

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Senate Finance Committee investigation into several high-profile TV ministries went badly off track when staffers recommended that Congress repeal a federal ban on partisan politicking by churches and other non-profit groups, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) announced in 2007 that committee staff would investigate six TV ministries that might have been abusing their non-profit status. A staff memo delivered to Grassley yesterday reports on the findings, including lack of cooperation from four of the six ministries being examined.
But the report also includes a recommendation that the Congress do away with the federal tax law ban on partisan political activity by non-profit groups.
"I have to wonder what these Senate staffers could possibly be thinking with this breathtakingly wrong-headed suggestion," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "It's a sign that this investigation has gone seriously off course."
Lynn noted that the investigation got under way because of allegations that several high-profile TV preachers were abusing non-profit status by living lavishly while raking in millions tax-free every year. Issues of church-based politicking had not been raised during the investigation.
Lynn said if the ministries were abusing non-profit status, then more accountability and oversight might be in order. Yet Grassley's staffers have recommended doing away with the "no electioneering" rule, which would only turn these same ministries loose in the world of partisan politics to do what they will with little or no oversight.
"If these multi-million-dollar ministries are already misusing their donations for personal gain, imagine how much more dangerous they would be operating in the world of partisan politics," said Lynn. "I don't want to see Pat Robertson and other TV preachers using their tax-exempt empires to give backing to favored candidates, and I don't think most other Americans want that either."
Under current federal law, all non-profit groups holding a 501(c)(3) tax exemption are forbidden to intervene in partisan elections. This ensures that money donated to these groups is used for charitable purposes, not political ones.
Scrapping this rule, Lynn said, would open the door to the politicization of America's religious organizations and wreak havoc with campaign-finance reporting laws.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
"I don't know how a DC jury would convict," said one resident who was not selected to serve on the jury.
The trial of Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in protest in early August, began Monday, weeks after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure a felony indictment.
Dunn, who is now facing a misdemeanor assault charge, has become a symbol of public resistance to and disdain for President Donald Trump's deployment of masked federal immigration agents to the streets of US cities.
DC residents who were not chosen to serve on the jury for the trial expressed deep skepticism that the latest attempt to indict Dunn would end any differently than the first.
"How is that an assault?” one DC woman asked of Dunn's sandwich throw, which was caught on video. Before hurling the sandwich, Dunn screamed at the agents and called them "fascists."
Another person who was not selected to serve on the jury told CNN that they "don't know how a DC jury would convict."
The trial is expected to be quick. The judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, called it "the simplest case in the world" and predicted a two-day trial.
Dunn's lawyers have argued in court that the Trump administration's prosecution attempts amount to "a blatant abuse of power."
"The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical—were it not for the
unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn," Dunn's lawyers said. "Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it."
"He should have died in The Hague," said one journalist.
Dick Cheney, a chief architect of the US invasion of Iraq and broader "war on terror" that has killed millions of people since its inception, has died at 84, his family announced in a statement Tuesday.
Cheney was best known for his central role in the administration of former President George W. Bush, under whom Cheney served as vice president.
An unapologetic advocate of preemptive war and torture in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Cheney was widely regarded as a war criminal who should have faced international prosecution.
"He should have died in The Hague," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the news of Cheney's death.
Cheney's family said he died "due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease."
"While the Loss and Damage Fund sits almost empty, oil and gas companies are investing more than $60 billion each year into new exploration," said one campaigner.
The fossil fuel industry is "racing toward climate breakdown with its foot on the accelerator," said one official at the German environmental rights group Urgewald on Tuesday as the group released its Global Oil and Gas Exit List.
The report shows that as world leaders prepare to meet in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate summit, any discussion they have there regarding a green transition is being undercut by massive expansion in oil and gas extraction and production, including in the fracking and liquefied natural gas (LNG) industries.
Four years after the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated that no new oil and gas fields have a place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C—marking global energy experts' public endorsement of warnings that had come from climate scientists for years prior—96% of fossil fuel firms are exploring and developing new oil and gas resources, said Urgewald.
Short-term expansion is up 33% since 2021, when the IEA issued its warning, with fossil fuel giants planning to bring 256 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent (bboe) into production in the coming years.
Five companies account for about one-third of global short-term expansion: QatarEnergy (26.2 bboe), Saudi Aramco (18.0 bboe), ADNOC in the United Arab Emirates (13.8 bboe), Russian state-owned entity Gazprom (13.4 bboe) and US firm ExxonMobil (9.7 bboe).
Nils Bartsch, head of oil and gas research at Urgewald, said the largest fossil fuel companies in the world "are treating the Paris Agreement like a polite suggestion, not a survival plan."
The analysis comes a decade after 195 countries signed the legally binding Paris Agreement, committing to develop and implement national climate action plans to draw down fossil fuel emissions.
"With 256 billion barrels of new projects on the table, this is not a transition—it is defiance," said Bartsch.
The Paris Agreement also included a demand for wealthy countries to contribute funds to help the Global South mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency, and annual UN conferences have addressed climate finance, but the industry is still spending about 75 times more on oil and gas exploration than governments have pledged to the UN Loss and Damage Fund, according to the report.
On average, companies listed in the Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) spent an average of $60.3 billion over the last three years on oil and gas expansion.
“Brazil is showing an alarming level of climate hypocrisy—presenting itself as a climate leader at COP30 while allowing oil and gas expansion right at the summit’s doorstep, threatening one of our most fragile ecosystems."
The US has pledged just 17.5 million to the Loss and Damage Fund, while two of its biggest fossil fuel companies, Chevron and ExxonMobil, have spent $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion on oil and gas exploration, respectively, in the last three years.
"While the Loss and Damage Fund sits almost empty, oil and gas companies are investing more than $60 billion each year into new exploration, exacerbating the problem the fund is meant to alleviate. This is financial and moral negligence. Regulators and supervisory authorities need to start treating this as a risk, not a footnote," said Fiona Hauke, oil and gas researcher and financial regulation expert at Urgewald.
The report was released a week before world leaders are scheduled to meet in Belém, Brazil for the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), even as state-owned fossil fuel company Petrobras begins drilling in Foz do Amazonas Basin in the fragile, biodiverse Amazon rainforest.
Petrobras was named in GOGEL as the 15th largest fossil fuel exporter worldwide, currently spending $1.1 billion annually searching for new reserves, as Brazil prepares to host a meeting that is meant to focus on implementing emissions reduction plans.
“Brazil is showing an alarming level of climate hypocrisy—presenting itself as a climate leader at COP30 while allowing oil and gas expansion right at the summit’s doorstep, threatening one of our most fragile ecosystems,” said Nicole Oliveira, executive director of the Arayara International Institute in Brazil.
GOGEL also pointed to oil and gas expansion in the US under the Trump administration, with the US overtaking China as the number-one developer of gas-fired power even as a recent UN and World Bank report found that nine out of 10 renewable energy projects are cheaper than even the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives.
The US is home to the largest LNG export developer worldwide, Venture Global, as companies are planning an export capacity of around 847 million tons per year—a 171% increase from current operational capacity.
Urgewald noted that even TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné recently acknowledged that the LNG sector is "building too much."
"Analysts warn that if current plans proceed, the world could face an oversupplied gas market within five years, with far more capacity than global demand can absorb," reads GOGEL. "Yet despite industry leaders acknowledging the risk, investment continues."
"US fracking companies are producing far more gas than they can sell domestically," adds the report, noting that the country is turning to Mexico as an export platform. "Now faced with a flood of excess gas, companies are racing to build new LNG facilities to liquefy their surplus and push it onto countries around the globe."
Pablo Montaño, director of Conexiones Climáticas, Mexico, said new LNG projects "are not for the benefit of Mexicans."
"They will import fracked gas from the US, liquefy it in Mexico and send it straight to Asia. Gas liquefaction is an incredibly dirty business," he said.
Despite clear warnings from energy and climate experts, said Cathy Collentine, Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign director at the Sierra Club in the US, "fossil fuel expansion continues to put communities and the climate at risk."
"Under the Trump administration," she said, "we are seeing a disregard for both to do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas."