As you know, the House passed a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, while the Senate plans at least a test vote on that same bill today. But the House didn't get two-thirds of its members to vote in favor -- even if the 11 House members who voted "present" on Friday all vote "yea" a second time, Keystone supporters still wouldn't have a two-thirds majority -- and we have every reason to suspect the Senate doesn't have 67 votes, either. Of course, we're only talking about a two-thirds majority because President Obama said last week he'd veto the bill. Trouble is, he gave an impending Nebraska Supreme Court decision on the pipeline as his reason, and said Court has since ruled in favor of letting the pipeline proceed, so Mr. Obama will look a little foolish now if he vetoes the bill. Still, the fact that he should have played it better doesn't affect our mission, which is to stop construction of a pipeline over heartland water tables by a corporation with a bad pipe safety record which will exacerbate climate change. Hence the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and CREDO all help you tell Mr. Obama to veto the Keystone XL bill.
Meanwhile, a Bloomington, MN prosecutor has put a recent #BlackLivesMatter protest at the Mall of America in her crosshairs, not because the protestors did anything untoward, like damage property, but because the protest cost the Mall "lost revenue" and the taxpayer police overtime. You see the problem with that, right? An overzealous prosecutor can silence any protest, anywhere, by raising the threat that the protestors will have to pay for "lost revenue" (how do we know the Mall lost revenue that day again?) or "police overtime" (again, any taxpayer can protest about anything at any time, so paying for police to oversee a rally isn't a "burden" to the taxpayer). Those who find they sympathize with the prosecutor might want to imagine a different prosecutor deciding that police overtime for, say, an anti-immigration rally is too much of a burden to taxpayers and local businesses. Hence Sum of Us helps you tell the Mall of America to help stop state interference with peaceful protests. For maybe the prosecutor's actions have been enough of a PR headache that the Mall might want to distance itself from her.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell your Congressfolk to oppose the Trans-Pacific "Partnership" and any "fast-tracking" thereof, Public Citizen still helps you do that. The deleterious effects of the TPP -- that it would nullify our nation's laws, let copyright "protection" run roughshod over the principle of fair use, and make outsourcing American jobs even easier than it is now, among many other things -- are well-known, despite the negotiators' attempts to keep them secret. But the effect of "fast-tracking" trade proposals -- which would force Congress to vote on the pact with an hour of debate and without the ability to amend it -- is perhaps not as well-known. It's bad enough that "fast-tracking" forces Congress to vote on something without being able to debate it properly on behalf of the people Congressfolk nominally serve, but it's even worse that anyone would consider a trade pact of such immediate importance that it has to be passed now-now-now. If anti-terrorism or environmental bills don't get fast-tracked in this manner, why should trade bills?