From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 01:38:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Why are we fighting in Syria? Message-ID: [Image may contain: 7 people, people smiling, meme and text] Danica Niketic Yesterday at 6:55am · #Syria Israeli decades long international law defying occupation of Golan reveals the blatant hypocrisy of the “West” in general and Uncle Sam in particular - no sanctions were imposed, while when Russia re-unified with Crimea upon the results of the referendum in March 2014 everyone knows what followed : https://www.mondialisation.ca/the-israeli-occupied-…/5521207 •••• Just looking at the faces on the genie energy board, we see how the racket works: one guy controls the media, another the policy, another funds the project, another prints and distributes the money, another organizes the coup, ... https://genieoilgas.com/about-us/strategic-advisory-board/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/drilling-for-oil-in-th…/5532455 James Woolsey thinks meddling is hilarious https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lvd8Vw42jWU https://medium.com/…/ex-cia-director-thinks-us-hypocrisy-ab… Dr Jaafari's remarks after a sham UNSC https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTxzg_cMcM https://gowans.wordpress.com/…/the-revolutionary-dist…/amp/… http://www.eurasiafuture.com/…/internet-helping-syria-win-…/ Corbett Report How Big Oil Conquered the World https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ Bonus:http://www.mintpressnews.com/john-pilger-the-white-helme…/…/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 13:54:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:54:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Please call your Senator to vote to support Sanders-Lee resolution to end the US war in Yemen. Message-ID: Please call 1-833-STOP-WAR to urge your senator to vote for the Sanders-Lee resolution to end the unauthorized U.S. war in Yemen. We can stop the bombing and let food and medicine into Yemen so that millions may live. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:00:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: REMINDER: Thursdays Program on behalf of SJP References: <80620617-77AE-42B0-A0AB-4518B1E51841@hotmail.com> Message-ID: [http://calendars.illinois.edu/eventImage/3094/33301244/large.png?rn=0228T065024] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Event Type Lecture Topics human rights, international, palestine, social justice Sponsor Students for Justice in Palestine Date Mar 1, 2018 6:00 pm Views 29 Originating Calendar Asian American Studies Come hear from University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle as he speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and U.S. Foreign Affairs. You wouldn’t want to miss this opportunity to hear from a man whose served as counsel to the Palestinian Authority and various other countries in the International Criminal Court. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Mar 1 19:32:27 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:32:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Urge Durbin, Duckworth to co-sponsor SJ Res 54, end Saudi-imposed famine in Yemen Message-ID: This kind of opportunity comes around almost never. The provisions of law allowing a single Member of Congress to force a debate and vote on ending U.S. participation in an unauthorized war have never been invoked in the Senate since the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973. And, I believe that what Durbin does is going to be key. Bernie announced on the Senate floor today that Durbin, Warren and Booker are co-sponsoring the bill. Which is great. But I want Durbin to do more than that. I want him to lobby Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Joe Donnelly of Indiana to support the bill. That's why I want Durbin to know that lots and lots of people in Illinois care about this. McCaskill and Donnelly were two of the five Senate Democrats that voted in June to keep arming Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. That's why McCaskill and Donnelly are key. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Just Foreign Policy Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:37 PM Subject: Stand with Bernie! End the Saudi-imposed famine in Yemen! To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, *Stand with Bernie. End the Saudi-imposed famine in Yemen now. * *SIgn the petition * In the next *ten days*, we have a historic opportunity to help end the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. For nearly 3 years, the U.S. has participated in Saudi Arabia's brutal war in Yemen. U.S.-assisted Saudi-Emirati airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians by bombing schools, hospitals, sewage treatment plants, and other civilian infrastructure, creating the worst cholera crisis in recorded history, and pushing millions of human beings to the brink of famine. *But Congress never authorized U.S. participation in this war.* Yesterday, Senators *Bernie Sanders* (I-VT), *Mike Lee* (R-UT), and *Chris Murphy* (D-CT) introduced a bipartisan bill [S.J.Res.54] invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote on the Senate floor in the next ten days on ending U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia's war. *Stand with Bernie.* Help us end this atrocity now by *signing our joint petition* with a huge coalition of groups. After signing, you'll be able to easily call your senators' offices to urge them to support the Sanders-Lee bill by pressing a button. *Please act.* Don't let this historic opportunity for justice go to waste. *Sign our petition now* . Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman, Sarah Burns and Tyler Bellstrom Just Foreign Policy *If you think our work is important, please support us with an $18 donation.* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] © 2018 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 20:08:23 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:08:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace] immigration seminar this Sunday, 4-6pm, March 4 Message-ID: Hi friends—we re-convene this Sunday, March 4, 4-6pm. Hour 1: Questions to research for this Sunday: concerning immigration, what is fake and being created to manipulate and control? What are the actual needs? Hour 2: presentation by seminar participate Devin Carter Day, on his project: *My project is a case study of the Cleveland 'Dream Neighborhood', which is a project that brings together refugee resettlement nonprofit agencies, community development corporations, a local school, local council people, small businesses, and numerous refugees and their native-born neighbors. Mostly it's a project about refugee integration, community building, and neighborhood revitalization.* *Because Cleveland is a 'legacy' (or Rust Belt) city, it experienced rapid depopulation (like Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and others) throughout the last 50 years. Attracting immigrants and resettling refugees is seen as a strategy to make Midwestern legacy cities more viable. This project addresses two neighborhoods on Cleveland's near West side, where housing vacancy and vacant lots are being renovated to recapture and improve land values. The rehabbed structures are rented to newly resettled refugees in these two neighborhoods, where they're close to a multilingual public school, jobs, and other resources to advance integration and multiculturalism.* *But there's a lot more to it than that, which I can touch upon when I share my research. —Devin Carter Day* -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prichart at ecojusticecollaborative.org Fri Mar 2 14:58:42 2018 From: prichart at ecojusticecollaborative.org (Pam Richart) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:58:42 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Day-Long Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC on March 10 Message-ID: <12B3F7CD-DD0C-4E88-A7E6-E2CFB10E8451@ecojusticecollaborative.org> If you want to learn more about non-violent direct action as a powerful force for change … and are ready to put your values into action, this is a great opportunity! Saturday, March 10 Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC Throughout history non-violent direct action has played a recurring and vital role in shining a light on injustice and bringing about social change. On Saturday, March 10, members of the Social Action Committee of UUCUC will host a day-long training in the principles, philosophy and practice of non-violent direct action.This training will help prepare us to participate in six weeks of "direct action and nonviolent civil disobedience" at our state capitol associated with Reverend Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign . These actions begin on Mother’s Day, May 13, and continue through June 21. But this training also has much broader, universal applications. Led by Jerica Arents, noted activist and educator  in peace, justice and conflict studies, this interactive training will provide basic knowledge and skills to better understand, support, and/or actively engage in non-violent direct action as part of social change. We invite you to join us! Registration is required, but no one will be turned away for financial reasons. Call Lan Richart at 773-556-3417 for more information. Date: Saturday, March 10, 2018 Time: 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Location: Unitarian Universalist Church of Urbana-Champaign (Fellowship Hall) Cost: $20 (includes lunch, snacks and training materials) Register: https://uucuc.brownpapertickets.com/ Meet the Trainer: Jerica Arents is a professor in the Peace, Justice, Conflict Studies Program at DePaul University. Her ongoing interests focus on social movements and activism with interests in peacemaking in Afghanistan and the effects of the NATO-led occupation on ordinary Afghans. She collaborates with the Afghan Peace Volunteers in Kabul, where they have created the first multi-ethnic community of youth committed to nonviolent action. She also serves as an organizer with Witness Against Torture, a campaign to close the prison at Guantánamo and end U.S.-sponsored torture worldwide. Pamela Richart Eco-Justice Collaborative 919 West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61821 773.556.3418 prichart at ecojusticecollaborative.org www.ecojusticecollaborative.org "Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life, with which we have shared our evolutionary process." -2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, Wangari Maathai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RJI" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rji+unsubscribe at uucuc.org . To post to this group, send email to rji at uucuc.org . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/uucuc.org/d/msgid/rji/4782290F-CFE8-41B9-B20D-4EF361BC8311%40ecojusticecollaborative.org . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 150153 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 13:32:50 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 07:32:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace] AWARE antiwar demonstration TODAY, Sat 2-4pm Message-ID: <5a9aa404.02616b0a.8911b.17a8@mx.google.com> This month will mark the 15th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.  We are still involved there, and are ramping up troops for even more endless war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile our government threatens new military action in Venezuela, Iran, North Korea.  While the old wars have grown unpopular, too many people in our country believe that taking down other countries' governments, and killing their people in the process, is a legitimate thing for our gov't to do. Let's remind them that it isn't- and hearten those who think that war should not be a normal part of our lives. Please join AWARE this afternoon, 2pm - 4pm, at the usual corner of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign, for our monthly antiwar demonstration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 20:18:32 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 14:18:32 -0600 Subject: [Peace] 1-Woman House Theater(with dog and spoon)--Thurs 7:30pm, Sat. 2:30pm---FREE!!! Message-ID: HI friends—Al from Pacific Northwest, Glasgow and New Orleans has come to live here in Urbana for a while to be part of the immigration play Glo Heart. And she’s offering a performance on Thursday March 8, 7:30pm and Saturday March 10, 2:30pm. Kid friendly! It will be at the old House Theater house, 122 Franklin Street al & dog [with special guests, Mr. Schneider and K!tchen Spoon] ​ march 8th - 7:30pm march 10th - 2:30pm school for designing a society – 122 Franklin, Urbana—free! al & dog present a new performance about spoons, tomato soup, and other things. al & dog are a performance duo from the pacific northwest, glasgow, and most recently, new orleans. two creatures, one of flesh and one of fabric, they devise absurd performances out of everyday language and howl with the spoons. their work plays with the relationship between the queer and the creaturely body in its movement through language. al is a creature with very small and somewhat crooked pinky fingers. al is unsure about most things. dog is an autonomous creature, half-priced polyester stuffing and all. dog is neither a goat nor a sheep. dog is a dog. the performance will last approximately 40 minutes, with the option to stay longer for a discussion. www.alanddog.co.uk -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sdas picture.png Type: image/png Size: 332759 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 00:20:49 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 18:20:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace] March 11 meeting at Hammerhead Coffee Message-ID: <5a9c8d63.1b066b0a.6926c.c37b@mx.google.com> As AWARE looks for an ideal new meeting place, next week Saturday, March 11, 2018, we will try: Hammerhead Coffee608 E University Ave.5pm to about 6pm. This past week, we tried Harvest Market's bar.Pros: beer, public (one person just sat down with us and joined our conversations), comfortable, plenty of free parking,...Cons: few bus routes, background music, noise from the store Karen Medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 10:39:49 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 04:39:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace] action needed--keep those calls and emails coming Message-ID: You all know about the GEO strike, and many have shown solidarity by walking the picket lines, calling and emailing the Provost's office, and donating to the GEO strike fund. Please continue to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters as the strike enters its second week. Call and email the Provost's office, and ask that full tuition waivers, a living wage, and more assistance with health care costs for every graduate employee be part of the contract: (217) 333-6677 provost at illinois.edu If you are able, please donate to the GEO strike fund: https://www.gofundme.com/uiuc-geo-strike-fund Lend physical support by standing on the picket lines on campus. Spread the word on social media. The more attention this historic strike gets, the less UIUC likes the bad publicity. In solidarity, Debra Schrishuhn Central Illinois PDA Progressive Democrats of America From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 5 18:41:34 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:41:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Urge Duckworth to co-sponsor Sanders-Lee bill to end Saudi war in Yemen Message-ID: Durbin is already a co-sponsor, so you can thank Durbin for co-sponsoring the bill. Or you can just press star to skip Durbin and go straight to Duckworth. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Just Foreign Policy Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:30 PM Subject: Senate could vote to end Saudis' Yemen war in days To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, *The Senate can end the Saudi war in Yemen. * *1-833-STOP-WAR * We could be days away from a Senate vote to end the Saudi war in Yemen. *S.J.Res 54*, the Sanders-Lee bill, would end U.S. participation in the war. The Saudis cannot continue their war without the U.S. *Because the Senators are invoking their war powers on an unauthorized war, their bill is guaranteed a roll-call vote on the Senate floor.* So far, Senators *Chris Murphy*, *Dick Durbin*, *Elizabeth Warren*, and *Cory Booker* have co-sponsored the bill. The more co-sponsors we have, the closer we are to winning. *Call 1-833-STOP-WAR* (786-7927). Follow the prompts to reach your senator's offices. When you're connected, you can say something like: "Hello, I am a constituent of Senator X and I am calling to ask them to co-sponsor S.J.Res 54, the Sanders-Lee bill to end unauthorized U.S. military participation in the Saudi war in Yemen." Thanks for taking action, and thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman, Sarah Burns and Tyler Bellstrom Just Foreign Policy *If you think our work is important, please support us with an $18 donation.* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] © 2018 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 22:12:34 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:12:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Al, Dog and Spoon---tomorrow, Thursday, 7:30pm---40 minute break in your evening Message-ID: ----------------------------------------------------- al & dog [with special guests, Mr. Schneider and K!tchen Spoon] [image: sdas picture.png] ​ march 8th - 7:30pm march 10th - 2:30pm school for designing a society – 122 franklin al & dog present a new performance about spoons, tomato soup, and other things. al & dog are a performance duo from the pacific northwest, glasgow, and most recently, new orleans. two creatures, one of flesh and one of fabric, they devise absurd performances out of everyday language and howl with the spoons. their work plays with the relationship between the queer and the creaturely body in its movement through language. al is a creature with very small and somewhat crooked pinky fingers. al is unsure about most things. dog is an autonomous creature, half-priced polyester stuffing and all. dog is neither a goat nor a sheep. dog is a dog. the performance will last approximately 40 minutes, with the option to stay longer for a discussion. www.alanddog.co.uk -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 13:02:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The Labor Hour Message-ID: Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” WRUF 11:00am - 1:00pm “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 15:27:03 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:27:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace] TONIGHT--One Woman Show at House Theater, 7:30pm Message-ID: HI friends—Al from Pacific Northwest, Glasgow and New Orleans has come to live here in Urbana for a while to be part of the immigration play Glo Heart. And she’s offering a performance tonight Thursday March 8, 7:30pm and Saturday March 10, 2:30pm. Kid friendly! It will be at the old House Theater house, 122 Franklin Street al & dog [with special guests, Mr. Schneider and K!tchen Spoon] ​ march 8th - 7:30pm march 10th - 2:30pm school for designing a society – 122 Franklin, Urbana—free! al & dog present a new performance about spoons, tomato soup, and other things. al & dog are a performance duo from the pacific northwest, glasgow, and most recently, new orleans. two creatures, one of flesh and one of fabric, they devise absurd performances out of everyday language and howl with the spoons. their work plays with the relationship between the queer and the creaturely body in its movement through language. al is a creature with very small and somewhat crooked pinky fingers. al is unsure about most things. dog is an autonomous creature, half-priced polyester stuffing and all. dog is neither a goat nor a sheep. dog is a dog. the performance will last approximately 40 minutes, with the option to stay longer for a discussion. www.alanddog.co.uk -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sdas picture.png Type: image/png Size: 332759 bytes Desc: not available URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 00:12:36 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:12:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Al's show--tomorrow, Sat; , 2:30pm--"slapstick without the stick" Free. Message-ID: al & dog [with special guests, Mr. Schneider and K!tchen Spoon] [image: sdas picture.png] ​ march 10th - 2:30pm school for designing a society – 122 franklin al & dog present a new performance about spoons, tomato soup, and other things. al & dog are a performance duo from the pacific northwest, glasgow, and most recently, new orleans. two creatures, one of flesh and one of fabric, they devise absurd performances out of everyday language and howl with the spoons. their work plays with the relationship between the queer and the creaturely body in its movement through language. al is a creature with very small and somewhat crooked pinky fingers. al is unsure about most things. dog is an autonomous creature, half-priced polyester stuffing and all. dog is neither a goat nor a sheep. dog is a dog. the performance will last approximately 40 minutes, with the option to stay longer for a discussion. www.alanddog.co.uk -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Mar 11 00:23:46 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:23:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace] AWARE meeting, Sunday 11 March, at Hammerhead Coffee Message-ID: <1054D699-9B61-4823-BDBC-47B948AB49BC@illinois.edu> The regular Sunday evening meeting of AWARE will be held tomorrow, March 11, 5-6pm, at Hammerhead Coffee. 608 E University Avenue Corner of University & Wright - parking on North side Champaign, IL ​(217) 531-4795 ​ From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 23:43:07 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:43:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Actions -- Fwd: Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young: Stop Starving Yemeni Children In-Reply-To: <4184618800.2003865020@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <4184618800.2003865020@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: We talked about this at tonight's AWARE meeting.   AWARE members and supporters, here are two specific things to do this week:    Follow Just Foreign Policy's advice -- see below.   Urge Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young to withdraw their own bill and allow the *Sanders/Lee/Murphy* bill, ending US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, to be voted on.   Shaheen and Young's bill would leave a giant loophole - it would allow US support for that war to continue.    Urge our*Senator Tammy Duckworth* to publicly support the Sanders/Lee/Murphy bill, too.   Sen. Durbin already has done so (explains Don McClure), but Duckworth hasn't taken a position, as far as we've heard. Contact information:    Just Foreign Policy's petition -- press Sens. Shaheen and Young to withdraw their ineffective, competing bill -->          https://www.change.org/p/senatorshaheen-and-sentoddyoung-stop-starving-yemeni-children       Sen. Tammy Duckworth -- ask her to support theSanders/Lee/Murphy Sen. Joint Res. 54,     "to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress"   (and you can ask her to oppose the competing S J Res 55, too)         (202) 224-2854 And, along with Just Foreign Policy's petition, you could also contact Sens. Shaheen and Young about their bill directly:    Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) -- ask her to *withdraw* Sen. Joint Res. 55 :         (202) 224-2841    Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) -- ask him to *withdraw* Sen. Joint Res. 55:         (202) 224-5623      -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young: Stop Starving Yemeni Children Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:48:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Just Foreign Policy Reply-To: info at justforeignpolicy.org To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Just Foreign Policy Just Foreign Policy Dear Stuart, *Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young not to sabotage the vote on ending the war.   Sign the petition   * We expect a roll call floor vote soon in the Senate on the *Sanders-Lee-Murphy* bill [SJRes54] to end U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. *Ending U.S. participation will end the war*, and *save millions of Yemenis* now living on the brink of famine as a *direct and deliberate* result of the *U.S.-backed Saudi war* and the *U.S.-backed Saudi blockade* of food, medicine, and fuel from entering Yemen. *But now come the Washington dirty tricks* to try to protect the Saudi princes and allow their war crimes in Yemen to continue. *Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire* and *Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana* are conspiring with Republican leader Mitch McConnell to sabotage the vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. They are threatening to try to substitute another bill that would *allow U.S. participation in the war to continue* /in place of/ the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill to end the war.  The Young-Shaheen bill would allow U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia's war to continue if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson certifies to Congress that the Government of Saudi Arabia is undertaking "(1) an urgent and good faith effort to conduct diplomatic negotiations to end the civil war in Yemen; and (2) appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by increasing access for all Yemenis to food, fuel, and medicine." *Rex Tillerson works for Donald Trump*. Donald Trump is "/tizein bilbass/" with Saudi dictator Mohammed bin Salman - "two butts in the same pair of underwear," as the Arabic saying goes. *Mohammed bin Salman is the chief architect of the Saudi war in Yemen*. Donald Trump's employee Rex Tillerson will make the Young-Shaheen certification faster than you can say, "Saudi oil money" - */even if the Saudi government doesn't do a single thing differently in the future than they have in the past/*.   A vote for the Young-Shaheen bill would be a vote to /*continue U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen for another year exactly as it is today*/. A vote for the Young-Shaheen bill would be a vote to /*continue starving Yemeni children to death for another year exactly as they are being starved to death today*/.  *Press Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young to withdraw their bill and withdraw their threat to sabotage our vote - so that Yemeni children may live - by signing our petition . * Thanks for taking action, and thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy  *If you think our work is important, please support us with an $18 donation.* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy © 2018 Just Foreign Policy Click here to unsubscribe empowered by Salsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 19:37:51 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:37:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: <4C5A7BA8-0DBA-44AC-B432-4D3C17646F32@gmail.com> Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it. ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads. The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago, the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making. ==========news today======================= Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS. Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making. Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S. Navy intelligence officer. Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?” At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S. has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines. More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ============================================== Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [> “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] You've been watching AWARE ON THE AIR, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, a local peace group - in the 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making. ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”: In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war > > ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And finally, AWARE honors those who reveal the crimes of the US government - which the rest of the world knows about, but Americans don't - Manning, Assange, Snowden, and others - who truth-tellers persecuted by the US government. ~ Now this is Carl Estabrook for members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck." ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed Mar 14 00:13:21 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: Thank you for publishing the transcript, Carl! YouTube is becoming impossible to use. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 2:38 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: peace;Subject:[Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.  We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois.   Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, &  Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it.   ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads.  The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago,  the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making.  ==========news today=======================  Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS.  Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making.  Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S.  Navy intelligence officer.  Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?”   At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S.  has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that  “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines.  More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be  elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ==============================================Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [ “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] You've been watching AWARE ON THE AIR, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, a local peace group - in the 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making.  ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”:   In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war  ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And finally, AWARE honors those who reveal the crimes of the US government - which the rest of the world knows about, but Americans don't - Manning, Assange, Snowden, and others - who truth-tellers persecuted by the US government.    ~ Now this is Carl Estabrook for members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck."      ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed Mar 14 00:18:35 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: I can no longer find the last two Aware episodes on You Tube: #443 and 444. Those are Feb 27 and March 6 I believe. I don't know if you all pulled them or if You Tube has censored them. If censored, I can guess why.. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 2:38 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: peace;Subject:[Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.  We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois.   Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, &  Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it.   ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads.  The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago,  the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making.  ==========news today=======================  Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS.  Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making.  Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S.  Navy intelligence officer.  Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?”   At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S.  has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that  “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines.  More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be  elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ==============================================Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [ “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] You've been watching AWARE ON THE AIR, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, a local peace group - in the 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making.  ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”:   In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war  ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And finally, AWARE honors those who reveal the crimes of the US government - which the rest of the world knows about, but Americans don't - Manning, Assange, Snowden, and others - who truth-tellers persecuted by the US government.    ~ Now this is Carl Estabrook for members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck."      ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 16 22:28:55 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 22:28:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace] CIA Democrats: Part 2 Message-ID: Yes, and local Democrat Party candidate Jonathan Ebel is mentioned here also * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The CIA Democrats: Part two Agents and war commanders By Patrick Martin 8 March 2018 PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE This is the second part of a three-part article. The first part was posted on March 7. There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three. They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries that began March 6 in Texas and extend through mid-September, selecting the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot on November 6. Aside from their sheer number, and the fact that more than 40 percent, 24 of the 57, are women, there are other aspects worth considering. Agents, but no longer secret First: The number of candidates who openly proclaim their role in the CIA or military intelligence. In years past, such activities would be considered confidential, if not scandalous for a figure seeking public office. Not only would the candidates want to disguise their connections to the spy apparatus, the CIA itself would insist on it, particularly for those who worked in operations rather than analysis, since exposure, even long after leaving the agency, could be portrayed as compromising “sources and methods.” This is no longer the case. The 2018 candidates drawn from this shadow world of espionage, drone murders and other forms of assassination positively glory in their records. And the CIA and Pentagon have clearly placed no obstacles in the way. We’ve already reviewed the cases of Elissa Slotkin, running in Michigan’s 8th District, who served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad, and Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, running for the Democratic nomination in the 23rd District of Texas. There are many others. Abigail Spanberger, seeking the Democratic nomination in a district in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, has the following declaration at the top of her campaign website: “After nearly a decade serving in the CIA, I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District to fight for opportunity, equality and security for all Americans. My previous service as a law enforcement officer, a CIA officer, and a community volunteer has taught me the value of listening.” Indeed! [http://www.wsws.org/asset/54a46fd4-3a64-4cac-bccf-b1e65037d1cG/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Abigail Spanberger's campaign website Spanberger worked for the CIA as an operations officer, in which capacity, “She traveled and lived abroad collecting intelligence, managing assets, and overseeing high-profile programs in service to the United States.” Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is a career Marine Corps pilot, Dan Ward, in one of nearly a dozen contests involving multiple military-intelligence candidates. Jesse Colvin, running in the 1st District of Maryland, spent six years in Army intelligence, including four combat deployments to Afghanistan and a year near the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea. According to his campaign biography, “I am a proud graduate of the US Army’s Ranger Course, the premier leadership school in the military. I am even more honored to have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment—the Army Rangers. Rangers lead in many key roles throughout the Special Operations Forces’ (SOF) community, and I am lucky to have served and led with men and women of this caliber.” His biography continues: “As a Ranger, my four combat deployments in Afghanistan took place within a Joint Special Operations Task Force. I led intelligence teams whose work facilitated capture/kill missions of Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. I managed a lethal drone program. I ran human intelligence sources. Every day, my team and I made dozens of decisions whose outcomes carried life and death consequences for my fellow Rangers, our Afghan partners, and Afghan civilians.” [http://www.wsws.org/asset/0e58bcbf-c143-4b83-b900-19e669c5dfcJ/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Jesse Colvin (front right) with his unit in Afghanistan Jeffrey Beals, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 19th District of New York, is now a school teacher, but writes on his website, “After beginning my career as a CIA intelligence officer, I joined the State Department … I answered the call to help our country in Iraq in 2004 and became one of the longest serving US diplomats of the Iraq War. Fluent in Arabic, I faced down insurgents to set up the first diplomatic talks between our ambassador, our generals and the insurgency. I helped bring warring factions together to create a constitution for Iraq and was decorated by both the US Army and the State Department.” Unfortunately for Beals, his fundraising, $174,000 by December 31, 2017, is dwarfed by that of another military-intelligence rival for the nomination, Patrick Ryan, a West Point graduate with two tours of duty in Iraq, “including a tour as the lead intelligence officer for an infantry battalion of 1,000 soldiers and officers responsible for ground operations in Mosul,” according to his campaign website. Ryan had raised $906,000 by December 31, and two other candidates in that district, a politically connected lawyer and a medical device manufacturer, had raised more than one million dollars each, all seeking to challenge two-term Republican incumbent John Faso in the Hudson Valley district. Jonathan Ebel, running in the 13th District of Illinois, served four years as a naval intelligence officer, including on the staff of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He now teaches religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Then there is Shelly Chauncey, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 5th District of Pennsylvania, in the Philadelphia suburbs. Her website strikes a feminist note: “Shelly served her nation for more than a decade with the Central Intelligence Agency. She began her career as a secretary and worked her way up to become a counter-intelligence officer. Shelly served as an undercover officer with the CIA in Latin America, East Asia and throughout the United States, providing logistical and counter-intelligence support to operatives abroad.” The reference to undercover operations “throughout the United States” underscores the role of the intelligence apparatus in spying on the American people, although the CIA is, by law, prohibited from such activity. Another campaign website touches on the domestic operations of the US spy machine. Omar Siddiqui, running in California’s 48th District, describes his background as follows: “On the front lines of national defense, Mr. Siddiqui serves as a private advisor and consultant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on issues of national security and counter-terrorism and was formerly an advisor and community partner with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Mr. Siddiqui is presently director of special projects of the FBI National Citizens Academy Alumni Association…” Commanders and planners of the Iraq War Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and the 2008 election in large measure by presenting himself as an opponent of the war in Iraq launched under George W. Bush. Once in office, however, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert Gates, and continued the war for another three years, as well as escalating the long-running US war in Afghanistan. It is noteworthy in this context that so many of the military-intelligence candidates for Democratic congressional nominations boast of their roles in the war in Iraq and even, in some cases, present it as the high point of their professional and even personal lives. Thus Elissa Slotkin, already referred to above, met her future husband, the pilot of an Apache helicopter gunship, while working as a CIA agent in Baghdad. Dan McCready, a Marine Corps veteran turned “clean energy” multi-millionaire, backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the Democratic nomination in the 9th District of North Carolina, even claims to have found Jesus in Iraq, where he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River. The Iraq War veterans are either officers, giving them command responsibility in one of the great crimes of the 21st century, or served in special forces units like the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs, engaging in covert operations that were among the bloodiest and most brutal of the war, or had high-level responsibility at the Pentagon or the National Security Council. Daniel Helmer, running in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District against five other well-financed candidates—including former State Department official Alison Friedman, who has already topped the $1 million mark—says remarkably little about what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq, although his photograph in military fatigues is on the front page of his website. But Helmer boasts perhaps the most extensive list of endorsements by retired national security officials of any candidate in the country, including eight generals and admirals, two former deputy directors of the CIA, Avril Haines and David Cohen, and Michele Flournoy, former under secretary of defense for policy. What he did to earn their support is left to the imagination. Richard Ojeda, elected as a West Virginia state senator in 2016, is now seeking the Democratic nomination in the 3rd Congressional District, covering the southern third of the state. As the WSWS has reported, Ojeda has based his political career on more than two decades in the US Army Airborne, including repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he reached the rank of major. His last post was as executive director of Army recruiting in Beckley, seeking to convince youth in West Virginia and Virginia to become cannon fodder for the Pentagon. Josh Butner, running in the 50th District of California against Republican Duncan Hunter, Jr., “served for 23 years in the United States Navy where he saw multiple combat deployments, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The career Navy SEAL says almost nothing about what he actually did in the top military assassination unit, but that is to be expected. His campaign website features the slogan “Service, Country, Leadership,” alongside a photograph of Butner in desert fatigues. Dan Feehan is running to succeed incumbent Democrat Tim Walz in the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota, after Walz announced his candidacy for governor of that state. From 2005 to 2009, according to his campaign biography, Feehan “served as an active duty soldier and completed two combat tours of duty as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” He then joined the Obama administration, first as a White House aide, then as an acting assistant secretary of defense in the Pentagon. Andy Kim, running in the 3rd District of New Jersey, has actually raised more money than the incumbent Republican, Tom MacArthur. Kim worked at the Pentagon and as a strategic adviser to generals David Petraeus and John Allen while they were in command of US forces in Afghanistan. He then moved to the National Security Council, where he was Obama’s director for Iraq for two years. Maura Sullivan, seeking the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire’s 2nd District, where incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is retiring, was a Marine Corps officer, rising to the rank of captain and deploying to Fallujah, Iraq, scene of some of the bloodiest battles and most horrific US war crimes of that war. She too joined the Obama administration as a civilian administrator at both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon. Jason Crow is running in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Mike Coffman, where he was selected by the DCCC as one of its top candidates in the “Red-to-Blue” program. He is a veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division, leading a paratrooper platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He then joined the Army Rangers and served two tours in Afghanistan “as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force,” where he rose to the rank of captain. Matthew Morgan had a 20-year career in the Marine Corps “where I would deploy routinely overseas, culminating in several senior staff roles where I’d provide counsel to numerous military leaders, including the secretary of defense.” He did two tours in Iraq and also worked in counterterrorism on the Horn of Africa. Now he is the unopposed candidate for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District, which has switched back and forth between the two big business parties and is currently held by first-term Republican Jack Bergman. To be continued -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 18:16:06 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:16:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace] No immigration seminar tomorrow, Sunday, March 18th, next one, Sunday March 25 Message-ID: Hi friends——no seminar tomorrow. Let’s meet next weekend, next Sunday march 25, 4-6pm. Topic 1: What do people think they are referring to when they say some group of people is 'stealing our jobs'? What does one have to assume for this phrase to make sense? Topic 2: Let’s research (beforehand if possible) what other places/cities/universities are doing in relation to ICE deportations, supporting the DREAM Act. I just returned from Olympia Washington where they are pushing ahead on these actions….. Warmly Susan -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 18:38:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:38:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Will Senate Put Torturer in Charge of CIA? References: <3794721996.537482163@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] Tell Senate to Block Pompeo and Haspel. [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/pompeohaspel2EMAIL.jpg] [GRAPHIC: Sign here button] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_facebook_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Facebook [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_twitter_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Twitter [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State used the State Department as a marketing firm for weapons dealers1 and openly proposed to conquer one-third of Syria and to overthrow the government of Venezuela.2 But Tillerson occasionally dragged his feet, on weapons deals3, on antagonizing North Korea4, and on shredding the nuclear agreement with Iran5. These are issues on which the fate of millions, or billions, of lives depend. Trump has nominated current CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson, and current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to replace Pompeo. Click here to email your Senators to urge them to refuse confirmation of both of these nominees. Pompeo has overseen drone killings, torture, and the whole array of unaccountable CIA activities. He has openly advocated for the bombing, and overthrowing the government, of Iran.6 Pompeo is clearly eager to head off the threat of peace in Korea.7 Haspel is best known for directly overseeing brutal torture, and making sadistic comments to her victims.8 Last month a federal judge finally ruled that a private contractor can be sued for assisting in U.S. torture.9 But what about government officials who led the way? Shouldn't they be prosecuted for their crimes, rather than promoted to positions of extreme power? Email your Senators to help the urgent effort to block these disastrous nominations. The warmongers are grabbing yet more power and pushing the Doomsday clock even closer to midnight. We have to make a stand for giving diplomacy the barest sliver of a chance. Say no to Pompeo and no to Haspel now! After doing this action, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: > Common Dreams: 'Recipe for War': Experts Warn Pick of Pompeo Intensifies Risk of US Attack on Iran > Common Dreams: Trump Picks 'Actual Torturer' Gina Haspel as Next CIA Director Footnotes: 1. Cato: Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in U.S. Foreign Policy 2. Zero Hedge: Tillerson Fired As North Korea Talks Approach, Differences Over Iran 3. Washington Post: White House angry with Tillerson over Gulf arms-sales delays 4. Washington Post: Tillerson vs. Pompeo: Two very different views of North Korea 5. CNN: Tillerson's dramatic plan to save Iran deal, keep up pressure 6. HuffPost: Trump CIA Pick Hyped Facts On Iran, Downplayed Costs Of War 7. Daily News: CIA director Mike Pompeo says U.S. making 'no concessions' before North Korea talks 8. Common Dreams: Trump Picks 'Actual Torturer' Gina Haspel as Next CIA Director 9. Shadowproof: Judge: Iraqis Sufficiently Allege Torture By Military Contractor And May Proceed With Lawsuit www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Unsubscribe [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 19 20:41:40 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Peace] Win Without War: It could come down to Sen. Duckworth's vote Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kate Kizer Date: Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 4:15 PM Subject: It could come down to Sen. Duckworth's vote To: Robert R Naiman The Senate’s huge vote to end America’s shameful role in the Yemen war could be tomorrow. It’s going to be down to the wire. [image: Win Without War] *Your Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth is a key vote to end the suffering in Yemen. The Senate could vote as soon as tomorrow. Please, make your voice heard today. **Click here or dial: 1-833-STOPWAR* Robert, The Senate’s huge vote to end America’s shameful role in the Yemen war could be tomorrow. It’s going to be down to the wire. *And Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth is one of a handful of key votes.* Our coalition has driven an incredible 10,000 calls from activists like you, urging the Senate to pass S.J.Res.54 to stop America’s role in bombing and starving Yemen.* But Sen. Duckworth needs to hear from more people in Illinois to commit to voting yes. * *That’s where you come in, Robert. As Sen. Tammy Duckworth's constituent, YOUR voice is the most powerful pressure they can hear in what could be just hours left before this vote.* *Can you take 90 seconds **(even if you’ve already called!) **to make a call that could alleviate the suffering of 8.4 million Yemeni people?* *Weddings. Hospitals. Schools. *Those are the civilian targets our public dollars help to bomb in Yemen. But just last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren got the Department of Defense to admit on camera that our military doesn’t even track who or what Saudi Arabia’s American-made bombs hit. The vote that could happen as soon as tomorrow is our biggest, best chance to end U.S. support for this unconscionable crisis. But it’s still up in the air if we will we squeak past the 51-vote threshold. And Sen. Duckworth could be critical to putting this vote over the top. Senators are making up their minds as I type. *If Sen. Duckworth hears from you today, they will walk into tomorrow’s vote with the most powerful motivation to vote YES: The knowledge that you’ll hold them accountable if they greenlight U.S. cash, bombs, and planes flowing straight into bombing and starving 8.4 million Yemeni people.* *Please, call now and help Sen. Duckworth make up their mind on S.J.Res. 54 before it’s too late.* Thank you for working for peace, Kate, Mariam, Erica, and the Win Without War team *Donate * [image: Like on Facebook] [image: Follow on Twitter] Win Without War is a project of the Center for International Policy. 2000 M Street NW, Suite 720, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 232-3317 | info at winwithoutwar.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Mar 19 22:19:29 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:19:29 -0400 Subject: [Peace] Duckworth is a yes vote on Sanders-Lee to end US role in Saudi war in Yemen Message-ID: I just heard back from Duckworth's office. They confirmed that Duckworth will vote yes on Sanders-Lee. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Mar 20 00:57:44 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace] I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in IL-13 Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew *exactly* what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: *where's Tammy Duckworth*? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niloofar.peace at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 02:34:25 2018 From: niloofar.peace at gmail.com (Niloofar Shambayati) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:34:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace] I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in IL-13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > > I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > > I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to > every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and > progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will > vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney > Davis in November. > > But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. > > First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end > unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of > the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It > wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the > other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really > understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen > Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw > her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew *exactly* what I was talking about. > Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. > > I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a > dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to > understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. > > Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick > Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had > frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if > we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have > Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a > perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote > on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth > was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: *where's Tammy Duckworth*? > Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other > peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would > vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen > Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me > great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need > her. > > Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's > List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in > general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy > Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her > win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat > Rodney Davis in November. > > Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois > Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support > someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a > jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in > fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out > that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says > that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about > that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion > alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful > to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I > count this as a strong plus. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 20 13:30:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:30:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well as single payer supporter. On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > wrote: David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 20 14:08:21 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:08:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook > wrote: No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in office. Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia and China. —CGE On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Carl I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well as single payer supporter. On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > wrote: David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 03:10:06 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:10:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Cc: peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 03:11:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 03:11:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> Message-ID: So you vote for Davis, and pray for a miracle. If you have some “inside” information that Davis is opposing war, please do share. I won’t vote for either candidate, they are both pro-war, just as our two party system is “both pro-war.” Any suggestion that an “anti-war organization/group” support a candidate that is pro war, is sheer nonsense and deserves the ridicule it will receive. > On Mar 20, 2018, at 20:03, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 04:05:05 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:05:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> Message-ID: My first speculative reaction to the close race between Rauner & Ives is that a lot of Ives supporters will probably sit it out in November; Rauner has offended the Trump base. My non-empirical prediction is that Pritzker will win handily as a result. DG On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control > of the House. They won’t use it well. > > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what > seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, > we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race > and the Governor's race. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Cc: peace > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the > 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been > beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in > Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and > should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote > for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war > candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his > mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of > Libya. > > > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical > war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE > should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his > predecessor's example. > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 10:25:37 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:25:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! Deb On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his mind as > did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a Democrat we can > pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the opportunity to change > his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. > > And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and war > against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook > > wrote: > > No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this Congressional > district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. > > Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in > office. > > Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the > Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia and > China. > > —CGE > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > Carl > > I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, > Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a > strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. > > Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics > do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s > re-election might have the same affect. > > Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for > another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our Democrat > Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told Tammy Duckworth will > support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support for militarism, that is > quite an achievement though we must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee > Sanders Bill is flawed. > > I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support > Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well > as single payer supporter. > > > > > On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > > wrote: > > David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. > He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops > (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. > > The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US > war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even > worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former > intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National > Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as > Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The > potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has > no precedent in US political history” > [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. > > Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into > the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - > ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. > If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a > war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, > former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the > administration’s wars. —CGE > > > On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > > wrote: > > Robert, > > I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. > She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for > families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national > health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger > arguments in her favor. Thanks! > > Niloofar > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > > wrote: > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > > I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every > forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their > intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support > whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. > But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. > First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized > U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four > candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't > close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, > and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand > what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan > said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy > Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read > the thing I send her and she understood it. > I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a > dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to > understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. > Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick > Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had > frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if > we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have > Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a > perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on > the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. > So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an > hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace > activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes > on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is > a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great > confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. > Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. > Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. > But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen > Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the > general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney > Davis in November. > Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois > Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support > someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a > jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, > Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that > only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's > unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So > while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I > wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this > criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a > strong plus. > > _______________________ > > > > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 12:50:34 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time." That will be a cold day in hell Carl. It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. David J. -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM To: David Johnson; Peace Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! Idiots. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Indeed Deb, > > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of > Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! > > Deb > > > > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. >> >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >> >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >> office. >> >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >> Russia and China. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >> >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well >> as single payer supporter. >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >> >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >> >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >> administration >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >> the administration’s wars. —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >> > wrote: >> >> Robert, >> >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >> >> Niloofar >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >> > wrote: >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >> >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >> >> _______________________ >> >> From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:09:39 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:09:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). Deb On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: > " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long > time." > > That will be a cold day in hell Carl. > > It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM > To: David Johnson; Peace > Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary > (2) > > David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to > his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) > > Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. > > But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for > congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! > > Idiots. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >> wrote: >> >> Indeed Deb, >> >> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also >> had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and >> had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He >> changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the >> Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was >> responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his >> faults. >> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely >> owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his >> constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate >> masters. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: peace >> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you >> are not Tim Johnson! >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>> pressure, please name one. >>> >>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>> nonsense. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>> >>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >>> office. >>> >>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>> Russia and China. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely >>> need. >>> >>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>> >>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>> >>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>> support >>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>> well >>> as single payer supporter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>> IL-13. >>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >>> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>> >>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >>> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >>> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >>> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >>> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >>> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>> >>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >>> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>> administration >>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>> Congress. >>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >>> the administration’s wars. —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Robert, >>> >>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>> candidate. >>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>> >>> Niloofar >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>> >>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >>> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat >>> Rodney Davis in November. >>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan. >>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >>> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan in a walk. >>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >>> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, >>> I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >>> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy >>> Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's >>> List. >>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>> general. >>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as >>> a strong plus. >>> >>> _______________________ >>> >>> > > > From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:14:25 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <213997A2-8263-4BBF-901A-3ED58CFD2CB9@gmail.com> Carl Given your disdain for both major party candidates for Congress, why not exercise your right to write in the candidate of your choice? In Illinois write-ins are allowed within certain parameters. Investigate those—or declare yourself a write-in candidate— and the votes will be reported in the totals. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:59 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Pilger’s description of the ‘war party' remains all too accurate. They're the source of ‘Russiagate,’ to encourage US belligerence. > > The question is how to vote in this year's Congressional election. My “personal value” is to vote against war. > > The system is designed to prevent that. The best we can do at the current juncture is to vote against the Democrat. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl, >> >> Pilger made that statement before the election. it’s no longer viable. Trump has capitulated on everything either the CIA or Pentagon want of him. He has handed war powers, over to the Pentagon. That which should be in the hands of Congress, not the military. Because Trump doesn’t want war with Russia or China, and says nice things, is meaningless. He is no anti-war candidate, in fact he is caving in to the neocons and Pentagons’ goal of “Iran next,” after we get Syria under control. After Iran the assumption is that Russia will be a piece of cake, I suppose. >> >> China is long term, and covert, thats where the CIA comes in, and always has. Hence the disagreements between our two “murder organizations,” that of the CIA and Pentagon. Trump is just floundering around between the two. >> >> His move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his meeting recently with the Saudi Prince in DC with millions more in sales of arms, are just two of his recent “peace initiatives?” >> >> Yes, the Democrats only care about the next election, and are behind Russiagate, and yes they want to impeach Trump because Pence is easier to manipulate, like Obama, but to excuse the Republicans or to equate them with “peace loving government representatives?” Total nonsense, and you know better. >> >> Just because liberals and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their Representatives, and President Obama are equally guilty of war crimes, if not more so if focusing on the body count, foreign body count and nation destruction, and Republicans may support your personal values, they sure as hell don’t support peace. You know full well, “foreign policy” continues unabated with perpetual war, no matter which of the two party’s are in power. >> >> Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, and the US and Europe is there now. Asia no, so they are on the rise, for now. >> >> Every single one of our Representatives in DC but for a very few, is guilty of war crimes, along with mainstream media, and should be tried according to International Law, if not just our own laws. >> >> Let us not forget 2003 and Iraq, which was only the beginning. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 07:39, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress. >>> >>> That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis. >>> >>> But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. >>> >>> "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures. >>> >>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>>>> time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>>>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>>> corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>>> in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>>>> Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>>>> surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>>> Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 03:53:01 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 22:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace] local "March for Our Lives" event / Douglass Park, Sat. 2:30 Message-ID: Dear Peace, You may have heard about the National March for Our Lives event that is happening in DC this coming Saturday. There will be a local event in solidarity! Please come support the young people! What: March for Our Lives CU Where: Douglass Park, 512 E. Grove St., Champaign Illinois 61820 When: Saturday, March 24, 2018; 2:30pm to 5:30pm Why: On *March 24,* the kids and families of March For Our Lives will take to the streets of Washington DC to demand that their lives and safety become a priority and that we end gun violence and mass shootings in our schools today. Who: Hosted by CU Mda (CU Moms Demand Action for gun sense in America) The weather might be cold and snowy, but they are saying "These amazing students have poured their hearts and souls and spring break hours into this, so let's bundle up and get out there to show our support and our commitment to gun violence prevention!" Kids of all ages are welcome to attend! This will be a family-friendly event. The rally will be about an hour long, and the march will be .6 miles, so those might be considerations for anyone interested in bringing young children. Links: * Facebook event for the CU march: https://www.facebook.com/events/1943094909268395/1949512565293296/ * The National Event website: https://marchforourlives.com/ (you can donate) * CU MDA: https://www.facebook.com/cu.mda.92?hc_ref=ARQEhkey1nvXvR90ksHx49aXCRPlv95APfun017LQYE0Ug3o1Zwh-R6J_Gs8eeD-XOk&fref=nf Yay, young people. -- karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 14:49:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:49:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace] FW: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation References: <005d01d3c37d$92406b60$b6c14220$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation March 22, 2018 On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a resolution that would have withdrawn US support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, choosing instead to continue to illegally assist what the UN has called “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis,” reports Dennis J. Bernstein and Shireen Al-Adeimi in this interview. By Dennis J. Bernstein Shireen Al-Adeimi is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University. But she is having a hard time focusing on her studies, when friends and family back home in Yemen are under violent attack by the heavily armed, US-backed Saudi forces, with many going hungry as a result of the Saudi blockade. Al-Adeimi said on Tuesday, March 20, “This month marks the third anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen. Despite the dire humanitarian crisis, however, the United States continues to sell arms to the Saudis and provide them with military support.” [cid:image001.jpg at 01D3C353.A8E729A0] A Saudi military member stands next to a damaged building in the area of the presidential palace in the southern city of Aden, Yemen. Sep 27, 2015. (Flickr Ahmed Farwan) Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Ut.), and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) had introduced a bill that aimed to force a withdrawal of the United States from the Saudi-led war, based on violations of the War Powers Act. But the Bill, Senate Joint Resolution 54, cosponsored by 10 senators, was voted down 55-44 on Tuesday. Of course it was no surprise, given the amount of lobbying money spent by the Saudis to buy congressional silence and support. The bill also was met with fierce opposition by various Trump administration officials. The American Conservative Magazine reported that “the media has been laying out the red carpet for Crown Prince bin Salman in Washington. What the establishment press won’t tell you is that no less than 25 American lobbying firms worked for the Saudi Arabian government in 2017 to the tune of $16 million, to burnish their image, manage the message, and get massive military contracts for the weapons of war that are now being used to kill, maim and slowly starve millions of civilians in Yemen today.” I spoke with Shireen Al-Adeimi on Tuesday, March 20, directly following the vote by Congress to continue aid for the US-supported, Saudi-led slaughter. Dennis Bernstein: Shireen, what is your response to the Senate voting to continue aid to the Saudis? Shireen Al-Adeimi: It is very disappointing because it ensures that millions more Yemenis will continue to suffer. On average, 130 children die every day in Yemen due to malnutrition and disease caused by the Saudi-led blockade. Many more will die because of US bombs which are dropped from Saudi jets. People continue to die for no reason at all. DB: Could you give us a little background? SAA: The Saudis began bombing Yemen in March, 2015. Right now, some 80% of a population of 24 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Yemen is experiencing the world’s worst cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million cases. There is a severe water crisis affecting 15 million people in Yemen. Hundreds of thousands have died of malnutrition and disease because Saudi Arabia is not only bombing Yemen but is also blockading Yemen by land, sea and air, ensuring that no aid or medicine can come into the country. The Saudis have created what the UN calls “the worst humanitarian crisis on earth today.” DB: Could you describe the United States’ role in all of this? SAA: In January, the US Army published an article detailing their support for the Saudis, including training Saudi soldiers, advising military personnel, maintaining and upgrading vehicles and aircraft, providing courses on communication and navigation, and providing Saudi jets with mid-air refueling. This is in addition to the billions in weapon sales between the US and Saudi Arabia every year. The bottom line is that the United States is benefiting from this relationship with the Saudis and it doesn’t seem to matter that this has caused such a humanitarian toll in the process. Estimates are that over 75% of the targets in Yemen have been civilian targets. DB: Is there a notable difference between the policies of the last administration and those of the Trump administration? SAA: Absolutely not. This began under the Obama administration, which sold billions in weapons to the Saudis and provided them with the logistical services I just mentioned. The Trump policy in Yemen is basically on autopilot, following blindly what the Obama administration did. This is very much a bipartisan effort. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C353.A8E729A0] King Salman greets President Obama and the First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) DB: Tell us more about how this is evolving on the ground. SAA: People have lost their jobs. There is no future to look forward to. People who were once wealthy or middle-class are now resorting to begging on the streets and selling their possessions. Three million are displaced internally because there is nowhere to go with the blockade in place. People can’t find water, they can’t find food, they can’t find medicine or fuel. They can’t decide whether to take a sick child to the hospital or provide them with food. It is as bad as it can get. DB: The Saudi prince was just in D.C. He said that he really feels for the people of Yemen and that he is working on easing the blockade because he understands how devastating it has been. What is your response to that? SAA: It is a complete fabrication. They are the ones imposing the blockade, they are the ones bombing a sovereign country. They have no business in Yemen at all. And then to claim that it is the Houthis who are preventing food and medicine from coming into the country is completely absurd. In fact, the Saudis have acknowledged that they are using starvation as a weapon. They have already bombed most hospitals in Yemen. Four times they bombed Doctors without Borders hospitals. So far they have caused the death of at least 10,000 civilians through airstrikes and tens of thousands more through disease and malnutrition caused by the blockade. DB: The US media has once again dropped the ball. SAA: MSNBC reported on Yemen once in 2017 and not once since then. There is no reporting on the humanitarian crisis, on the resolutions before Congress. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, people just don’t want to go there. DB: What are human rights organizations saying about the potential for famine? SAA: The UN has designated Yemen a level 3 for famine out of a range of 1 to 4, but when you have people already dying of starvation it doesn’t matter much what level they establish. In 2015, 15,000 children died of hunger and disease in Yemen and a similar number in 2016. We are not at the brink of famine, we are already there. People are dying of starvation every day. DB: Is it possible to get through to folks on the ground there? Is there outreach from the country for support? SAA: Organizations such as Oxfam and Save the Children do have their ships there and they do bring in aid and food to the 7 million people who depend on it every day. But even that flow is obstructed by the Saudis. The cost of fuel has increased 200%. Family members like myself are sending cash, as are organizations like Doctors without Borders, to keep people employed and afloat. Kids are dying of diseases that are completely preventable. No one has to die from cholera. DB: How do you explain these congress people who support this ongoing war and famine in Yemen? Are they owned by the weapons manufacturers? SAA: Some claim that it protects Saudi interests and prevents Iran from spreading its tentacles in the region. But they undoubtedly have contact to the Saudis and to the weapons manufacturers who want to maintain their interests in Saudi Arabia. Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1073 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:09:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:09:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace] The disaster in Yemen Message-ID: To be clear, the Yemen destruction began in March 2015 under the Obama Administration, but it is completely supported by the Trump Administration. The Saudi's could not do this if it weren't for the US. They need our bombs, our training and our logistics. This has been known since March 2015, and it hasn’t changed. So, whose policy is it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:50:52 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:50:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] The disaster in Yemen In-Reply-To: <69753E3D-BC0F-47D7-A9E1-CB52293BCDB8@gmail.com> References: <69753E3D-BC0F-47D7-A9E1-CB52293BCDB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: We are in agreement on who is responsible, the “Deep State, political establishment, elite, one percent, etc.etc.” which comprises many, the Pentagon, the CIA, and our corporate owned Congress goes along with it. Yes, the potential impeachment of Trump is a distraction, like so many other things, which is why any concentration on Russiagate, which includes “defending Trump” is a distraction, and serves to divide between Dems and Repubs., left and right, bickering at one another over who is “the greater evil.” Which is why I generally refuse to indulge in conversations related to electoral politics, russiagate, or other nonsense. To be clear, there are issues within, related to domestic, such as racism, gun violence in the US, austerity policies, climate change, as well as poor social services which includes lack of health care, high taxes, etc. that are very important issues of concern. To refer to them as merely Identity Politics does a disservice to the victims, even if they are also a distraction from US foreign policy. We need to unite in common cause, to change the system. The system of capitalism is the root of all, and until this is recognized the abuse and exploitation will continue. > On Mar 24, 2018, at 08:40, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Yes. It’s US government policy, as it was in the Obama administration. As similar crimes were US government policy in the Kennedy administration. > > There are no ‘anti-war liberals’ in the US government. Driving Trump from office, as the political establishment wishes to do, is a conscious attempt to distract the US public from the war crimes that the establishment supports, encourages, and wishes to expand, in pursuit of the profits of the one percent. > > Trump is not the problem, and concentration on him - Russiagate, Mueller - is an establishment plot. > > We should work to build an American anti-war movement, co-otped by liberals (Obama, Sanders, Warren et al.) in this century. > > —CGE > >> On Mar 24, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> To be clear, the Yemen destruction began in March 2015 under the Obama Administration, but it is completely supported by the Trump Administration. >> The Saudi's could not do this if it weren't for the US. They need our bombs, our training and our logistics. This has been known since March 2015, and it hasn't changed. >> So, whose policy is it? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 13:46:44 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE meeting today Message-ID: AWARE meets today, Sunday 25 March, at HAMMERHEAD COFFEE >, on the NW corner of University and Wright streets in Champaign, 5-6pm. We'll discuss the news of US government war-making and local anti-war activities, including our regular demonstration on the first Saturday of the month (April 7). ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 14:26:09 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:26:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Immigration Seminar today, Sunday, 4-6pm: gun regulation w/ pro-immigrant activism? Message-ID: Hi friends—please come to the seminar on immigration today, Sunday, 4-6 pm. It’s held at 122 Franklin Street, the ‘Parkhouse’. Coffee and tea provided. The seminar is built around our talking with one another, on topics or questions where we’re trying to figure out an answer/way to talk/respond/action to take. Here are three potential topics, suggested by a few people: Topic 1: What are ways to connect the current activism around gun violence with activism around immigration? When NRA uses the language-'It's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people" in order to deflect blame, is there something similar in the ways we're made to talk about immigration? Topic 2: What do people think they are referring to when they say some group of people is 'stealing our jobs'? What does one have to assume for this phrase to make sense? Topic 3: what are other places/cities/universities doing in relation to ICE deportations. Could people research this? Susan -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 01:43:51 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:43:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> References: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl Will Tariq Ali be speaking at the Levi Center in the Music Room, as is the other program? On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:28, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:27:27 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:27:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Urbana Park District seeking new member of its Board of Commissioners--consider running for that office Message-ID: Hi friends---Urbana Park District has an opening for a new commissioner on its board. Please consider running. From my experience, the UPD is a progressive and forward-thinking group of people, and parks/recreation/classes/health land allocation are all within its scope. Application deadline is March 30. It's a one year position. https://www.urbanaparks.org/urbana-park-district-board-of-commissioners-accepting-applications-for-board-vacancy/ -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 10:48:43 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:48:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace] thank Rep Vela for opposing the abominable border wall Message-ID: Please call Rep Filemon Vela (D, TX-34) (202) 225-9901 and thank him for opposing the Trumpian border wall and helping to spare the Santa Ana National Wildlife Preserve. This wall bridges numerous issues:immigration, increasing militarism, spreading racism, and environmental destruction. After successfully lobbying for protection of Santa Ana NWR in the recent budget bill, Rep Vela voted against the final bill because it provided funding for the wall elsewhere and offered no protections for DREAMers. Vela: Top Democrats’ Support for Trump’s Border Wall an Abomination It is becoming abundantly clear that Republican Leadership does not have—nor has ever had—any intention of allowing DREAMers a pathway to citizenship. Despite the fact that 196 Members of Congress, some of whom include Republicans, have signed a procedural petition to bring the DREAM Act to the House floor for a simple up or down vote, Speaker Ryan refuses to allow the House to vote on the DREAM Act. A simple vote is our only request. Without having taken a single step toward resolving the status of DREAMers, it is difficult to believe any Democrat would be willing to give President Trump a nickel to fund his “big beautiful wall.” Surprisingly, three of my colleagues in Congress chose to reward Trump’s intransigence and inaction—with respect to DREAMers—with support for the President’s proposed border wall. The border wall is a physical representation of the cultural and racial insults President Trump has spewed since his campaign announcement. A physical wall is also a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars, endangers wildlife, stomps on property rights of private landowners, and isolates our partner, Mexico. Last week, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin publicized an effort to provide a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers in exchange for a down payment of $1.6 billion for Trump’s border wall. The wall Mr. Durbin proposed would be constructed in South Texas—and most disturbingly—through the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. On Friday, in a desperate move to avoid a government shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer visited the White House and “put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections…it was a generous offer.” And in a fit of emotion just hours after the midnight shutdown, Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) told reporters, “I’ll take a bucket, take bricks, and start building it [the wall] myself.” I am confounded by the negotiating tactics of my fellow Democrats. Beyond the stupidity of offering unmatched concessions and negotiating against themselves, my colleagues have begun to refer to the border wall in the same way Trump’s base speak about DREAMers and undocumented people. Their apparent acceptance of the border wall and disregard of the impact on border communities demonstrates a fundamental lack of thought, logic, and empathy. Mr. Trump’s border wall is not a cost-effective method of addressing the real issues agents face on the U.S.-Mexico border. Just two weeks ago the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Mr. Anthony Reardon, testified that the greatest obstacle to our nation’s border security is the Department of Homeland Security’s inability to fill the thousands of border agent and officer vacancies, which were authorized by Congress. In addition to the vacancies, Mr. Reardon mentioned the shortage of canines used to detect threats to national security. Reports of an internal White House budget guidance document for Fiscal Year 2019 reveal that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asked Department of Homeland Security officials to reduce or delay funding requests for technology and equipment meant to secure the border, including canine units and Coastal Interceptor boats used to apprehend drug smugglers. OMB’s request reveals that President Trump’s campaign promise that Mexico would pay for the wall is a lie. Rather than using taxpayer dollars on proven tools or in providing salary incentives to maintain the workforce that facilitates legitimate trade and travel, Mr. Trump is attempting to cut agents’ resources in order to pay for his wall. Government officers, canine units, and technology—not a border fence—are key to intercepting the flow of contraband into our country. Despite the impression given by supporters of a border wall, there is another massive obstacle to the barrier’s construction beyond the billions of dollars that the wall would cost to construct. Sixty-six percent of the land along our southern border is privately owned. A wall would greatly impose on the property rights of these American citizens. Those who have been able to remain living south of the wall will be stuck in limbo between the Rio Grande River and the border wall. Wall construction would require the federal government to claim eminent domain and seize the property of other private landowners. Families along the border would be uprooted from their homes, forcing them into long, arduous legal battles to defend their land. I am committed to protect DREAMers, but we can do that without sacrificing border communities and safety to satisfy an irrational demand for the construction of a border wall. I am disappointed that some members of my own party think so little of border residents that they have now offered up a physical border wall—helping President Trump fulfill one of his most repugnant campaign promises, without securing a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients. Thanks, Deb From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 01:28:02 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Message-ID: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 00:37:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:37:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: The News-Gazette: Letter to the Editor Submission References: <20180328003309.A56B126946@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: > To deter the rush to war, President Trump should remove special counsel Robert Mueller, and end his partisan search for Russian ‘meddling’ in the 2016 election - and supposed links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. > > The investigation, and the hysterical charges of Trump’s being ‘Putin’s puppet,’ are an attempt by the Democrats and the rest of the ‘war party’ to reverse the outcome of the election - and ensure the continuance of the Obama administration’s wars and war provocations - from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > > Trump inherited eight wars from Obama - wars intended to ensure the maintenance of the economic hegemony of the US one-percent, in the energy-rich Mideast and across Eurasia. > > Trump - in spite of contradictory statements - criticized those wars and provocations during the campaign. The war party are desperately afraid he may act on those criticisms, especially when he proposes talks with the North Korean and Russian leaders. > > John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” > > Mueller is continuing the farce - and should cease. > > —C. G. Estabrook From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:36:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:36:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace] AWARE on the Air - Episode #447 Message-ID: <2D4C4B1E-D04F-43B6-8281-6F465DC0FBEE@gmail.com> Recorded at noon on Tuesday 27 March 2018 > ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 15:03:47 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:03:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Gene Sharp References: Message-ID: <5DB9EAA3-A3E7-42E9-9C0F-1A305CDC4939@illinois.edu> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Voices for Creative Nonviolence > Subject: Ann TIffany and Ed Kinane on Gene Sharp > Date: March 27, 2018 at 10:00:57 AM CDT > To: > Reply-To: Voices for Creative Nonviolence > > > We're pleased to offer this article from two of our friends and inspirations, Ann Tiffany and Ed Kinane. > > > > Gene Sharp Taught Us How and Why Nonviolence Works > - Ann Tiffany and Ed Kinane > Activist, author and scholar Gene Sharp died this past January 28. Inspired by Gandhi and deeply informed by history, Sharp (b.1928) founded the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston. Back in the 80s, Ed plowed through Sharp’s three-volume, 900-page, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Porter Sargent, 1973). > > The tome pivots on Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” for toppling dictators and enlarging liberation. Widely reprinted, the systematic (though somewhat redundant) list examines methods that over the centuries had been successfully used at least one time or another across many cultures. > > These methods apply not only to regime change, but also to other causes. Grassroots groups we’ve been a part of have used dozens of them. Many would be familiar to Peace Newsletter readers. For all its breadth, that iconic list still remains, as if in amber, at 198 items. Activists in this age of social media could now cite additional tactics. > > Sharp wrote many books. His intellectually exciting Making Europe Unconquerable (Harper & Row, 1985) is highly practical. It draws on nonviolent tactics used by the Resistance during the Nazi invasions. At 93 pages Sharp’s more theoretical From Dictatorship to Democracy: a Conceptual Framework for Liberation (Bangkok, 1993) is Sharp’s most impactful work. It is downloadable for free and, according to the Albert Einstein Institution, has been translated into dozens of languages. Anti-tyranny activists circulated the handbook clandestinely during the East Europe color revolutions and during the Arab Spring. Some commentators claim that the handbook played a significant role in those mostly nonviolent upsurges of grassroots resistance. > > Our local Beyond War and Militarism committee’s working paper, “Getting Beyond War and Militarism: A To-Do list” (Jan/Feb 2019 PNL), complements Sharp’s “198 List.” Where “198” is rich in examples and documentation, our single-page, 22-item to-do list points out major goals and policy areas for activists to pursue. Shar provides tools for overthrowing state oppression, while ours seeks to counter the militarism infecting political parties and regimes, “democratic” or authoritarian. Unlike much mainstream media commentary, the to-do list can guide us in resisting US exceptionalism and imperialism. > > To resist Mr Trump, many US activists have recently taken their cues from “The Indivisible Guide,” also freely available online. Compiled by former Congressional staffers, the Guide has gone viral in the wake of Trump’s election. It promotes Tea Party –type electoral efforts. For a decidedly distinct approach we encourage activists to study Sharp – thereby getting beyond the Democrat/Republican duopoly with its bipartisan, heavily-lobbied, profit-hungry lust for war. > > The New Poor People’s Campaign > > The Gandhi-inspired PPC is one of any number of domestic US campaigns mobilizing to resist Trump. The new PPC, committed to nonviolence, channels Martin Luther King Jr’s 1980s Poor People’s Campaign. Today’s campaign is co-chaired by Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, longtime organizer among the poor, and by Rev. Dr. William Barber, the spark behind North Carolina’s Moral Mondays movement. Like MLK’s PPC, the new PPC calls out King’s three entwined evils: racism, poverty and militarism. Today’s PPC adds a fourth: global warming – an existential threat to many species. > > Today’s PPC is organizing in over 30 states and envisions 40 days of civil resistance from Mother’s Day, May 13, to the June 21 summer solstice. We intend those 40 days to be a fresh start on defanging the Trump regime. In New York State, the PPC is preparing for a large civil resistance action in Albany on Monday, May 14, the day after Mothers’ Day. Details forthcoming. Here in Syracuse, one or more May 14 affinity groups are forming. > > Why civil resistance? As Gandhi and Sharp and Poor People’s campaigners know, tyrannical regimes can only exist with the compliance of those they rule. We, the ruled, must forsake our fears, our distractions, our addictions, our co-optations and, to keep us free, resist the lure of consumer credit. If enough of us shed our aversion to risk, our habits of obedience and deference to power, and if we do what we can to thwart the complicity of institutions with the power structure, the pillars propping up the regime will give way. > > In closing, let us leave you with yet another key resource to read: Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan’s Why Civil Resistance Works: the Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia U. Press, 2011). These two heirs of Sharp don’t lean on either the idealistic or the spiritual. Like Sharp, they provide pragmatic and rigorous – yet accessible – analysis of why nonviolent tactics are usually more successful and always less destructive than militarism. > > Ed and Ann have long been anti-militarism activists. Since 2010 they have worked to expose Reaper drone war crime perpetrated by Hancock Air Base, home of the 174th NYS National Guard Attack Wing. Reach them at edkinane340 at gmail.com or anntiffany6236 at gmail.com . > > Share > Tweet > Forward to Friend > > > > > > > This email was sent to galliher at uiuc.edu > why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences > Voices for Creative Nonviolence · 1249 W Argyle St · Chicago, IL 60640 · USA > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 02:48:59 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:48:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight In-Reply-To: <41BAA8C6-BAB7-4AF4-9631-70D947EBD3ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abda59e.86a96b0a.f774d.7848@mx.google.com>  I am very glad I attended.  For those of you who attended, who was quoted to have said something like: "Beware the ( activist/ revolutionary) who is saying the same things in his 80s as he said in his 20s." This was quoted by the man who was introducingTariq Ali. * There were 80 chairs and i counted at least 130 people attending. * The microphone was turned on but the speakers were off for the entire talk. I am still glad I was there.  -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/29/18 20:45 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight I would love to have an account, however brief, of Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight. Thanks to any member/friend of AWARE who’d be willing to do this. I was unable to attend.  —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:05:04 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abdb775.1c69fb81.60cd.b904@mx.google.com> Some points made by Tariq Ali, as I remember them -Karen Medina:* 1968, end of the old style of revolutions. * two great wins:1) Vietnamese people won against US.2) anti- war movement wins. A win that keeps the US from openly committing war until the 1990s. Anti-war Veterans, demonstrated at the Pentagon, dating that Vietnam would win and the US veterans were supporting the Vietnamese win. --Portugal as the single best experiment in socialism, and this is because of a refusal to accept dictatorship. All other attempts accepted dictatorship, a proletariat dictatorship is a dictatorship. -- Side note: Iraq, was the arab country with the most women educated. Iran was second. Syria too, women educated. --Imperialism. The United states needs to change. The west coast was the tech revolution. Still leader. But imperialism and forcing others to go along with the US is not going to last.--England, Had an open invitation for people to join the right wing party, got a leftist and had to give him air time. [There was a lot more, but i was not taking notes. Only what I can remember after the talk].-----In response to Ken Salo's question:Ali totally dismissed Marx as laying out a clear alternative to capitalism. Marx is great at pointing out flaws of capitalism. Marx is great at political analysis. But not a prediction of the future, and nor explicating the solution. / The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the " communist manifesto". -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/25/18 20:28 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:05:04 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abdb77c.1c69fb81.b1657.c1aa@mx.google.com> Some points made by Tariq Ali, as I remember them -Karen Medina:* 1968, end of the old style of revolutions. * two great wins:1) Vietnamese people won against US.2) anti- war movement wins. A win that keeps the US from openly committing war until the 1990s. Anti-war Veterans, demonstrated at the Pentagon, dating that Vietnam would win and the US veterans were supporting the Vietnamese win. --Portugal as the single best experiment in socialism, and this is because of a refusal to accept dictatorship. All other attempts accepted dictatorship, a proletariat dictatorship is a dictatorship. -- Side note: Iraq, was the arab country with the most women educated. Iran was second. Syria too, women educated. --Imperialism. The United states needs to change. The west coast was the tech revolution. Still leader. But imperialism and forcing others to go along with the US is not going to last.--England, Had an open invitation for people to join the right wing party, got a leftist and had to give him air time. [There was a lot more, but i was not taking notes. Only what I can remember after the talk].-----In response to Ken Salo's question:Ali totally dismissed Marx as laying out a clear alternative to capitalism. Marx is great at pointing out flaws of capitalism. Marx is great at political analysis. But not a prediction of the future, and nor explicating the solution. / The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the " communist manifesto". -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/25/18 20:28 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 16:31:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. Message-ID: My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, welcoming comments for discussion: Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, leading to my disappointment. He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working closely with the USG. Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of China. Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are important, saying “its what we have.” Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by our corporations. He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an applause. He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized police. He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against others. While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of the US. We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have russiagate. Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. He briefly covers some of this. He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 17:03:16 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:03:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your previous statement that it was a lot of territory to cover in such a short amount of time, is a point well taken. That being said, the lack of general interest in that which is taking place elsewhere in the world in respect to politics, and war, I think its quite reasonable for most people to assume the focus would be on the USG. On Mar 30, 2018, at 09:48, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss > wrote: I am still confused as to why anyone expected the talk to be more U.S. centered than it was. -karen medina On Mar 30, 2018, at 09:31, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, welcoming comments for discussion: Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, leading to my disappointment. He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working closely with the USG. Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of China. Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are important, saying “its what we have.” Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by our corporations. He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an applause. He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized police. He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against others. While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of the US. We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have russiagate. Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. He briefly covers some of this. He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 01:06:31 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:06:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace] No immigration seminar this Sunday April 1; great immigration activist coming to town this Thursday evening. Message-ID: Hi friends—many of you have indicated you’ll be out of town or otherwise busy on this holiday Sunday—so let’s skip meeting Sunday April 1, And reconvene on Sunday, April 8, 4-6pm. Friend Ricardo Diaz has let us know that there’s a great immigration activist coming this Thursday. Read down below, I’ll be going—anyone needing a ride should contact me. We don’t yet have *the exact time and place*—it will be Thursday evening but the exact time and place is not yet available. I’ll let you know when and where, when I know. Hi all(from Ricardo) This is a short notice invite to involve your group or class with an immigration policy activist that will be in the area next Thursday the 5th. Jane Guskin ; the second edition of her book is just out and it might be a good opportunity to get a discussion going beyond our Immmigration 101 opportunities all the way up to resisting ICE. She says and includes the attached flyer: I had not even thought of doing a book event, but that would be great. Yes, it's only a week away, but it seems worth a try. Here's a description of the dialogue model I would prefer to use, rather than a traditional book talk: http://thepoliticsofimmigration.org/our-immigration-dialogues/. I have used this model in classrooms too, so if any professors are interested I can do the dialogue with a class on Wednesday or Thursday in addition to a Thursday evening public event. . ​I'd like to finalize an event or visit by tomorrow morning, Saturday, so we can have books shipped in case people want to know more. If you'd like to forward this to others, please feel free. Text or call me ASAP? ​ ​Thanks for considering this,​ -.-.-.-.-.--.-.--.-.--...-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Ricardo Diaz xpenn.diaz at gmail.com cell # 217 979-0255 “If I quit now, I will soon be back to where I started. And when I started I was desperately wishing to be where I am now.” -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 01:13:41 2018 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:13:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace] flier about event Thursday night, immigration activist Jane Guskin Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: C-U_Flier.Jane.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 915327 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 16:57:47 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:57:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace] April 8th - Charlie King sings at UCIMC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Below is a concert that is happening next Sunday. April 8th at the UCIMC 202, S. Broadway in Urbana. Please forward to anybody you think might be interested. For more about Charlie: https://www.charlieking.org/ (King has come to C-U several times before and we've enjoyed hearing him.  Karen and I have shirts from King with the refrain from one of his songs: /“Our life is more than our work, and our work is more than our job.”/  -- Stuart) PRESENTED BY THE UCIMC Tickets: $15, $10 students at the door Charlie King is a musical storyteller and political satirist. He has been at the heart of American folk music for half a century. He sings and writes passionately about the extraordinary lives of ordinary people. His songs have been sung by Pete Seeger, Holly Near, Ronnie Gilbert, John McCutcheon, Arlo Guthrie, Peggy Seeger, Chad Mitchell and Judy Small, to name a few. “With encouraging regularity, Charlie King emerges from his self-reflection to remind us of the happy resilience of the human spirit. His message songs vary between the funny and the frightening, but he pulls them off with unvarying taste, musical skill, and charm.” Billboard “One of the finest singers and songwriters of our time.” Pete Seeger Charlie’s central vision as an entertainer is to leave audiences with a sense of optimism and possibility about the future. “I try to cover a broad emotional landscape in my concerts. The stories I collect and the songs I write take the listener on a journey of humor, heartache and hope. What I most value in a song is the way it helps us see an old reality in a totally new light.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: