Neighbor Murdered Over Leaf Blower

On April 12, 2021, a heated disagreement between 79-year-old Ettore Lacchei and 59-year-old William Martys became a fatal tragedy. The dispute occurred in the 40700 block of North Black Oak Avenue in Antioch, Illinois. As the argument over using a leaf blower escalated, Lacchei allegedly turned to gunfire and shot Martys in the head.

When law enforcement arrived, they found first responders and medics providing life-saving measures to Martys. He was later transported to Advocate Condell Medical Center in Libertyville but pronounced dead shortly after arriving. An autopsy conducted the following day revealed the cause of death to be a gunshot wound to the head.

Citing the evidence from a comprehensive investigation, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office determined Lacchei as the shooter and charged him with two counts of first-degree murder.

Detectives indicated that the suspect “had various perceived grievances” with his neighbor, which initiated the violent ending. On April 25, a search warrant was executed, and Lacchei was detained and transported to the Lake County Jail in Waukegan. Judge Theodore Potkonjak denied the suspect bond, and he is set to appear in court again on May 25.

Sheriff Mark Covelli disclosed that confrontations between Lacchei and his neighbors were frequently reported, and he suggested that the lack of protective gun legislation may have catalyzed the deadly incident.

Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart concurred, saying the crime “once again, [demonstrates] easy access to firearms” and that the authorities are devoted to justice for Martys and his family.

The fatal incident between Lacchei and Martys serves as a reminder of how quickly a harmless disagreement can turn into a devastating tragedy due to the presence of a gun. Yet another instance of extreme gun violence underscores the call for stricter gun control laws and mandates.

Police remove Palestinian ‘flags of incitement’ in country’s north

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir applauds the move, having banned the “flag of incitement” as one of his first acts as minister.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

In line with a policy declared months ago by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, police removed Palestinian flags hanging in several northern districts Wednesday, including in Israeli-Arab towns, Channel 14 reported.

This included taking down flags hung along Route 65 near Wadi Ara, in parking lots, and prominently over the building of the Hadash party branch in Nazareth. These were places where the flags had been hanging for years, the report said.

Hadash is a communist, non-Zionist, Arab-Israeli party whose leader, Ayman Odeh, heads the Joint List consisting of several Arab factions in the Knesset. It formally supports the maximalist Palestinian position that Israel should withdraw from all the territories it liberated in the 1967 Six-Day War and make eastern Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state.

“I congratulate the police commissioner and the district commanders for their determined and professional action,” Ben-Gvir said. “Our policy is sharp and clear on this issue as well; we will not allow flags of incitement and support for terrorism on any day, and certainly not on Israeli Independence Day.”

Israel celebrated its 75th Independence Day on Wednesday.

It is not officially illegal to fly the red, green, black and white flag of the Palestinian Authority, and its forerunner, the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Based on the PLO’s use of the flag, Ben-Gvir had announced as one of his first acts as a minister in January that “all police officers of any rank are authorized in the course of police work to pull down flags of the Palestinian Authority” found in any public places, because they are to be considered “a form of supporting terror.”

The flag is also waved by Arab-Israelis in most, if not all, pro-Palestinian demonstrations, such as those by Arab students in Israeli universities when they protest Israel’s establishment on May 15, the Georgian date of independence that Israel’s foes call the Nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”

The police have long had the authority to remove any display if it “threatens public order.” Ben-Gvir believes that any show of the Palestinian flag does exactly that, and the right-wing sector agrees with him.

Matan Peleg, CEO of the Zionist Im Tirtzu movement, said in January that the ban was correct because “it should be understood that the purpose of raising the PLO flag is to rebel against the State of Israel and convey a message that there is room for a terrorist entity within the territory of the state. Today, it is already clear to everyone what the connection is between waving the flag of terror and encouraging the nationalist extremism and violence of Israeli Arabs.”

A bill banning the hoisting of an “enemy flag,” including that of the PLO, in places budgeted or supported by the state, such as universities, passed in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation under the previous government last May but has not progressed yet in the Knesset.

However, the minister may have celebrated a little too early. According to a Haaretz report, police sources said they had removed the flags from the Hadash branch because it was a “provocation” to fly them on Israeli Independence day but they would be returned once the holiday is over.

The post Police remove Palestinian ‘flags of incitement’ in country’s north appeared first on World Israel News.

Chris Minns’s Victory in New South Wales Consolidates the Labor Right’s Hegemony

Newly elected NSW premier Chris Minns came to power thanks to an unholy alliance between Labor’s right-wing faction and the Anthony Albanese–aligned “Hard Left.” It’s a combination that ensures Labor’s Blairite program by suppressing rank-and-file democracy.

NSW premier-designate Chris Minns the morning after the Labor victory in Kogarah addressing the media. March 26, 2023. (Edwina Pickles / Sydney Morning Herald via Getty Images)

Last month, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) ended twelve years of conservative Coalition government in New South Wales (NSW), the nation’s most-populous state. The election result firmly repudiated the former government’s record of corruption, mass privatization, and public sector wage suppression. Nonetheless, one question remains: will the incoming Labor premier, Chris Minns, lead a progressive center-left government, or embrace the Blairite program of his federal Labor counterparts?

Minns’s rise to power, election campaign, and postelection maneuverings indicate that the government will embrace the latter option. Minns’s new government is already suggesting that budget cuts are inevitable in the context of mounting public debt and inflation. And although Australia’s cost-of-living and rental crises are profit driven, NSW Labor has dismissed policies that would limit corporate price gouging and extortionate rent increases. Instead, NSW’s new treasurer has foreshadowed spending cuts in the upcoming budget.

Indeed, in opposition, Minns’s leadership was always characterized by Labor’s fixation with neoliberal economics. After orchestrating a coup in May 2021 against NSW Labor’s former leader, Jodi McKay, Minns and his supporters swiftly dragged Labor to the right — for example, ditching key spending commitments including mandated nurse-to-patient ratios.

Minns’s Rise

Behind Minns’s hegemony over NSW Labor is a powerful machine operation of party insiders. Minns’s cross-factional praetorian guard jointly controls NSW Labor’s infamous Sussex Street headquarters, the ALP’s all-powerful National Executive, and a swathe of pivotal trade unions. The consolidation of this alliance informs the present direction of the NSW government.

The alliance consists of two tranches that coalesced around Minns’s campaign to destabilize and ultimately replace McKay. The first is the factional machinery of the NSW Right faction, and the second is the “Hard Left” sub-faction, aligned with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Minns’s consolidation of the first tranche hinged on the support of the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA). The AWU played its part by leaking polling that blamed McKay for a collapse in Labor’s primary vote. Meanwhile, the SDA marshaled its support in the parliamentary caucus to whip votes for Minns. A well-timed public resignation by SDA-aligned shadow treasurer Walt Secord also exacted a serious toll on McKay’s leadership.

Nonetheless, Minns could not have prevailed over McKay with the AWU and SDA alone; he needed support from the party’s left. Minns might have enjoyed the support of most right-faction MPs and head-office apparatchiks, but that didn’t mean he could count on every right-aligned MP to vote against McKay in a leadership ballot. Worse still, a disgruntled left opposition could undermine Minns’s attempts to shift Labor to the right.

An existing alliance between the NSW Right and the Hard Left addressed both potential vulnerabilities. Despite the historic hegemony of the Right in NSW, the Hard Left punches well above its weight at a national level. As the dominant power in the national left faction, the Hard Left effectively exercises a majority on the ALP National Executive, an all-powerful committee that can deselect dissenting MPs at will.

The Hard Left also offered Minns a unique strategic benefit. Incorporating the group into NSW Labor’s inner sanctum gave Minns the ability to neutralize critics of his neoliberal pivot. This is because the Hard Left’s domination of the state faction offered a way for Minns to keep progressive unions and branch members in line or — at the very least — deprive them of a platform to mount an effective opposition.

The Hard Left’s price was power. Specifically, the faction demanded shadow cabinet appointments and Minns’s support against members of the “Soft Left” that rallied around McKay. Minns was happy to oblige both elements of the quid pro quo.

After clinching party leadership, Minns doled out rewards to his supporters. As opposition leader, he demoted McKay loyalists in his first cabinet reshuffle. Daniel Mookhey, Penny Sharpe, John Graham, Rose Jackson, and Jo Haylen received promotions. McKay’s supporters, however, were mostly relegated to the backbench.

Minns in Opposition

As opposition leader, Minns imitated Albanese’s electorally successful small-target strategy. NSW Labor shied away from bold progressive reform in favor of narrow cost-of-living rhetoric. Minns’s decision to turn the Coalition’s traditional “debt-and-deficit” narrative against the government contrasted starkly with McKay’s call for increased social spending.

Despite broadly leading NSW Labor to the right, Minns also ran a strong campaign against the most regressive facets of the Coalition government’s agenda. A strategic focus on marginal Western Sydney electorates saw Minns hone Labor’s critique of the government’s 2.5 percent public sector wage cap, the rising cost of road tolls, and the privatization of public assets. Labor also offered some modest improvements to renters’ rights and the casualization of public-school teachers.

Thankfully for Minns, the alliance between his left and right shadow cabinet members allowed him to easily rebuff Coalition attempts to wedge Labor to the right. When the government proposed two-year prison sentences for peaceful protesters, for example, Labor didn’t hesitate to offer its support. Minns understood that the combined power of his backers would mute opposition on both sides of the debate, giving him license to pivot Labor to the right without fear of reprisal.

Indeed, Hard Left shadow ministers made impassioned speeches in favor of criminal penalties for protesters. In one contribution, newly minted NSW minister for homes Rose Jackson criticized nonviolent climate protests, remarking that they are “why the left cannot have nice things.” Minister for roads John Graham went so far as to falsely claim that Blockade Australia had organized “violent economic blockades.” Without an internal opposition to the NSW Right, the party scarcely registered the dissent of left-aligned unions and branch members.

The anti-protest law debate was not a flash in the pan — it’s a case study showing the factional accord underlying NSW Labor’s Blairite pivot. So long as Minns satisfies his allies in the Right and Hard Left, his prioritization of neoliberalism over social democracy is likely to continue unhindered. The resilience — or otherwise — of this dynamic will determine the direction of the NSW Labor government.

Trouble on the Horizon?

It remains to be seen how Minns’s alliance will manage the obvious contradiction between Labor’s increasingly neoliberal agenda and the nominally socialist politics of the NSW Left. To date, the Left factional leadership has justified its cozy relationship with the Right as simple electoral pragmatism. With the exception of the Hard Left, the plausibility of the NSW Left’s argument is waning rapidly.

Ultimately, to have a stake in the party, the Left relies on sympathetic unions and branch members choosing to align themselves with the Left’s factional ticket in inner-party debates and decision-making. But if the Left and Right are in lockstep, then what incentive is there to join the minority group?

Unsurprisingly, this contradiction ignited a fierce internal struggle within the Left faction. The anti-protest laws in particular provoked a period of sustained sub-factional volatility, culminating in a breakaway legislative-council ticket at the 2022 NSW Labor conference.

Dissident Left delegates coalesced around an outsider candidate, Cameron Murphy, who ran on a platform criticizing NSW Left leaders for their silent obedience in the face of Labor’s Blairite turn. Murphy — a human-rights lawyer and former president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties — appealed to progressive Left delegates who opposed the anti-protest laws and the leadership’s general pattern of collusion with the NSW Right.

Murphy narrowly lost a factional preselection ballot against the leadership after the Hard Left NSW Labor assistant general secretary, George Simon, disenfranchised swathes of Left-aligned delegates. This was met with protest — after Simon announced that their votes would not be counted, the Murphy-aligned Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Construction Division ultimately left the faction. Similarly, following allegations of ballot fixing, large sections of the Left defected from the factional ticket at the NSW Labor conference.

Ultimately, Murphy received 116 votes, the third-highest count of any candidate, guaranteeing him a spot in the NSW Legislative Council. The official Left ticket, however, recorded its lowest vote since the foundation of the faction in 1956.

This, however, could come back to undermine Minns’s government. Volatility within the Left poses a threat to the factional compact underlying NSW Labor. To hold up its end of the bargain, the Hard Left needs to maintain total control over the NSW Left and National Executive. Without these articles of institutional power, left-aligned ministers will struggle to quell critics of Minns’s Blairite pivot.

Murphy’s success and Labor victories in Western Sydney have exacerbated this vulnerability. The 2023 election has increased the proportion of dissident MPs in the NSW parliamentary Left caucus. Having snubbed Jodi McKay’s former supporters and Soft Left MPs in his postelection reshuffle, the premier must now contend with a growing list of disgruntled unions, branch members, and backbenchers.

A Rank-and-File Strategy

The broad Left cannot stake its future on the dull machinery of NSW Labor. To challenge Labor’s resurgent neoliberal agenda, genuine Labor socialists need to fundamentally alter the politics of the trade-union movement. That starts with holding union leaders to basic democratic standards.

It’s beyond the pale that Labor apparatchiks parachuting directly from student politics into senior positions in the union movement command the votes of hundreds of union delegates, without any participation by rank-and-file members. Indeed, most people who join unions affiliated with the ALP are structurally excluded from the forms of executive power that determine Labor candidates and policies. To the seasoned factional apparatchiks, rank-and-file unionists are just numbers on a spreadsheet. The more members a union has, the more delegates it sends to conferences.

Ultimately, this must be challenged from the ground up, by a rank-and-file revitalization of union democracy. Australian socialists should familiarize themselves with the rules that govern the internal democracy of their unions, establish workplace committees, and run tickets against the apparatchiks that sell out union members. In the long term, the Left should prioritize reform agendas that promote direct democratic decision-making and mass participation in union affairs. Until we implement an Australian rank-and-file strategy, many unions will remain in the hands of the ALP’s factional horse traders.

WATCH: Pilots from US, Europe join Israel’s annual Independence Day flyover

On the occasion of Israel’s 75th anniversary, dozens of pilots from foreign air forces, including from the UK, Italy, Germany and the US, joined in the Israel Air Force’s annual Independence Day flyover.

Over 100 fighter jets, helicopters, tankers and transport aircraft and RPAs participated in the flyover, which was seen across the country Wednesday. Israel Police helicopters and firefighting aircraft also participated as an expression of the cooperation between Israel’s security forces.

This year’s event was based on the theme ‘Together All the Way’, emphasizing the diverse groups that make up Israeli society.

The post WATCH: Pilots from US, Europe join Israel’s annual Independence Day flyover appeared first on World Israel News.

WATCH: Doing America’s job? Taliban kills ISIS leader responsible for death of 13 US servicemen

The Pentagon confirmed the U.S. was not involved in an operation that killed the ISIS-K leader responsible for murdering 13 U.S. service members in a blast during the Afghanistan withdrawal.

The post WATCH: Doing America’s job? Taliban kills ISIS leader responsible for death of 13 US servicemen appeared first on World Israel News.

A Rank-and-File Reform Movement Is Stirring in the United Food and Commercial Workers

The United Food and Commercial Workers, one of the US’s largest unions, has shed members despite seeing its bank account expand over the last decade. A rank-and-file reform movement wants to democratize UFCW and push the union to spend its resources on organizing.

Unionized grocery store workers rally to oppose the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons outside a Ralph’s supermarket in Los Angeles on April 13, 2023. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images)

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) is one of the country’s largest unions, with 1.2 million members in the United States and Canada, two-thirds of whom work in grocery stores. Like other unions, it has lost membership over the last decade, but it has managed to double its assets.

Reformers in the union are asking why. The UFCW caucus Essential Workers for Democracy has proposed a slate of amendments to expand rank-and-file power in the union and put resources into organizing and strike action. The proposals will be considered at the union’s convention starting today in Las Vegas. The convention is held every five years.

The caucus plans to fight for one-member, one-vote elections by mail for the union’s top officer positions, which would replace the current system where delegates elect officers. A similar change in the United Auto Workers led a reform slate to win top offices in the union recently.

Essential Workers for Democracy’s proposals also include strike pay from day one and caps on officer salaries. Another amendment would curb the international’s power to trustee a local, requiring an arbitrator to decide.

A Look at the Numbers

What does an analysis of the international union’s net assets, membership, revenues, and spending tell us?

The union’s divisions are Retail, which is eight hundred thousand grocery workers but also includes 118,000 workers in other types of stores; Food Processing, Packing and Manufacturing, which includes 250,000 workers in meatpacking and food processing plants; Distillery, Wine and Allied Workers, with five thousand workers; and the newest division, Cannabis, with ten thousand workers. Reformers hope to start a Health Care Division for strategy and planning for the union’s fifty-five thousand health care workers.

Since 2014, when Marc Perrone assumed the top position in the union, UFCW’s net assets have risen from $199 million to $521 million in 2022. Over that same time, membership has declined by 8 percent, for a loss of 106,000 members.

Data from the Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards.

The growth of UFCW’s assets since 2014 is not due to shrewd investment strategies. Rather, the UFCW runs large budget surpluses every year, spending far less than the union receives in member dues and other revenue streams.

Since 2014, the UFCW has booked average annual surpluses of $44 million. But spending on union activities is down 25 percent since 2014. Leaving aside officers, the number of employees at the international has declined from 444 employees in 2014 to 366 employees in 2022.

The UFCW leadership has clearly embraced “finance unionism,” where the accumulation of financial assets from the existing membership is the primary route to growth, rather than the mass organizing of new workers into unions.

Strikes Not Encouraged

While the UFCW on the international level has amassed over half a billion in net assets, these resources have not been deployed to encourage or support strike activities. From 2015 to 2022, the union spent a total of $5.3 million on strike benefits, or $666,000 on average annually.

That $5.3 million represents just 0.3 percent of total union spending from 2015 to 2022. In comparison, UFCW spent $67 million on political activities in the same period. And in 2022 alone, the union spent $7.2 million on consultants and media companies.

Currently, a two-thirds vote of affected members is required to call a strike or continue a strike. In addition to strike pay from the start of a strike, Essential Workers for Democracy is backing an amendment to change that to a majority vote.

Under the current union rules, a majority could reject a contract and still be forced back to work, as happened after a six-week strike in 2021 at Heaven Hill Distillery in Kentucky. Workers voted 54 percent to reject the contract offer, but had to go back to work anyway.

Comparisons to other unions underscore how the strike weapon is dormant at the UFCW. UNITE HERE, the much smaller 262,000-member hotel and restaurant union that also was deeply impacted by the pandemic, spent $12 million from 2015 to 2022, more than twice what UFCW spent on strike benefits.

UFCW has nine hundred thousand more members than UNITE HERE. Similarly, the Communications Workers of America, with half the membership base of the UFCW, spent over $46 million on strike benefits since 2015.

Amendments proposed by Essential Workers for Democracy would require that 20 percent of the union’s budget be spent on organizing, and that of any increase in funds collected from locals, 50 percent would go to local organizing campaigns. They also propose that strike pay start on the first day of the strike, rather than the eighth, and that the international president no longer have a veto over strikes. In addition, workers striking for a first contract could receive strike benefits.

High Top Pay

In 2022, international president Marc Perrone was paid $298,177 in salary, not including benefits. Other top earners include local president John Niccolai from New Jersey’s Local 464 with a total compensation package of $700,941. Local presidents earning more than $400,000 in total compensation include Steve Lomax of Local 1996 ($592,496), Jean Bruny of Local 888 ($505,588), Brian String of Local 152 ($473,374), Harvey Whille of Local 1262 ($426,343), and William Hopkins of Local 455 ($415,522). Workers at grocery stores earned only $32,820 on average in 2021.

The caucus proposes capping local staff salaries at $250,000 and that the top three salaries at a local not exceed $650,000.

Jenny Brown and Luis Feliz Leon contributed to this article. Unless indicated otherwise, all data is from the Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards. The methodology for analyzing the data can be found here.

American Liberalism Is Exhausted

Joe Biden can probably beat Donald Trump for a second time. But the Democratic Party he is the titular head of has no new ideas, no sense of dynamism, and isn’t even pretending they’re serious about achieving a better world.

Joe Biden delivers remarks during the National Peace Officers Memorial Service at the Capitol in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2022. (Stefani Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)

After months of foot-dragging, Joe Biden is officially running for reelection — meaning that, barring some unexpected development on either side, Americans are likely in store for a second contest between Biden and Donald Trump.

It’s a disheartening prospect for many reasons, not least because it’s one very few actually seem to want. According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans would rather neither man run, though here the figures somehow look even bleaker for Biden than they do for Trump. A full 70 percent of the electorate purportedly thinks the president should not be seeking reelection, including more than half of Democrats. (The numbers for Trump being 60 and 33 percent, respectively.)

Having already rejigged the primary schedule to be maximally favorable to Biden, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has also announced it won’t be bothering to hold debates at all. What lies ahead will thus be a primary contest in name only. Biden, a candidate who elicits minimal enthusiasm, will be untested in the lead-up to his probable rematch with Trump, and the ideological schisms in American liberalism that were momentarily brought into the open during the 2016 and 2020 presidential primaries will once again be hidden.

As far as the Democratic Party goes, none of this screams of confidence or dynamism. The political arm of American liberalism is effectively saying that it has no better candidate to offer than Joe Biden, and no vision its current leadership can envision pursuing that looks beyond the present horizon.

It’s depressing, but it’s also probably true. The list of DNC-friendly alternatives to Biden that have been floated over the past year are pretty feeble. Vice President Kamala Harris, who might otherwise be the de facto front-runner, is visibly considered a liability. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the preferred candidate among people who say “adulting” and count “homework” among their favorite activities, has seemed to generate more has seemed to generate more buzz despite being ideologically indistinguishable from Biden or Harris. After that, what you tend to find is a list of governors or 2020 also-rans like Amy Klobuchar.

None of these figures would represent more than a cosmetic break from the status quo. And if the Democratic Party is not going to shift gears or change course, it has little incentive to conscript any of the functionally interchangeable centrists who might take Biden’s place.

American liberalism is exhausted, but it cannot regenerate or reimagine itself, because doing so would require taking risks and breaking with pro-corporate shibboleths. When a political project has based its entire appeal on restoring equilibrium and stewarding normalcy, both are obviously impossible. The result, as the circumstances surrounding Biden’s reelection bid illustrate, is a constellation of institutions too enervated to transform themselves and too fixed in their patterns to be forced into a meaningful realignment.

Such a realignment would not actually be impossible. An incarnation of the Democratic Party willing to substitute a populist strategy for the current big donor and Wall Street–friendly approach could find fertile ground within the electorate on which to put down roots. Americans know the economy is rigged in favor of the rich. When it was first introduced, majorities of voters in both parties supported the idea of a Green New Deal. Ordinary Americans want higher taxes on the wealthy and a majority would prefer a universal, Medicare for All system that puts human need over private profit.

Pursuit of such an agenda, however, would require the kind of confrontation with corporate America that today’s Democratic mainstream gestures at when it’s convenient but dispenses with in practice. It would also require mass mobilization, the ousting of countless operatives from their sinecures, and a party culture open and dynamic enough to accommodate the challenging of incumbents.

Having defeated that vision in 2016 and 2020, Democratic grandees are evidently content to rest on their laurels, make broad appeals for tolerance, and pitch themselves as the only alternative to an increasingly menacing Republican right. Revealingly, Biden’s reelection announcement cast the president as the person best qualified to defeat the Trumpian right and win the “battle for the soul of America.” It’s a decidedly non-programmatic message, and one that, as the New Republic’s Prem Thakker observed, notably did not include the words “abortion,” “climate,” “environment,” “gun,” “immigrant,” “justice,” “labor,” “union,” and “worker.”

In a short-term, purely electoral sense, it may be enough for Biden to defeat Trump a second time. What it does not signify, however, is a political project that aspires for a better future than the present.

Coming Soon — mRNA Cancer and Flu ‘Vaccines’

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Coming Soon — mRNA Cancer and Flu ‘Vaccines’ appeared first on Global Research.