their neighbours in Mexico, it counts as a win.

Read more:
Why the revised USMCA pleases both Democrats and Donald Trump - The Economist

"She has succeeded in creating a global attitudinal shift, transforming millions of vague, middle-of-the-night anxieties into a worldwide movement calling for urgent change. She has offered a moral clarion call to those who are willing to act, and hurled shame on those who are not."

Thunberg was chosen among a group that included the Hong Kong protesters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Donald Trump.

And it's the last name on that list who will be most aggrieved, not only because he was not chosen but also because Thunberg, well, was.

Start here: Trump has long had an obsession with Time's person of the year -- dating back long before he was President.

So, Trump cares a lot about who Time picks. (Why? Because the vast majority of his conceptions of success, fame and power were established in the 1980s. Being on the cover of a magazine -- particularly one like Time -- was a sign that you'd made it. And Trump likes visible signs that he's a big deal.)

Which brings us to Thunberg, who rose to fame when she began what she called "climate strikes" in her native Sweden to protest the lack of action by governments around the world to address the threat posed by climate change.

Earlier this fall, she spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, scolding the assembled leaders in blunt terms about their inaction on climate and what it would cost them -- and her.

"People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing," Thunberg told the UN audience. "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth."

So the combination of being passed over (again!!) and Thunberg being Time's pick will annoy Trump. A lot.

Will he lash out via Twitter? I'm not a betting man, but, well, yes.

More:
Why Time picking Greta Thunberg will drive Donald Trump crazy - CNN