September, 11 2024, 08:29am EDT
Oil Change U.S. Response to Presidential Debate
PHILADELPHIA
In response to tonight’s presidential debate, Allie Rosenbluth, Campaign Manager at Oil Change U.S., released the following statement:
“Tonight, both candidates bragged about their support for fracking and record fossil fuel production — dangerous positions that will keep us on the path towards catastrophic climate impacts and continue exposing frontline communities to deadly levels of fossil fuel pollution. The science is clear that the only way to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is to phase out fossil fuels.
“We expect this from Donald Trump, a walking oil spill who openly promised fossil fuel CEOs he would shred all environmental protections in exchange for $1 billion in campaign donations. If elected, Trump would sell our future to fossil fuel barons, threaten our democracy, demonize immigrants and LGTBQ+ people, and further erode reproductive rights.
“Kamala Harris promised to turn the page and chart a better future. That means taking decisive action to end fossil fuels and ensuring a just transition to renewable energy. We need a climate president — one who will invest in clean energy, end fossil fuel subsidies, and phase out fossil fuels to protect the communities most exposed to oil and gas pollution and the climate crisis. It’s time for Harris to show she can be that president.”
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
‘We’re Going to Come After You’: Casar Puts Corporate Interests on Notice With Affordability Agenda
“We need to fight against Trump, but we need to do more than that and fight against the big corporations that are screwing you over," says the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Apr 29, 2026
The leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a message on Wednesday to corporations that are hiking prices on American consumers at the gas pump, the grocery store, the medicine counter, and elsewhere: "We're going to come after you."
In an interview with Common Dreams shortly after the CPC unveiled its New Affordability Agenda, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said he believes American voters across the political spectrum are hungry for a concrete policy platform that takes aim at the corporate forces driving price increases across the economy, from the for-profit utility companies raking in huge profits off the backs of struggling families to oil titans reaping massive windfall gains thanks to war-driven oil price surges.
"Look, I smell blood in the water," Casar said of the current political moment, marked by rising public anger against corporate price gouging that's fueling the nation's cost-of-living crisis.
"Let's take this opportunity to finally build a new consensus within the Democratic Party that we should be uninvited from those lobbyist dinners and instead do what the voters are asking us to do," added Casar, who is partnering with Rep. Josh Riley (D-NY)—a swing-seat representative and member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition—on a new bill to crack down on utility giants' price increases.
That's just one element of the CPC's new 10-plank agenda, which aims to unify Democrats behind a set of popular policy demands ahead of the 2026 midterms. The agenda includes legislation to challenge the pharmaceutical industry's monopoly control over medicine production, confront price-fixing schemes by large grocery chains, profiteering by oil giants, and prohibit unlimited election spending by corporate groups and billionaires hell-bent on maintaining the status quo that enriched them.
"I welcome their hatred," Casar said of the corporate forces standing in the way of the affordability platform, in a nod to Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous line.
"In my lifetime," Casar continued, "a populist anti-corporate message has not been the priority of most of the Democratic Party, and this has to be our chance to change it, because the past has failed us. And that's why we have this new agenda."
Casar stressed that the 10th and final plank of the New Affordability Agenda—"Getting Big Money Out of Politics"—is critical because "corporations being able to buy politicians and buy elections is a huge driver of what's made things more expensive."
The plank calls for passage of Rep. Summer Lee's Abolish Super PACs Act, which would cap contributions to super PACs at $5,000 per calendar year. Super PACs, an outgrowth of the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens United decision, can currently raise and spend unlimited sums on political campaigns, giving them massive sway over elections.
Casar said Lee's bill would effectively render super PACs "useless, and no different from any other PAC."
"There are going to be a lot of corporate interests who just want Democrats to say the word 'affordability,' but not do much about it. And we have to recognize it's been many of those corporate interests that have gotten us into the problem here in the first place," Casar told Common Dreams. "We've got to have a plan that wins over the voters, because I would rather have the voters than the money."
"This is our chance to move the party. We can’t wait until we’re in the majority to start taking on these interests."
The bills that make up the CPC's agenda stand no realistic chance of passage as long as Republicans control at least one chamber of Congress or the presidency. This is true despite the popularity of the progressive platform among voters across the ideological spectrum—including among those who backed President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
New polling by Data for Progress shows that every plank of the New Affordability Agenda won "majority support from at least 3 in 5 voters." Among Trump voters, the CPC's proposals to guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to all full-time workers and combat price hikes by for-profit utility companies enjoy at least 75% support.
The broad appeal of the policy agenda makes sense, said Casar, given that much of it grew out of "progressives doing town halls in Republican-controlled districts where voters say that they're already sick and tired of Trump's lies, but they want to know whether the Democratic Party's really going to fight for them."
"We need to fight against Trump, but we need to do more than that and fight against the big corporations that are screwing you over," said Casar. "Trump voters and progressive voters want to see us crack down on the utility companies that are jacking up your bills. They want to see us crack down on Big Pharma, which is driving up the cost of prescription drugs. And so we're using this agenda to say that Democrats have to get away from big donors and fancy parties and start doing something to take on the billionaires and corporations who are ripping people off."
The New Affordability Agenda is already facing some opposition with entrenched elements of the Democratic establishment, such as the corporate-funded centrist think tank Third Way. Jim Kessler, the group's executive vice president for policy, told The New York Times that "there’s obvious things to do on affordability that they ducked," such as repealing Trump's far-reaching tariffs. (Casar responded that "of course progressives have been for getting rid of" Trump's "reckless" tariffs.)
The Times reported that Kessler also claimed the CPC agenda was missing "more ambitious changes necessary to reduce costs, such as overhauling regulations."
"I understand that corporate funded think tanks have to try to say something negative here," Casar replied, "but [Kessler] didn't sound like he opposed anything in the agenda."
The criticism from Third Way underscores another obstacle in the way of enacting the New Affordability Agenda, even if Republicans are swept from power: corporate-friendly congressional Democrats.
Asked if the CPC agenda has garnered support from the upper ranks of the Democratic Party, Casar said he is "talking to leadership and rank-and-file members about changing not just our message, but also our priorities as a party."
"This is our chance to move the party. We can't wait until we're in the majority to start taking on these interests," said Casar. "We have to organize across the party to get all kinds of Democrats onto these bills. We have to campaign on these ideas and then push to get them on the House floor and passed next year under a Democratic majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Who Are You Cheering For?' Hegseth Suggests US Lawmaker Is a Traitor for Criticizing Trump's Iran War
Rep. John Garamendi on Tuesday described Trump's war as "nothing short of a self-inflicted national security and economic disaster."
Apr 29, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday lashed out at a Democratic lawmaker over his criticism of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth attacked Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) for describing the Iran War, which Trump launched in late February without any authorization from Congress, as a "quagmire."
"You stain the troops when you tell them, two months in, two months in, congressman, shame on you, calling this a quagmire," Hegseth said. "The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield to create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies!"
Hegseth attacks Garamendi: "You stain the troops when you call this a quagmire two months in, handing propaganda to our enemies. Shame on you. Don't say I support the troops on one hand, and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalation [sic]. Who are you… pic.twitter.com/WhsjEE3nbH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 29, 2026
Hegseth continued by saying that calling the war a quagmire was "reckless to our troops," and then asked the congressman, "Who are you cheering for here?"
After questioning Garamendi's patriotism, Hegseth told the California Democrat that "your hatred for President Trump blinds you to the truth of the success of this mission, and the historic stakes that the president is addressing."
Hegseth's tirade against Garamendi came after the congressman on Tuesday introduced a new war powers resolution aimed at ending the Iran war.
"Trump’s war is nothing short of a self-inflicted national security and economic disaster," Garamendi said in explaining his support for the resolution. "Thirteen American servicemembers and thousands of Iranian civilians have been killed. Americans, who are already plagued by one of the worst affordability crises in years, are now paying unconscionable amounts for a tank of gas and are struggling to keep food on the table."
Later in the hearing, Hegseth was confronted by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) about the strategic failures of the war, particularly the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has resulted in global oil and gas prices spiking upward.
Hegseth dismisses concerns over the Strait of Hormuz being closed because the US blockaded Iran’s blockade
Moulton: So they blockaded us, and then we blockaded their blockade—that's like if President Madison had said, well, the British just burned down Washington, but don't… pic.twitter.com/PuK4A3gtHS
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 29, 2026
"Would you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning?" Moulton asked.
"Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or out of the Iranian port..." Hegseth responded, before being interrupted by Moulton.
"OK, we we blockaded their blockade," Moulton said. "They blockaded us, and then we blockaded their blockade—that's like saying, 'Tag, you're it,' or like if President Madison had said, well, the British just burned down Washington, but don't worry, we're going to burn it down as well."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Comey Indictment Called 'New Low' for White House 'At War with First Amendment'
"This is embarrassing for America," said one First Amendment advocate.
Apr 29, 2026
As the corporate media joins the White House in a new round of accusations against critics of President Donald Trump in the wake of an attempted attack on the White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week—with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche blaming anti-Trump "rhetoric" for the violence at the event—the administration on Tuesday unveiled a new indictment of longtime Trump foe James Comey in what legal experts called a transparent attack on the First Amendment.
At a press conference held by Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, the officials made the case—without presenting specific evidence—that a federal grand jury in North Carolina had indicted former FBI chief Comey because he'd "knowingly and willfully [made] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon" Trump in May 2025 in a photo he posted on Instagram.
The picture showed seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47."
Trump is the 47th president of the United States, and the slang term "86" means "to get rid of," originating in the 1930s. According to Merriam-Webster, the term began being used as a verb in the 1950s when restaurants and bars used it to mean refusing service to a customer or throwing them out of an establishment. That use of the term is still the most common, according to the dictionary, which wrote: "Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of 'to kill.' We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use."
Comey quickly deleted his post last May, which he said he had shared after finding the seashells in the arrangement during a walk on a beach. The former FBI director said he deleted that post after realizing "some folks associate those numbers with violence," and said he opposes violence "of any kind."
Nevertheless, the indictment handed down on Tuesday reads that the shells were “arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,' which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States.”
Comey was charged with one count of making threats against Trump and one count of transmitting a threat across state lines.
Federal officials issued a warrant for Comey's arrest, but Blanche did not say whether any court dates had been scheduled in the case.
The indictment was dismissed by several legal experts, with prosecutors within the US Department of Justice reportedly calling it "the flimsiest federal indictment in memory," according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. Building a case based solely on an image of seashells will be an uphill battle for the DOJ, particularly considering First Amendment protections on speech.
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called the indictment "laughably ludicrous" and a "political act masquerading as an indictment," while US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) condemned the president for using the DOJ as his "personal attack dog, using taxpayer money to settle Trump's petty grievances."
This is the second federal indictment that's been handed down by the DOJ for Comey in seven months. Last September he was indicted on two counts of lying to Congress during a testimony he gave in 2020 regarding the FBI's handling of its investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign's ties to Russia.
The DOJ indicted Comey in that case even though a Trump-appointed US attorney had concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him; the president later forced the prosecutor out of his job. A judge ultimately threw out the indictment, ruling that the prosecutor's replacement had been unlawfully appointed to oversee the case.
Both cases have come years after Trump, during his first term, fired Comey as FBI director over the agency's investigation into his 2016 campaign.
Conservative lawyer Gregg Nunziata of the Society for the Rule of Law called the latest indictment of Comey "legally deficient" and a "scandalous marker of a president and his administration corruptly using government power to punish dissent."
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted that the administration has "repeatedly pursued criminal charges (or other punishments) against political opponents for their speech, at a level not seen since the most censorious days of the early 20th century," including by attempting to charge members of Congress for reminding service members they are obligated to disobey illegal orders.
"In an administration at war with the First Amendment," said Reichlin-Melnick, "this is a new low."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular