by Cindy Domingo

In a show of worker power, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) will shut down all twenty-nine West Coast ports for eight hours on Friday, June 19 in celebration of Juneteenth, standing in solidarity against police violence and calling for an end to white supremacy.  Juneteenth originated in Texas, where slaves were not freed until 1865, more than two years after the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation was signed.  It is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of chattel slavery in the United States. The ILWU action follows on the heels of a June 9 action in which the East and West Coast longshore workers stopped working and took an eight-minute, forty-six second moment of silence to coincide with the funeral of George Floyd in Houston. The work stoppage was also to honor Breonna Taylor and all victims of police repression.

The Juneteenth action in Seattle will begin with a 9 a.m. rally and march from the ILWU Local 19 Hall at 3440 E Marginal Way S.  Under the slogan of “Let’s turn this day of celebration of the emancipation of the slaves into a day of action against modern-day slavery!” The participants will march to the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) Day Reporting Center at 1550 4th Avenue South.

The DOC destination was chosen after inmates at work release facilities were retaliated against after demanding personal protection equipment and other safety measures to confront the COVID-19 pandemic.  According to organizers, the march will highlight the fact that the rights of workers do not end merely because a worker is convicted of a crime and incarcerated. The ILWU’s flyer for the event, notes that Washington state is subject to international law, including of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — and cites Articles 3 through 6, which afford everyone the right to life, liberty and security of person; freedom from slavery or servitude; freedom from torture or to cruel, inhumane treatment and punishment; and recognition everywhere as a person before the law […]

via Longshore Union to Shut Down all West Coast Ports on Juneteenth — South Seattle Emerald

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 16, 2020

A controversy has erupted over the naming of U.S. military bases here in the United States. The bases are named after Confederate generals, and there are people who want to change that. They want the bases to be named for more politically correct military figures.

I’ve got a better idea: Let’s not rename the bases. Let’s close them instead.

When people are born and raised under a particular form of governmental structure, it is extremely difficult for them to mentally or psychologically challenge the structure itself. The natural tendency is to want to work within the structure by coming up with ways to modify or improve it rather than to contemplate arguments for dismantling it.

That’s the situation we have with the national-security state structure that characterizes the United States. We have all been born and raised under a massive military-intelligence system that consists of the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial complex (as President Eisenhower termed it), the CIA, and the NSA. We’ve all been taught that “national security” is everything — that the national-security state protects our “freedom” and our, well, our “national security.” We are told that it does this through thousands of military bases both here at home and abroad. We’re taught that interventionism in foreign countries is essential to keep us safe here at home.

Thus, the natural tendency of people is to simply accept the permanence of this way of life and try to come up with ways to make it better. That’s what the impulse to rename all those military bases is all about. The bases are considered to be a permanent part of American life. So, the idea is let’s just make them better by renaming them.

An important question

Notice that in this renaming debate, the debaters never ask a critically important question: What do we need those bases for? For people who are embroiled within the paradigm, it’s just obvious. We need them because … well … just because.

After all, it’s not as though the United States is under the threat of an invasion by some foreign power. No nation-state in the world, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or any other nation-state that has been labeled an adversary, rival, or enemy of the United States, has the remotest military capability to invade the United States. All of them lack the troops, equipment, supplies, transports, ammunition, armaments, and money to undertake such an enormous task.

So, if there is no threat of a foreign invasion of the United States, what do we need all those bases for, old names or new names?

One might assert that the bases protect us from “the terrorists.” But “the terrorists” are a direct result of U.S. military interventionism abroad. Given that the U.S. military and CIA have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan for decades, it stands to reason that there are going to be people who wish to retaliate against Americans.

There is an easy fix for anti-American terrorism: Bring all the troops home from everywhere and discharge them. Their interventionism produces nothing positive and lots of negatives, including anti-American terrorism and the resulting destruction of our liberty here at home to protect us from “the terrorists” that their interventionism produce.

Even given anti-American terrorism, the notion that domestic military bases protect us from terrorism is ludicrous. Terrorists strike at civilians and civilian targets. When they do so, they are engaged in a federal criminal offense. Under U.S. law, the military is precluded from enforcing criminal laws. So, what good are those military bases when it comes to protecting us from terrorism? […]

via Don’t Rename Those Military Bases. Close Them Instead.

by Keith Preston

Krystal has a pretty good take on how the right-wing of the ruling class responded to the insurrection. Acknowledge the murder, put on a faux embrace of “peaceful protestors” with the usual “Dr. King was a Republican” nonsense while deflecting attention to rioters, looters, Antifa, anarchists, etc. And where the right-wing actually split among itself was on the use of the military […]

via Fox News CAUGHT faking CHAZ photos as protest propaganda collapses

John M Lund Photography Inc / Getty Images

As eviction bans across the country start to lift, the US could face an eviction ‘apocalypse’

via What Happens When the Homeless Populations Suddenly Double?

The California Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday ruled that AB5—the state law that classifies gig workers as employees rather than contractors—applies to ride-sharing services.

It wasn’t a big surprise. AB5 (Assembly Bill 5) was specifically targeted at Uber Technologies (ticker: UBER), Lyft (LYFT), and other services that sign on temporary workers. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September and officially went into effect Jan. 1.

Uber and Lyft have resisted implementing the law, which would almost certainly raise their labor costs. The companies have said it would result in a smaller number of drivers with reduced flexibility to set their hours. In May, the California attorney general, along with the city attorneys for Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, sued Uber and Lyft seeking to force them to comply.

There are other legal cases at play: As the commission noted in its ruling yesterday, Uber has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement, while a group of Lyft drivers has sued in federal court seeking an order requiring Lyft to comply with AB5 and to reclassify all of its drivers as employees.

Meanwhile, Uber, Lyft, and the food-delivery service DoorDash have teamed up on a proposition to be included on the November 2020 election ballot that would exclude all app-based drivers from the provisions of AB5.

The commission ruled Wednesday that “the presence of these lawsuits and ballot measure does not mean that the Commission can abdicate its regulatory responsibility over TNCs [transportation network companies, i.e., ride-sharing services]. As a matter of California constitutional law, the Commission is tasked with enforcing those laws applicable to the entities subject to its jurisdiction until such time as a higher court, the legislature, or the public through their right to vote, determine otherwise. Thus, for now, TNC drivers are presumed to be employees and the Commission must ensure that TNCs comply with those requirements that are applicable to the employees of an entity subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

Yesterday’s ruling comes one week after the commission sent a memo to the ride-sharing companies pointing out that under state law, they need to provide workers’ compensation coverage for their employees—which includes their drivers under AB5. Failure to comply could result in suspension of the company’s ability to provide services in the state […]
via California Orders Uber and Lyft to Treat Drivers as Employees — Uber Lyft Drivers.com

Last Refuge

Yesterday the Minneapolis city council voted to disband the police.  Today they voted to establish a new public safety system based on the equities of all persons within the city; a greater need for social justice; and the dignified contribution of all life-forms.

The ‘imagine justice‘ concept is predicated on all elements within the society agreeing to a social compact of equity and collective peace.  This will be interesting to watch, and may not end the way the group intends.

(Reuters) – The Minneapolis City Council on Friday unanimously passed a resolution to pursue a community-led public safety system to replace the police department following the death of George Floyd at the hands of the city’s police.

The move comes days after a veto-proof majority of the council voted to disband the police department. […] According to the resolution, the city council will begin a year-long process of engaging “with every willing community member in Minneapolis” to come up with a new public safety model […]

via Minneapolis Votes For New “Community Safety System” to Replace Disbanded Police Force… — The Last Refuge

Keith Preston

There are plenty of Antifa, boogaloos/accelerationists, “white supremacists,” “anarchists,” etc. involved in this but there is not anywhere near enough of them to make an insurrection this large happen. All of these “extremist” groups are just a side issue that is barely relevant at all. This is a popular rebellion against the police state, a replay of 1968, or an intensified 1992.

From  Jeremy Herb, Evan Perez, Donie O’Sullivan and Mark Morales:

Keith Preston

If you’re not following the Swann Street siege story this morning, it’s incredible.

Yesterday evening, D.C. police forced a large group of peaceful protesters and demonstrators into a residential neighborhood in a tactic known as “kettling.”

via Direct Action Wins Again

RT | June 6, 2020

The National Endowment for Democracy, a soft-power group mostly known for splashing government dollars on pro-US influence campaigns overseas to enforce regime change, has endorsed protests against police brutality at home.

In a statement on Friday, the NED came out in support of the protests against the police killing of unarmed black man George Floyd, which, while originally peaceful, spiralled into violence, wrecking havoc across dozens of US cities. The group, which styles itself as a “private and nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world” but is notorious for being used as a vehicle of US foreign policy abroad, said that it hopes that the movement for racial justice in the US will inspire other “brave people” to challenge the status quo all around the globe.

“Such a movement is needed not just for the sake of our own country, but for the benefit of brave people on the frontlines of democratic struggles around the world.”

In its emphatic endorsement of the ongoing protests, marred by looting, arson and numerous instances of violence, the group equated its doing of Washington’s bidding abroad with the civil rights movement that brought the system of legal segregation in the US to its formal end, arguing that the NED’s mission is “based on the same values of freedom and human equality.”

In a not so thinly-veiled innuendo, the group, which is sponsored by the US Congress and is backed by both Republican and Democratic parties, expressed hope that the events in the US could ignite similar movements elsewhere.

“May the present crisis lead to the realization of the ideals that animate our democracy, and may this give hope to those in other countries who share our commitment to freedom and human dignity.”

The NED, founded in 1983, has courted controversy for using its US government allocated resources for encouraging regime change in countries that refuse to toe Washington’s line, like  Russia and China. The group, along with other US-based “NGOs” supported the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine and later funneled millions of freedom dollars to the country ahead of the 2014 anti-Russian coup that brought down Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovych.

In 2015, Moscow designated the NED’s activities as “undesirable” after it was found to have sponsored political campaigns aimed at influencing the Russian government’s decisions, including discrediting the nation’s military forces and the results of elections.

The outlet has also been caught red-handed stirring anti-Beijing sentiment  in Hong Kong, drawing fire from the Chinese government. In December 2019, Beijing sanctioned the NED along with several other US-affiliated organizations, accusing them of  “horrible activities in the months-long turmoil in the city” […]

via George Floyd protest is ‘for the benefit’ of ‘democratic struggles’ abroad, says US group known for promoting regime change

By TS on June 4, 2020 • ( 0 )

via After Massive Uprising, City Council Members Look to Entirely Disband Minneapolis PD — The Mad Truther | A Sweet Dose of Reality