October, 14 2008, 02:38pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Leda Huta, Endangered Species Coalition, 202-320-6467
Susan Holmes, Earthjustice, 202-667-4500, ext 204
Andrew Wetzler, Natural Resources Defense Council, 312-780-7429
James Navarro, Defenders of Wildlife, 202-772-0247
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club, 415-977-5619
Colin Durrant, Conservation Law Foundation, 617-850-1722
Over 100,000 Americans Oppose Bush Endangered Species Rewrite
Members of Congress and Citizen Organizations Urge Administration to Withdraw Regulations that Undermine the Endangered Species Act
WASHINGTON
Today more than 100,000 citizens opposed
the Bush Administration's attempts to severely weaken the Endangered Species
Act.
"In the midst of a financial crisis,
it is incredible that Americans, despite their numerous other worries, rose up
and declared that they wanted an end to the destruction of endangered species
protections. To think that more
than 100,000 individuals took notice and opposed these regulations being pushed
through by Bush, Cheney and company is astounding. Demonstrating such massive opposition
ensures that Bush and friends will not be able to go quietly into the night
while destroying one of our country's greatest wilderness laws," said Leda Huta, Executive Director of the
Endangered Species Coalition.
Representatives from the Endangered Species
Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Sierra Club,
National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
delivered over 100,000 comments emailed in from Americans of all walks of life
after the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration refused to accept public comments in the form of e-mails or
faxes.
"Over 100,000 people around the country are
telling the Bush administration to abandon its last-ditch attempts to
remove protections for our nation's wildlife and wild places," said Melissa
Waage at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "With only three months left in
office, President Bush should consider his legacy on the environment and take
steps to protect our endangered species, not harm them. Public reaction has been
swift and clear: diminishing protections for our endangered species will not be
tolerated."
The Bush administration proposals
would significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act. According to a Congressional Research
Service report, the proposed regulations may violate the Endangered Species Act,
allow federal actions to proceed that would harm endangered species and create
more work for federal agencies, not less, as the Administration claims.
"The Bush administration proposal
eliminates the critical checks and balances needed to protect endangered species
and cuts scientists from the process of making decisions that need to be
science-based," said Mike Daulton, with National Audubon Society.
"In its waning days in office,
the Bush administration is trying to fast track oil drilling, mining, logging
and development by stripping away protections for our public lands and wildlife
heritage," stated Matthew Kirby with Sierra Club. "The Bush administration has
attempted to unravel the Endangered Species Act quietly and without notice. It
isn't working. Tens of thousands of Americans have already demanded protection
for this cornerstone environmental law."
Over 80 Members of Congress also sent a
letter asking the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed regulations and
the Senate attempted to hold a hearing to delve into them more deeply.
"The
wildlife agencies are the 'keepers of the flame' for our threatened and
endangered wildlife. They are the only experts equipped to make decisions based
on looking at the whole picture for a species, and taking them out of the
decision-making process is the height of recklessness," said Jamie Rappaport
Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. "The danger that these
proposed changes spell for imperiled wildlife is clear, not only to us but to
the thousands of Americans who have urged the Bush administration to drop these
proposals."
"Such a major change to a bedrock
environmental law deserves open and honest debate with Congress and the American
public," said Susan Holmes of Earthjustice. "Yet, the administration refused to
defend their proposal by canceling
their scheduled appearance before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
committee last month-a rarely, if ever, seen occurrence. This only demonstrated how desperate
they are to hide their unpopular changes."
Well over 100 conservation, scientific,
education, religious, sporting and community organizations asked the
administration to stop their assault on one of our nation's most important
conservation laws.
"The
Bush administration's proposed wholesale evisceration of the consultation
regulations would have a particularly nefarious impact on our ability to protect
species such as the polar bear from global warming and would allow corrupt
agencies such as the Mineral Management Service to proceed without check, " said
Bill Snape with the Center for Biological Diversity.
"What New
England's imperiled wildlife need is better science-based
management, not less. The Bush proposal takes us in the wrong direction and
would only create more problems for North Atlantic right whales,
Canada lynx and
other imperiled species such as the Atlantic wolffish," said Sean Cosgrove of the Conservation
Law Foundation.
Pictures of the comment delivery
can be found at: https://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/
Video of the comment delivery can
be found at: https://empivot.com/watch.php?mdid=999
The Endangered Species Coalition's mission is to stop the human-caused extinction of our nation's at-risk species, to protect and restore their habitats, and to guide these fragile populations along the road to recovery.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Argue Striking Nigeria Won't 'Make Americans Safer' as US Warns of 'More to Come'
"Seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria," said one legal expert.
Dec 26, 2025
After the Trump administration bombed alleged Islamic State targets in Nigeria on Christmas Day, Gen. Dagvin Anderson of US Africa Command claimed that "our goal is to protect Americans and disrupt violent extremist organizations wherever they are," and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned of "more to come," while critics advocated against any more American violence.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that he launched a "powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!"
Specifically, according to the New York Times, which spoke with an unnamed US military source, "the strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria's Sokoto State."
The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged cooperation with the United States that "includes the exchange of intelligence, strategic coordination, and other forms of support."
However, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar also countered the Trump administration's framing of the airstrikes as part of a battle against a "Christian genocide."
The minister stressed during a Friday appearance on CNN that "terrorism in Nigeria is not a religious conflict; it is a regional security threat."
The Associated Press spoke with residents of Jabo, a village in Sokoto, about the confusion and panic spurred by the strikes:
They... said the village had never been attacked by armed gangs as part of the violence the US says is widespread, though such attacks regularly occur in neighboring villages.
"As it approached our area, the heat became intense," recalled Abubakar Sani, who lives just a few houses from the scene of the explosion.
"Our rooms began to shake, and then fire broke out," he told AP. "The Nigerian government should take appropriate measures to protect us as citizens. We have never experienced anything like this before."
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a US think tank that that promotes restraint, and diplomacy, said in a statement that "the US action taken in Nigeria while Americans celebrated the Christmas holiday is an unnecessary and unjustified use of US military force that violates Mr. Trump's promises to his supporters to put American interests first and avoid risky and wasteful military campaigns abroad."
As Common Dreams reported after the strikes, despite dubbing himself the "most anti-war president in history" and even seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has now bombed not only Nigeria but also Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, plus alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, since the start of his first term in 2017.
The Dove
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) December 25, 2025 at 9:06 PM
"Airstrikes in Nigeria will not make Americans safer, no matter the target," Kavanagh argued. "There are no real US interests at stake in Nigeria, a country that is an ocean and over 5,000 miles away. The country is home to a long-running insurgency, but violence and unrest in Nigeria pose no threat to the US homeland or national security interests abroad. Furthermore, despite Mr. Trump's claims, there is no evidence that Christians are targeted by Nigeria's extremist groups at a rate higher than any other religious or ethnic group in the country. Killings of civilians, to the extent they occur, are indiscriminate."
As CNN reported:
"Yes, these (extremist) groups have sadly killed many Christians. However, they have also massacred tens of thousands of Muslims," said Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian human rights advocate specializing in security and development.
He added that attacks in public spaces disproportionately harm Muslims, as these radical groups operate in predominantly Muslim states...
Out of more than 20,400 civilians killed in attacks between January 2020 and September 2025, 317 deaths were from attacks targeting Christians while 417 were from attacks targeting Muslims, according to crisis monitoring group Armed Conflict Location & Event Data.
Kavanagh noted that "the United States has been conducting strikes on ISIS and other terrorist group targets in Africa now for over two decades and the number and power of militant groups on the continent has only increased. The whack-a-mole strategy is ineffective at controlling insurgencies or eliminating terrorist groups. It also needlessly expends scarce US resources and does so at a time when Americans are concerned about economic challenges at home."
"Chasing terrorist groups around the globe is the opposite of the 'America First' foreign policy voters expected when they returned Mr. Trump to the White House," she added. "To keep his commitment, he must make the attack in Nigeria a one-off."
Medea Benjamin of the anti-war group CodePink similarly says in a video shared on social media Friday: "We have to ask, is this Donald Trump's idea of America First? The American people do not want to be dragged into yet another conflict, and this was done without congressional approval, without public debate, without any transparency."
Former libertarian US Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has also emphasized in multiple social media posts since Thursday that "to carry out an offensive military action in another country, the approval the president of the United States needs is from the Congress of the United States, not from a foreign government."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group and nonresident senior fellow at the New York University School of Law, suggested congressional action, saying that it "seems like the Armed Services committees ought to do some oversight regarding the expensive and pointless Christmas fireworks display in Nigeria."
Meanwhile, progressive campaigner Melissa Byrne asked, "What kind of Christianity murders people on Christmas?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Becomes First Nation to Recognize Somaliland—But Still Rejects Palestine
One foreign policy analyst said that Israel views Somaliland as a "strategic location as a launch pad for strikes on Yemen and potentially a place to forcibly 'relocate' Palestinians to."
Dec 26, 2025
Israel became the first nation to recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state on Friday, a move that was met with criticism from international observers who questioned its continued unwillingness to recognize a Palestinian state.
Somaliland, a breakaway region in the north of Somalia that is home to more than 6 million people, declared independence in 1991, but until now, no United Nations member states have recognized its claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described his government's recognition of the territory as being “in the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” a deal brokered by US President Donald Trump for Israel to normalize relations with some of its Arab neighbors, which has itself been accused of disregarding the issue of Palestinian sovereignty.
Speaking over a video call with Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, the president of Somaliland, Netanyahu said he was signing "Israel's official recognition of Somaliland and its right of self-determination," calling the friendship between the two nations "seminal and historic."
In a statement, Abdullahi said Israel's recognition "represents a milestone in Somaliland's long-standing pursuit of international legitimacy, reaffirming its historical, legal, and moral entitlement to statehood."
However, a report from the Guardian suggested that Israel's recognition of Somaliland has less to do with the self-determination of its people than with Israel's military interests. It cited a November report from a prominent Israeli think tank, which argued that Somaliland could be used as a base of military operations against Yemen's Houthis.
Somaliland, located in the horn of Africa just south of the Arabian Peninsula, already hosts an air base that the United Arab Emirates has used to conduct operations against the Yemeni militant group, which—until a "ceasefire" agreement was reached in October—launched regular attacks on Israel and its vessels in the Red Sea in what it said was an effort to pressure it to stop its genocidal military campaign in Gaza.
Egypt and Turkey condemned Israel's agreement with Somaliland, saying, "This initiative by Israel, which aligns with its expansionist policy and its efforts to do everything to prevent the recognition of a Palestinian state, constitutes overt interference in Somalia’s domestic affairs.”
Foreign ministers for the two nations joined those of Somalia and neighboring Djibouti on a call following the development, where they called for the continued unity of Somalia as an institution and condemned Israel's efforts "to displace the Palestinian people from their land."
Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, pointed out on social media that, in August, Netanyahu met with Somaliland's leadership "offering recognition in exchange for helping Israel to illegally deport Palestinians from Gaza."
Somaliland was one of many nations reportedly approached by Israel to warehouse Palestinians exiled from the strip permanently—others included Indonesia, Uganda, South Sudan, and Libya.
Following reports at the time that Somalia was also in consideration, its president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, responded that "the idea of removing Palestine from their own land and putting them into another, other people’s land—I don’t see that that’s a solution at all."
A senior Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity with Israel's Channel 12 reportedly agreed that Netanyahu's recognition of Somaliland undermines his repeated assertions that there will never be a Palestinian state. As the Times of Israel summarized: "The official... points out that while Israel is the first country to grant recognition to Somaliland, the rest of the world considers the breakaway region an integral part of Somalia."
Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a fellow at the Palestinian Policy Network and a producer at AJ+, said: "To state the obvious, Israel wouldn’t recognize anyone unless there was something in it for them. Israel doesn’t give a shit about Somaliland apart from its strategic location as a launch pad for strikes on Yemen and potentially a place to forcibly 'relocate' Palestinians to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Horrible Racist' Stephen Miller Slammed for Using Classic TV Christmas Special to Bash Immigrants
"Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra would hate Stephen Miller and his politics," said one critic in response to Miller.
Dec 26, 2025
Top Trump White House aide Stephen Miller on Friday elicited disgust after he said that a beloved Christmas television special reminded him of his own personal animus toward immigrants.
Miller, often seen as the architect of President Donald Trump's mass deportation policy, revealed in a post on X that he and his children had just watched "Christmas with The Martins and The Sinatras," a one-off 1967 TV holiday special that featured singers Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra.
Miller then quickly pivoted from that to once again bash immigrants who come to the US.
"Imagine watching that," Miller wrote, "and thinking America needed infinity migrants from the third world."
As Rolling Stone politics reporter Nikki McCann Ramírez pointed out in response, both Martin and Sinatra both had parents who were first-generation Italian immigrants.
"Dean Martin was born Dino Paul Crocetti and gave himself a stage name because of braindead xenophobes like Stephen," McCann Ramírez observed. "Sinatra was also a child of Italian immigrants. Imagine watching them and thinking immigrants didn’t build the culture you fetishize today."
A similar point was made by civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill in a post on Bluesky.
"Imagine watching Sinatra, son of Dolly and Antonini born in Genoa and Sicily, respectively," she wrote, "and Martin, son of Gaetano and Angela, born in Montesilvano, Italy and Ohio respectively... and crusading against the value of children of immigrants to the US."
Journalist and author Jeff Yang added some historical context to Miller's remarks by noting that Italian immigrants in the early and middle decades of the 20th century faced many of the same stereotypes that Miller and his political allies ascribe to immigrants from Latin America.
"A reminder," Yang wrote, while also posting old cartoons that featured racist depictions of Italians, "that Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra’s parents emigrated here during a period when Italians were considered to be a genetically inferior and criminal-minded underclass that Stephen Miller’s racist predecessors said should be excluded from America."
Yang added that Frank Sinatra's mother "ran an underground free abortion clinic, chained herself to a fence to fight for women’s suffrage, and was an extremely influential organizer for the Democratic Party."
Princeton University historian Kevin Kruse promoted Yang's thread that demonstrated Miller's apparent ignorance of Dean and Sinatra's family histories, and said it showed the Trump adviser is "a horrible racist in the sense that he is actually not that good at being racist."
Tim Wise, a senior fellow at the African American Policy Forum, managed to find an upside to Miller's holiday-themed anti-immigrant rant.
"The one silver lining in all this sickness is that one day your children will despise you as much as most of America already does," he commented.
Film producer Franklin Leonard was even more succinct in his response to Miller.
"Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra would hate Stephen Miller and his politics," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


