April, 30 2009, 01:23pm EDT
Congress and California Legislature Speak Out for Polar Bears: Letters Seek Revocation of Damaging Bush Rule
WASHINGTON
In a remarkable show of support for the polar bear,
41 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 members of the California legislature submitted letters to Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar requesting that he revoke a Bush administration rule
limiting protections for the Arctic's
top predator under the Endangered Species Act. Salazar has until May 9 to
repeal the Bush polar bear rule pursuant to special authority granted to him by
Congress in the Omnibus Appropriations Act. While Salazar and Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke announced the repeal of a separate, nationwide Bush
Endangered Species Act regulation on Monday, Salazar has yet to commit to
revoking the damaging polar bear rule.
"More than 75 lawmakers in Congress and the California
legislature have asked Secretary Salazar to take the common-sense step of
revoking Bush's polar bear extinction plan by the May 9 deadline,"
said Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for
Biological Diversity.
The Arctic sea ice on which the polar bear depends is
melting far faster than projected, and some leading scientists now believe that
the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012 - a complete
disaster for the polar bear and many other ice-dependent species, including walrus
and ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon seals. The U.S. Geological Survey
projects that two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by
mid-century if current greenhouse emissions continue.
While the Bush administration was compelled by the law to
list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming, it
weakened that listing by enacting the special rule to reduce the protections
the polar bear would otherwise receive and exempt greenhouse gas emissions from
regulation.
The House letter, led by Rep. Jay Inslee and Rep. Ed Markey,
states that "The polar bear 4(d) rulemaking, which allowed public input
only after an interim final regulation had already been put in place, ignores
the law's mandate to adopt all measures necessary for the conservation of
threatened species and denies protections that normally are afforded to species
listed as threatened." This sentiment mirrors a similar letter sent last
week by senators Feinstein, Boxer, and Kerry, which is now supported by over a
dozen other senators and urges Salazar to repeal the polar bear global warming
rule issued by Bush.
Last year, the California
state legislature memorialized California's
commitment to protecting the state's wildlife and natural habitats by adopting
a joint resolution calling on the Bush administration to provide federal
Endangered Species Act protections to the polar bear and other wildlife
threatened by global warming. Today's letter builds on that resolution in
calling for the restoration of the protections that polar bears need to
survive.
"Today's letter is a strong signal of California's longtime leadership in
fighting global warming and protecting wildlife and habitats," said
Siegel.
Secretary Salazar has also received more than 200,000 citizen
petitions asking that he revoke the Bush Endangered Species Act and polar bear
rules. If does not rescind the Bush polar bear extinction regulations by
May 9th the rule will remain in effect.
"Secretary Salazar has only a week left to show the America
people whether he is with Bush or the bear," added Siegel.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump Threatens Full Trade Embargo Over Spain's Refusal to Be Complicit in Iran Attacks
Ripping the US president's "flagrant disregard for European sovereignty—and security," co-general coordinator of Progressive International declared: "Close the bases. All of them."
Mar 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to cut off all trade with Spain over the Spanish government's refusal to allow US aircraft to use its military bases for the war that the United States and Israel are waging on Iran.
Speaking with reporters at the White House beside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz just after noon Eastern time, Trump initially signaled that he'd already taken action against Spain, but less than 10 minutes later, the president suggested he was still deciding.
Referring to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was also in the room, Trump said: "Spain has been terrible. In fact, I told Scott to cut off all dealings with Spain."
Trump claimed that "it started" last year, when every other NATO member caved to US pressure to aim for spending 5% of gross domestic product on defense by 2035, "and Spain didn't do it."
"And now Spain actually said that we can't use their bases. And that's all right. We could use their base if we want. We could just fly in and use it. Nobody's going to tell us not to use it. But we don't have to. But they were unfriendly," the president continued. "Spain has absolutely nothing that we need other than great people. They have great people but they don't have great leadership."
Again complaining about their refusal to commit to 5%, he said that "we're gonna cut off all trade with Spain. We don't want anything to do with Spain."
However, just minutes later, while referencing the recent US Supreme Court ruling against his sweeping tariffs, Trump said: "As an example, we talked about Spain. I could, tomorrow, stop, or today even better, stop everything having to do with Spain. All business having to do with Spain, I have the right to stop it—embargoes, do anything I want with it. And we may do that with Spain."
Both sets of remarks were swiftly denounced by a range of critics. The anti-war group CodePink declared: "Ludicrous. The US is threatening to stop all trade with Spain to force them to spend more money in an effective US weapons cartel. This is only normal in a war economy."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, called out Trump's threat to use Spanish bases without permission. Sharing a clip on social media, he said, "Trump openly threatens the territorial sovereignty of yet another NATO ally.
Zeteo journalist Mehdi Hasan similarly responded: "He is a 19th century imperialist. Or at least talks like one and wishes he was one. 'We could just fly in' to Spain, against the wishes of the sovereign national government? That's literally an illegal invasion and brazen violation of international law."
On Monday, David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, welcomed Spain's decision and argued that "Europe should close all of the US bases on its soil."
After Trump's Tuesday comments, Adler said: "Flagrant disregard for European sovereignty—and security. Enough. Close the bases. All of them."
"Holy shit—Trump said this while sitting next to Friedrich Merz?!" he added. "Total European humiliation. Truly abject."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur focused on the occupied Palestinian territories and a target of Trump administration sanctions, responded to the US president by praising the "strength" of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
"The peoples of Europe do not want to be complicit in a system that kills children and protects those who profit from their blood," Albanese said. "Europe deserves better, and you are already part of that change. Thank you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Pentagon Official Does Backflips Trying to Claim US War on Iran Is Not ‘Interventionism’
Grilled by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Pentagon's third-ranking official denied that the US attack on Iran conflicts with the Trump administration's stated National Security Strategy.
Mar 03, 2026
A top Pentagon official attempted to argue during a US Senate hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration's illegal war on Iran, which has included a massive bombing campaign and explicit calls from the president to topple and reshape the country's government, does not constitute "interventionism," "regime change," "nation-building," or "endless war."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) started her questioning of Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy, by quoting from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's summary of his department's 2026 National Defense Strategy, under which he said the Pentagon would no longer "be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation-building."
"Interventionism, that means going to another country and bombing them," said Warren. "Endless wars: wars that may last we don't know how long, because there's no clear endpoint. Regime change, which the president has said this is all about. And nation-building: Evidently, the president seems to think he's going to come in and build a different Iran."
Colby, the third-ranking official at the Pentagon and just one of the high-ranking officials tasked with, tried to dispute that the US assault on Iran—carried out in partnership with Israel—falls under any of those categories.
"I think I would characterize it fundamentally differently," said Colby. "This is certainly not nation-building. This is not gonna be endless."
Watch the full exchange:
Warren: The Trump administration's national defense strategy: No longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building.
Colby: This is not nation building.
Warren: So this is not interventionism?
Colby: No.… pic.twitter.com/CWXNoeCnjV
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 3, 2026
Asked if the assault on Iran is "interventionism," Colby responded, "No... Interventionism is a more, I would say, kind of responsibility to protect or something. I mean it's not, obviously, precisely defined."
"Really? And we didn't do this in order to try to protect Israel?" Warren asked.
"Well, that's one of the goals," Colby said, prompting Warren to respond, "Oh, so it is interventionism."
Warren said the decision to wage war on Iran shows that President Donald Trump and his lackeys are willing to "say one thing in a campaign, write it down on paper, and then go do whatever the hell [they] want."
"So the Trump administration first says it's gonna be America first, then puts out a National Defense Strategy, and then goes to war alongside Israel—illegally, unconstitutionally—and that is now the policy of the Trump administration," the senator said.
During his 2024 election-night victory speech, Trump vowed that he was "not going to start a war," but since taking office he has attacked seven nations: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Venezuela, and Iran.
The assault on Iran, and the killing of its leader, came just weeks after the Trump administration abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—all brazen violations of domestic and international law.
"Trump spent years ranting against the regime change wars started by his predecessors—and the damage they inflicted on Americans," Mohamad Bazzi, director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies, wrote in a Guardian column over the weekend. "On Saturday, he launched his own war in the Middle East, with little hint of how it might end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Poor Jeff’: Sanders Ridicules Bezos-Owned Washington Post for Attacking Billionaire Tax Plan
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I wonder why?"
Mar 03, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders mocked Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after the editorial board of the newspaper owned by the Amazon founder denounced his plan to tax billionaires' wealth.
In an opinion piece published Monday, the Washington Post editorial board accused Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored Sanders' wealth tax plan, of threatening to "strangle America’s golden goose" by hitting billionaires with an annual 5% wealth tax.
"Sanders wants to confiscate 5% of all assets every year from America’s billionaires, with the goal of stealing half their fortunes," the editorial complained. "He estimates, unrealistically, that this could raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years to fund a wish list of progressive fantasies, including something akin to a universal basic income and more government-managed healthcare."
The editorial then argued this was bad because "even for billionaires, a 5% tax on every asset they own would virtually wipe out any gains they make in a normal year," and would force them to sell off some illiquid assets such as "collections of wines, art, jewelry, and yachts" just to make their annual payments to the government.
The editorial concluded by claiming "Sanders and Khanna take as a given the capacity of American capitalism to deliver continuing prosperity, no matter how many anchors they weigh it down with," then warned that "economic history proves that future growth is never guaranteed."
In a social media post, Sanders mocked the Post editors for publishing an opinion piece defending the economic interests of their owner, whose current net worth is estimated by Forbes to be well north of $200 billion.
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," Sanders wrote. "I wonder why? If enacted, Bezos would owe $12 billion in taxes, and an average family of four would receive a $12,000 direct payment. Poor Jeff would be left with just $224 billion to survive."
In a news article about the tax plan published by the Post Monday, Khanna was quoted as saying it was needed to address the historic disparities in wealth that have only grown over the last 50 years.
"This is Sen. Sanders' defining vision for our age," Khanna explained. "It is the most ambitious and transformative legislation for our times to tackle inequality in the New Gilded Age."
Wealth inequality has become so acute that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal in February published a news analysis declaring that billionaires' tax avoidance schemes were "becoming a problem for the economy."
The Journal last month also published an analysis of US wealth inequality by chief economics commentator Greg Ip showing that corporate profits’ share of gross domestic income is now the highest it has been in more than 40 years, while the share of income paid out in workers’ wages is at the lowest.
“Profits have soared since the pandemic, and the market value attached to those profits even more,” wrote Ip. “The result: Capital, which includes businesses, shareholders, and superstar employees, is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular