From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 22:58:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 14:58:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [unac] UNAC Conference and more References: Message-ID: > > > > Click here to read this email in your browser > > Save the date > UNAC's national conference will be held in New York City at the People's > Forum, February 21 - 23 > > February 21, 22, 23, People's Forum in New York City > "Rise Against Militarism, Racism and the Climate Crisis - Building Power Together" > To register, get an ad in the conference Journal or information on other logistics, please go here . > Also join and share the conference facebook event: here > > Call for International Days of Action Against > > Sanctions& Economic War: March 13 ? 15, 2020 > > Sanctions Kill! > > Sanctions are War! > > End Sanctions Now > > > > > To add your endorsement and help spread the word, please click here Sanctions are imposed by the United States and its junior partners against countries that resist their agendas. They are a weapon of Economic War, resulting in chronic shortages of basic necessities, economic dislocation, chaotic hyperinflation, artificial famines, disease, and poverty. In every country, the poorest and the weakest ? infants, children, the chronically ill and the elderly ? suffer the worst impact of sanctions. [read more] > UNAC Statement on the Bolivian Coup > > > President Morales was the first indigenous president of Bolivia. When he was granted asylum by the Mexican government he said these words upon his arrival. "If I have committed a crime; it's being indigenous. If the Vice President has committed a crime; it's implementing social programs for the humble and poorest sectors seeking social justice." [read more ] > > Chicago conference to relaunch National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression a huge success > > > (pictured is Frank Chapman, interim exec. Director of the Alliance who will speak at the UNAC conference in February) > > > > Chicago, IL - More than a 1200 joined together for an historic gathering on the weekend of November 22 ? 24, at the hall of the Chicago Teachers Union, to refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. The newly refounded Alliance will concentrate its efforts on building the fight against police crimes and for community control of the police, and it will campaign for the release of political prisoners and the wrongfully convicted [read more ] > > Join UNAC > > Now more than ever we all need to unite. If your organization is not a member of UNAC, please join us by clicking here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html > > > Read the UNAC Blog > https://unac.notowar.net/ > Some recent posts: > Celsea Manning's Heroic Resistance > - Supratim Barman presents Chelsea Manning's most recent legal affidavit where she pleads her case, she is being tortured but she will not testify > > Bolivia, Anatomy of a Coup > - Jeff Mackler and Lazaro Monteverde provide a timeline and some serious analysis of the recent coup which overthrew Evo Morales in Bolivia > > Secret Document Reveals US Plans for Civil War in Lebanon > - Randi Nord reports on evidence of western interference underlying the current unrest in Lebanon > > American Thanksgivings, What Are We Celebrating? > - Glen Ford presents damning research into the origins of the US Thanksgiving holiday > > The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding > - Caitlin Johnstone shows the significance of the OPCW scandal where a respected international expert organization deliberately skews its findings to support a political agenda > > Can the Religious Left Take Down Nuclear Weapons? > - Sam Husseini takes a broad look at the issues raised by the KingsBay Plowshares anti-nuke action and the 3 day trial and conviction of the 7 activists now facing (essentially) life sentences > > Eye Witness to a Massacre in Bolivia > - Medea Benjamin reports from Bolivia live on a post-coup massacre of indigenous supporters of Evo Morales party MAS > > French Yellow Vests Celebrate First Birthday > - Richard Greeman looks at the reorganization of the Yellow Vest movement at 1 year old > > You Can't Call Yourself Anti-Racist if You Aren't Anti-Imperialist > - Makasi Motema explains that solidarity is about making sure the politics you hold inside of your home match the politics you hold outside of your home > > Water Water Everywhere..... > - Philip Farruggio and Peter Koenig discuss the privatization of water and the risks it presents > > Courageous UAW Strike Ends With Few Gains > - David Jones looks at the temporary and limited gains won by the recent reassertion of the UAW > > Death Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen > - Kathy Kelly reflects on the consequences of the US - Saudi war on the poorest state in the Middle East > > America Needs Protest > - Margaret Kimberley notes that people are rising up all over the world, but we are just getting started here in the US > > > > > > Please make a contribution to UNAC: https://www.unacpeace.org/donate.html > If your organization would like to join the UNAC coalition, please click here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 22:58:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 14:58:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [unac] UNAC Conference and more References: Message-ID: > > > > Click here to read this email in your browser > > Save the date > UNAC's national conference will be held in New York City at the People's > Forum, February 21 - 23 > > February 21, 22, 23, People's Forum in New York City > "Rise Against Militarism, Racism and the Climate Crisis - Building Power Together" > To register, get an ad in the conference Journal or information on other logistics, please go here . > Also join and share the conference facebook event: here > > Call for International Days of Action Against > > Sanctions& Economic War: March 13 ? 15, 2020 > > Sanctions Kill! > > Sanctions are War! > > End Sanctions Now > > > > > To add your endorsement and help spread the word, please click here Sanctions are imposed by the United States and its junior partners against countries that resist their agendas. They are a weapon of Economic War, resulting in chronic shortages of basic necessities, economic dislocation, chaotic hyperinflation, artificial famines, disease, and poverty. In every country, the poorest and the weakest ? infants, children, the chronically ill and the elderly ? suffer the worst impact of sanctions. [read more] > UNAC Statement on the Bolivian Coup > > > President Morales was the first indigenous president of Bolivia. When he was granted asylum by the Mexican government he said these words upon his arrival. "If I have committed a crime; it's being indigenous. If the Vice President has committed a crime; it's implementing social programs for the humble and poorest sectors seeking social justice." [read more ] > > Chicago conference to relaunch National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression a huge success > > > (pictured is Frank Chapman, interim exec. Director of the Alliance who will speak at the UNAC conference in February) > > > > Chicago, IL - More than a 1200 joined together for an historic gathering on the weekend of November 22 ? 24, at the hall of the Chicago Teachers Union, to refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. The newly refounded Alliance will concentrate its efforts on building the fight against police crimes and for community control of the police, and it will campaign for the release of political prisoners and the wrongfully convicted [read more ] > > Join UNAC > > Now more than ever we all need to unite. If your organization is not a member of UNAC, please join us by clicking here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html > > > Read the UNAC Blog > https://unac.notowar.net/ > Some recent posts: > Celsea Manning's Heroic Resistance > - Supratim Barman presents Chelsea Manning's most recent legal affidavit where she pleads her case, she is being tortured but she will not testify > > Bolivia, Anatomy of a Coup > - Jeff Mackler and Lazaro Monteverde provide a timeline and some serious analysis of the recent coup which overthrew Evo Morales in Bolivia > > Secret Document Reveals US Plans for Civil War in Lebanon > - Randi Nord reports on evidence of western interference underlying the current unrest in Lebanon > > American Thanksgivings, What Are We Celebrating? > - Glen Ford presents damning research into the origins of the US Thanksgiving holiday > > The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding > - Caitlin Johnstone shows the significance of the OPCW scandal where a respected international expert organization deliberately skews its findings to support a political agenda > > Can the Religious Left Take Down Nuclear Weapons? > - Sam Husseini takes a broad look at the issues raised by the KingsBay Plowshares anti-nuke action and the 3 day trial and conviction of the 7 activists now facing (essentially) life sentences > > Eye Witness to a Massacre in Bolivia > - Medea Benjamin reports from Bolivia live on a post-coup massacre of indigenous supporters of Evo Morales party MAS > > French Yellow Vests Celebrate First Birthday > - Richard Greeman looks at the reorganization of the Yellow Vest movement at 1 year old > > You Can't Call Yourself Anti-Racist if You Aren't Anti-Imperialist > - Makasi Motema explains that solidarity is about making sure the politics you hold inside of your home match the politics you hold outside of your home > > Water Water Everywhere..... > - Philip Farruggio and Peter Koenig discuss the privatization of water and the risks it presents > > Courageous UAW Strike Ends With Few Gains > - David Jones looks at the temporary and limited gains won by the recent reassertion of the UAW > > Death Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen > - Kathy Kelly reflects on the consequences of the US - Saudi war on the poorest state in the Middle East > > America Needs Protest > - Margaret Kimberley notes that people are rising up all over the world, but we are just getting started here in the US > > > > > > Please make a contribution to UNAC: https://www.unacpeace.org/donate.html > If your organization would like to join the UNAC coalition, please click here: https://www.unacpeace.org/join.html > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Dec 2 02:16:55 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 20:16:55 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Trump in Afghanistan In-Reply-To: References: <043D5F41-5B10-41B2-BBB7-2B5F794A5545@newsfromneptune.com> <9A5EBB06-CD12-4425-8647-7BB686CA84F5@newsfromneptune.com> <812799532.894664.1575031764114@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3FDB6867-E2DA-436A-9D45-657D356E70BF@newsfromneptune.com> The people who are most opposed to making a deal that would see US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan are the neocons/CIA/Democrats who want to maintain the US policy of war and war provocations against Russia and China. They?re afraid that Trump will make such a deal and interfere with belligerent US policy: that?s why he has to be removed. The US originally sent jihadists into Afghanistan in the Carter adminstrtion ?to give the Russians a Vietnam of their own," as Z. Brzezinski said. (The Obama administration tried the same thing in Syria.) See . The US invasion in October of 2001 was ostensibly to get Bin Laden, so the Afghan government offered to deliver hm to a third country for trial, but the US didn?t take up the offer. Again, the US goal was not Bin Laden, but Russia. ?CGE > On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:39 AM, John W. via Peace wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:49 AM Mildred O'brien via Peace wrote: > > I'm sick of "let's make a deal." The only "deal" the wheeler-dealer wants to make is HIS deal--which he will re-neg whenever he feel's like it (and then deny he ever did the deal in the first place). > > mo'b > > Amen, mo'b!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > To: peace-discuss > Cc: Peace > Sent: Thu, Nov 28, 2019 7:45 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump in Afghanistan > > [FT] Trump says talks with Taliban have resumed > US president Donald Trump said peace talks with the Taliban had resumed > as he made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thanksgiving, > appearing at a US air force base alongside Afghan president Ashraf Ghani. > > Following a meeting with Mr Ghani, Mr Trump told reporters that the Taliban > ?wants to make a deal? and that US officials were ?meeting with them?. > > > > On Nov 28, 2019, at 7:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > > > WSJ: "Trump Says Taliban Peace Talks to Resume During Surprise Afghanistan Visit? > > > > > > In the early 1960's, some US military would say of Kennedy's attack on South Vietnam, "It's a dirty little war - but it's the only war we've got.? > > > > Today, thanks most recently to Obama - the first US president to be at war throughout two presidential terms - they needn't say that about Afghanistan: he's left seven others to choose from, having attacked Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well. > > > > But the permanent government (notably Democrat ?liberals?) insist on removing Trump for fear he'll end the killing in Afghanistan and elsewhere? > > > > ?CGE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From jbn at forestfield.org Mon Dec 2 03:51:18 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:51:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Notes Message-ID: <43fa18aa-914c-14af-6bc7-e4d739538303@forestfield.org> I'm not sure how much time I'll have to spend on writing more notes this week so I'll post what I have now. Have a good show, Carl & David. -J War/Economy: How much is the Forever War costing us? https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/forever-war-in-the-last-20-years-cost-6-4-trillion-L9NxuUD1IkaKtzSdMelQDQ/ > Since 911, the cost of Forever War totals $6.4 Trillion and 801,000 > killed including 335,000 dead civilians. For What? > > Neta C. Crawford, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political > Science at Boston University and a co-director of the Costs of War > Project at Brown University calculates the Cost of 20 Years of War[1] [1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/US%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Wars%20November%202019.pdf How do we bamboozle the people into (literally and figuratively) buying endless war (called "Forever War")? Change the names of the wars to hide the total spent: > One potential barrier for civilians to understanding the total scale > and costs of the post-9/11 wars is the changes in the naming of the > wars. The US military designates main war zones in Afghanistan, > Pakistan, Iraq, and Syria as named operations. The longest war so far, > in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has had two names: Operation Enduring > Freedom, designated the first phase of war in Afghanistan from October > 2001; it was designated Operation Freedom?s Sentinel on 1 January 2015. > The war in Iraq was designated Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 2003 > to 31 August 2010, when it became Operation New Dawn. When the US began > to fight in Syria and Iraq, the war was designated Operation Inherent > Resolve. For ease of understanding, the costs are not labeled here by > their OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] designation, but by major > war zone ? namely Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iraq and later Iraq and > Syria. Hide the funding as emergency spending: > OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] spending is considered emergency > spending. Emergency appropriations for the DOD are not subject to the > same detailed Congressional oversight and limits as regular, or ?base? > budget non-emergency appropriations, for costs that endure whether or > not the US is at war. Shift the expenses to exceed the budget: > In FY 2019, the Trump Administration made the practice of shifting > emergency OCO appropriations into the base budget overt when it > introduced new ways of categorizing the Department of Defense spending > related to the Overseas Contingency Operations. Some of the funding that > was previously designated for specific military operations has now been > moved into a category called ?OCO for Enduring Theater Requirements and > Related Missions? and another, ?OCO for Base Requirements.? [...] > These changes are specifically and explicitly intended to get around > Congressionally imposed limits on the base defense budget. The > Department of Defense FY2020 request explicitly stated as much: "These > base budget requirements are funded in the OCO budget due to limits on > budget defense caps enacted in the Budget Control Act of 2011." How many people have died in these wars? > The American Conservative comments the Costs of Forever War: 335,000 > Dead Civilians and $6.4 Trillion.[1] > > The amount of money spent on these wars cannot fully convey their sheer > wastefulness. Wars are always expensive, and they usually end up being > much more expensive than anyone anticipates at the beginning, but when > those wars are unnecessary and useless it makes the exorbitant cost that > much more sickening. The money and resources expended on almost twenty > years of failed wars could have been put to any number of more > productive uses. Instead, that vast sum has been poured down the drain. > As it is, the U.S. has little or nothing to show for the massive > malinvestment that it has made in fighting these wars. These wars have > not made the U.S. more secure, they have created more enemies than they > destroyed, and they have set fires in their respective regions that will > take years to burn out. As staggering as the $6.4 trillion figure is, it > doesn?t capture how ruinous these wars have been. The U.S. will continue > to pay for these wars long after they are over in more ways than one. > > A full reckoning of the costs of our wars has to include the hundreds of > thousands dead, millions displaced, and the wreckage of multiple > countries. These are the truly senseless losses that could have been > avoided. The report details these costs as well: > > The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at > Brown University, also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as > a direct result of fighting. Of those, more than 335,000 have been > civilians. Another 21 million people have been displaced due to > violence. > > The death and destruction that our wars inflict on the people living in > these countries are rarely mentioned in our foreign policy debates, and > these losses are almost never taken into consideration when thinking > about the costs of these wars. That encourages U.S. politicians and > policymakers to take a very cavalier approach to supporting the use of > force in other parts of the world, and it allows them to escape > accountability for the harm that these policies cause. > > For the last twenty years, there has been no limit on what the U.S. > would spend on foreign wars, and Congress and presidents of both parties > have reliably thrown more money at the Pentagon to sustain these > unwinnable wars. While there might be occasional griping about ?waste, > fraud, and abuse,? there has been no serious, consistent effort to rein > in these wars or the military budget. There has been even less interest > in grappling with the horrific human costs of our militarized foreign > policy. That has to change, and it starts with demanding that the U.S. > end its failed and open-ended wars abroad. [1] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-costs-of-forever-war-335000-dead-civilians-and-6-4-trillion/ Democrats/Impeachment: The Democrats want Trump to remain in office. Therefore the Democrats want things that help give reasons to support him without addressing issues of substance in Americans' lives. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents -- > A new national survey finds independent voters leading a sharp swing in > opposition to impeachment, the second major poll to produce those > findings this week. > > The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose > impeaching President Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That?s a > 6-point swing in support from October, when 48 percent of voters > supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed. > > More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose > impeachment than support it, a significant change from Emerson's polling > in October. The new poll found 49 percent oppose impeachment compared to > 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents polled > supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed. > > Since October, Emerson has found Trump?s job approval rating jump by 5 > points, from 43 percent to 48 percent. > > This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely > to oppose impeachment, despite wall-to-wall media coverage of the House > hearings that have produced bombshell testimony about how Trump > threatened to withhold financial aid to Ukraine if the country did not > open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a top > contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. > > A Marquette University survey of Wisconsin, a battleground state that > Trump turned red in 2016 for the first time in decades, found 40 percent > think the president should be impeached and removed, against 53 percent > who do not think so. > > In October, 44 percent favored impeachment and removal and 51 percent > opposed. > > Only 36 percent of independent respondents in Wisconsin support > impeachment and removal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwe_K9Dxio -- Jimmy Dore & co. on this including pointing out how the lack of black voter support for Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren will make either of them lose in 2020: > Jimmy Dore: So they keep saying you have to go after the center, these > independents, the Trump voters, that's how you've gotta win, you've > gotta go after these moderate Republicans and get them. Why Hillary > Clinton lost was because black and brown people would not come out to > vote for her in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. That's what > fuckin' happened to her, okay? They would not get off the couch. People > who voted for Barack Obama twice would not come out and vote for Hillary > Clinton. [...B]ecause she was for TPP which took their job away, and > they did the crime bill which put half of their fuckin' people in jail > also. So that's a big part [of it]. So now, if we go in who do we gotta > get? We gotta get the black and brown people to vote for the Democrat in > Michigan and Wisconsin. Guess what? Pete Buttigieg: zero fuckin' black > support. Zero. He has to manufacture and pretend. Elizabeth Warren: zero > fuckin' black support, okay? So if you're running Elizabeth Warren or > Pete Buttigieg you're gonna fuckin' lose again, especially in Wisconsin > and Michigan. Bernie Sanders? Is the guy who's gonna win that contest. > That's what's gonna happen, right? And expands on this (with focus on the Democratic Party-supported 3-month extension of the USA PATRIOT Act) described in https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/19/handing-trump-terrifying-authoritarian-surveillance-powers-house-democrats-include concluding that "any blue will do" doesn't help when the Democrats don't do what helps you. jbn: It's naive to believe that the Democratic Party can be made better from within, or that that party is run in a small-d democratic way. Sanders and Gabbard have no chance to represent the DLC corporation because as light as their systemic critique is (moreso Sanders than Gabbard since Sanders' foreign policy favors war, sanctions, and coups), that's too much criticism for the Democratic Party elites. And both of them have already pledged their support to whomever wins that party's primary (something Dore & co. hypocritically chastise Sanders for but let Gabbard slide on). Remember how Sanders was cheated (and accepted being cheated) then endorsed his cheater in the end? And remember what the DLC corporation's lawyer Bruce Spiva told us in a lawsuit brought by the disaffected supporters of Sanders' 2016 campaign (in a lawsuit that was virtually unreported even in most "alternative" news media like Democracy Now)? From http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf > Bruce Spiva: [...] We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, > and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are > voluntarily deciding, we could have ? and we could have voluntarily > decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and > smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was > done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right > [...] In other words: political parties don't owe you democratic control over who represents them. The court Spiva was speaking to is way more powerful than any of the people supporting Sanders, Gabbard, or anyone else in the DLC primary. Yet Spiva knew he was right and he knew he had nothing to fear in speaking to a court as he did. He essentially told the court to keep its nose out of DLC party politics. Democrats/Identity Politics/Russiagate: The Democrats want Trump to remain in office. Therefore the Democrats want things that help give reasons to support him without addressing issues of substance in Americans' lives. Democratic Party sympathizer Tara McGowan boasts of doing what the Democrats accuse Russia doing on behalf of the Republican Party. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQkDcEqdAo -- RT's report. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-11-25/acronym-s-newsrooms-are-a-liberal-digital-spin-on-local-news -- > While the articles she [Tara McGowan] publishes are based on facts, > nothing alerts readers that Courier publications aren?t actually > traditional hometown newspapers but political instruments designed to > get them to vote for Democrats. And although the articles are made to > resemble ordinary news, their purpose isn?t primarily to build a > readership for the website: It?s for the pieces to travel individually > through social media, amplifying their influence with persuadable > voters. > > To make this happen, McGowan is doing something else small newspapers > don?t: she?s using her sizable war chest and digital advertising savvy > to pay to have her articles placed into the Facebook feeds of > swing-state users she?s identified as most likely to respond to them, > then using that feedback to find more people like them. In digital > advertising, this is known as ?building a custom audience.? Applied to > politics, it?s more like finding and activating the 80,000 swing-state > voters Clinton was missing, who could potentially put Democrats over > the top in next year?s election. ?This is the most interesting, and > potentially important, thing happening on our side right now,? says one > unaffiliated Democratic organizer. ?If it works, it will change the > whole ballgame of how we reach and motivate our people.? [...] > Instead of boosting a news article on Facebook as a one-off promotion, > as the presidential candidates are doing, McGowan and Courier will > continually gather data on interested readers, which Facebook?for a > price?will use to find more of them. ?Everybody who clicks on, likes, or > shares an article,? says McGowan, ?we get that data back to create a > lookalike audience to find other people with similar attributes in the > same area. So we continually grow our ability to find people.? What?s > more, it?s suddenly clear that targeting voters through the guise of a > media company could provide an important edge over other methods. Last > week, Google imposed tight restrictions on microtargeting political ads, > and Facebook is weighing similar measures. But because Courier Newsroom > is a for-profit media company, McGowan says those restrictions wouldn?t > apply. > > McGowan?a former journalist herself, who worked at 60 Minutes and CBS > News?says she sees Courier Newsroom as a continuation of that work. > Despite her obvious political motivations, she says that her newspapers > will supply objective, fact-based reporting no different from what > appears in mainstream outlets. That claim will almost certainly inflame > those on the right and left who already believe that much of what passes > for news, especially on social media, is driven by political agendas > intended to manipulate unwitting readers. > > McGowan forcefully rejects this criticism. ?A lot of people I respect > will see this media company as an affront to journalistic integrity > because it won?t, in their eyes, be balanced,? she says. ?What I say to > them is, Balance does not exist anymore.? In her view, there are only > facts and lies. She cites Trump?s impeachment narrative as an > example?and as a justification for what she?s embarked on with Courier. > ?Without new innovative models for journalism at scale,? she says, > ?we?re losing the information war to verified liars pouring millions of > dollars into Facebook.? RT's report quotes the Bloomberg article and adds: > Says a 33-year-old with "Yes We Can" tattooed on her arm. But it's okay: > she's a Democrat. If a Democrat sets up a fake news network, buys out > people's personal information, serves them with political > disinformation, that's fine. But only Democrats. Recall that the Democrats used the following to explain away Hillary Clinton's loss in 2016: > [Clips from the following people are shown.] > > Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in Congress: Kremlin-linked bots continue > to stoke political divisions in the US via misinformation on social > media. > > Hillary Clinton in an interview: They're so detailed -- one about the > social media interference, weaponization of information by the Russians > and their proxies, their bots, and their trolls, and everybody else. > > Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GE) in Congress: We've been paying the price from > Russia -- Russian bots -- to fake news. Americans heading to the polls > have had to grapple with the question of what is real and what is fake? > > RT reporter: Yes, they will have to question what is real and what is > fake. Democrats are literally setting up fake news websites and serving > Americans with fake news to sway elections. I mean the masks came off > last year when Democrats were caught creating fake Russian bots to set > up and smear a Republican candidate. > > [Plays clip of "CBS Evening News" with Norah O'Donnell] > > Norah O'Donnell: An explosive allegation by a government whistleblower > that the White House engaged in a cover-up by stashing records of the > President's phone call with a foreign leader in a top-secret computer. > > RT reporter: Desperate times call for desperate measures. And these are > desperate times for Democrats: no messiah, no hero candidate has come > forward to beat Trump. So, they're getting their hands dirty doing > everything they accused Russia of. Question is, on election day, why > would people vote for a side whose hands are no cleaner than Trump's? War: "Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima': The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVJM7RQ2As -- Keiser Report coverage https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html Patrick Cockburn's latest for The Independent: > Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the > Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, > exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped > on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study. > > Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being > overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging > from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They > said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the > battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents. > > Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold > increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in > under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher > than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait. > > Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one > of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it > is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth > defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major > mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks > happened". > > US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of > Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security > company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an > eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using > artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later > admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other > munitions. > > In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire > zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British > officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. > "During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance > operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a > small sector of the city," recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a > British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad. > > He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of > firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his > daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he > cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of > genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in > some form. He said: "My guess is that they used a new weapon against > buildings to break through walls and kill those inside." > > The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and > February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire > was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes > and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to > respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during > military operations. > > Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, > particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report > saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody > conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising > the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of > standing in the community to allay suspicions. > > The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in > Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar > Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer > and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to > be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in > Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in > the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the > bomb and uranium in the fallout". > > Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase > in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain > tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in > leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only > the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was > affecting people. > > Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between > newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 > boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 > per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 > females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects > boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered > after Hiroshima. > > The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the > anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a > decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The > impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere > else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from > the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly > repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in > Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital. A parallel you might not have expected comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwgfVbN8i6Q -- an RT program called "Watching the Hawks" which includes an RT report on unpotable water in the US based on a "U.S. Water Alliance" report. Among the things found in drinking water in US cities with unpotable water -- uranium: > More than 2,000,000 Americans live without basic access to safe drinking > water and sanitation. > > 1.4 million lack access to indoor plumbing. 250,000 people in Puerto > Rico. 553,000 homeless [people] in the United States. Native [American] > households are 19 times more likely than white households to lack indoor > plumbing. 23% of private wells tested contain arsenic, uranium, > nitrates, and e.coli. 17% of people living in rural areas report having > experienced issues with safe drinking water. 12% of people living in > rural areas report issues with their sewage system. jbn: In other words: We're exposing children here to uranium as well. Potable water problems create lifelong health problems and severely shorten lives. Business/Economy: Maybe the restaurant associations fearful picture was not something to pay attention to. https://www.axios.com/minimum-wage-job-loss-predictions-not-true-dcda5eac-996d-4539-a07e-12933eef4bca.html > Eighteen states rang in 2019 with minimum wage increases ? some that > will ultimately rise as high as $15 an hour ? and so far, opponents' > dire predictions of job losses have not come true. > > What it means: The data paint a clear picture: Higher minimum wage > requirements haven't reduced hiring in low-wage industries or overall. > > State of play: Opponents have long argued that raising the minimum wage > will cause workers to lose their jobs and prompt fast food chains (and > other stores) to raise prices. > > But job losses and price hikes haven't been pronounced in the aftermath > of a recent wave of city and state wage-boost laws. > > And more economists are arguing that the link between minimum wage hikes > and job losses was more hype than science. [...] > Cities and states around the country are taking action as the federal > minimum wage ? $7.25 an hour ? "has remained unchanged for the longest > stretch of time since its 1938 inception under the Fair Labor Standards > Act," according to a recent paper by the New York Fed. > > Cities like New York, Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco have raised > local minimum wages, and individual companies have done so as well: > Amazon set its minimum at $15 an hour last year. > > As of July: "14 states plus the District of Columbia?home to 35% of > Americans?have minimum wages above $10 per hour, as do numerous > localities scattered across other states," according to the N.Y. Fed. > > Laws in New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, > Massachusetts, and New Jersey will eventually increase minimum wages to > $15 per hour. > > Axios used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare job growth rates > in four states with low minimum wages vs. eight states with high minimum > wages: > > Since 2016, when California became the first state to pass the $15 > minimum wage law, all 12 states have seen growth in restaurant, bar and > hotel jobs. Three of the four states with job growth higher than the > U.S. median have passed laws that will raise the state minimum wage to > at least $13.50. Three of the five states with the slowest job growth > rates did not have a state minimum wage above the federal minimum of > $7.25 an hour. An outlier was Massachusetts, which had the slowest job > growth in the sector and currently has the highest state minimum wage: > $12 an hour. > > The big picture: A number of peer-reviewed academic studies have found > little to no impact on hiring as states and municipalities have raised > the minimum wage. > > Rather, such increases are likely to have increased hiring in the strong > U.S. economy, Bill Spriggs, chief economist at labor union AFL-CIO, > tells Axios. > > Yes, but: There could still be negative long-term effects, such as > businesses choosing to locate in states with lower minimum wage > requirements, according to the N.Y. Fed's study. > > "The danger is extrapolating too far and saying, 'We should raise wages > to $30 an hour,'" Swonk says. "The current minimum wage increases were > successful because they were regionally based, and not national or > one-size-fits-all." Business/Health: "Indonesia's food chain turns toxic as plastic waste exports flood in: Study of chicken egg samples reveals presence of dangerous chemical compounds around areas where waste is dumped" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVJM7RQ2As -- Keiser Report coverage https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/15/indonesias-food-chain-turns-toxic-as-plastic-waste-exports-flood-in -- > Plastic waste exports to south-east Asia have been implicated in extreme > levels of toxins entering the human food chain in Indonesia. > > A new study that sampled chicken eggs around sites in the country where > plastic waste accumulates identified alarming levels of dioxins and > polychlorinated biphenyls[1] long recognised as extremely injurious to > human health. > > In one location the level of dioxins in eggs collected near an > Indonesian factory that burns plastics for fuel were similar to levels > in eggs collected near the notorious Agent Orange hotspot in Bien Hoa, > Vietnam, which is considered one of the most dioxin-contaminated > locations on Earth. > > The study is the first to demonstrate food chain contamination in > south-east Asia with high levels of hazardous chemicals as a consequence > of waste mismanagement and plastic waste imports. > > The report ? Plastic Waste Poisons Indonesia?s Food Chain[2] ? was > compiled by researchers from the global environmental health network > IPEN, along with the Arnika Association and several local Indonesian > organisations. > > According to the study, an adult eating just one egg from a free-range > chicken foraging in the vicinity of the tofu factory in Tropodo would > exceed the European Food Safety Authority tolerable daily intake for > chlorinated dioxins by seventy-fold. > > Researchers collected and analysed free-range chicken eggs from the > Bangun and Tropodo communities in East Java, locations that have been > inundated with imported plastic waste since China closed its doors to > such waste in 2018. > > By contrast, Indonesia?s import volume doubled between 2017 and 2018, > with residents in some areas burning piles of plastic waste to reduce > the volume clogging streets and piling up around houses. In Tropodo, the > waste is used to fuel local tofu factories. > > Eggs collected in the communities were found to contain highly hazardous > banned chemicals including dioxins, flame retardants, and the toxic > ?forever chemical?, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). > > Numerous studies have linked the chemicals found in the eggs with a host > of health impacts. Dioxin exposure is linked to a variety of serious > illnesses in humans, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, > and endometriosis. Flame retardant chemicals, short-chain chlorinated > paraffins and polybrominated diphenyl ethers disrupt endocrine function > and negatively affect reproductive health. > > PFOS causes reproductive and immune system damage, and internal company > documents indicate that manufacturers knew about its toxicity for > decades, but continued making it. > > ?Plastic waste is a serious toxic chemical pollution problem,? said > Yuyun Ismawati, co-founder of Nexus3, one of the Indonesian NGOs > involved. > > ?Our results should ring alarm bells in every community trying to deal > with a tsunami of plastic waste. The global north needs to stop treating > the global south as its waste bin.? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/14/race-on-rid-uk-oceans-pcbs-killer-whale-lulu [2] https://ipen.org/documents/plastic-waste-poisons-indonesia-food-chain Labor: French vs. American reception of "black friday" with Amazon.com -- Americans consume, French protest abusive labor practices https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/29/black-friday-protests-across-europe-demand-amazon-start-treating-workers-humans-not > Labor rights activists and climate campaigners across Europe used the > occasion of Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, to call > attention to and protest Amazon's "appalling" working conditions, paltry > benefits, and destructive environmental practices. > > "Workers are breaking bones, being knocked unconscious, and being taken > away in ambulances," said Mick Rix, national officer with the GMB Union, > which organized demonstrations at Amazon warehouses across the United > Kingdom on Friday. > > "Amazon has spent a fortune on fluffy adverts saying what a great place > it is to work," Rix added. "Why not spend the money making their > warehouses less dangerous places to work? Amazon workers want Jeff Bezos > to know they are people?not robots." > > GMB said Amazon employees at locations throughout the U.K. have reported > being denied restroom breaks, penalized for taking sick days, and forced > to work at a dangerous pace to meet the retail behemoth's productivity > goals. > > "GMB members report targets being so horrific they have to use plastic > bottles to urinate in instead of going to the toilet, and pregnant women > have been forced to stand for hours on end," the union said in a > statement. [...] > In France, demonstrators held sit-ins at Amazon's Clichy headquarters to > condemn the retail giant's contributions to the climate crisis. > > "We criticize Amazon for having a destructive policy for the planet, for > social conditions, and Black Friday allows this company to achieve > exponential revenue," said activist Sandy Olivar Calvo. [...] > At an Amazon distribution center near Lyon, France, police assaulted and > forcibly removed demonstrators who staged a sit-in to condemn the > corporation's climate practices Drug war: excuse for invasion & occupation? Did Rep. Gabbard's debate warn us of the insanity of this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_8Qtklr-AY -- Pres. Trump designates Mexican drug cartels as "terrorists". Who benefits? Weapons manufacturers, anyone who pushed for using the US military as "police" force. And, by the way, this is what Rep. Gabbard warned about in her latest debate with Mayor Pete Buttigieg when he tried to shift the goalposts from endorsing doing what Trump is now doing to making it look like invading Mexico was beyond the pale (which operations like this could very well become). Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_6qq6wGhoY -- Father Jesse and son Tyrel Ventura discuss this story on "Watching the Hawks". jbn: One correction to what Jesse said here when he remarked "I can foresee drones used on US citizens", this has already occurred. Father & son Al-Awlaki, both US citizens, were assassinated weeks apart by the Obama administration in separate drone strikes. These were impeachable acts but no Congressperson in either corporate party brought articles of impeachment against Pres. Obama for either murder. The related killings of everyone in the area are also grounds for questioning the stance of anyone who supports the drone war (such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have expressed in separate interviews dating back to 2016). I recently re-watched "National Bird" a documentary from 2016 about the drone war and I came across an interesting quote that reminded me of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's support for drone war: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ > So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe > that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical > strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no > long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and > then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations > where our military is not able to get in without creating an > unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you?re not > causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties. Gabbard is commonly referred to in the press as "anti-war" by both critics and supporters. Such statements routinely don't refer the audience to this 2018 Intercept interview or to a 2019 Primo Nutmeg interview where she reiterated her drone war support. Heather Linebaugh served in the United States Air Force from 2009 until March 2012. Her bio in The Guardian says she worked in intelligence as an imagery analyst and geo-spatial analyst for the drone program during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years before Rep. Gabbard said the above Heather Linebaugh said the following in the documentary "National Bird": > Hearing politicians speak about drones being precision weapons, being > able to make 'surgical strikes', to me it's completely ridiculous, > completely ludicrous to even make those statements. It's as flawed as > it can be with those people operating it from across the world. If they > really think they can send a bomb through a window of a compound and > hit one militant then why are we seeing so many civilians die of > collateral damage? I'd like to ask those politicians have they not been > notified of that? Do they not know what's going on in their own war that > they're controlling? To coin a neologism, I'd call Linebaugh's remark a "prebuttal" -- a rebuttal that came before the statement being rebutted. Linebaugh is also the author of: "I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR8uLC5mIeY -- Bolivian TV operator announced that RT Spanish will be taken off the air starting on December 2, 2019. Bolivian TV cable provider Cotas, a private company, has not given a reason for the change. Ecuador has also cut off RT Spanish, and no reason was given there either. > Cotas TV operator: This is a decision taken by the company's > administration, which tasked us with shutting down the channel's > broadcast. jbn: It seems likely that this is related to the US-backed Bolivian coup. If Venezuela succumbs to their US-backed coup, what will happen to RT broadcasts there? RT is widely known to recognize Juan Guaido as a self-selected president or "opposition leader" instead of calling him Venezuela's legitimate president as the US has said they want the press to call Guaido. In RT's report on Bolivian cable outlet Cotas pulling RT Spanish, RT interviewed Chuck Kaufman who is credited as part of the "Alliance for Global Justice, think tank": > Chuck Kaufman: [The] coup government in Bolivia is struggling to > establish itself against massive resistance and they can't afford for > people to hear alternative voices to the news that they want, the > message that they want to get out there. Because they have to have > control of the message[; ...] if people have free access to information > they're gonna see that other people in their country are suffering the > way that they're suffering and they're going to know that the reason for > that suffering is this military coup that this [is an] illegitimate > government that is being imposed on them and the resistance will > continue and grow. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573069 -- The BBC reports that Apple altered its map when viewed from Russia: > Apple has complied with Russian demands to show the annexed Crimean > peninsula as part of Russian territory on its apps. > > Russian forces annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014, drawing > international condemnation. > > The region, which has a Russian-speaking majority, is now shown as > Russian territory on Apple Maps and its Weather app, when viewed from > Russia. > > But the apps do not show it as part of any country when viewed > elsewhere. > > The State Duma, the Russian parliament's lower house, said in a > statement: "Crimea and Sevastopol now appear on Apple devices as > Russian territory." > > Russia treats the naval port city of Sevastopol as a separate region. > > The BBC tested several iPhones in Moscow and it appears the change > affects devices set up to use the Russian edition of Apple's App Store. > > Apple had been in talks with Russia for several months over what the > State Duma described as "inaccuracy" in the way Crimea was labelled. > > The tech giant originally suggested it could show Crimea as undefined > territory - part of neither Russia nor Ukraine. > > But Vasily Piskaryov, chairman of the Duma security and anti-corruption > committee, said Apple had complied with the Russian constitution. > > He said representatives of the company were reminded that labelling > Crimea as part of Ukrainian territory was a criminal offence under > Russian law, according to Interfax news agency. > > "There is no going back," Mr Piskaryov said. "Today, with Apple, the > situation is closed - we have received everything we wanted." [...] RT covered a similar situation with Google's map on 2019-03-05 https://www.rt.com/shows/news-with-rick-sanchez/453117-news-with-rick-sanchez-march/ > Google acknowledges Crimea as Russian > > Google Maps suddenly shows a broken line separating Crimea from Russia > -- a subtle acknowledgment, much to the consternation of NATO, that > Crimea is indeed part of Russia and not of Ukraine. [...] https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2019.03/5c7f2d6dfc7e93614b8b45eb.mp4 has the video (hooray to RT for hosting its own video rather than letting Google censor them, but I don't understand why they don't do this all the time for all of their videos). Healthcare/economy: Do American HMOs want to run the UK's National Health Service? Is there a plan in place to accomplish this? Jeremy Corbyn said there is. Compare what Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: > Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of > the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. > > Questioner: Not drug patents? > > Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no > aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the > Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are > encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on > anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, > nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said > he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of > his doing this deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: > Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris > Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports > [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and > pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about > breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost of > medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a > hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] > is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents > and information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out > copies of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was > speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably > was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since > released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a > very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why > these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in > the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's > denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very > serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? Bolivia: Coup plotters were trained in US' "School of the Americas" https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/13/bolivian-coup-plotters-school-of-the-americas-fbi-police-programs/ -- The Grayzone's report on this. > The United States played a key role in the military coup in Bolivia, > and in a direct way that has scarcely been acknowledged in accounts of > the events that forced the country?s elected president, Evo Morales, to > resign on November 10. > > Just prior to Morales? resignation, the commander of Bolivia?s armed > forces Williams Kaliman ?suggested? that the president step down. A day > earlier, sectors of the country?s police force had rebelled. > > Though Kaliman appears to have feigned loyalty to Morales over the > years, his true colors showed as soon as the moment of opportunity > arrived. He was not only an actor in the coup, he had his own history > in Washington, where he had briefly served as the military attach? of > Bolivia?s embassy in the US capital. > > Kaliman sat at the top of a military and police command structure that > has been substantially cultivated by the US through WHINSEC [Western > Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation], the military training > school in Fort Benning, Georgia known in the past as the School of the > Americas. Kaliman himself attended a course called ?Comando y Estado > Mayor? at the SOA in 2003. > > At least six of the key coup plotters are alumni of the infamous School > of the Americas, while Kaliman and another figure served in the past as > Bolivia?s military and police attach?s in Washington. > > Within the Bolivian police, top commanders who helped launch the coup > have passed through the APALA police exchange program. Working out of > Washington DC, APALA functions to build relations between U.S. > authorities and police officials from Latin American states. Despite > its influence, or perhaps because of it, the program maintains little > public presence. Its staff was impossible for this researcher to reach > by phone. [...] > Leaked audio[1] reported[2] on Bolivian news website La ?poca, and by > elperiodicocr.com[3] and a range of national media outlets, reveals > that covert coordination[4] took place between current and former > Bolivian police, military, and opposition leaders in bringing about the > coup. > > Los audios de la conspiraci?n del #GolpeDeEstadoEnBolivia. Por > @elperiodicocr https://t.co/lw2qjpqsmm pic.twitter.com/P4M4dbIw2W > > ? Rompeviento TV (@RompevientoTV) November 10, 2019[5] > > The leaked audio recordings show that former Cochabamba mayor and > former presidential candidate Manfred Reyes Villa played a central role > in the plot. Reyes happens to be an alumnus of WHINSEC (formerly known > as the School of the Americas), who currently resides in the United > States. > > The other four who are introduced or introduce themselves by name in > the leaked audio are General Remberto Siles Vasquez (audio 12[6]); > Colonel Julio C?sar Maldonado Leoni (audio 8[7] and 9[8]); Colonel Oscar > Pacello Aguirre (audio 14[9]), and Colonel Teobaldo Cardozo Guevara > (audio 10[10]). All four of these ex-military officials attended the > SOA. > > Cardozo Guevara, in particular, boasts[11] about his connections > amongst active officers. > > The identities of these individuals are confirmed by cross-checking the > data of the School of Americas[12] Watch lists[13] of alumni with > Facebook and local Bolivian news articles and the leaked audio > recordings[14]. > > The School of the Americas is a notorious site of education[15] for > Latin American coup plotters dating back to the height of the Cold War. > Brutal regime change and reprisal operations from Haiti to Honduras have > been carried out by SOA graduates, and some of the most bloodstained > juntas in the region?s history have been run by the school?s alumni. > > For many years, anti-war protesters have staged a protest vigil outside > the SOA?s headquarters at the Fort Benning military base near Columbus, > Georgia. [1] https://erbol.com.bo/nacional/surgen-16-audios-que-vinculan-c%C3%ADvicos-exmilitares-y-eeuu-en-planes-de-agitaci%C3%B3n [2] https://www.en24.news/news/2019/11/10/bolivia-audios-leaked-from-opposition-leaders-calling-for-a-coup-against-evo-morales.html [3] https://elperiodicocr.com/bolivia-filtran-audios-de-lideres-opositores-llamando-a-un-golpe-de-estado-contra-evo-morales/ [4] https://nos24.com/2019/08/15/kaliman-pisotea-la-constitucion-militares-molestos-en-bolivia/ [5] https://twitter.com/RompevientoTV/status/1193669345261576194 [6] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-12 https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-8-1 [7] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-8-1 [8] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-9 [9] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-14 [10] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-10 [11] https://soundcloud.com/elperiodicocr/audio-10 [12] http://www.derechos.org/soa/bo-qz.html [13] http://www.soawlatina.org/graduados.htm [14] https://elperiodicocr.com/bolivia-filtran-audios-de-lideres-opositores-llamando-a-un-golpe-de-estado-contra-evo-morales/ [15] https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-school-of-the-americas-is-still-exporting-death-squads/204655/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJDXJkqhpxI -- RT is one of very few news outlets that cover what's going on in Bolivia as a coup and very few outlets that tell us about the extent of the US involvement in this coup (hint: this coup, like so many other Latin America coups, is fully US-backed). Redacted Tonight's show clip covers this and a related Jacobin article -- https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/el-salvador-murders-jesuits-uca-school-of-the-americas -- where: > The veteran US solidarity organization School of the Americas Watch[1] > was formed in response to the Jesuit massacre and hosts an annual vigil > at the gates of Fort Benning to denounce the US role in crimes across > the hemisphere. The group estimates that over eighty-three thousand > Latin American state security forces have been trained at the site, > which now bears the deceptively benign title of Western Hemisphere > Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). These graduates have > carried out coups, massacres, assassinations, torture, disappearances, > economic destabilization, and mass displacement. Recently, ICE > revealed[2] that agents will train in domestic ?urban warfare? at Fort > Benning, bringing SOA?s counterinsurgency project full circle. [1] http://www.soaw.org/fort-benning-november/ [2] https://www.newsweek.com/ice-fails-redact-document-reveals-location-urban-warfare-training-facility-1458732 Labor: Google fires employees who, Google claims, were in violation of policy but Google co-workers claim were fired for unionizing. The case for Google's story is not as convincing as the case described by fellow Google co-workers. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-25/google-fires-four-employees-citing-data-security-violations -- > Google fired four employees for what the technology giant said were > violations of its data-security policies, escalating tension between > management and activist workers at a company once revered for its open > corporate culture. > > Alphabet Inc.?s Google sent an email describing the decision, titled > ?Securing our data,? to all employees on Monday, according to a copy of > the document obtained by Bloomberg News. The company confirmed the > contents of the memo but declined to comment further. > > Some Google staff have been protesting and organizing in the past two > years over issues including the company?s work with the military, a > censored search service in China and its handling of executives accused > of sexual harassment. > > Some supporters of the fired workers said the organizing activities led > to their dismissals. > > ?With these firings, Google is ramping up its illegal retaliation,? > according to a statement from workers who are organizing at the company. > ?This is classic union busting dressed up in tech industry jargon, and > we won?t stand for it.? > > In recent weeks, some workers have cited management moves -- such as > implementing a tracking tool on employee?s web browsers[1] and hiring a > consulting firm known for anti-union work -- as attempts to curb > activism. The company has denied those charges. > > One Google employee wrote on Twitter that the company was firing the > employees to stamp out internal dissension. > > Harassers get millions of dollars but queer activists are getting fired. > Organizers are getting fired. This is a clear signal. ? Timnit Gebru > (@timnitGebru) November 25, 2019[2] > > On Friday, more than 200 people demonstrated outside Google?s San > Francisco office for a protest organized by staff. The protesters > demanded the company reinstate two employees who had been put on > administrative leave, Rebecca Rivers and Laurence Berland. > > On Monday, Rivers tweeted that she had been terminated from her job. > Rivers confirmed the tweet but declined to comment further. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-23/google-accused-of-creating-spy-tool-to-squelch-worker-dissent [2] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1199072773559083008 [...] > Federal labor law restricts retaliation against employees for collective > action. ?When other employees have engaged in the conduct Google cites > in its memo, have they been fired?? said Jeffrey Hirsch, a University of > North Carolina law professor and former National Labor Relations Board > attorney. ?If not, Google will likely have to reinstate the employees > and pay them back pay.? https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/googles-next-moonshot-union-busting-7bd2784dc690 -- > Four of our colleagues took a stand and organized for a better > workplace. This is explicitly condoned in Google?s Code of Conduct, > which ends: ????????And remember? don?t be evil, and if you see > something that you think isn?t right ? speak up.? > > When they did, Google retaliated against them. Today, after putting two > of them on sudden and unexplained leave, the company fired all four in > an attempt to crush worker organizing. > > Here?s how it went down: Google hired a union-busting firm. Around the > same time Google redrafted its policies, making it a fireable offense to > even look at certain documents. And let?s be clear, looking at such > documents is a big part of Google culture; the company describes it as a > benefit in recruiting, and even encourages new hires to read docs from > projects all across the company. Which documents were off limits after > this policy change? The policy was unclear, even explicitly stating the > documents didn?t have to be labeled to be off limits. No meaningful > guidance has ever been offered on how employees could consistently > comply with this policy. The policy change amounted to: access at your > own risk and let executives figure out whether you should be punished > after the fact. > > We knew then, and it?s clear now: this policy change was setting up an > excuse to retaliate against organizers, allowing the company a pretext > for picking and choosing who to target. > > Using this policy, Google did all it could to frame our colleagues as > ?leakers.? This is a lie. And Google confirmed this when pressured. As > Laurence, one of those fired today, said during a workers? rally in San > Francisco on Friday November 22nd, ?I asked Google?s Global > Investigations team, am I being accused of leaking? Their answer was one > word: ?No.? This isn?t about leaking.? > > With these firings, Google is ramping up its illegal retaliation against > workers engaging in protected organizing. This is classic union busting > dressed up in tech industry jargon, and we won?t stand for it. [...] Freedom of speech: Nina Paley (the artist behind "Sita Sings the Blues" and "Seder-Masochism" among other works) launches "Neenster" (https://neenster.org/) where you can submit to her authority. jbn: What is Neenster's censorship policy? On her blog (https://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/11/30/introducing-neenster/) Nina Paley wrote: > I plan to moderate Neenster like I ?moderate? my fecebook wall: mostly > by doing nothing, but occasionally blocking particularly abusive and > annoying people according to how much they piss me off. Ideally users > will moderate themselves by using their god-given blocking fingers. > Remember: MUTE and/or BLOCK. It?s like brushing your teeth, but for your > sanity. Other speech-related restrictions on Neenster can be found on https://neenster.org/about (archived on https://archive.md/Xx6mq on 2019-11-30) The lack of clarity about what will be censored makes Neenster no better for most users than any of the other more well-advertised social media sites out there. After all, despite the published terms of service you really don't know what the operative censorship policies are on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and the other more well-advertised services. It's not hard to point to something hosted on each of those services which contradict the ostensible rules. Ultimately the "fediverse" (a portmanteau of "federated universe" of social media sites) does nothing to challenge the central problem of the modern-day Internet: one must comply with a number of mostly-unaccountable private entities to publish anything online. One's best bet at getting past the censors is to publish the same material with many services in the hope that some of the services will either be slow to censor or not coordinate their censorship (as was done to Alex Jones of InfoWars when he was simultaneously kicked off of Facebook, Apple, YouTube, Vimeo, Pinterest, Mailchimp, LinkedIn, PayPal, and Spotify in 2018). In practical terms, one's freedom of speech would be better maintained by offering an easy means of sharing published works even in the face of such coordinated censorship (perhaps via a user-maintained publishing mechanism like Bittorrent) instead of encouraging users to submit to one service over others. Regarding muting and blocking responses one doesn't want others to read: to the extent that these functions stop others from commenting on one's posts, this is merely giving censor controls to service users. These functions also raise a privacy issue: having the service track the mute/block status means relying on a site one doesn't control. The site could edit the list without one's approval or share this list with others. A better design is the approach used by netnews (known for Usenet groups): one maintains ones own file on their own computer which lists the characteristics of posts one does not want to read. Such posts are blocked only for oneself; on widely-distributed netnews groups (such as Usenet groups) one doesn't have the power to block others from reading those posts. No participating server has a perfect idea of what one wants to block. And this gets directly into one very big (and usually unacknowledged) reason why people like the web -- websites are centralized. Centralized publishing means increased control over what others get to read. From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Dec 2 16:54:58 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:54:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Democrats' strategy to sideline dissent from US war-making & war-provocations Message-ID: ...As evidence, the central finding of the impeachment inquiry to date is that Ukraine is woefully undersupplied with the weapons needed to fight ?Russian aggression.? ?We? learned that despite Pentagon rumblings at the time, the Obama administration did its patriotic duty by selling ?non-lethal? military equipment to self-described fascists in Ukraine. Mr. Trump?s crime was that his ham-fisted shakedown effort stood between the Ukrainians and American ?freedom missiles.? To be clear, Donald Trump has a lot to answer for. He appointed neocon warmonger John Bolton, meaning that he has his name on the U.S. backed coup in Bolivia, the attempted coup in Venezuela and the genocide in Yemen that he inherited from Barack Obama. But if these are a problem? and they are, so is the Obama / (Hillary) Clinton coup in Ukraine. If Mr. Trump had outright stopped the delivery of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, he would have made the world a better place. ...as the alliance between American neocons and Ukrainian Nazis illustrates, the political optics are managed through the New York Times and the Washington Post, not on the ground in resource-rich countries. ...as passionately as the American left wants to elevate Mike Pence to the office of President, Senators, Republican and otherwise, understand the political value of partisan rancor... If one looks at the U.S. Constitution as the basis for both this legitimacy and social neutrality, it is a document written by oligarchs to liberate themselves from the British proscription against owning slaves. ?Freedom to? was the freedom to own slaves, subjugate women and exploit ?free? labor. Rich, white, men gave themselves the right to vote... A current example of the relation of law to power can be found through the legalization of bribery within the political class. Thomas Ferguson has spent a career demonstrating the relationship between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes. Adam Schiff, Donald Trump?s primary antagonist in Russiagate, and now impeachment, is wholly owned by the defense industry. His interest in selling American weapons to Ukraine ties directly to campaign contributions he receives from the corporations that manufacture these weapons. If fealty to the law were applied, all of the senior members of the George W. Bush administration plus those in oversight positions in Congress would be in prison for the U.S. War of Aggression against Iraq and illegal torture. This would include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, as a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, was told about the CIA?s illegal torture program and signed off on it. The history of the rich using the law as a lever of social control renders the liberal theory of it implausible, no matter how passionately it is argued for? ...I can?t imagine that Barack Obama saying that he is going to take Bernie Sanders out has had an effect other than to make people want to start lighting shit on fire. I?m not suggesting that people do this. But that is the feeling. The establishment Democrats are determined to have it their way. Screw democracy, screw the will of the people, screw the wellbeing of the people, screw acting on the people?s behalf, they?re going to elect themselves a billionaire. And, they?d be fine with a right-wing rebellion? rich people love fascism. We?re on our own. Work for Bernie. Vote for Bernie. Thanks for the political clarification Obama! ### ### From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 03:52:02 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 21:52:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer to distributed at Dec.7 demo Message-ID: <1954BEB3-5F81-4468-B5CF-95BF8DFF9154@newsfromneptune.com> [Flyer to distributed at the regular monthly anti-war demo, Saturday, Dec. 7, 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial, at the intersection of Main and Neil Streets in Champaign.] ============================================== ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the US political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is. And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different in fact from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? Even more dangerously, he continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that that would retard the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war-provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) That is why international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The Trump administration is not the problem: U.S. war-making is. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government to close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil, bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. ~~~ In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- ~ Senator Dick Durbin: ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: ~ Representative Rodney Davis: ~~~ The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 11:57:49 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 03:57:49 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Flyer to distributed at Dec.7 demo In-Reply-To: <1954BEB3-5F81-4468-B5CF-95BF8DFF9154@newsfromneptune.com> References: <1954BEB3-5F81-4468-B5CF-95BF8DFF9154@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Carl No mention of Bolivia and the torture and murder of the many indigenous supporters of Evo Morales, the elected President who had to flee to Mexico due to a US supported coup? No mention of the attempted over throw of the elected leader of Venezuela? No mention of the sanctions, which are war, being used against Iran? The drone wars of the Obama Administration have been continued and increased by the Trump Administration, not discontinued. The above is just a few of the crimes being committed by the Trump Administration along with the continuation of the Obama Administration wars. Granted Trump isn?t as interested in continuing the eight wars of the Obama Administration and it is the (Deep/ Perpetual State) that is responsible, but it is our ?system? of capitalism that needs to be addressed, not the puppet in the White House, and Trump is not an innocent as you imply, he has blood on his hands. If the only thing AWARE is concerned with is defending Trump, granted the impeachment is just a political tool to oust him from power, further denigrate Russia, and distract the American people, then I certainly won?t be participating in a demonstration more concerned with supporting Trump than calling attention to US wars of hegemony. > On Dec 2, 2019, at 19:52, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > [Flyer to distributed at the regular monthly anti-war demo, Saturday, Dec. 7, 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial, at the intersection of Main and Neil Streets in Champaign.] > ============================================== > ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the US political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world > > The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is. > > And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different in fact from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. > > President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. > > As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? > > Even more dangerously, he continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that that would retard the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war-provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > > Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. > > Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) > > That is why international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The Trump administration is not the problem: U.S. war-making is. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? > > With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government to close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil, bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. > ~~~ > In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- > ~ Senator Dick Durbin: > > ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: > ~ Representative Rodney Davis: > ~~~ > The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at > The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 14:24:04 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:24:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer to distributed at Dec.7 demo In-Reply-To: References: <1954BEB3-5F81-4468-B5CF-95BF8DFF9154@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <83E3EB8A-847D-4169-9F35-AFBCABA1F63C@newsfromneptune.com> Of course the flyer is not ?defending Trump? (nor implying him ?innocent?!) but pointing out that the political establishment (the Democrat party, the ?intelligence community? [CIA/FBI/NSA], the NYT & WaPo et al.) is deflecting criticism of the US government?s criminal war policy (which of course includes Venezuela and Bolivia, which the flyer should mention) into a demand to replace Trump. ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? Is a disingenuous alternative to ?BRING ALL US TROOPS HOME!" And the political establishment is doing that in *defense* of US war-making, as 'Russiagate' shows. Trump was the first major party candidate since George McGovern to criticize US war policy: the political establishment are afraid he may act on those criticisms (e.g., withdraw from Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere). ?CGE > On Dec 3, 2019, at 5:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Carl > > No mention of Bolivia and the torture and murder of the many indigenous supporters of Evo Morales, the elected President who had to flee to Mexico due to a US supported coup? > > No mention of the attempted over throw of the elected leader of Venezuela? > > No mention of the sanctions, which are war, being used against Iran? > > The drone wars of the Obama Administration have been continued and increased by the Trump Administration, not discontinued. > > The above is just a few of the crimes being committed by the Trump Administration along with the continuation of the Obama Administration wars. Granted Trump isn?t as interested in continuing the eight wars of the Obama Administration and it is the (Deep/ Perpetual State) that is responsible, but it is our ?system? of capitalism that needs to be addressed, not the puppet in the White House, and Trump is not an innocent as you imply, he has blood on his hands. > > If the only thing AWARE is concerned with is defending Trump, granted the impeachment is just a political tool to oust him from power, further denigrate Russia, and distract the American people, then I certainly won?t be participating in a demonstration more concerned with supporting Trump than calling attention to US wars of hegemony. > > > > > > > >> On Dec 2, 2019, at 19:52, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> [Flyer to distributed at the regular monthly anti-war demo, Saturday, Dec. 7, 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial, at the intersection of Main and Neil Streets in Champaign.] >> ============================================== >> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the US political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >> >> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is. >> >> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different in fact from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >> >> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >> >> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >> >> Even more dangerously, he continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that that would retard the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war-provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >> >> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >> >> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >> >> That is why international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The Trump administration is not the problem: U.S. war-making is. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >> >> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government to close all U.S. military bases on foreign soil, bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >> ~~~ >> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >> ~~~ >> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >> ### >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 15:30:02 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:30:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?=5BPeace-discuss=5D_Robert_Reich=E2=80=99s_let?= =?utf-8?b?dGVyIHRvIOKAmE1vdmVPbuKAmSBDT1JSRUNURUQ=?= In-Reply-To: References: <5de3ed0b.1c69fb81.fd7fd.88d8@mx.google.com> <9D278FD4-13C7-456C-931D-B2690F396528@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: A president of the US should surely try to correct it when a vice president and his son extort large amounts of money from a foreign government. And using a private lawyer to make arrangements with a foreign government is a typical example of a ?back channel? - hardly unusual. But I agree with you on what people should care about. The evidence that Trump is pretending to be opposed to abortion is that he (and many others) make no move to support pregnant women with health care, child care, housing, or education - the lack of which lead people to end their unborn children?s lives. (And that?s encouraged by the government: as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don?t want to have too many of.?) ?CGE > On Dec 2, 2019, at 11:40 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > By ?corruption is blatant,? you mean Trump?s phone call to Zelensky? > Extortion for personal gain is corrupt, yes, but I was thinking more along the lines of having his personal lawyer do negotiations on behalf of the United States. > > Even Al Capone was not tried for his real crimes. > > I would prefer that people cared about the issues that Trump is intentionally ignoring: climate change, the Nuclear Posture Review, deregulation, health care, war and peace; while he is doling out lavish gifts to the wealth and the corporate sector?namely the tax bill and massive deregulation (including by having people like Scott Pruitt be the head of the EPA, and then when he stepped down, hiring his underling Andrew Wheeler to be indefinite acting administrator -- as just one example). FWIW, Wheeler's main goal is to reduce government regulations on industries that generate greenhouse gases. > > Trump's other skill is pretending to be opposed to abortion and for gun rights and against immigrants, those are all lessons from past presidential candidates. > > Basically, Trump is wasting our country's time. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 16:30:36 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:30:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED Message-ID: [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] ===================================================================================================== ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. ~~~ In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- ~ Senator Dick Durbin: ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: ~ Representative Rodney Davis: ~~~ The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 16:37:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:37:31 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Much better. Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? > On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] > > ===================================================================================================== > ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world > > The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. > > And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. > > President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. > > As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? > > While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > > Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. > > Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) > > That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? > > With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government > (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), > (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and > (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. > ~~~ > > In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- > ~ Senator Dick Durbin: > > ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: > > ~ Representative Rodney Davis: > > ~~~ > > The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at > > The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on > Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) > > ### > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 17:04:38 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:04:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AWARE has been for 20 years an anarchist rather than a liberal organization. Other ?members and friends? might want to produce a flyer on UBI. BTW on the question of anarchist organization, people might want to read the late Ursula K. Le Guin?s "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia? (1974) , a political novel that seemed to me to rank with ?The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists? (1914, 1955) . ?CGE \ > On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Much better. > > Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >> >> ===================================================================================================== >> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >> >> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >> >> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >> >> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >> >> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >> >> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >> >> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >> >> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >> >> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >> >> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >> ~~~ >> >> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >> ~~~ >> >> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >> >> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >> >> ### >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Dec 3 17:41:58 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 17:41:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, domestic issues?, that he embodies. One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace groups?) of your pamphlet. UBI? What? On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Much better. Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] ===================================================================================================== ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. ~~~ In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- ~ Senator Dick Durbin: ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: ~ Representative Rodney Davis: ~~~ The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) ### _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 23:25:51 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:25:51 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carl Anarchist? Are you kidding. The majority of people involved in AWARE over the past eight years and I believe those who originally initiated it, are liberal Democrats. A couple of us are socialists but only 3, 4 at most. An independent or two, but almost always supporting Democrats. You may consider yourself anarchist, but you speak for yourself. > On Dec 3, 2019, at 09:04, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > AWARE has been for 20 years an anarchist rather than a liberal organization. Other ?members and friends? might want to produce a flyer on UBI. > > BTW on the question of anarchist organization, people might want to read the late Ursula K. Le Guin?s "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia? (1974) , a political novel that seemed to me to rank with ?The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists? (1914, 1955) . ?CGE > > \ >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Much better. >> >> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >> >> >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>> >>> ===================================================================================================== >>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>> >>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>> >>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>> >>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>> >>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>> >>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>> >>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>> >>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>> >>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>> >>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>> ~~~ >>> >>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>> ~~~ >>> >>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>> >>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 23:26:54 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:26:54 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [unac] Support UNAC, Build the Antiwar Movement References: <5de6aed4.1c69fb81.1c27d.e608@mx.google.com> Message-ID: > Dear friends, > The necessity for antiwar and justice work has never been more urgent. We see a continuation of endless wars, coups, sanctions, oppression, massive income inequality, and a cascading climate catastrophe. Billionaires rule; activists are jailed, tortured and murdered; and immigrants and refugees are detained. Racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions are blatantly encouraged. Democratic institutions, the rule of law and a free press are threatened and dismantled while rightwing, neo-fascist movements are proliferating. > Most of the conflicts we see are caused or backed by the U.S. and the current administration and a bipartisan Congress and judicial system that pretends big differences but actually serves the rich and powerful. > Please click here to contribute to UNAC > UNAC, the major antiwar coalition in the U.S. has played a significant role in organizing antiwar actions and standing in solidarity with those struggling under imperialism?s domination. We maintain an important activist network using social media channels, a blog, and network alerts to spread the word about what is happening and call for action, disseminate information and support struggles that are generally suppressed by the propaganda machine. > 2019 was a very busy year. We took several solidarity and fact-finding trips to countries including Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria and Cuba and reported back to counter the U.S. government narrative when we returned. We organized actions in Washington, DC when NATO came to town and called for protests to stop threats against Venezuela, Iran and other countries under attack by the U.S. These took place in cities around the country. We protested US aggression when the United Nations General Assembly came to New York and helped build public meetings for representatives of the Venezuelan delegation and countries that have been sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. > We gave full support to the Venezuelan Embassy Protectors when they were arrested for staying in the Venezuelan embassy to protect it from right-wing forces trying to organize a coup in Venezuela. This support included raising funds for their legal expenses and building meetings in a number of cities. We also supported the campaigns for freedom for Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. > We organized two panels at the Left Forum in New York and continued to publish our blog with many articles expressing facts and perspectives that we cannot access in the U.S. corporate media. > Next year looks to be another important year for UNAC and the antiwar movement. As the U.S.-sponsored coup in Bolivia is being resisted by millions across that country, the U.S. corporate media is not reporting it, but we are doing our best to let people know what is really going on. > > We are building a coalition to oppose U.S.-imposed brutal economic sanctions and economic warfare against countries (39 countries to date) that will not submit to the dictates of Washington and Wall Street. The purpose is often the same: destabilization, regime change, and theft of resources. > > As much attention is focused on the impeachment process and the upcoming elections, 2020 will feature important mass gatherings at the Democratic and Republican conventions. UNAC will play an important role in exposing our misleaders and demanding social justice, climate justice, and an end to the endless wars. > > We will hold our next national conference in New York City, February 21, 22, 23, "Rise Against Militarism, Racism and the Climate Crisis - Building Power Together. " We encourage our supporters to attend this important gathering. > > To continue this work, we ask for your support. Please make a generous donation by sending a check made out to UNAC to PO Box 123, Delmar, NY 12054. Or, you can donate on-line by clicking the link below > Please click here to contribute to UNAC > In Peace and Solidarity, > United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 3 23:26:54 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:26:54 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: [unac] Support UNAC, Build the Antiwar Movement References: <5de6aed4.1c69fb81.1c27d.e608@mx.google.com> Message-ID: > Dear friends, > The necessity for antiwar and justice work has never been more urgent. We see a continuation of endless wars, coups, sanctions, oppression, massive income inequality, and a cascading climate catastrophe. Billionaires rule; activists are jailed, tortured and murdered; and immigrants and refugees are detained. Racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions are blatantly encouraged. Democratic institutions, the rule of law and a free press are threatened and dismantled while rightwing, neo-fascist movements are proliferating. > Most of the conflicts we see are caused or backed by the U.S. and the current administration and a bipartisan Congress and judicial system that pretends big differences but actually serves the rich and powerful. > Please click here to contribute to UNAC > UNAC, the major antiwar coalition in the U.S. has played a significant role in organizing antiwar actions and standing in solidarity with those struggling under imperialism?s domination. We maintain an important activist network using social media channels, a blog, and network alerts to spread the word about what is happening and call for action, disseminate information and support struggles that are generally suppressed by the propaganda machine. > 2019 was a very busy year. We took several solidarity and fact-finding trips to countries including Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria and Cuba and reported back to counter the U.S. government narrative when we returned. We organized actions in Washington, DC when NATO came to town and called for protests to stop threats against Venezuela, Iran and other countries under attack by the U.S. These took place in cities around the country. We protested US aggression when the United Nations General Assembly came to New York and helped build public meetings for representatives of the Venezuelan delegation and countries that have been sanctioned and attacked by the U.S. > We gave full support to the Venezuelan Embassy Protectors when they were arrested for staying in the Venezuelan embassy to protect it from right-wing forces trying to organize a coup in Venezuela. This support included raising funds for their legal expenses and building meetings in a number of cities. We also supported the campaigns for freedom for Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. > We organized two panels at the Left Forum in New York and continued to publish our blog with many articles expressing facts and perspectives that we cannot access in the U.S. corporate media. > Next year looks to be another important year for UNAC and the antiwar movement. As the U.S.-sponsored coup in Bolivia is being resisted by millions across that country, the U.S. corporate media is not reporting it, but we are doing our best to let people know what is really going on. > > We are building a coalition to oppose U.S.-imposed brutal economic sanctions and economic warfare against countries (39 countries to date) that will not submit to the dictates of Washington and Wall Street. The purpose is often the same: destabilization, regime change, and theft of resources. > > As much attention is focused on the impeachment process and the upcoming elections, 2020 will feature important mass gatherings at the Democratic and Republican conventions. UNAC will play an important role in exposing our misleaders and demanding social justice, climate justice, and an end to the endless wars. > > We will hold our next national conference in New York City, February 21, 22, 23, "Rise Against Militarism, Racism and the Climate Crisis - Building Power Together. " We encourage our supporters to attend this important gathering. > > To continue this work, we ask for your support. Please make a generous donation by sending a check made out to UNAC to PO Box 123, Delmar, NY 12054. Or, you can donate on-line by clicking the link below > Please click here to contribute to UNAC > In Peace and Solidarity, > United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 3 23:36:40 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 17:36:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34A19CD1-23D1-4740-B25A-135E8684883F@newsfromneptune.com> I was speaking of how the group ran - by consensus, not majority vote. > On Dec 3, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > Anarchist? Are you kidding. > > The majority of people involved in AWARE over the past eight years and I believe those who originally initiated it, are liberal Democrats. A couple of us are socialists but only 3, 4 at most. An independent or two, but almost always supporting Democrats. > > You may consider yourself anarchist, but you speak for yourself. > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 09:04, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> AWARE has been for 20 years an anarchist rather than a liberal organization. Other ?members and friends? might want to produce a flyer on UBI. >> >> BTW on the question of anarchist organization, people might want to read the late Ursula K. Le Guin?s "The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia? (1974) , a political novel that seemed to me to rank with ?The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists? (1914, 1955) . ?CGE >> >> \ >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> Much better. >>> >>> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>>> >>>> ===================================================================================================== >>>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>>> >>>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>>> >>>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>>> >>>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>>> >>>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>>> >>>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>>> >>>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>>> >>>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>>> >>>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>>> >>>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>>> >>>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >> > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Dec 4 01:46:13 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 19:46:13 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> References: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <41396D4D-8236-427C-964C-13F3B5E4F20F@newsfromneptune.com> Trump must be criticized in the context of an accurate account of what he and other presidents have done. The political establishment is purposely avoiding that account, in order to stymie a popular understanding of the crimes of US foreign policy, The?ve received immense help from the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, PBS et al. Far too many soi-disant liberals have been misled by the political establishment?s account. Their politics have been said accurately to reduce to ?ORANGE MAN BAD!" > On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace wrote: > > The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, domestic issues?, that he embodies. > > One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. > > Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace groups?) of your pamphlet. > > UBI? What? > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Much better. >> >> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >> >> >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>> >>> ===================================================================================================== >>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>> >>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>> >>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>> >>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>> >>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>> >>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>> >>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>> >>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>> >>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>> >>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>> ~~~ >>> >>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>> ~~~ >>> >>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>> >>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From james.manrique at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 01:57:58 2019 From: james.manrique at gmail.com (James M) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 19:57:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: <41396D4D-8236-427C-964C-13F3B5E4F20F@newsfromneptune.com> References: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> <41396D4D-8236-427C-964C-13F3B5E4F20F@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I support anything that spurs discussion. Sometimes more divisive material can generate discussions like this. It gives a good opportunity for folks to offer different opinions & point of views. For my vote, I'm ok with the flyer. On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:47 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Trump must be criticized in the context of an accurate account of what he > and other presidents have done. > > The political establishment is purposely avoiding that account, in order > to stymie a popular understanding of the crimes of US foreign policy, > > The?ve received immense help from the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, PBS et al. > > Far too many soi-disant liberals have been misled by the political > establishment?s account. > > Their politics have been said accurately to reduce to ?ORANGE MAN BAD!" > > > > On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not > direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public > with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby > destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, > Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no > bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be > beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies > such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, > domestic issues?, that he embodies. > > > > One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by > slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. > > > > Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace > groups?) of your pamphlet. > > > > UBI? What? > > > > > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> Much better. > >> > >> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the > opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. > Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] > >>> > >>> > ===================================================================================================== > >>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of > distracting you from America?s war-making around the world > >>> > >>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how > terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how > terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and > Bolivia. > >>> > >>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump > administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama > administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to > end the Obama-Clinton wars. > >>> > >>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush > administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight > (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as > well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two > terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln > (Civil War) did that. > >>> > >>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of > American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really > good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of > mine.? > >>> > >>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s > longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of > Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic > exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations > against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > >>> > >>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it > - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to > maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic > development of Russia and China. > >>> > >>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million > people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) > designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained > as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 > million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a > half million people.) > >>> > >>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most > feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The > rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin > Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the > world today.? > >>> > >>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president > and government > >>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most > encircling Russia and China), > >>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and > >>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, > education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made > poorer by generations of our government?s wars. > >>> ~~~ > >>> > >>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in > Congress-- > >>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: > >>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: < > https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/content/contact-senator> > >>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: > > >>> ~~~ > >>> > >>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at > >>> > >>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is > on > >>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) > >>> > >>> ### > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Peace mailing list > >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net > >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Peace-discuss mailing list > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Dec 4 02:49:02 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:49:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 demo Message-ID: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> [Flyer to be distributed at AWARE's regular monthly anti-war demonstration Saturday 7 December 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial Fountain, intersection of Main & Neil in Champaign] ===================================================================================================== ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. ~~~ In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- ~ Senator Dick Durbin: ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: ~ Representative Rodney Davis: ~~~ This flyer is produced by members & friends of the ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort?; see on Facebook. The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube). ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 12:50:20 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 04:50:20 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: A Surefire Cure For Despair References: <139971992.7473.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > A Surefire Cure For?Despair by Caitlin Johnstone > "I can't go on. I'll go on." > ~ Samuel Beckett > > Sometimes it just gets to be too goddamn much. You just finished a soul-draining argument with a family member who insists that Putin controls all major world events because that's what the TV said so it must be true, then you check the poll numbers for the upcoming elections in the US and UK and you see your favorite candidates just don't have the kind of numbers they're going to need, the latest revelation that the US and its allies deceived the world about what's happening in Syria has been completely swept under the rug by the establishment news churn, Bolivia has been taken over by US-backed Christian fascists, and now you're watching Mike Pompeo's stupid asshole face spouting some made-up bullshit about Iran that you know the news media will never hold him accountable for. > > And it's just too goddamn much. > > To become oppositional to the status quo is to enter into a long-term relationship with despair. It's not a monogamous relationship; you'll have the occasional affair with anger, a fling with fear, a rendezvous with rage, and every once in a while even a brief tryst with triumph. But you always end up drunkenly stumbling home to bed with the old ball-and-chain despair. > > Every time you think you might have the bastards on the ropes, every time you see a shining crack in the cage, a glowing glitch in the matrix, it's quickly covered up by some gibberish about Russia or empty shrieking about Donald Trump, and then everyone's herded along into the next authorised imperial narrative. > > This is because the deck is stacked so very high against you. The rulers of the empire have all the money, all the resources, all the infrastructure and almost all the media, and they use these advantages ceaselessly to shift things around in order to prevent the unwashed masses from rising up and toppling their palaces. > > It's possible to avoid confronting this reality by busying oneself with activism and information, but at some point despair always kicks in. > > So what do you do? I get asked this all the time. > > "How do you stay so optimistic, Caitlin?" people often ask me. "How, in the face of so much deception, exploitation and oppression, do you avoid giving in to despair?" > > Well I'll tell you my secret: I don't. > > I don't avoid despair at all. I give into it fully, over and over and over again. > > Whenever things seem hopeless and I feel like I'm bashing my head against a solid brick wall, I just say, "Fine then. I quit." > > And then I do. > > I quit fully. I let go of the entire battle. I let go of all the responsibility I feel to help create a better world. I let go of my desire to stick it to the bastards, and I relinquish every inch of skin I've got in this game. I lay down (sometimes literally), and I stop struggling against the relentless tide of establishment evil. > > And I feel a tremendous relief. Ah, what a great feeling! To no longer be holding the world together with my efforts! > > Having been granted the thing that it wanted, the crushing weight of despair is lifted from my chest. It snatches its terrible prize and slithers off to gnaw on it in a dark corner somewhere. > > And then something interesting happens. The world keeps turning. And it doesn't fall apart. > > It's the darndest thing. I stopped holding off armageddon through sheer force of will, yet the world remains. The sun comes up, the birds chirp, the internet forum debates continue, and my lungs keep taking in oxygen. > > A lot of magic can happen in that space. When you quit. When you relinquish the illusion that your sustained, straining willpower has anything to do with the continued battle against corruption and bloodshed. > > Because in that moment you see clearly that it's got nothing to do with you. Anti-imperialists pick up their weapons and begin the battle anew each morning, regardless of anything you're doing or saying. Your body keeps taking in air, pumping blood and digesting food regardless of anything you're doing or saying. And, without the assistance of any Atlas-like effort on your part whatsoever, you'll notice that your body also re-engages in the battle. > > Because what the hell else is it going to do? Not fight? Of course not. What has been seen will never be unseen. Your operating system isn't going to stop fighting the bad guys just because you stopped willing it to, any more than your body will refrain from putting its arms up when someone throws a baseball at your head. > > You can trust that your whole body-brain-organism-thingy will keep fighting with or without the sustained straining of your personal willpower. And that works out nicely, because it's the sustained straining of your personal willpower that creates the sense of despair. If you aren't constantly straining to win elections, expose wrongdoing, topple the oligarchs and end wars by sheer force of will, and are rather just picking up your weapons of truth and compassion and doing what comes naturally to you from moment to moment, then despair really has nothing to work with, because you're not fixated on some remote end-goal that keeps getting obstacles thrown in front of it. > > Journalist Chris Hedges once said, ?I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.? It's the fighting itself that matters, and you can trust that that fighting will continue even without your sustained personal will. > > Don't take my word for it. Next time you find yourself feeling like you can't go on fighting this fight anymore, just give up. Quit. Then watch what happens. Before long you'll see your fingers typing dissident ideas onto screens, you'll hear your voice speaking unauthorized truths, you'll watch your mind forming forbidden ideas. And it will all be happening without "you", without the sustained personal effort of the thing you take yourself to be. > > This fight will fight itself, if you let it. And it can actually fight a lot more efficiently without the sustained sense of personal effort constantly bogging the whole process down with frustration and despair. Just let your body's operating system fight this one on its own. It doesn't need your help. > > And in the end, maybe the war will be won. Maybe it won't. It's really none of your business. Your job is to let your organism fight for its life, as it's been conditioned to do by millions of years of evolution. That evolutionary drive to survive was here long before you showed up, and it will remain after you're gone. It's got nothing to do with you. So stand back and let it fight. > > ___________________________ > > (Image via www.aboblist.com ) > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > P > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 4, 2019 at 2:35 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone , despair , revolution | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Wx > Comment See all comments > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 4 12:50:20 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 04:50:20 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: A Surefire Cure For Despair References: <139971992.7473.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > A Surefire Cure For?Despair by Caitlin Johnstone > "I can't go on. I'll go on." > ~ Samuel Beckett > > Sometimes it just gets to be too goddamn much. You just finished a soul-draining argument with a family member who insists that Putin controls all major world events because that's what the TV said so it must be true, then you check the poll numbers for the upcoming elections in the US and UK and you see your favorite candidates just don't have the kind of numbers they're going to need, the latest revelation that the US and its allies deceived the world about what's happening in Syria has been completely swept under the rug by the establishment news churn, Bolivia has been taken over by US-backed Christian fascists, and now you're watching Mike Pompeo's stupid asshole face spouting some made-up bullshit about Iran that you know the news media will never hold him accountable for. > > And it's just too goddamn much. > > To become oppositional to the status quo is to enter into a long-term relationship with despair. It's not a monogamous relationship; you'll have the occasional affair with anger, a fling with fear, a rendezvous with rage, and every once in a while even a brief tryst with triumph. But you always end up drunkenly stumbling home to bed with the old ball-and-chain despair. > > Every time you think you might have the bastards on the ropes, every time you see a shining crack in the cage, a glowing glitch in the matrix, it's quickly covered up by some gibberish about Russia or empty shrieking about Donald Trump, and then everyone's herded along into the next authorised imperial narrative. > > This is because the deck is stacked so very high against you. The rulers of the empire have all the money, all the resources, all the infrastructure and almost all the media, and they use these advantages ceaselessly to shift things around in order to prevent the unwashed masses from rising up and toppling their palaces. > > It's possible to avoid confronting this reality by busying oneself with activism and information, but at some point despair always kicks in. > > So what do you do? I get asked this all the time. > > "How do you stay so optimistic, Caitlin?" people often ask me. "How, in the face of so much deception, exploitation and oppression, do you avoid giving in to despair?" > > Well I'll tell you my secret: I don't. > > I don't avoid despair at all. I give into it fully, over and over and over again. > > Whenever things seem hopeless and I feel like I'm bashing my head against a solid brick wall, I just say, "Fine then. I quit." > > And then I do. > > I quit fully. I let go of the entire battle. I let go of all the responsibility I feel to help create a better world. I let go of my desire to stick it to the bastards, and I relinquish every inch of skin I've got in this game. I lay down (sometimes literally), and I stop struggling against the relentless tide of establishment evil. > > And I feel a tremendous relief. Ah, what a great feeling! To no longer be holding the world together with my efforts! > > Having been granted the thing that it wanted, the crushing weight of despair is lifted from my chest. It snatches its terrible prize and slithers off to gnaw on it in a dark corner somewhere. > > And then something interesting happens. The world keeps turning. And it doesn't fall apart. > > It's the darndest thing. I stopped holding off armageddon through sheer force of will, yet the world remains. The sun comes up, the birds chirp, the internet forum debates continue, and my lungs keep taking in oxygen. > > A lot of magic can happen in that space. When you quit. When you relinquish the illusion that your sustained, straining willpower has anything to do with the continued battle against corruption and bloodshed. > > Because in that moment you see clearly that it's got nothing to do with you. Anti-imperialists pick up their weapons and begin the battle anew each morning, regardless of anything you're doing or saying. Your body keeps taking in air, pumping blood and digesting food regardless of anything you're doing or saying. And, without the assistance of any Atlas-like effort on your part whatsoever, you'll notice that your body also re-engages in the battle. > > Because what the hell else is it going to do? Not fight? Of course not. What has been seen will never be unseen. Your operating system isn't going to stop fighting the bad guys just because you stopped willing it to, any more than your body will refrain from putting its arms up when someone throws a baseball at your head. > > You can trust that your whole body-brain-organism-thingy will keep fighting with or without the sustained straining of your personal willpower. And that works out nicely, because it's the sustained straining of your personal willpower that creates the sense of despair. If you aren't constantly straining to win elections, expose wrongdoing, topple the oligarchs and end wars by sheer force of will, and are rather just picking up your weapons of truth and compassion and doing what comes naturally to you from moment to moment, then despair really has nothing to work with, because you're not fixated on some remote end-goal that keeps getting obstacles thrown in front of it. > > Journalist Chris Hedges once said, ?I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.? It's the fighting itself that matters, and you can trust that that fighting will continue even without your sustained personal will. > > Don't take my word for it. Next time you find yourself feeling like you can't go on fighting this fight anymore, just give up. Quit. Then watch what happens. Before long you'll see your fingers typing dissident ideas onto screens, you'll hear your voice speaking unauthorized truths, you'll watch your mind forming forbidden ideas. And it will all be happening without "you", without the sustained personal effort of the thing you take yourself to be. > > This fight will fight itself, if you let it. And it can actually fight a lot more efficiently without the sustained sense of personal effort constantly bogging the whole process down with frustration and despair. Just let your body's operating system fight this one on its own. It doesn't need your help. > > And in the end, maybe the war will be won. Maybe it won't. It's really none of your business. Your job is to let your organism fight for its life, as it's been conditioned to do by millions of years of evolution. That evolutionary drive to survive was here long before you showed up, and it will remain after you're gone. It's got nothing to do with you. So stand back and let it fight. > > ___________________________ > > (Image via www.aboblist.com ) > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > P > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 4, 2019 at 2:35 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone , despair , revolution | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Wx > Comment See all comments > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Wed Dec 4 13:21:29 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:21:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 demo In-Reply-To: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> References: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <1582349358.3256104.1575465689563@mail.yahoo.com> As Yale Law Prof. Bruce Ackerman was interviewed this morning on NPR about the House impeachment of Trump he tried to make the point that Trump should be impeached for more egregious violations of the Constitution on human rights than what he is charged with (Ukraine-Bidens) and tried to give examples when he was (im)politely cut short by "thank you for your time," like he gave the wrong answer.?? "It's not too late to give to your public news broadcast organization..." mo'b? ? ?? -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss To: Peace Cc: peace-discuss Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2019 8:50 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 demo [Flyer to be distributed at AWARE's regular monthly anti-war demonstration Saturday 7 December 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial Fountain, intersection of Main & Neil in Champaign] ===================================================================================================== ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. ~~~ In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- ~ Senator Dick Durbin: ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: ~ Representative Rodney Davis: ~~~ This flyer is produced by members & friends of the ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort?; see on Facebook. The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube). ###_______________________________________________ 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Dec 4 22:26:28 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:26:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> References: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <2010C5AD-6272-460F-8DD9-F97F30BA2F71@newsfromneptune.com> "...Trump?s most unforgivable sin in the eyes of the deep state is his criticism of the empire?s endless wars, even though he lacks the intellectual and organizational skills to oversee a disengagement?? > On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace wrote: > > The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, domestic issues?, that he embodies. > > One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. > > Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace groups?) of your pamphlet. > > UBI? What? > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Much better. >> >> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >> >> >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>> >>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>> >>> ===================================================================================================== >>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>> >>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>> >>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>> >>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>> >>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>> >>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>> >>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>> >>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>> >>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>> >>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>> ~~~ >>> >>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>> ~~~ >>> >>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>> >>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 00:58:11 2019 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:58:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: <2010C5AD-6272-460F-8DD9-F97F30BA2F71@newsfromneptune.com> References: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> <2010C5AD-6272-460F-8DD9-F97F30BA2F71@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <08B1A054-220D-426A-B806-B126DDCACBB1@gmail.com> So he is making up with the so-called deep state by sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 4, 2019, at 4:26 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > "...Trump?s most unforgivable sin in the eyes of the deep state is his criticism of the empire?s endless wars, even though he lacks the intellectual and organizational skills to oversee a disengagement?? > > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace wrote: >> >> The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, domestic issues?, that he embodies. >> >> One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. >> >> Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace groups?) of your pamphlet. >> >> UBI? What? >> >> >> >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Much better. >>> >>> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>>> >>>> ===================================================================================================== >>>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>>> >>>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>>> >>>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>>> >>>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>>> >>>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>>> >>>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>>> >>>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>>> >>>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>>> >>>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>>> >>>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>>> ~~~ >>>> >>>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>>> >>>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 01:20:41 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 19:20:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Dec. 7 anti-war demo REVISED In-Reply-To: <08B1A054-220D-426A-B806-B126DDCACBB1@gmail.com> References: <736338A8-DAE5-4CD8-9AC2-44BDFA81F264@illinois.edu> <2010C5AD-6272-460F-8DD9-F97F30BA2F71@newsfromneptune.com> <08B1A054-220D-426A-B806-B126DDCACBB1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <859E91DC-EBDB-40AA-9FE4-A8AABAEE4942@newsfromneptune.com> That?s surely what they want him to do. (Obama sent 30,000 more US troops at a similar point in his first administration.) > On Dec 4, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Debra Schrishuhn wrote: > > So he is making up with the so-called deep state by sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 4, 2019, at 4:26 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> "...Trump?s most unforgivable sin in the eyes of the deep state is his criticism of the empire?s endless wars, even though he lacks the intellectual and organizational skills to oversee a disengagement?? >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace wrote: >>> >>> The U.S. is now fomenting, under Trump, proxy and economic wars, not direct military conflicts with U.S. forces (which would alarm the public with casualties and U.S. vulnerabilities). Quite clever? But terriby destructive and lethal nonetheless, In Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, in Africa, Palestine, etc.. Trump is no bystander. He is the lancepoint of American foreign policy, and should be beholden for these manifold policies, as well as on other critical policies such as nuclear weapons issues, military-national security budgets, domestic issues?, that he embodies. >>> >>> One can get the impression that Carl serves as an apologist for Trump by slyly deflecting criticisms from him to past U.S. transgressions ?. >>> >>> Especially admirable is the next to last entry (With other peace groups?) of your pamphlet. >>> >>> UBI? What? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Much better. >>>> >>>> Though I do have a question given the flyer is supposed to reflect the opinions of most AWARE folks, or those who intend to be at the demo. Saturday: Do most members of AWARE support UBI? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 08:30, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [Incorporates several suggestions from members & friends of AWARE] >>>>> >>>>> ===================================================================================================== >>>>> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >>>>> >>>>> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >>>>> >>>>> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >>>>> >>>>> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >>>>> >>>>> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >>>>> >>>>> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >>>>> >>>>> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >>>>> >>>>> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >>>>> >>>>> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >>>>> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >>>>> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >>>>> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >>>>> ~~~ >>>>> >>>>> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >>>>> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >>>>> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >>>>> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >>>>> ~~~ >>>>> >>>>> The ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort? is on Facebook at >>>>> >>>>> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on >>>>> Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube) >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 02:29:15 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 20:29:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace] A Surefire Cure For Despair In-Reply-To: References: <139971992.7473.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Some more of Beckett?s dark wisdom: "Lowenfels got frustrated & burst out, 'You sit there saying nothing while the world is going to pieces. What do you want? What do you want to do?' [Samuel] Beckett crossed his legs and replied, 'Walter, all I want to do is sit on my ass and fart and think of Dante.'? [J. Burns] https://images.app.goo.gl/Mqwmem57YJxzd8hQ7 > On Dec 4, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > >> >> New post on Caitlin Johnstone >> >> >> A Surefire Cure For Despair >> by Caitlin Johnstone >> "I can't go on. I'll go on." >> ~ Samuel Beckett >> >> Sometimes it just gets to be too goddamn much. You just finished a soul-draining argument with a family member who insists that Putin controls all major world events because that's what the TV said so it must be true, then you check the poll numbers for the upcoming elections in the US and UK and you see your favorite candidates just don't have the kind of numbers they're going to need, the latest revelation that the US and its allies deceived the world about what's happening in Syria has been completely swept under the rug by the establishment news churn, Bolivia has been taken over by US-backed Christian fascists, and now you're watching Mike Pompeo's stupid asshole face spouting some made-up bullshit about Iran that you know the news media will never hold him accountable for. >> >> And it's just too goddamn much. >> >> To become oppositional to the status quo is to enter into a long-term relationship with despair. It's not a monogamous relationship; you'll have the occasional affair with anger, a fling with fear, a rendezvous with rage, and every once in a while even a brief tryst with triumph. But you always end up drunkenly stumbling home to bed with the old ball-and-chain despair. >> >> Every time you think you might have the bastards on the ropes, every time you see a shining crack in the cage, a glowing glitch in the matrix, it's quickly covered up by some gibberish about Russia or empty shrieking about Donald Trump, and then everyone's herded along into the next authorised imperial narrative. >> >> This is because the deck is stacked so very high against you. The rulers of the empire have all the money, all the resources, all the infrastructure and almost all the media, and they use these advantages ceaselessly to shift things around in order to prevent the unwashed masses from rising up and toppling their palaces. >> >> It's possible to avoid confronting this reality by busying oneself with activism and information, but at some point despair always kicks in. >> >> So what do you do? I get asked this all the time. >> >> "How do you stay so optimistic, Caitlin?" people often ask me. "How, in the face of so much deception, exploitation and oppression, do you avoid giving in to despair?" >> >> Well I'll tell you my secret: I don't. >> >> I don't avoid despair at all. I give into it fully, over and over and over again. >> >> Whenever things seem hopeless and I feel like I'm bashing my head against a solid brick wall, I just say, "Fine then. I quit." >> >> And then I do. >> >> I quit fully. I let go of the entire battle. I let go of all the responsibility I feel to help create a better world. I let go of my desire to stick it to the bastards, and I relinquish every inch of skin I've got in this game. I lay down (sometimes literally), and I stop struggling against the relentless tide of establishment evil. >> >> And I feel a tremendous relief. Ah, what a great feeling! To no longer be holding the world together with my efforts! >> >> Having been granted the thing that it wanted, the crushing weight of despair is lifted from my chest. It snatches its terrible prize and slithers off to gnaw on it in a dark corner somewhere. >> >> And then something interesting happens. The world keeps turning. And it doesn't fall apart. >> >> It's the darndest thing. I stopped holding off armageddon through sheer force of will, yet the world remains. The sun comes up, the birds chirp, the internet forum debates continue, and my lungs keep taking in oxygen. >> >> A lot of magic can happen in that space. When you quit. When you relinquish the illusion that your sustained, straining willpower has anything to do with the continued battle against corruption and bloodshed. >> >> Because in that moment you see clearly that it's got nothing to do with you. Anti-imperialists pick up their weapons and begin the battle anew each morning, regardless of anything you're doing or saying. Your body keeps taking in air, pumping blood and digesting food regardless of anything you're doing or saying. And, without the assistance of any Atlas-like effort on your part whatsoever, you'll notice that your body also re-engages in the battle. >> >> Because what the hell else is it going to do? Not fight? Of course not. What has been seen will never be unseen. Your operating system isn't going to stop fighting the bad guys just because you stopped willing it to, any more than your body will refrain from putting its arms up when someone throws a baseball at your head. >> >> You can trust that your whole body-brain-organism-thingy will keep fighting with or without the sustained straining of your personal willpower. And that works out nicely, because it's the sustained straining of your personal willpower that creates the sense of despair. If you aren't constantly straining to win elections, expose wrongdoing, topple the oligarchs and end wars by sheer force of will, and are rather just picking up your weapons of truth and compassion and doing what comes naturally to you from moment to moment, then despair really has nothing to work with, because you're not fixated on some remote end-goal that keeps getting obstacles thrown in front of it. >> >> Journalist Chris Hedges once said, ?I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.? It's the fighting itself that matters, and you can trust that that fighting will continue even without your sustained personal will. >> >> Don't take my word for it. Next time you find yourself feeling like you can't go on fighting this fight anymore, just give up. Quit. Then watch what happens. Before long you'll see your fingers typing dissident ideas onto screens, you'll hear your voice speaking unauthorized truths, you'll watch your mind forming forbidden ideas. And it will all be happening without "you", without the sustained personal effort of the thing you take yourself to be. >> >> This fight will fight itself, if you let it. And it can actually fight a lot more efficiently without the sustained sense of personal effort constantly bogging the whole process down with frustration and despair. Just let your body's operating system fight this one on its own. It doesn't need your help. >> >> And in the end, maybe the war will be won. Maybe it won't. It's really none of your business. Your job is to let your organism fight for its life, as it's been conditioned to do by millions of years of evolution. That evolutionary drive to survive was here long before you showed up, and it will remain after you're gone. It's got nothing to do with you. So stand back and let it fight. >> >> ___________________________ >> >> (Image via www.aboblist.com) >> >> Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. >> >> >> >> Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 >> >> P >> >> Caitlin Johnstone | December 4, 2019 at 2:35 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone, despair, revolution | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Wx >> Comment See all comments >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 02:29:15 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 20:29:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace] A Surefire Cure For Despair In-Reply-To: References: <139971992.7473.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Some more of Beckett?s dark wisdom: "Lowenfels got frustrated & burst out, 'You sit there saying nothing while the world is going to pieces. What do you want? What do you want to do?' [Samuel] Beckett crossed his legs and replied, 'Walter, all I want to do is sit on my ass and fart and think of Dante.'? [J. Burns] https://images.app.goo.gl/Mqwmem57YJxzd8hQ7 > On Dec 4, 2019, at 6:50 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > >> >> New post on Caitlin Johnstone >> >> >> A Surefire Cure For Despair >> by Caitlin Johnstone >> "I can't go on. I'll go on." >> ~ Samuel Beckett >> >> Sometimes it just gets to be too goddamn much. You just finished a soul-draining argument with a family member who insists that Putin controls all major world events because that's what the TV said so it must be true, then you check the poll numbers for the upcoming elections in the US and UK and you see your favorite candidates just don't have the kind of numbers they're going to need, the latest revelation that the US and its allies deceived the world about what's happening in Syria has been completely swept under the rug by the establishment news churn, Bolivia has been taken over by US-backed Christian fascists, and now you're watching Mike Pompeo's stupid asshole face spouting some made-up bullshit about Iran that you know the news media will never hold him accountable for. >> >> And it's just too goddamn much. >> >> To become oppositional to the status quo is to enter into a long-term relationship with despair. It's not a monogamous relationship; you'll have the occasional affair with anger, a fling with fear, a rendezvous with rage, and every once in a while even a brief tryst with triumph. But you always end up drunkenly stumbling home to bed with the old ball-and-chain despair. >> >> Every time you think you might have the bastards on the ropes, every time you see a shining crack in the cage, a glowing glitch in the matrix, it's quickly covered up by some gibberish about Russia or empty shrieking about Donald Trump, and then everyone's herded along into the next authorised imperial narrative. >> >> This is because the deck is stacked so very high against you. The rulers of the empire have all the money, all the resources, all the infrastructure and almost all the media, and they use these advantages ceaselessly to shift things around in order to prevent the unwashed masses from rising up and toppling their palaces. >> >> It's possible to avoid confronting this reality by busying oneself with activism and information, but at some point despair always kicks in. >> >> So what do you do? I get asked this all the time. >> >> "How do you stay so optimistic, Caitlin?" people often ask me. "How, in the face of so much deception, exploitation and oppression, do you avoid giving in to despair?" >> >> Well I'll tell you my secret: I don't. >> >> I don't avoid despair at all. I give into it fully, over and over and over again. >> >> Whenever things seem hopeless and I feel like I'm bashing my head against a solid brick wall, I just say, "Fine then. I quit." >> >> And then I do. >> >> I quit fully. I let go of the entire battle. I let go of all the responsibility I feel to help create a better world. I let go of my desire to stick it to the bastards, and I relinquish every inch of skin I've got in this game. I lay down (sometimes literally), and I stop struggling against the relentless tide of establishment evil. >> >> And I feel a tremendous relief. Ah, what a great feeling! To no longer be holding the world together with my efforts! >> >> Having been granted the thing that it wanted, the crushing weight of despair is lifted from my chest. It snatches its terrible prize and slithers off to gnaw on it in a dark corner somewhere. >> >> And then something interesting happens. The world keeps turning. And it doesn't fall apart. >> >> It's the darndest thing. I stopped holding off armageddon through sheer force of will, yet the world remains. The sun comes up, the birds chirp, the internet forum debates continue, and my lungs keep taking in oxygen. >> >> A lot of magic can happen in that space. When you quit. When you relinquish the illusion that your sustained, straining willpower has anything to do with the continued battle against corruption and bloodshed. >> >> Because in that moment you see clearly that it's got nothing to do with you. Anti-imperialists pick up their weapons and begin the battle anew each morning, regardless of anything you're doing or saying. Your body keeps taking in air, pumping blood and digesting food regardless of anything you're doing or saying. And, without the assistance of any Atlas-like effort on your part whatsoever, you'll notice that your body also re-engages in the battle. >> >> Because what the hell else is it going to do? Not fight? Of course not. What has been seen will never be unseen. Your operating system isn't going to stop fighting the bad guys just because you stopped willing it to, any more than your body will refrain from putting its arms up when someone throws a baseball at your head. >> >> You can trust that your whole body-brain-organism-thingy will keep fighting with or without the sustained straining of your personal willpower. And that works out nicely, because it's the sustained straining of your personal willpower that creates the sense of despair. If you aren't constantly straining to win elections, expose wrongdoing, topple the oligarchs and end wars by sheer force of will, and are rather just picking up your weapons of truth and compassion and doing what comes naturally to you from moment to moment, then despair really has nothing to work with, because you're not fixated on some remote end-goal that keeps getting obstacles thrown in front of it. >> >> Journalist Chris Hedges once said, ?I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.? It's the fighting itself that matters, and you can trust that that fighting will continue even without your sustained personal will. >> >> Don't take my word for it. Next time you find yourself feeling like you can't go on fighting this fight anymore, just give up. Quit. Then watch what happens. Before long you'll see your fingers typing dissident ideas onto screens, you'll hear your voice speaking unauthorized truths, you'll watch your mind forming forbidden ideas. And it will all be happening without "you", without the sustained personal effort of the thing you take yourself to be. >> >> This fight will fight itself, if you let it. And it can actually fight a lot more efficiently without the sustained sense of personal effort constantly bogging the whole process down with frustration and despair. Just let your body's operating system fight this one on its own. It doesn't need your help. >> >> And in the end, maybe the war will be won. Maybe it won't. It's really none of your business. Your job is to let your organism fight for its life, as it's been conditioned to do by millions of years of evolution. That evolutionary drive to survive was here long before you showed up, and it will remain after you're gone. It's got nothing to do with you. So stand back and let it fight. >> >> ___________________________ >> >> (Image via www.aboblist.com) >> >> Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. >> >> >> >> Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 >> >> P >> >> Caitlin Johnstone | December 4, 2019 at 2:35 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone, despair, revolution | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Wx >> Comment See all comments >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 03:56:41 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:56:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Trump's crime Message-ID: <33DEAC07-57DE-4846-B198-F9A1BC2E61E9@newsfromneptune.com> "Trump's real crime, the document makes clear, is drifting from the aggressive anti-Russian posture adopted by the Obama administration and supported by the dominant factions of the military/intelligence and foreign policy establishments.? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/04/impe-d04.html From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 04:08:54 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0600 Subject: [Peace] A good summary In-Reply-To: References: <006101d5a3ae$6982e280$3c88a780$@comcast.net> Message-ID: > On Nov 26, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Ricky Baldwin via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Ok, thanks, David. This does seem to be the beginnings of a case that could be made for US "funding and training" the coup in Ukraine. Certainly the coup was welcomed by USG - and encouraged. And if this holds up, it looks like at least some of the putschists in Ukraine were US vectors. Bad, anyway, very bad. > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID > On Nov 25, 2019 10:52 AM, David Johnson wrote: > How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine > [https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/themes/strategic-culture/layout/static/acjHM66QQR5kCh1rvkLeUXWRoIw.png] > Eric Zuesse > > [https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/themes/strategic-culture/layout/static/4tonPx6ZVVE9r7ECg0qIKaFDElw.png] > June 3, 2018 > ? Photo: Public domain > This will document that the ?new Cold War? between the US and Russia did not start, as the Western myth has it, with Russia?s involvement in the breakaway of Crimea and Donbass from Ukraine, after Ukraine ? next door to Russia ? had suddenly turned rabidly hostile toward Russia in February 2014. Ukraine?s replacing its democratically elected neutralist Government in February 2014, by a rabidly anti-Russian Government, was a violent event, which produced many corpses. It?s presented in The West as having been a ?revolution? instead of a coup; but whatever it was, it certainly generated the ?new Cold War? (the economic sanctions and NATO buildup on Russia?s borders); and, to know whether it was a coup, or instead a revolution, is to know what actually started the ?new Cold War?, and why. So, this is historically very important. > Incontrovertible proofs will be presented here not only that it was a coup, but that this coup was organized by the US Government ? that the US Government initiated the ?new Cold War?; Russia?s Government reacted to America?s aggression, which aims to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine, less than ten minutes flight-time from Moscow. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, America had reason to fear Soviet nuclear missiles 103 miles from America?s border. But, after America?s Ukrainian coup in 2014, Russia has reason to fear NATO nuclear missiles not just near, but on, Russia?s border. That would be catastrophic. > If America?s successful February 2014 overthrow and replacement of Ukraine?s democratically elected neutralist Government doesn?t soon produce a world-ending nuclear war (World War III), then there will be historical accounts of that overthrow, and the accounts are already increasingly trending and consolidating toward a historical consensus that it was a coup ? that it was imposed by ?somebody from the new coalition? ? i.e., that the termination of the then-existing democratic (though like all its predecessors, corrupt) Ukrainian Government, wasn?t authentically a ?revolution? such as the US Government has contended, and certainly wasn?t at all democratic, but was instead a coup (and a very bloody one, at that), and totally illegal (though backed by The West). > The purpose of the present article will be to focus attention on precisely whom the chief people are who were responsible for perpetrating this globally mega-dangerous (?Cold-War?-igniting) coup ? and thus for creating the world?s subsequent course increasingly toward global nuclear annihilation. > If there will be future history, then these are the individuals who will be in the docks for that history?s harshest and most damning judgments, even if there will be no legal proceedings brought against them. Who, then, are these people? > Clearly, Victoria Nuland, US President Barack Obama?s central agent overseeing the coup, at least during the month of February 2014 when it climaxed, was crucial not only in overthrowing the existing Ukrainian Government, but in selecting and installing its rabidly anti-Russian replacement. The 27 January 2014 phone-conversation between her and America?s Ambassador in Ukraine, Jeffrey Pyatt was a particularly seminal event, and it was uploaded to youtube on 4 February 2014. I have discussed elsewhere that call and its significance. Nuland there and then abandoned the EU?s hope for a still democratic but less corrupt future government for Ukraine, and Nuland famously said, on that call ?Fuck the EU,? and she instructed Pyatt to choose instead the rabidly anti-Russian, and far-right, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. This key event occurred 24 days before Ukraine?s President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown on February 20th, and 30 days before the new person to head Ukraine?s Government, Yatsenyuk, became officially appointed to rule the now clearly fascist country. He won that official designation on February 26th. However, this was only a formality: Obama?s agent had already chosen him, on January 27th. > The second landmark item of evidence that it had been a coup and nothing at all democratic or a ?revolution?, was the 26 February 2014 phone-conversation between the EU?s Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton and her agent in Ukraine investigating whether the overthrow had been a revolution or instead a coup; he was Estonia?s Foreign Minister, Urmas Paet, and he told her that he found that it had been a coup, and that ?somebody from the new coalition? had engineered it ? but he didn?t know whom that ?somebody? was. Both Ashton and Paet were shocked at this finding, but they proceeded immediately to ignore that matter, and to discuss only the prospects for Europe?s investors in Ukraine, to be able to get their money back ? their obsession was Ukraine's corruption. Ashton told Paet that she had herself told the Maidan demonstrators, ?you need to find ways in which you can establish a process that will have anti-corruption at its heart.? So, though the EU was unhappy that this had been a coup, they were far more concerned to protect their investors. In any case, the EU clearly wasn?t behind Ukraine's coup. Equally clearly, they didn?t much care whether it was a coup or instead what the US Government said, a ?revolution'. > The network behind this coup had actually started planning for the coup back in 2011. That?s when Eric Schmidt of Google, and Jared Cohen, also now of Google but still continuing though unofficially as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?s chief person tasked to plan ?popular movements? to overthrow both Yanukovych in Ukraine, and Assad in Syria. > Then, on 1 March 2013, the implementation of this plan started: the first ?tech camp? to train far-right Ukrainians how to organize online the mass-demonstrations against Yanukovych, was held inside the US Embassy in Kiev on that date, which was over nine months before the Maidan demonstrations to overthrow Ukraine?s democratically elected President started, on 20 November 2013. > The American scholar Gordon M. Hahn has specialized in studying the evidence regarding whom the actual snipers were who committed the murders, but he focuses only on domestic Ukrainian snipers and ignores the foreign ones, who had been hired by the US regime indirectly through Georgian, Lithuanian and other anti-Russian CIA assets (such as via Mikheil Saakashvili, the ousted President of Georgia whom the US regime subsequently selected to become the Governor of the Odessa region of Ukraine). Hahn?s 2018 book Ukraine Over the Edge states on pages 204-209: > "Yet another pro-Maidan sniper, Ivan Bubenchik, emerged to acknowledge that he shot and killed Berkut [the Government?s police who were protecting Government buildings] before any protesters were shot that day [February 20th]. In a print interview, Bubenchik previews his admission in Vladimir Tikhii?s documentary film, Brantsy, that he shot ahd killed two Berkut commanders in the early morning hours of February 20 on the Maidan. ? Bubenchik claims that [on February 20] the Yanukovich regime started the fire in the Trade Union House ? where his and many other EuroMaidan fighters lived during the revolt ? prompting the Maidan?s next reaction. As noted above, however, pro-Maidan neofascists have revealed that the Right Sector started that fire. ? Analysis of the snipers? massacre shows that the Maidan protesters initiated almost all ? at least six out of a possible eight ? of the pivotal escalatory moments of violence and/or coercion. ? The 30 November 2013 nighttime assault on the Maidan demonstrators is the only clear exception from a conclusive pattern of escalating revolutionary violence led by the Maidan?s relatively small but highly motivated and well-organized neofascist element." > Although Hahn?s book barely cites the first and most detailed academic study of the climactic coup period of late February, Ivan Katchanovski?s poorly written ?The ?Snipers? Massacre? on the Maidan in Ukraine?, which was issued on 5 September 2015, Hahn?s is consistent with that: both works conclude that the available evidence, as Katchanovski puts it, shows that: > ?The massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It [his investigation] found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas.? > Hahn downplays US heading of the coup. But shortly before the coup, the CIA secretly trained in Poland the Right Sector founder/leader Dmitriy Yarosh ("Dmytro Jarosz"), who headed Ukraine?s snipers. So, even the Ukrainian ones were working for the US > On 19 November 2017 was issued Gian Micalessin?s ?The hidden truth about Ukraine ? Part 1? > & Part 2 > Summarizing them here: Two Georgian snipers say Saakashvili hired them in Tbilisi for a US-backed operation. But they know only about the ?Georgian Legion? part. They think it was patterned on Georgia?s Rose Revolution. They each got $1000 for the operation and flew to Kiev on 15 January and were promised $5000 on return. (9:00) ?We had to provoke the ?Berkut? police so they would attack the people. By February 15th the situation [at the Maidan] was getting worse every day. Then the first shots were fired.? It was February 15 or 16. Mamunashvili [Saakashvili?s man] introduced them to ?an American military guy, ? Brian Christopher Boyenger? a former ?sniper for the 101st Airborne Division? who ?after Maidan he went to Donbass? to fight in the ?Georgian Legion? but during the coup-climax, the far-right Andriy ?Parubiy came very often,? and ?Brian always accompanied him? and also instructing there was Vladimir Parasyuk, one of the leaders of the Maidan. The snipers were told not to aim but just to kill people randomly, to create chaos. There were also two Lithuanian snipers in the room. Some went down from the Ukraine Hotel to the second floor of the Conservatory Building, balcony. ?They started to take out the guns and distributed them to each group.? ?Then I heard shots from the next room? It lasted 15 minutes, then they were all ordered to escape. > On 13 February 2015 was telecast a German documentary, ?Maidan Snipers. German TV expose. ARD Monitor. Eng Subs? in which one of the demonstrators said that many of the bullets were fired from buildings controlled by the demonstrators, but that ?We were also shot at from the other direction.? However, at least before 21 February 2014, police (Berkut) were seized by demonstrators and at least the possibility exists that some of the Right Sector snipers were taking positions in and especially atop some of the government buildings so as to fire down into the crowd and seem to be firing from Yanukovych?s side. Gordon Hahn hasn?t been able to verify any firing in February 2014 by the Yanukovych government. Moreover: ?they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides.? > On 1 February 2016 was posted to youtube a French documentary, ?Ukraine ? Masks of the Revolution? which shows, from a meeting at Davos, at 48:00, Victoria Nuland, the announcer trying to speak with her and saying to the audience, ?The US diplomat who came to support the Revolution, could she really ignore the existence of the paramilitaries??; 48:50 Larry Summers at a meeting in Kiev during 10-12 September 2015 and then later at the ?12th YES Annual Meeting? saying, ?Ukraine is an essential outpost of our fundamental military interests?; 49:25: Petraeus also shown there and the announcer says, ?He also thinks that Ukraine is essential to block Putin.? Petraeus urges investment in Ukraine to block Russia; 51:00 McChrystal there also urges arming Ukraine; 51:50 Nuland is there and the announcer says: ?The country that is most invested in Ukraine?s future is the US? ?She is the architect of America?s influence in Ukraine.? Nuland says there at the ?YES? meeting, ?We had a significant impact on the battlefield.? But the US regime blames Russia for that war. From moboct1 at aim.com Thu Dec 5 14:07:09 2019 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Sen. Duckworth: Responding to your message In-Reply-To: <1176103795.3903214.1575554723749@mail.yahoo.com> References: <378931045.3746308.1575550423244.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <378931045.3746308.1575550423244@mail.yahoo.com> <1176103795.3903214.1575554723749@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <212395296.3849378.1575554829917@mail.yahoo.com> -----Original Message----- From: Mildred O'brien To: peace-discuss Sent: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 8:05 am Subject: Re: Sen. Duckworth: Responding to your message This reply (bold added by me) from T.D. needs to be fact-checked. mo'b -----Original Message----- From: Senator Tammy Duckworth To: moboct1 Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2019 1:04 pm Subject: Responding to your message | | ?? | | ? Dear Neighbor, Thank you for contacting me about protests in Bolivia following the contested 2019 presidential election. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your concerns on this important matter. On October 20, 2019, voters across Bolivia went to the polls to elect members of the legislature and a president. During the tabulation of votes, election officials suddenly stopped announcing results for nearly 24 hours without an explanation before declaring incumbent president Evo Morales the winner. Following this announcement, violent protests erupted across the country as opposition parties claimed that the election results were illegitimate and that election officials had acted in bad faith to benefit Morales. Amid the controversy, the Organization of American States conducted an audit that found clear manipulation in the election, including widespread data manipulation and altered and forged records. Following the publication of this study, the commander of Bolivia?s armed forces and the national police chief called for Morales? resignation in an attempt to stem the violent outbursts across the country. Morales resigned from his post on November 10, 2019 and his since found asylum in Mexico, while second senate vice president Jeanine A?ez Ch?vez has stepped into the presidency in an acting capacity until new elections can be held. I am extremely concerned over the growing instability and violence in Bolivia and the potential for it to deteriorate even further. As the situation fluctuates day-to-day, I fear for the citizens who are being harmed as collateral damage. There must be respect for the rule of law, fair and transparent elections and the right to peacefully assemble. Rest assured, I will continue to closely monitor the situation in Bolivia and will keep your thoughts in mind if the subject comes up before the Senate. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at www.duckworth.senate.gov. You can access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today?s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you. Sincerely, Tammy Duckworth United States Senator Subscribe to our enewsletter Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended. To share your thoughts, please visit my webpage. ? | ? | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 15:34:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:34:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 demo In-Reply-To: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> References: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I?m sorry to continue this discussion but it needs to be said. Discussing the in?s and outs of who and what is fine, on the AOTA tv/U-tube program, in fact it?s extremely important to enlighten those who assume it?s the guy in the WH. It was AOTA and you as well as recommended books, from whom I became aware of those responsible for US wars of imperialism, as we would focus on cause, sources of information, cui bono and always digging beneath the surface. Flyers for demonstrations should deal with war, the wars being conducted by our government. All the data and accusations related to who did what and when, pitting one administration against another is unnecessary and creates a flyer people likely won?t read. If they did we would have more people out there supporting us when demonstrating. I suggest a flyer truly dedicated to anti-war, be non partisan. There is absolutely no reason to refer to Trump, his impeachment, Obama or any other President or our domestic politics. Other well known national anti-war groups such as ANSWER, or the UNAC, etc. generally don?t talk about impeachment or focus on the front men in the WH, giving the impression if we only had the right person in the WH all would change. They focus on the wars of the USG, that the American people are being held responsible for committing if we don?t rise up and oppose them, byway of mass action. As stated using articles such as that by Chris Hedges to prove your point, that Trump is just a symptom not the disease as in weekly articles, interviews, discussions or FB is fine and important. On flyers attempting to engage people in conversation or action, in a divided nation, serves no purpose and continues the ?distract and divide? strategy being implemented by the Deep, or as Brian Becker of ANSWER refers to it, Perpetual State. Please see below my response to Carl?s comments defending his position and that of Trump when he says people involved with AWARE don?t support Trump, as if I was accusing AWARE members, of supporting Trump when I critiqued the original flyer on the AWARE FB page: Karen Aram You?re quite right, no one associated with AWARE is interested in supporting Trump, other than you. I'm sorry Carl, you can deny it but others with AWARE and on the Peace List have had the same complaint as I. The by Chris Hedges is a good one, going into detail, and clarifying the issues you mention, without defending Trump. Your revised flyer is much better than previous, mentioning our current wars under the Trump Administration. However, you still give Trump a pass with your "the Deep State, made him do it." I'm glad you're uncloaking the powers behind the throne, responsible for US foreign policy, which by extension affects US domestic policies, but just mentioning it as an excuse for Trump, is bypassing the issue. The same argument some members of Aware made for Obama, which you and I, at the time refused to accept. It's true the Deep State makes them do it, all of them and everyone who is elected to the WH, becomes a puppet for the Deep State. DS is defined as the Pentagon, CIA, State Dept., Think Tanks, as well as the CFR, and appointed advisors, or as Eisenhower warned, "the military industrial complex." They all know it, when they are candidates, and accept money from major corporations who owns them. Only Trump has the hubris to think he can do as he pleases. Trump is no anti- war President, but he does know the consequences of war with nuclear armed nations such as Russia, and N.Korea maybe good for the arms industry, but not for real estate or developers, or those businesses he represents. Vulnerable nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, Nicaragua are a different story, and his sanctions on Iran are war. > On Dec 3, 2019, at 18:49, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > [Flyer to be distributed at AWARE's regular monthly anti-war demonstration Saturday 7 December 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial Fountain, intersection of Main & Neil in Champaign] > ===================================================================================================== > ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world > > The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. > > And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. > > President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. > > As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? > > While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > > Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. > > Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) > > That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? > > With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government > (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), > (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and > (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. > ~~~ > In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- > ~ Senator Dick Durbin: > > ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: > ~ Representative Rodney Davis: > ~~~ > This flyer is produced by members & friends of the ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort?; see on Facebook. > The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube). > > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 16:43:04 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:43:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Showdown: Tulsi Gabbard v. Steny Hoyer on unconstitutional war in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steny Hoyer is coming home to roost. This is who he at 3AM: a Warmonger, a diehard devotee of unconstitutional war, a bagman for AIPAC and the Pentagon-industrial complex. He may not be the Queen of the Warmongers, but he's certainly a member of the Royal Family. Smoking him out is a victory. I fear Hoyer at night more than I fear him in the daylight. *Recall*: HOUSE DEMOCRATIC WHIP RESISTS EFFORT TO END U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN YEMEN WAR Lee Fang *October 31 2017*, 7:00 a.m. https://theintercept.com/2017/10/31/yemen-war-us-military-house-resolution/ ============ And now this: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/12/democratic-leader-deals-blow-tulsi-gabbard-plan-syria-exit.html Democratic leader pours cold water on Tulsi Gabbard?s bid to force Syria withdrawal Bryant Harris December 4, 2019 Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, could force a House vote next week that would require President Donald Trump to withdraw the roughly 1,000 remaining US troops from Syria. But there?s just one problem ? the House?s No. 2 Democrat firmly opposes her effort. ?I intend to vote no,? House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told Al-Monitor today. ?We haven?t whipped this, but I think our members think an immediate withdrawal would not be appropriate.? Hoyer?s opposition, coupled with a lack of buy-in from some progressive Democrats and anti-war groups, could significantly hamper Gabbard?s ability to pass the legislation. The 1973 War Powers Act allows any lawmaker to force a vote requiring the president to withdraw troops from any conflicts not authorized by Congress. The law allows Gabbard to call up a vote on the US troop posture in Syria as soon as Dec. 11. The resolution specifically takes aim at Trump?s stated goal of ?leaving soldiers to secure the oil? in northeast Syria. It would require Trump to withdraw all troops from Syria within two months unless they are ?engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda or associated forces.? ?President Trump?s deployment of US troops to secure Syrian oil fields that do not belong to us, with talks of welcoming in private oil corporations to take the oil, is unconstitutional and a violation of international law,? Gabbard said in a statement last week. Trump reversed course on a full withdrawal from northeast Syria in October, redeploying some 900 troops to secure oil fields in the area and stating that the United States ?should be able to take some.? Shortly thereafter, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that US troops would primarily guard the oil fields from the Islamic State despite the territorial defeat of the caliphate. Gabbard, who is leaving Congress in 2021, centered her campaign around opposition to what she labels "regime-change wars.? But she has also developed a checkered reputation on Syria due to her past statements widely viewed as supportive of President Bashar al-Assad. This is her second stab at a Syria war powers bill, and negotiations over the resolution?s final language remain ongoing. She introduced a new version of the bill last week after an Al-Monitor report detailed concerns about her initial bill that were raised by some key anti-war groups. Still, several of the activists remain unsatisfied, arguing that the current language could still be construed to authorize military action against the Islamic State. The resolution?s latest language tracks more closely with a Yemen war powers resolution introduced by her 2020 presidential rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Sanders and Khanna succeeded in passing that resolution, which was intended to end US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but they did not have enough support to override Trump?s veto in April. Khanna struggled to get his Yemen war powers resolution passed when he first introduced it in 2017. But the effort gained significant traction after Hoyer and other Democratic leaders backed his legislation last year. Nonetheless, even Khanna has not committed to voting for Gabbard?s resolution, which still does not have any co-sponsors. ?I still have some concerns as to some of the groups, and we?re trying to work it out,? Khanna told Al-Monitor. However, the resolution does boast support from two of the dozens of advocacy groups involved in the Yemen war powers push coalition: Just Foreign Policy and Demand Progress. ?It should be an easy yes vote for anyone who believes in the US Constitution and laws, which state that only Congress ? not the president ? can authorize deployments of troops into harm?s way,? Erik Sperling, the executive director for Just Foreign Policy, told Al-Monitor. ?Congress has clearly not authorized our forces to take Syria?s oil, which is illegal, unconstitutional and extremely damaging to our nation?s image abroad.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 17:07:08 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:07:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Fw: sign open letter denouncing the smears against Corbyn and Labour? In-Reply-To: <1951835348.8763579.1575478294730@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1951835348.8763579.1575478294730.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1951835348.8763579.1575478294730@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stanley Heller Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 12:00 PM Subject: [jewswhospeakout] Will you sign on to this open letter denouncing the smears against Corbyn and Labour? To: Jews Who Speak Out , Corejvpnh < corejvpnh at lists.riseup.net> [The election in the UK is just a week away. We should have done something like this long ago, but if you agree with the wording please reply. There's no time for further wording changes. Deadline Friday. Please share.] *We denounce smears of Anti-Semitism against Labour and Corbyn* We are Jews who do not live in the UK and have no direct experience with the Labour Party, but we can read and we are alarmed that some are trying to use false charges of anti-Semitism as a way to stop criticism of Israel, its treatment of Palestinians and its brutal violence against Palestinians and others. We see nothing in the Labour Manifesto that threatens Jews We have heard of no campaigns that Labour has taken or is considering that would be a threat to Jews Labour has a whole section in its Manifesto about its plans to fight racism and religious discrimination It has a procedure for taking complaints about racism and anti-Semitism and it investigates accusations and has expelled people from membership for anti-Semitism allegations. A celebrated attack on Corbyn by Chief Rabbi Mirvis was devoid of facts and instead complained of the Labour Party ?culture?. Its one detailed charge, that there are 130 outstanding complaints of anti-Semitism against Labour Party members comes from a Labour Party group affiliated with the World Zionist Organization , hardly an objective news source. A detailed examination of all the anti-Semitism accusations against Labour done by a group of UK Jews supporting Labour found the charges were ?smoke without fire?. As for what Jeremy Corbyn has *done* (as opposed to words taken out of context) his record is sterling, going back to the time he organized the defense of Jewish-populated Wood Green from a National Front rally. John Bercow , the Jewish former Conservative MP and Speaker of the House of Commons, testifies that, having known Corbyn over two decades, he has ?never detected a whiff of antisemitism? about him. This is a political fight, not a matter of a racist attack on religion or ethnicity. Right-wing Jews who hate Corbyn for his support for Palestinian rights and Right-wing non-Jews who hate Corbyn for his proposed social reforms are united in spreading the ?Labour anti-Semitism? slander. If false charges of anti-Semitism are used by the Right in successfully destroying a candidacy in the UK, they?ll do it again and again worldwide. We feel obligated to make this known. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you?d like to sign on to this statement send your full name and line of identification to: Stanley.Heller at att.net *by 10 p.m. Eastern this Friday 12/6 * We?ll have a disclaimer that organizations mentioned are only for identification \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ This JewsWhoSpeakOut List serves 336 Jews and non-Jews who are interested in discussing ways to encourage Jews to get active in the cause of Middle East Justice, particularly in the support of the Palestinian human and national rights. [List moderators : Stan Heller-founder & abraham Weizfeld] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 18:41:24 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:41:24 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Flyer for Dec. 7 demo In-Reply-To: References: <193FCA6F-914C-4F8C-84A3-CD9828990BD9@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Karen-- Produce what you see as an appropriate anti-war flyer for the AWARE demo, if you wish. I?ll distribute the one below, which incorporates some of your suggestions. ?CGE > On Dec 5, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > I?m sorry to continue this discussion but it needs to be said. Discussing the in?s and outs of who and what is fine, on the AOTA tv/U-tube program, in fact it?s extremely important to enlighten those who assume it?s the guy in the WH. It was AOTA and you as well as recommended books, from whom I became aware of those responsible for US wars of imperialism, as we would focus on cause, sources of information, cui bono and always digging beneath the surface. > > Flyers for demonstrations should deal with war, the wars being conducted by our government. All the data and accusations related to who did what and when, pitting one administration against another is unnecessary and creates a flyer people likely won?t read. If they did we would have more people out there supporting us when demonstrating. > > I suggest a flyer truly dedicated to anti-war, be non partisan. There is absolutely no reason to refer to Trump, his impeachment, Obama or any other President or our domestic politics. Other well known national anti-war groups such as ANSWER, or the UNAC, etc. generally don?t talk about impeachment or focus on the front men in the WH, giving the impression if we only had the right person in the WH all would change. They focus on the wars of the USG, that the American people are being held responsible for committing if we don?t rise up and oppose them, byway of mass action. > > As stated using articles such as that by Chris Hedges to prove your point, that Trump is just a symptom not the disease as in weekly articles, interviews, discussions or FB is fine and important. On flyers attempting to engage people in conversation or action, in a divided nation, serves no purpose and continues the ?distract and divide? strategy being implemented by the Deep, or as Brian Becker of ANSWER refers to it, Perpetual State. > > Please see below my response to Carl?s comments defending his position and that of Trump when he says people involved with AWARE don?t support Trump, as if I was accusing AWARE members, of supporting Trump when I critiqued the original flyer on the AWARE FB page: > > > ? > Karen Aram You?re quite right, no one associated with AWARE is interested in supporting Trump, other than you. I'm sorry Carl, you can deny it but others with AWARE and on the Peace List have had the same complaint as I. The by Chris Hedges is a good one, going into detail, and clarifying the issues you mention, without defending Trump. Your revised flyer is much better than previous, mentioning our current wars under the Trump Administration. However, you still give Trump a pass with your "the Deep State, made him do it." I'm glad you're uncloaking the powers behind the throne, responsible for US foreign policy, which by extension affects US domestic policies, but just mentioning it as an excuse for Trump, is bypassing the issue. The same argument some members of Aware made for Obama, which you and I, at the time refused to accept. It's true the Deep State makes them do it, all of them and everyone who is elected to the WH, becomes a puppet for the Deep State. DS is defined as the Pentagon, CIA, State Dept., Think Tanks, as well as the CFR, and appointed advisors, or as Eisenhower warned, "the military industrial complex." They all know it, when they are candidates, and accept money from major corporations who owns them. Only Trump has the hubris to think he can do as he pleases. Trump is no anti- war President, but he does know the consequences of war with nuclear armed nations such as Russia, and N.Korea maybe good for the arms industry, but not for real estate or developers, or those businesses he represents. Vulnerable nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, Nicaragua are a different story, and his sanctions on Iran are war. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 3, 2019, at 18:49, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> [Flyer to be distributed at AWARE's regular monthly anti-war demonstration Saturday 7 December 2-4pm at the Susan B. Anthony Memorial Fountain, intersection of Main & Neil in Champaign] >> ===================================================================================================== >> ?IMPEACH TRUMP!? is the U.S. political establishment?s way of distracting you from America?s war-making around the world >> >> The U.S. media (owned by large corporations) continue to tell us how terrible President Trump is, but that is a way to avoid talking about how terrible U.S. government war-making is - most recently in Venezuela and Bolivia. >> >> And in regard to killing people around the world, the Trump administration?s policy seems little different from that of the Obama administration - for all of President Trump?s assertions that he wants to end the Obama-Clinton wars. >> >> President Obama inherited two shameful wars from the Bush administration (in Afghanistan and Iraq): he increased the number to eight (attacking Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen as well) and became the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two terms. Not even presidents Roosevelt (WWII), Wilson (WWI), or Lincoln (Civil War) did that. >> >> As Barack Obama said in 2012, after ordering drone assassinations of American citizens, including minors (purposely), ?Turns out I?m really good at killing people; didn?t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.? >> >> While ?covering sin with smooth names,? Obama continued America?s longest-standing foreign policy - attempting to prevent the integration of Eurasia, for fear that it would interfere with the U.S. elite?s economic exploitation of the rest of the world - by American war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. >> >> Trump, after criticizing Obama?s war-making, has largely continued it - in part at least because he is under pressure from the ?deep state? to maintain the traditional US foreign policy of retarding the economic development of Russia and China. >> >> Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has killed more than 20 million people in wars (Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Mideast, and elsewhere) designed to destroy challenges to the economic hegemony the U.S. obtained as the only major country largely undamaged by WWII. (Russia lost 27 million people in defeating Naziism; U.S. losses in WWII totaled about a half million people.) >> >> That is why today international polls show that the U.S. is the most feared government in the world - not China, Russia, Iran, or Israel. The rest of the world recognizes that the U.S. government remains what Martin Luther King called it long ago: ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? >> >> With other peace groups around the world, we call upon our president and government >> (a) to close the thousand U.S. military bases on foreign soil (most encircling Russia and China), >> (b) to bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home, and >> (c) to provide social supports - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - for Americans, who have been made poorer by generations of our government?s wars. >> ~~~ >> In Illinois, send your opinion to your local representatives in Congress-- >> ~ Senator Dick Durbin: >> ~ Sen. Tammy Duckworth: >> ~ Representative Rodney Davis: >> ~~~ >> This flyer is produced by members & friends of the ?Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort?; see on Facebook. >> The TV program ?AWARE on the Air,? a local discussion of war news, is on Urbana Public Television, Tuesdays at 10pm (& available on YouTube). >> >> ### >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 19:55:22 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:55:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Impeachment <= neocon foreign policy Message-ID: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/12/the-delusions-of-the-impeachment-witnesses-point-to-a-larger-problem.html From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 21:19:10 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:19:10 -0800 Subject: [Peace] The World Labour Hour this Saturday Message-ID: Don?t miss The World Labor Hour www.wrfu.net every Saturday morning from 11 AM ? 1 PM Central Time, with David Johnson, Gus Wood & Bill Gorrell. This weeks call in guest will be Chris Blankenhorn of the Young Eco Socialists of the Green Party. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Dec 5 22:01:41 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:01:41 -0800 Subject: [Peace] In honor of the French people on strike and in the streets of Paris today. Message-ID: They know their history, and when the government attempts to implement ?reforms to their pensions? they know this means cuts to benefits. Their Yellow Vests have been protesting in the streets every Saturday now for over a year, but now they?ve taken to the streets at great costs on a weekday with plans to continue in spite of the violence being perpetrated by the government. Transportation workers, teachers, fireman, policemen, even have joined the protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCuwvPGD7Es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Dec 5 22:48:54 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:48:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Aaron_Mat=C3=A9=3A_=5FNow=5F_which_Democrats_a?= =?utf-8?q?re_=22supporting_Trump=22=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1202599058625507328 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 91188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 5 23:25:49 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:25:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda Message-ID: [Mary Ann Caton] 'There is much to highlight in Bill Martin's commentary here, so try this one on for size: "Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda..." Here's the rest of what he had to say: ?This article [above], from Truthout.org, is the kind of nonsense that has become exceedingly tiresome, but also very offensive, because it just plays around with terms such as genocide, fascist, and Nazi. ?The basis for the author?s argument is Trump?s tweet saying that Baltimore is a ?disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess? and ?no human would want to live there.? The author, Nicholas Powers, turns this into Trump?s supposedly using a ?rhetoric of filth? that is aimed at those same human beings. Except of course Trump doesn?t say anything like that. Powers quotes with approval Joy Behar, as a ?Jewish voice? here (which is typical bullshit Identity Politics, as it would be easy enough to find numerous Jewish voices who would disagree with her) transposing what Trump says about rats to the Nazi use of the term ?vermin? to refer to Jews. ?Again, Trump has said nothing like that. ?There?s no mention in this article about ?laying the groundwork for genocide? of Hillary Clinton?s ?basket of deplorables? comment, applied to ?half of Trump?s supporter?s,? which would amount to about thirty-one million people or so. This is conjecture on my part, but I feel that I am on solid ground: those who talk in the way that Powers does only disagree with HRC on the ?half? part. They are fine with statements of the ?dreaming of a white genocide?-sort, as long as they can get out in front of them first with some strategic virtue-signaling. Of course, the ones signaling the loudest are themselves white males, though ?educated.? But, hey, that?s a class thing, and any good liberal and leftist these days knows that talking about class is just another form of racism. ?Despite this nonsense being tiresome, not really worth paying attention to (obviously I?m engaging in a performative contradiction here), one wants to say to this author, and to Adam Schiff, etc., ?Keep talking, assh*les.? It?s obvious by now that no amount of self-exposure is going to have much effect on hardened Trump-haters, they?ll just double-down. A third of this is believing that most ordinary people are stupid, racist, sexist, fascists, a third is posing as some sort of ?Resistance? and the self-satisfaction that brings, and a third is in fear of not being acceptable to their celebrity icons of political correctness and therefore susceptible to being called out. ?(Hillary doubled down on her remark about deplorables, numerous times. The remark was not a ?gaff? or faux-pas, it was said with the deliberate aim of drawing a line. But this isn?t about Hillary?except in the case that she becomes the 2020 Democratic nominee, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility*?it is about all of the ordinary-people Democrats who go along with this crap, and who view other ordinary people through the lens of this line.) ?Hopefully there are some others who will see once and for all what a load of crap the Democrats and their ?Left? allies are. Significantly, the biggest move in this direction thus far is from African-Americans who have had it with being patronized and played for chumps. ?One thing that was useful about seeing this article posted on a liberal friend?s page is that it did make things a little more clear, to me at least, regarding the difference between liberals and the Left. ?The Left tries to stay on message with charging that Trump is a fascist, a Nazi, like Hitler. The liberals say this stuff too, but also they are outraged as well by Trump?s Rocky Balboa pose (thankfully, the MSM was quick to expose that dangerous ruse!), the hateful serving of fast food to the champion Clemson football team (whose players such liberals also hate, but whatever), etc. ?The liberals are quick to claim that Trump supporters are not only fascist, but also stupid. The Left sometimes traffics in this language of stupidity, but in general instead claims that the sort of people who support Trump are ignorant. ?What, though, is the difference that makes a difference between anti-Trump liberals and anti-Trump leftists, if they seem fine in making common cause? ?Adam Schiff accuses Trump of ?not respecting our intelligence agencies.? It used to be that was an important aspect of the Left, not only not respecting the CIA and other parts of the ?intelligence community,? but also pulling the curtain back on them, exposing them, demonstrating why they are a horrible thing. Now we are in an upside-down world where liberals and the left go along with this stuff for the sake of impeachment, and Trump is the one pulling the curtain back. ?Nothing better can be expected from the liberal or ?progressive? ?blue no matter who?-crowd. They?re openly down with the CIA, NSC, etc. But if you?re a ?leftist? or some other supposedly ?radical? opponent of Trump, part of the ?Resistance,? and you?re supporting this impeachment nonsense, this would be a good time to do some hard thinking.** *(Who will be the 2020 Democratic nominee? I?m not a gambler, but it wouldn?t be that wild of a proposition to put some money on Michelle Obama.) **(In stark terms, just to be clear ? Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda?and this assertion does not depend on coming up with a ?precise definition? of the Deep State. Certainly, from ordinary people, whether Democrats, leftists, etc., ?support for impeachment? doesn?t really mean much, since no one is asking you anyway. Your role is cheerleader for the system. Really, I think things need to be taken further: Calling out Adam Schiff and his cohort, who are fronting for the CIA and the ?intelligence community? is what is needed, which means opposition to this impeachment nonsense. If there was anything like a ?true Left? today, one that embodied the spirit of the Sixties Left, but under very different conditions?these conditions, unfortunately, having knocked the current Left for a crazy and terrible loop, to put things politely, this exposure and opposition to the impeachment Schiff-show is what would be happening.) ?[Your comments are welcome, but comments about 1) my supposed obsession with Hillary (no, I?m more obsessed with liberal and left affirmation of the deplorables remark?and another important term here is ?rural?); 2) the demand to have precise definitions of things (I have been inspired/provoked by such demands to write a glossary for the book I am presently completing, but there is plenty enough to go on in the CounterPunch*** articles already published) before ?discussion? can continue (I?m not going to get into some purely semantic exercise to let people get away with siding with the CIA, okay? ?so just deal with that; and, as far as the hardened Trump-haters are concerned, who view everything through the lens of ?Trump must go, regardless of the shortcomings of the Democrats,? I?m not interested in meeting your demands in any case?that would be both impossible and pointless); 3) my ?just repeating GOP talking points,? or comments that are just name-calling?I won?t respond to such comments, and will probably delete them, because they are unhelpful and I?ve already given enough play to such things; the exception is if the comment works as good self-exposure (as they say in football, an ?own-goal?) of the person who makes the comment.] ***(I will write a separate post regarding this when I have the situation sorted, but some reading this may be interested in know that I?ve now been deplatformed by CounterPunch. I knew that I would go too far at some point, given the general trend there lately, as well-represented by a recent article by Andrew Levine (whose work, especially on Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rawls, analytical Marxism, and Althusser, I have admired for many years), ?Get Trump First, But Then ?? (Nov. 15). I?m not angry, I will remain grateful to Jeffrey St. Clair for going as far as he has with me, though I?m a little sad and disappointed, especially because I hoped to wrap up my Trump series at CounterPunch and then put it all together in a book. Now I?ll need to do this somewhere else, I?ll let you know where?I had two articles in the pipeline, one on the impeachment nonsense, the other on the coup in Bolivia, I hope to have them out soon.)? ~ Bill Martin From carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Dec 6 05:19:50 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:19:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John-- Trump is being impeached because he?s the first major party candidate in 40 years to attack the neocon (more war) and neolib (more austerity) policies of all recent administrations. Altho? in office he's largely adopted those policies, the permanent government are afraid he?ll act on his attacks (e.g., by withdrawing from Afghanistan and Syria). Those attacks made him president by speaking for the growing populist wave of those who saw that Obama?s promises of prosperity weren?t fulfilled. Trump flipped six states that had gone for Obama in 2012 ? Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Florida ? in his upset victory over Clinton. And those states were lost by Obama voters who stayed home, rather than voting again for a Democrat nominee (Clinton). They'd seen no "hope and change.? So all Trump's opponents seem to have are schoolboy insults - nothing that speaks to the immiseration of the majority. The concentration of wealth in America continued - at an accelerating rate - in the Obama years., while wages remained flat - and Obama-Clinton war provocations of Russia and China increased. Since the establishment's neocon/neolib policies aren?t popular, they have only Trump?s personal failings to attack him on - which they are doing hysterically. So support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State/permanent government agenda - those policies of more war and more austerity: that?s what generates Trump's 'base.' Sanders of course speaks to those same quite real anxieties - which is why the permanent government can't allow him to be nominated: he?d win. Meanwhile, impeachment like Russiagate will continue, because it?s all the permanent government/liberals have: ORANGE MAN BAD! ?CGE > On Dec 5, 2019, at 9:27 PM, John W. wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:26 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > > [Mary Ann Caton] 'There is much to highlight in Bill Martin's commentary here, so try this one on for size: "Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda..." Here's the rest of what he had to say: > > ?This article [above], from Truthout.org, is the kind of nonsense that has become exceedingly tiresome, but also very offensive, because it just plays around with terms such as genocide, fascist, and Nazi. > > ?The basis for the author?s argument is Trump?s tweet saying that Baltimore is a ?disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess? and ?no human would want to live there.? The author, Nicholas Powers, turns this into Trump?s supposedly using a ?rhetoric of filth? that is aimed at those same human beings. Except of course Trump doesn?t say anything like that. Powers quotes with approval Joy Behar, as a ?Jewish voice? here (which is typical bullshit Identity Politics, as it would be easy enough to find numerous Jewish voices who would disagree with her) transposing what Trump says about rats to the Nazi use of the term ?vermin? to refer to Jews. > > ?Again, Trump has said nothing like that. > > No, the quoted tweets are absolutely correct. And of course tRump wasn't talking about Jews. He was talking about Negroes. He was pissed off at Elijah Cummings, and he said (tweeted) the first juvenile thing that popped into his benighted, hate-filled mind, as he always does. Everyone with half a brain recognized it as an extremely thinly-veiled racial slur. You can dismiss it as 'identity politics' if you want to. In any event, it's extremely bad politics, and as "leadership" it's reprehensible on a number of levels. It is indeed a "rhetoric of filth", which tRump is famous for. > > > ?There?s no mention in this article about ?laying the groundwork for genocide? of Hillary Clinton?s ?basket of deplorables? comment, applied to ?half of Trump?s supporter?s,? which would amount to about thirty-one million people or so. This is conjecture on my part, but I feel that I am on solid ground: those who talk in the way that Powers does only disagree with HRC on the ?half? part. They are fine with statements of the ?dreaming of a white genocide?-sort, as long as they can get out in front of them first with some strategic virtue-signaling. Of course, the ones signaling the loudest are themselves white males, though ?educated.? But, hey, that?s a class thing, and any good liberal and leftist these days knows that talking about class is just another form of racism. > > ?Despite this nonsense being tiresome, not really worth paying attention to (obviously I?m engaging in a performative contradiction here), one wants to say to this author, and to Adam Schiff, etc., ?Keep talking, assh*les.? It?s obvious by now that no amount of self-exposure is going to have much effect on hardened Trump-haters, they?ll just double-down. > > As will the tRump lovers. So what else is new? > > > A third of this is believing that most ordinary people are stupid, racist, sexist, fascists, a third is posing as some sort of ?Resistance? and the self-satisfaction that brings, and a third is in fear of not being acceptable to their celebrity icons of political correctness and therefore susceptible to being called out. > > ?(Hillary doubled down on her remark about deplorables, numerous times. The remark was not a ?gaff? or faux-pas, it was said with the deliberate aim of drawing a line. But this isn?t about Hillary?except in the case that she becomes the 2020 Democratic nominee, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility*?it is about all of the ordinary-people Democrats who go along with this crap, and who view other ordinary people through the lens of this line.) > > ?Hopefully there are some others who will see once and for all what a load of crap the Democrats and their ?Left? allies are. Significantly, the biggest move in this direction thus far is from African-Americans who have had it with being patronized and played for chumps. > > All I'm hearing so far is this Bill Martin doing a whole bunch of name-calling. Who in hell is he? Does he play in the same schoolyard where tRump still shoots marbles? I'm not hearing a damned thing that's even remotely intelligent so far. > > > ?One thing that was useful about seeing this article posted on a liberal friend?s page is that it did make things a little more clear, to me at least, regarding the difference between liberals and the Left. > > ?The Left tries to stay on message with charging that Trump is a fascist, a Nazi, like Hitler. > The liberals say this stuff too, but also they are outraged as well by Trump?s Rocky Balboa pose (thankfully, the MSM was quick to expose that dangerous ruse!), the hateful serving of fast food to the champion Clemson football team (whose players such liberals also hate, but whatever), etc. > > Agreed, those things are pretty trivial. But they're all part of the tRump manufactured persona, designed to appeal to his 'base' who are indeed deplorables and foolishly lap the stuff up while tRump, in reality, spends millions of our taxpayer dollars on golf outings and fancy black tie dinners at Mar-a-La-Go. Really not unlike Bruce Rauner appearing in flannel shirts in all of his TV ads when he was running for governor of Illinois, though Rauner was somewhat more dignified about it. > > > ?The liberals are quick to claim that Trump supporters are not only fascist, but also stupid. The Left sometimes traffics in this language of stupidity, but in general instead claims that the sort of people who support Trump are ignorant. > > ?What, though, is the difference that makes a difference between anti-Trump liberals and anti-Trump leftists, if they seem fine in making common cause? > > ?Adam Schiff accuses Trump of ?not respecting our intelligence agencies.? It used to be that was an important aspect of the Left, not only not respecting the CIA and other parts of the ?intelligence community,? but also pulling the curtain back on them, exposing them, demonstrating why they are a horrible thing. Now we are in an upside-down world where liberals and the left go along with this stuff for the sake of impeachment, and Trump is the one pulling the curtain back. > > I have noticed this and find it interesting, though of course tRump himself isn't pulling the curtain back on shit, but merely deflecting and obfuscating and 'counter-punching' every waking moment But you know, the Real World where some of us live is not strictly Manichean. The obvious synthesis of this apparent contradiction or irony is that there is a difference between intelligence-gathering and the USE or MISUSE of the intelligence gathered, which is a matter of political policy. I suspect that most of the intelligence-gathering is pretty accurate, done by career professionals with no particular allegiance to political party. These are they whom Adam Schiff lauds. But then you have the political appointees like Mike Pompeo (former head of the CIA, not coincidentally), or like Rumsfeld/Powell of 15 years ago, or like the cabal in power during the Viet Nam war. In making their decisions, they act as often as not AGAINST the recommendations of their intelligence-gathering staff, or else they manufacture evidence to justify their misdeeds, and of course create the global chaos that we're all familiar with. This is who the 'Left' is railing against when they protest the actions of the CIA, for example - the POLITICAL POLICIES, not the intelligence gathering. > > Pay attention, Carl. There'll be a quiz on this later in the semester. > > > ?Nothing better can be expected from the liberal or ?progressive? ?blue no matter who?-crowd. They?re openly down with the CIA, NSC, etc. But if you?re a ?leftist? or some other supposedly ?radical? opponent of Trump, part of the ?Resistance,? and you?re supporting this impeachment nonsense, this would be a good time to do some hard thinking.** > > Blah blah blah. More name calling. Bill Martin, whoever he is, doesn't like 'The Left'. We get that. I don't like Bill Martin. He's an idiot. > > > *(Who will be the 2020 Democratic nominee? I?m not a gambler, but it wouldn?t be that wild of a proposition to put some money on Michelle Obama.) > > **(In stark terms, just to be clear ? Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda?and this assertion does not depend on coming up with a ?precise definition? of the Deep State. Certainly, from ordinary people, whether Democrats, leftists, etc., ?support for impeachment? doesn?t really mean much, since no one is asking you anyway. Your role is cheerleader for the system. Really, I think things need to be taken further: Calling out Adam Schiff and his cohort, who are fronting for the CIA and the ?intelligence community? is what is needed, which means opposition to this impeachment nonsense. If there was anything like a ?true Left? today, one that embodied the spirit of the Sixties Left, but under very different conditions?these conditions, unfortunately, having knocked the current Left for a crazy and terrible loop, to put things politely, this exposure and opposition to the impeachment Schiff-show is what would be happening.) > > Bullshit. tRump isn't being impeached because he's a reformer who is courageously challenging the Deep State. What a joke. He's being impeached because he has flouted the Constitution in every way imaginable. He's an amoral, narcissistic coprophage who has alienated practically every one of our allies, fractured the country domestically, assaulted the environment, and brought calumny on the United States. Sure, this telephone call with the Ukrainian leader is only a hook on which to hang the hat of impeachment, and we know that the Republican Senate isn't going to convict him anyway. But if there has ever been a President in our nation's history who has deserved to be impeached, this guy is it. Otherwise we may as well just throw the Constitution completely out the window and let the fascists run things the way they see fit. > > And by the way, Gentle Readers.....We've had the Deep State for quite a long time now, as Carl is always so faithful to point out, and I feel safe in saying that we will always have the Deep State. We've had war since there were human beings on the planet. tRump is not going to put an end to either of those things. It's not even in his consciousness. So why keep yammering about it? Can you really not find anything more productive to talk about and protest and work toward? Maybe something actually attainable? > > > ?[Your comments are welcome, but comments about 1) my supposed obsession with Hillary (no, I?m more obsessed with liberal and left affirmation of the deplorables remark?and another important term here is ?rural?); 2) the demand to have precise definitions of things (I have been inspired/provoked by such demands to write a glossary for the book I am presently completing, but there is plenty enough to go on in the CounterPunch*** articles already published) before ?discussion? can continue (I?m not going to get into some purely semantic exercise to let people get away with siding with the CIA, okay? ?so just deal with that; and, as far as the hardened Trump-haters are concerned, who view everything through the lens of ?Trump must go, regardless of the shortcomings of the Democrats,? I?m not interested in meeting your demands in any case?that would be both impossible and pointless); 3) my ?just repeating GOP talking points,? or comments that are just name-calling?I won?t respond to such comments, and will probably delete them, because they are unhelpful and I?ve already given enough play to such things; the exception is if the comment works as good self-exposure (as they say in football, an ?own-goal?) of the person who makes the comment.] > > ***(I will write a separate post regarding this when I have the situation sorted, but some reading this may be interested in know that I?ve now been deplatformed by CounterPunch. I knew that I would go too far at some point, given the general trend there lately, as well-represented by a recent article by Andrew Levine (whose work, especially on Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rawls, analytical Marxism, and Althusser, I have admired for many years), ?Get Trump First, But Then ?? (Nov. 15). I?m not angry, I will remain grateful to Jeffrey St. Clair for going as far as he has with me, though I?m a little sad and disappointed, especially because I hoped to wrap up my Trump series at CounterPunch and then put it all together in a book. Now I?ll need to do this somewhere else, I?ll let you know where?I had two articles in the pipeline, one on the impeachment nonsense, the other on the coup in Bolivia, I hope to have them out soon.)? > > ~ Bill Martin > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 12:00:59 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:00:59 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Lebanon by Rania Khalek Message-ID: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/01/us-working-lebanon-corruption-protests-hezbollah/?fbclid=IwAR1bSmoNCsvWHRi64EXEYHTX-WsiSnccOdwQqX-gsZigaFUmrlQoyboKR1A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Dec 6 12:00:59 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:00:59 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Lebanon by Rania Khalek Message-ID: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/01/us-working-lebanon-corruption-protests-hezbollah/?fbclid=IwAR1bSmoNCsvWHRi64EXEYHTX-WsiSnccOdwQqX-gsZigaFUmrlQoyboKR1A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 14:23:48 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:23:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Avaaz: Urgent! Stop American bombs killing children in Yemen In-Reply-To: References: <0.0.5.6AB.1D5AC3DBDA8EF20.4F6726@mta113.avaaz.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Will Davies - Avaaz Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:04 AM Subject: Urgent! Stop American bombs killing children in Yemen To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Dear friends, *This is an urgent update! We have just days before leaders in Congress decide whether to stop arms sales and military support for Saudi's bloody war in Yemen. Word from Washington is that Democrats might give in to Republican pressure during final negotiations of the defense spending bill, and remove provisions which would help stop the bombing -- unless they hear from us!If we flood these leaders with calls now, we have a chance to save thousands of lives:* *Call Senator Chuck Schumer: 1-833-STOPWAR* *Call Senator Jack Reed: (202) 224-4642* *Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi: (202) 225-4965* *Call Rep. Adam Smith: (202) 225-8901* Here are some talking points to help you (the more personalized, the better): - Please guarantee all Yemen provisions remain in the defense spending bill to stop American weapons & our military being used in this cruel war. - Saudi Arabia has been blacklisted by the UN for 3 years in a row for killing children in conflict. We shouldn?t be selling them any more weapons. - There is a stalemate in Yemen -- more military support won?t end the conflict. The only way forward is a negotiated solution. *Tip: be friendly and polite, but don't back down. Congress office hours are 9am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday. Then, please email yemen at avaaz.org to let us know how your call went!* *The Saudis are dropping American-made cluster bombs in Yemen, killing scores of children.* Cluster bombs were invented by the Nazis -- designed to kill as many people as possible. Shamefully, the Trump administration continues to sell them to Saudi Arabia which has been bombing Yemen since 2015, in a war which has claimed over 100,000 lives. We?ve campaigned on this issue many times before -- let?s do it again until we finally see an end to this awful war. With hope and determination, Will, Rewan, Nat, Mo, Marigona, Luis and the entire Avaaz team *Avaaz is a 51-million-person global campaign network* that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here , or follow us on Facebook , Twitter , or Instagram . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 16:01:52 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:01:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace] JFP alert: BREAKING: Rep. Smith GIVING UP on ending war on Yemen?? In-Reply-To: <4454835472.-889006780@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <4454835472.-889006780@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Just Foreign Policy Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:44 AM Subject: BREAKING: Rep. Smith GIVING UP on ending war on Yemen?? To: [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, I have urgent and disturbing news: Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee and the lead Democratic Party negotiator for the defense policy bill (known as the NDAA), made public remarks yesterday indicating that he may be abandoning the effort to end U.S. participation in the war on Yemen. Peace advocates like you and me, together with our allies in Congress, have worked for months to ensure that the amendment to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war -- which passed the House with 240 votes -- would be included in the final NDAA. Rep. Smith was the lead sponsor of this amendment (known as the ?Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal? amendment), which experts say could ground the Saudi warplanes. Smith has repeatedly assured us that he would fight for this amendment in the secretive NDAA negotiation process. He repeatedly told us that he would deliver results towards ending this war in the NDAA. Now Rep. Adam Smith says there may be nothing he can do for the millions of starving people in Yemen -- because he doesn?t want to limit the Saudi regime?s ability to go to war with Iran. Maybe we shouldn?t be shocked. Before thousands of activists like you pressured him, Adam Smith had a long history of hawkish behavior: He voted for the Iraq War, when most Democrats in Congress were opposed He opposed winding down the war in Afghanistan under Obama He was one of just 16 Democrats who voted to continue sending horrific cluster bombs to the Saudi regime His reelection campaign was directly funded by the military industrial complex But grassroots pressure from people like you moved him to join our effort for peace in Yemen. And today -- perhaps more than any other day -- we need to make our presence felt by keeping his office phone ringing off the hook. Can you take a few minutes to call one or both of his offices? Rep. Smith?s personal office number is: (202) 225-8901 Rep. Smith?s committee office number is: (202) 225-4151 When you reach a staffer, you can say something like: ?I was shocked to learn that Adam Smith said he might give up on ending the Saudi war in Yemen in the NDAA. The lives of millions of people are at stake in the worst humanitarian crisis on earth. I strongly urge Rep. Smith to honor his commitment to fight for provisions in the NDAA to end U.S. participation in the war.? *If you are on Twitter, can you retweet **this tweet* * by our allies at Demand Progress who are also "sick of **two-faced cynical politics" and **urge people to call Rep. Smith?* Thanks for all you do to make U.S. foreign policy more just, Erik Sperling, Executive Director, Just Foreign Policy *If you think our work is important, please make a donation to support it.* *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate * [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] ? 2019 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Dec 7 00:12:53 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:12:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #442 notes Message-ID: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #442 A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc A list of links to items referenced on the show. Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson Published: October 2005 Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf Articles about Noel Ignatiev https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev ISBN: 0415918251 ISBN13: 9780415918251 Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ J.B. Nicholson's notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 03:04:49 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 19:04:49 -0800 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Good show My thoughts while watching: It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. > On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > News from Neptune #442 > A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc > > A list of links to items referenced on the show. > > Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" > https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm > > Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" > https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html > > "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson > Published: October 2005 > Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf > Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 > eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 > > Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" > https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf > > "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger > Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf > > Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" > Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf > > Articles about Noel Ignatiev > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ > http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ > > "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev > ISBN: 0415918251 > ISBN13: 9780415918251 > > Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" > http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html > > Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" > https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need > > > > > Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" > https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america > > David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html > > > > > David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" > > C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html > > Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) > > > > > > Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE > https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 > > Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" > https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ > > > > > Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ > > Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ > > > > > > J.B. Nicholson's notes > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Dec 7 05:07:08 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:07:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the response. Have you seen the interesting questions raised about Buttigieg in regard to (1) his clients at Kinsey and (2) his activities in naval intelligence? He seems to have been working for essentially the same people both times. Nathan Robinson in an older article in Current Affairs exposed some of who he is. I?m just back from a weekend in South Bend (?Mayor Pete?), commemorating an anti-war demo at Notre Dame no less than 50 years ago. Under ordinary circumstances, my kids would have grown up there, and I would have retired from ND. (The best line was my eldest son?s. When I told him last week that we were going to ND for the weekend, I said, "You might have grown up there.? He said, "Dad, I DID grow up there.? He was six when we left.) "I grow old ... I grow old ? / I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.? ?CGE > On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Good show > > My thoughts while watching: > > It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. > > Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? > > As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. > > https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video > > Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. > > Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. > > > > > >> On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: >> >> News from Neptune #442 >> A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition >> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc >> >> A list of links to items referenced on the show. >> >> Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm >> >> Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" >> https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ >> >> Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html >> >> Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" >> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html >> >> "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson >> Published: October 2005 >> Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf >> Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 >> eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 >> >> Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" >> https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf >> >> "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger >> Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf >> >> Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" >> Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf >> >> Articles about Noel Ignatiev >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ >> http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ >> >> "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev >> ISBN: 0415918251 >> ISBN13: 9780415918251 >> >> Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" >> http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html >> >> Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" >> https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need >> >> >> >> >> Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" >> https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america >> >> David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html >> >> >> >> >> David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette >> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" >> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" >> >> C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette >> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html >> >> Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" >> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) >> >> >> >> >> >> Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE >> https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 >> >> Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" >> https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ >> >> >> >> >> Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ >> >> Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ >> >> >> >> >> >> J.B. Nicholson's notes >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html >> >> -J >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Dec 7 05:20:00 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 05:20:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <9CCB27B0-FE59-4188-9E6C-5210B573A0D1@illinois.edu> My response to the show discussions is that it was at best mixed. It ended with reflections of David Green expressing doubts about the Douma incident, which basically expressed his ignorance. T. Postal was pretty clear about what could have occurred. The levels of chlorine gas found was said to be background Chlorine levels, but more importantly there were the leaks of withheld information by the two whistleblowers of the OECD. Seemed pretty clear to me that this was a false flag operation. The opening discussion about how identity politics obscures the class aspect of inequities I found to be turgid, whatever the ambiguous truths are to the arguments presented. Then there came the nonsensical sly apologetics regarding what Trump really wants. Caitlin Johnstone had a pertinent discussion about this [https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/], leaving aside Trump's actions towards Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Yemen, Bolivia, Iran, Syria,? And calling Assad truely a monster?? seemd gratuitous. But the discussion about the Democratic candidates, Harris and Butagieg(sp?) seemed just right, as did the remarks about the weird impeachment phenomenon. On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good show My thoughts while watching: It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace > wrote: News from Neptune #442 A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc A list of links to items referenced on the show. Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson Published: October 2005 Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf Articles about Noel Ignatiev https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev ISBN: 0415918251 ISBN13: 9780415918251 Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ J.B. Nicholson's notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html -J _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 7 13:27:34 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 05:27:34 -0800 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Carl LOL, Kids, yes I just heard the same from a friend whose son left Bangkok at age five. I saw the very interesting posting and photo of you with anti-war students at ND, and the article in relation to your activism supporting the students at the time. I pay little attention to the elections/candidates so I knew next to nothing about Buttigieg until I heard the interview with Peter Van Buren by the Moderate Rebels, and realized I knew little about Kinsey as well, thinking they were just a consulting firm, granted a major one but??.. > On Dec 6, 2019, at 21:07, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > Thanks for the response. > > Have you seen the interesting questions raised about Buttigieg in regard to (1) his clients at Kinsey and (2) his activities in naval intelligence? > > He seems to have been working for essentially the same people both times. > > Nathan Robinson in an older article in Current Affairs exposed some of who he is. > > I?m just back from a weekend in South Bend (?Mayor Pete?), commemorating an anti-war demo at Notre Dame no less than 50 years ago. > > Under ordinary circumstances, my kids would have grown up there, and I would have retired from ND. > > (The best line was my eldest son?s. When I told him last week that we were going to ND for the weekend, I said, "You might have grown up there.? > > He said, "Dad, I DID grow up there.? He was six when we left.) > > "I grow old ... I grow old ? / I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.? > > ?CGE > > > >> On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Good show >> >> My thoughts while watching: >> >> It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. >> >> Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? >> >> As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. >> >> https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video >> >> Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. >> >> Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: >>> >>> News from Neptune #442 >>> A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition >>> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc >>> >>> A list of links to items referenced on the show. >>> >>> Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" >>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm >>> >>> Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" >>> https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ >>> >>> Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" >>> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html >>> >>> Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" >>> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html >>> >>> "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson >>> Published: October 2005 >>> Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf >>> Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 >>> eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 >>> >>> Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" >>> https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf >>> >>> "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger >>> Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf >>> >>> Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" >>> Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf >>> >>> Articles about Noel Ignatiev >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ >>> http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ >>> >>> "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev >>> ISBN: 0415918251 >>> ISBN13: 9780415918251 >>> >>> Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" >>> http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html >>> >>> Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" >>> https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" >>> https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america >>> >>> David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss >>> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette >>> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" >>> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" >>> >>> C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette >>> https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html >>> >>> Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" >>> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE >>> https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 >>> >>> Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" >>> https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ >>> >>> Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> J.B. Nicholson's notes >>> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html >>> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html >>> >>> -J >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 02:36:36 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:36:36 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: The Grayzone shared "US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza & exploit Palestinian workers References: Message-ID: > > > > What?s happening > > The Grayzone shared? > > The Grayzone > US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza ? with sweatshops to exploit Palestinian workers > US Secretary of State John Kerry promoted a plan to kickstart Gaza's economy with sweatshops making zippers and butto... > Read more at Twitter? > The Grayzone shared? > > > The Grayzone > US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza ? with sweatshops to exploit Palestinian workers > US Secretary of State John Kerry promoted a plan to kickstart Gaza's economy with sweatshops making zippers and butto... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > The Grayzone > US government drops case against Max Blumenthal after jailing journalist on false charges > As the mysterious disappearance of Secret Service records and complete absence of evidence supporting its case came t... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > > The Grayzone > US government drops case against Max Blumenthal after jailing journalist on false charges > As the mysterious disappearance of Secret Service records and complete absence of evidence supporting its case came t... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > Common Dreams > Investigation Uncovers Israel-Based Group Behind Bigoted Facebook > "The goal of these anti-Muslim hate campaigns is clear?they put Muslim lives here and around the world at risk and un... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > > Common Dreams > Investigation Uncovers Israel-Based Group Behind Bigoted Facebook > "The goal of these anti-Muslim hate campaigns is clear?they put Muslim lives here and around the world at risk and un... > Read more at Twitter? > > THREE SISTERS PARK > Summer Camp Music Festival > Chillicothe, IL ? Eclectic lineup, expansive campgrounds, late-night shows, live art, & much more! > Read more at Twitter? > > THREE SISTERS PARK > Summer Camp Music Festival > Chillicothe, IL ? Eclectic lineup, expansive campgrounds, late-night shows, live art, & much more! > Read more at Twitter? > > Stars and Stripes > Trump undercut vital military attributes > Retired military leaders have begun sounding the alarm. Yet those in real positions of power are nowhere to be found. > Read more at Twitter? > > Stars and Stripes > Trump undercut vital military attributes > Retired military leaders have begun sounding the alarm. Yet those in real positions of power are nowhere to be found. > Read more at Twitter? > > News > USS Arizona survivor recalls attack on Pearl Harbor > HONEY BEND ? Looking for a job and a future, Ken Potts saw little hope in central Illinois. Born and raised in tiny H... > Read more at Twitter? > > News > USS Arizona survivor recalls attack on Pearl Harbor > HONEY BEND ? Looking for a job and a future, Ken Potts saw little hope in central Illinois. Born and raised in tiny H... > Read more at Twitter? > Help? | Privacy? | Reset password? | Download app? > We sent this email to @karenaram2. Unsubscribe > Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San?Francisco,?CA?94103 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 02:36:36 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:36:36 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: The Grayzone shared "US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza & exploit Palestinian workers References: Message-ID: > > > > What?s happening > > The Grayzone shared? > > The Grayzone > US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza ? with sweatshops to exploit Palestinian workers > US Secretary of State John Kerry promoted a plan to kickstart Gaza's economy with sweatshops making zippers and butto... > Read more at Twitter? > The Grayzone shared? > > > The Grayzone > US gov, Tony Blair, and McKinsey pledge to rebuild Gaza ? with sweatshops to exploit Palestinian workers > US Secretary of State John Kerry promoted a plan to kickstart Gaza's economy with sweatshops making zippers and butto... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > The Grayzone > US government drops case against Max Blumenthal after jailing journalist on false charges > As the mysterious disappearance of Secret Service records and complete absence of evidence supporting its case came t... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > > The Grayzone > US government drops case against Max Blumenthal after jailing journalist on false charges > As the mysterious disappearance of Secret Service records and complete absence of evidence supporting its case came t... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > Common Dreams > Investigation Uncovers Israel-Based Group Behind Bigoted Facebook > "The goal of these anti-Muslim hate campaigns is clear?they put Muslim lives here and around the world at risk and un... > Read more at Twitter? > Max Blumenthal shared? > > > Common Dreams > Investigation Uncovers Israel-Based Group Behind Bigoted Facebook > "The goal of these anti-Muslim hate campaigns is clear?they put Muslim lives here and around the world at risk and un... > Read more at Twitter? > > THREE SISTERS PARK > Summer Camp Music Festival > Chillicothe, IL ? Eclectic lineup, expansive campgrounds, late-night shows, live art, & much more! > Read more at Twitter? > > THREE SISTERS PARK > Summer Camp Music Festival > Chillicothe, IL ? Eclectic lineup, expansive campgrounds, late-night shows, live art, & much more! > Read more at Twitter? > > Stars and Stripes > Trump undercut vital military attributes > Retired military leaders have begun sounding the alarm. Yet those in real positions of power are nowhere to be found. > Read more at Twitter? > > Stars and Stripes > Trump undercut vital military attributes > Retired military leaders have begun sounding the alarm. Yet those in real positions of power are nowhere to be found. > Read more at Twitter? > > News > USS Arizona survivor recalls attack on Pearl Harbor > HONEY BEND ? Looking for a job and a future, Ken Potts saw little hope in central Illinois. Born and raised in tiny H... > Read more at Twitter? > > News > USS Arizona survivor recalls attack on Pearl Harbor > HONEY BEND ? Looking for a job and a future, Ken Potts saw little hope in central Illinois. Born and raised in tiny H... > Read more at Twitter? > Help? | Privacy? | Reset password? | Download app? > We sent this email to @karenaram2. Unsubscribe > Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San?Francisco,?CA?94103 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 15:29:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 07:29:28 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal Action References: <139971992.7490.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal?Action by Caitlin Johnstone > A Newsweek?journalist has resigned after the publication reportedly suppressed his story about the ever-growing OPCW scandal, the revelation of immensely significant plot holes in the establishment Syria narrative that you can update yourself on by watching this short seven-minute video or this more detailed video here . > > "Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason," journalist Tareq Haddad reported today via Twitter . > > "I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient to US government was removed, though it was factually correct," Haddad said. "I plan on publishing these details in full shortly. However, after asking my editors for comment, as is journalistic practice, I received an email reminding me of confidentiality clauses in my contract. I.e. I was threatened with legal action." > > Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason. > > ? Tareq Haddad (@Tareq_Haddad) December 7, 2019 > Haddad added that he is now seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself, and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer. > > "I could have kept silent and kept my job, but I would not have been able to continue with a clean conscience," Haddad said . "I will have some instability now but the truth is more important." > > This is the first direct insider report we're getting on the mass media's conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal that I wrote about just the other day . In how many other newsrooms is this exact same sort of suppression happening, including threats of legal action, to journalists who don't have the courage or ability to leave and speak out? There is no logical reason to assume that Haddad is the only one encountering such roadblocks from mass media editors; he's just the only one going public about it. > > Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including an article by an actual, current military intelligence officer explaining why US prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White Helmets , and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard . The outlet will occasionally print oppositional-looking articles like this one by Ian Wilkie questioning the establishment Syria narrative , but not without immediately turning around and publishing an attack on Wilkie's piece by Eliot Higgins, a former Atlantic Council Senior Fellow who is the cofounder of the NED-funded imperial narrative management firm Bellingcat. Newsweek also recently published an article attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a bogus Bellingcat article I debunked shortly after its publication . > > Mainstream media doesn?t think the leaks are newsworthy indicating that the US, France and UK bombed Syria last year in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack which according to the official scientists who invested it maybe never occurred. https://t.co/CRnL9Ejatw > ? Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) December 6, 2019 > The ubiquitous propagandistic tactic of fake news by omission distorts the public's worldview just as much as it would if mass media outlets were publishing bogus stories whole cloth every day, only if they were doing that it would be much easier to pin them down on their lies, hold them accountable, and discredit them. > > A recent FAIR article by Alan MacLeod documents how the Hong Kong demonstrations are pushed front and center in mainstream consciousness despite the fact that to this day not one protester has been killed by security forces, while far more deadly violence is being directed at huge protests in empire-aligned nations like Haiti, Chile and Ecuador which have been almost completely ignored by these same outlets. This deliberate omission causes a distorted worldview in casual and mainstream news media consumers in which protests are only happening in nations that are outside the US-centralized power alliance . We see the same kind of deliberate distortion-by-omission with the way mass media continually pushes the narrative that Donald Trump is "soft on Russia", while remaining completely silent on the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary . > > The time is now for everyone with a platform to start banging the drum about the OPCW scandal, because we're seeing more and more signs that the deluge of leaks hemorrhaging from that organisation is only going to increase. Mainstream propagandists aren't going to cover it, so if larger alternative media outlets want to avoid being lumped in with them and discredited in the same sweep it would be wise to start talking about this thing today. It's only going to get more and more awkward for everyone who chose to remain silent, and more and more validating for those who spoke out. > > ________________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 8, 2019 at 2:46 am | Tags: Douma , journalism , newsweek , OPCW , Syria , Tareq Haddad | Categories: Article , News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1WO > Comment See all comments > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/08/journalist-newsweek-suppressed-opcw-scandal-and-threatened-me-with-legal-action/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 15:29:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 07:29:28 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal Action References: <139971992.7490.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal?Action by Caitlin Johnstone > A Newsweek?journalist has resigned after the publication reportedly suppressed his story about the ever-growing OPCW scandal, the revelation of immensely significant plot holes in the establishment Syria narrative that you can update yourself on by watching this short seven-minute video or this more detailed video here . > > "Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason," journalist Tareq Haddad reported today via Twitter . > > "I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient to US government was removed, though it was factually correct," Haddad said. "I plan on publishing these details in full shortly. However, after asking my editors for comment, as is journalistic practice, I received an email reminding me of confidentiality clauses in my contract. I.e. I was threatened with legal action." > > Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason. > > ? Tareq Haddad (@Tareq_Haddad) December 7, 2019 > Haddad added that he is now seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself, and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer. > > "I could have kept silent and kept my job, but I would not have been able to continue with a clean conscience," Haddad said . "I will have some instability now but the truth is more important." > > This is the first direct insider report we're getting on the mass media's conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal that I wrote about just the other day . In how many other newsrooms is this exact same sort of suppression happening, including threats of legal action, to journalists who don't have the courage or ability to leave and speak out? There is no logical reason to assume that Haddad is the only one encountering such roadblocks from mass media editors; he's just the only one going public about it. > > Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including an article by an actual, current military intelligence officer explaining why US prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White Helmets , and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard . The outlet will occasionally print oppositional-looking articles like this one by Ian Wilkie questioning the establishment Syria narrative , but not without immediately turning around and publishing an attack on Wilkie's piece by Eliot Higgins, a former Atlantic Council Senior Fellow who is the cofounder of the NED-funded imperial narrative management firm Bellingcat. Newsweek also recently published an article attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a bogus Bellingcat article I debunked shortly after its publication . > > Mainstream media doesn?t think the leaks are newsworthy indicating that the US, France and UK bombed Syria last year in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack which according to the official scientists who invested it maybe never occurred. https://t.co/CRnL9Ejatw > ? Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) December 6, 2019 > The ubiquitous propagandistic tactic of fake news by omission distorts the public's worldview just as much as it would if mass media outlets were publishing bogus stories whole cloth every day, only if they were doing that it would be much easier to pin them down on their lies, hold them accountable, and discredit them. > > A recent FAIR article by Alan MacLeod documents how the Hong Kong demonstrations are pushed front and center in mainstream consciousness despite the fact that to this day not one protester has been killed by security forces, while far more deadly violence is being directed at huge protests in empire-aligned nations like Haiti, Chile and Ecuador which have been almost completely ignored by these same outlets. This deliberate omission causes a distorted worldview in casual and mainstream news media consumers in which protests are only happening in nations that are outside the US-centralized power alliance . We see the same kind of deliberate distortion-by-omission with the way mass media continually pushes the narrative that Donald Trump is "soft on Russia", while remaining completely silent on the overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary . > > The time is now for everyone with a platform to start banging the drum about the OPCW scandal, because we're seeing more and more signs that the deluge of leaks hemorrhaging from that organisation is only going to increase. Mainstream propagandists aren't going to cover it, so if larger alternative media outlets want to avoid being lumped in with them and discredited in the same sweep it would be wise to start talking about this thing today. It's only going to get more and more awkward for everyone who chose to remain silent, and more and more validating for those who spoke out. > > ________________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 8, 2019 at 2:46 am | Tags: Douma , journalism , newsweek , OPCW , Syria , Tareq Haddad | Categories: Article , News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1WO > Comment See all comments > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/08/journalist-newsweek-suppressed-opcw-scandal-and-threatened-me-with-legal-action/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 15:46:08 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:46:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: <9CCB27B0-FE59-4188-9E6C-5210B573A0D1@illinois.edu> References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> <9CCB27B0-FE59-4188-9E6C-5210B573A0D1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Mort, I appreciate your comments and critique, and would be more than happy to understand beyond that shadow of the doubt that these indeed were "false flag" operations. I certainly don't have the technical competence to judge either Postol's article are the critique of his article by Jefferson Morley on this weekend's Counterpunch, which has also featured Louis Proyect's rejection of the "false flag" thesis. In any event, these discussions about Douma etc. obscure larger debates about the nature and origins of the regime change operation, which only feeds the "Assadist" charges against various characters. Nevertheless, I am indeed skeptical about someone like Vanessa Beeley, who seems naive to me in her regard for the Syrian regime. Unfortunately, the nature of the discussions around OPCW etc. are that people talk past each other, they never debate in good faith. Even given the rare opportunity to actually deploy scientific evidence and methodology, there seems to be no good faith effort to ascertain the evidence and induce whatever truth might be rigorously concluded in relation to a clear methodology. I don't think it's by accident that such a forum does not really exist, as Postol implied in his interview with Aaron Mate. DG On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > My response to the show discussions is that it was at best mixed. It ended > with reflections of David Green expressing doubts about the Douma incident, > which basically expressed his ignorance. T. Postal was pretty clear about > what could have occurred. The levels of chlorine gas found was said to be > background Chlorine levels, but more importantly there were the leaks of > withheld information by the two whistleblowers of the OECD. Seemed pretty > clear to me that this was a false flag operation. > The opening discussion about how identity politics obscures the class > aspect of inequities I found to be turgid, whatever the ambiguous truths > are to the arguments presented. Then there came the nonsensical sly > apologetics regarding what Trump really wants. Caitlin Johnstone had a > pertinent discussion about this [ > https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/], > leaving aside Trump's actions towards Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Yemen, > Bolivia, Iran, Syria,? And calling Assad truely a monster?? seemd > gratuitous. > But the discussion about the Democratic candidates, Harris and > Butagieg(sp?) seemed just right, as did the remarks about the weird > impeachment phenomenon. > > On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Good show > > My thoughts while watching: > > It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black > Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus > should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed > he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. > > Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her > tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now > playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman > President, a black woman President.? > > As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion > referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with > journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge > Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I > know now, I would have charged double. > > > https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video > < > https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video > > > > Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, > and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the > USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as > claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support > imperialism in Syria. > > Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or > anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. > > > > > > On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > News from Neptune #442 > A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc > > A list of links to items referenced on the show. > > Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" > https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm > > Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" > https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York > Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New > York Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html > > "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson > Published: October 2005 > Complete book: > https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf > Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 > eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 > > Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" > https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf > > "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working > Class" by David Roediger > Complete book: > https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf > > Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" > Winter 2005 number 16: > https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf > > Articles about Noel Ignatiev > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ > > http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ > > "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev > ISBN: 0415918251 > ISBN13: 9780415918251 > > Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" > http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html > > Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness > Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" > > https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need > > > > > Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of > America" > > https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america > > David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss > > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html > > > > > David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette > > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html > -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" > > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html > -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" > > C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly > feature in a letter to the News-Gazette > > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html > > Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) > > > > > > Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov > whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE > > https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 > > Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To > Afghanistan" > > https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ > > > > > Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ > > Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed > Massacre?" > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ > > > > > > J.B. Nicholson's notes > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html > > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 20:43:01 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 12:43:01 -0800 Subject: [Peace] AOTA a coupe weeks ago. Message-ID: Carl I?m behind on my reading etc., but listened to the AWARE program from Nov. 26th today on WRFU, it was particularly good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar95AX094as&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3HnlHyscDviW7VvPEtVDvVCIL5PBZaP7Y9E57QtFlv4U9yeFFn0-0WqYw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 8 20:43:01 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 12:43:01 -0800 Subject: [Peace] AOTA a coupe weeks ago. Message-ID: Carl I?m behind on my reading etc., but listened to the AWARE program from Nov. 26th today on WRFU, it was particularly good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar95AX094as&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3HnlHyscDviW7VvPEtVDvVCIL5PBZaP7Y9E57QtFlv4U9yeFFn0-0WqYw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Dec 8 20:53:38 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 20:53:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> <9CCB27B0-FE59-4188-9E6C-5210B573A0D1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your comments, David. I can understand why you have your doubts reading the Morley and Proyect Counterpunch articles. As for me, of course, I wasn?t ?there?, so I too must rely on impressions gleaned from what I read and surmise. I know how important it is for the ?Empire? to subdue Syria (and Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and any other resistors to U.S.interests), and I know how the U.S., via the CIA and its collaborators and proxies, White Helmets included, hides its dirty hands for its ?vital? interests. It also is reasonable to wonder why Assad would so blatantly attack targets with toxic gases/chemicals while the U.S. so diligently watches for anything suspicious, all while Assad forces have been gaining control of most of Syria, his country. The U.S. needs little excuse to attack and dismember Syria, only partially restrained by the presence of Russian forces thereabouts. I?m sure you know all this. But getting back to th CP articles, which display implicit faith in Human Rights Watch and the OPCW. I?ve long concuded that HRW is not at all a neutral agent. It, with outfits like the NED and USAID, has consistently taken up the cause of American interests. As noted, the White Helmets have been agents of the UK, the USA and others (Emerites, Saudis?) in the fight against Assad. And Louis Proyect, from what I read, is on the same wavelength as the ISO, vehemently anti-Assad for ideological reasons of some sort. However Assad may have been compromised by former behavior, he is currently resisting U.S. control of his land, aided by Iran and Russia, and is in the gunsights of Israel. For me, this is a reason to be defended as long as he so continues. Morley claims to be neutral in his assessments, but he takes for granted the results of the OPCW, albeit while giving some credence to those who were not permied to air their disagreements with the OPCW assessments. I have more faith in the analyses of Caitlin Johnstone, Jonathan Steele, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mat?, Robert Fisk and others than of those like Morley and Proyect (and Counterpunch?) now trying to cast doubt on what seems obvious to opponents to what the U.S. and its clients have been wreaking in the ME and elsewhere. As for Postol, having had trouble getting published by U.S. media is quite unsurprising. Cynicism?! The Managegement of Savagery, by Max Blumenthal, although now a little dated, is a better reference for what and how to regard the events in that part of the world. A cogent summary of the Douma story is given by https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1199860236946935808?s=20 which concludes that a false flag operation had taken place. On Dec 8, 2019, at 9:46 AM, David Green > wrote: Mort, I appreciate your comments and critique, and would be more than happy to understand beyond that shadow of the doubt that these indeed were "false flag" operations. I certainly don't have the technical competence to judge either Postol's article are the critique of his article by Jefferson Morley on this weekend's Counterpunch, which has also featured Louis Proyect's rejection of the "false flag" thesis. In any event, these discussions about Douma etc. obscure larger debates about the nature and origins of the regime change operation, which only feeds the "Assadist" charges against various characters. Nevertheless, I am indeed skeptical about someone like Vanessa Beeley, who seems naive to me in her regard for the Syrian regime. Unfortunately, the nature of the discussions around OPCW etc. are that people talk past each other, they never debate in good faith. Even given the rare opportunity to actually deploy scientific evidence and methodology, there seems to be no good faith effort to ascertain the evidence and induce whatever truth might be rigorously concluded in relation to a clear methodology. I don't think it's by accident that such a forum does not really exist, as Postol implied in his interview with Aaron Mate. DG On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: My response to the show discussions is that it was at best mixed. It ended with reflections of David Green expressing doubts about the Douma incident, which basically expressed his ignorance. T. Postal was pretty clear about what could have occurred. The levels of chlorine gas found was said to be background Chlorine levels, but more importantly there were the leaks of withheld information by the two whistleblowers of the OECD. Seemed pretty clear to me that this was a false flag operation. The opening discussion about how identity politics obscures the class aspect of inequities I found to be turgid, whatever the ambiguous truths are to the arguments presented. Then there came the nonsensical sly apologetics regarding what Trump really wants. Caitlin Johnstone had a pertinent discussion about this [https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/], leaving aside Trump's actions towards Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Yemen, Bolivia, Iran, Syria,? And calling Assad truely a monster?? seemd gratuitous. But the discussion about the Democratic candidates, Harris and Butagieg(sp?) seemed just right, as did the remarks about the weird impeachment phenomenon. On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good show My thoughts while watching: It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace > wrote: News from Neptune #442 A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc A list of links to items referenced on the show. Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson Published: October 2005 Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf Articles about Noel Ignatiev https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev ISBN: 0415918251 ISBN13: 9780415918251 Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ J.B. Nicholson's notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html -J _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Dec 8 23:27:20 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 17:27:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #442 notes In-Reply-To: References: <74971abe-85a2-abb5-4fee-af173f9b2150@forestfield.org> <9CCB27B0-FE59-4188-9E6C-5210B573A0D1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <008b01d5ae1f$0a1141e0$1e33c5a0$@comcast.net> Louis Proyect is a Shachtmanite pseudo Leftist who is a pro U.S. imperialist agent of the U.S. State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy. He has ZERO credibility. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2019 9:46 AM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace Discuss; J.B. Nicholson; Peace; David Green; Karen Aram; C G Estabrook Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] News from Neptune #442 notes Mort, I appreciate your comments and critique, and would be more than happy to understand beyond that shadow of the doubt that these indeed were "false flag" operations. I certainly don't have the technical competence to judge either Postol's article are the critique of his article by Jefferson Morley on this weekend's Counterpunch, which has also featured Louis Proyect's rejection of the "false flag" thesis. In any event, these discussions about Douma etc. obscure larger debates about the nature and origins of the regime change operation, which only feeds the "Assadist" charges against various characters. Nevertheless, I am indeed skeptical about someone like Vanessa Beeley, who seems naive to me in her regard for the Syrian regime. Unfortunately, the nature of the discussions around OPCW etc. are that people talk past each other, they never debate in good faith. Even given the rare opportunity to actually deploy scientific evidence and methodology, there seems to be no good faith effort to ascertain the evidence and induce whatever truth might be rigorously concluded in relation to a clear methodology. I don't think it's by accident that such a forum does not really exist, as Postol implied in his interview with Aaron Mate. DG On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:20 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: My response to the show discussions is that it was at best mixed. It ended with reflections of David Green expressing doubts about the Douma incident, which basically expressed his ignorance. T. Postal was pretty clear about what could have occurred. The levels of chlorine gas found was said to be background Chlorine levels, but more importantly there were the leaks of withheld information by the two whistleblowers of the OECD. Seemed pretty clear to me that this was a false flag operation. The opening discussion about how identity politics obscures the class aspect of inequities I found to be turgid, whatever the ambiguous truths are to the arguments presented. Then there came the nonsensical sly apologetics regarding what Trump really wants. Caitlin Johnstone had a pertinent discussion about this [https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/], leaving aside Trump's actions towards Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Yemen, Bolivia, Iran, Syria,? And calling Assad truely a monster?? seemd gratuitous. But the discussion about the Democratic candidates, Harris and Butagieg(sp?) seemed just right, as did the remarks about the weird impeachment phenomenon. On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Good show My thoughts while watching: It might be of value to mention that CLR James, author of the Black Jacobins, Adolph Reed and others discussing ?race as not the issue, focus should be on class,? are not white. In a recent interview with Adolph Reed he claimed to have been a former Black Panther. Many believe Kamala Harris failure to generate support, was due to her tough law and order record when a DA in SF. She was no liberal. She is now playing the race card by claiming, ?America isn?t ready for a woman President, a black woman President.? As to Pete Buttagieg, it might be worth promoting the podcast discussion referred to by Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal. Their interview with journalist Peter Van Buren was very insightful. My employer had me charge Kinsey Consultants $1,000 an hour, consulting with me. Had I known what I know now, I would have charged double. https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2213779038916121 ¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video ¬if_id=1575653773190302¬if_t=live_video> Louis Proyect, the former ISO leadership, the local Black Rose Anarchists, and many others have lost credibility as ?Leftists,? when they support the USG intervention and war in Syria. Many are Trotskyist organizations, as claimed by Diana Johnstone, but not all, the WSWS.ORG does not support imperialism in Syria. Socialists/Communists generally do not support imperialism in Syria or anywhere else, if they do one should question there true intentions. On Dec 6, 2019, at 16:12, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: News from Neptune #442 A "Fight Race Reductionism" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tW-stKUKc A list of links to items referenced on the show. Tariq Ali on "A Conversation with C.L.R. James" https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1980/07/tariq-ali.htm Briahna Gray on "Beware the Race Reductionist" https://theintercept.com/2018/08/26/beware-the-race-reductionist/ Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html "Black Marxism" by Cedric Robinson Published: October 2005 Complete book: https://libcom.org/files/Black%20Marxism-Cedric%20J.%20Robinson.pdf Paperback ISBN: 978-0-8078-4829-6 eBook ISBN: 978-0-8078-7612-1 Gregory Myerson on "Tortilla Curtain and The Ecology of Fear" https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/fall_04/Meyerson.pdf "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class" by David Roediger Complete book: https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roediger-the-wages-of-whiteness-race-and-the-making-of-the-american-working-class.pdf Noel Ignatiev and "Race Traitor" Winter 2005 number 16: https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Race-Traitor-%E2%84%96-16-Winter-2005.pdf Articles about Noel Ignatiev https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/noel-ignatiev-remembering-a-comrade-and-a-friend/ http://www.renegadetribune.com/genocidal-jew-noel-ignatiev-is-dead-good-riddance/ "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev ISBN: 0415918251 ISBN13: 9780415918251 Theodore W. Allen on "On Roediger's Wages of Whiteness" http://www.elegantbrain.com/edu4/classes/readings/race-roediger-allen.html Cedric Johnson on "The Wages of Roediger: Why Three Decades of Whiteness Studies Has Not Produced the Left We Need" https://nonsite.org/article/the-wages-of-roediger-why-three-decades-of-whiteness-studies-has-not-produced-the-left-we-need Barbara J. Fields on "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America" https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2763-slavery-race-and-ideology-in-the-united-states-of-america David Green's "Wealth gap" post to peace-discuss https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051656.html David Green's recent letters to the editor of the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-harassment-study-is-silly-propaganda/article_9d4eee6b-a8fa-5d8a-8609-169c0d256af9.html -- "Harassment study is silly propaganda" https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-concerns-voiced-about-bend-the-arc/article_99b2ac36-4279-5cad-8b60-892ca30dde6e.html -- "Concerns voiced about Bend the Arc" C. G. Estabrook on News-Gazette?s feature ?Those Who Served? weekly feature in a letter to the News-Gazette https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/letter-to-the-editor-u-s-has-killed-millions-in/article_87b213e5-9f21-5acf-8f54-df41b18d026d.html Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon#Gravity's_Rainbow_(1973) Moderate Rebels on "What was Pete Buttigieg doing in Iraq?: US gov whistleblower on war profiteering and corruption" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9V-HlSyiwE https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/moderaterebels/Moderate_Rebels_Pete_Buttigieg_Iraq_Peter_Van_Buren.mp3?dest-id=553365 Alicia Luke on "Buttigieg Admits No Combat Ribbon From Deployment To Afghanistan" https://freedomoutpost.com/buttigieg-admits-no-combat-ribbon-from-deployment-to-afghanistan/ Louis Proyect on "Douma, Chlorine Gas and Occam?s Razor" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/22/douma-chlorine-gas-and-occams-razor/ Jefferson Morley on "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn?t a ?Managed Massacre?" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/06/why-the-douma-chemical-attack-wasnt-a-managed-massacre/ J.B. Nicholson's notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015404.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051610.html -J _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 14:47:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:47:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace] GAZA!!!! Message-ID: It?s horrific. Chris Hedges interviews Abby Martin & Mark Prysnor?? https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/475231-gaza-fight-freedom-film/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 9 14:47:48 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:47:48 -0800 Subject: [Peace] GAZA!!!! Message-ID: It?s horrific. Chris Hedges interviews Abby Martin & Mark Prysnor?? https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/475231-gaza-fight-freedom-film/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 10 00:38:50 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:38:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace] The visual poets often get there first, too Message-ID: <8A52BE85-D471-4A7D-ACAC-0A8D450FBC0F@newsfromneptune.com> "The System Investigates Itself? Boardman Robinson, in 'The Liberator,? 1921 https://images.app.goo.gl/BARYLa7XVWCJSDDW8 ### From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 10 01:47:10 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:47:10 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Suppressed interview Message-ID: <7D4EA4E5-0C5E-4CD0-8EAF-02BFD2A86317@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.sana.sy/en/?p=180156&fbclid=IwAR1dM6pnMbYVA0NVFku6_hfXGGXhuH5BWApGM11KekoTjTt-5w6GQE-u9Ao From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 10 01:56:38 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 19:56:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace] OPCW scandal Message-ID: <36DEED2F-DF2C-477B-A9E9-F100E3140FA1@newsfromneptune.com> "If you haven't been following the still-unfolding OPCW scandal, you can catch up quickly by watching this seven-minute video: ?Caity Johnstone" From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:10:07 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:10:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Help Us Defeat the $738B "Defense" Bill that Continues Yemen War In-Reply-To: <4455770352.169107549@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <4455770352.169107549@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: Here's who I heard is doing alerts along this line today so far: Moveon Codepink Demand Progress Freedom Forward House floor vote expected late tomorrow afternoon. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Erik at Just Foreign Policy Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:55 AM Subject: Help Us Defeat the $738B "Defense" Bill that Continues Yemen War To: [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, The House and Senate are poised to vote this week on a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) ? the bill that uses half of our income tax dollars to fatten the Pentagon and its contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin - that doesn't end unconstitutional Pentagon participation in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen! This is a shameful betrayal of promises by Democratic leadership to use the NDAA as a vehicle end the Yemen war after the House and Senate have repeatedly voted to end US participation in the "world's worst humanitarian crisis." When the news broke late last night, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna immediately issued a statement calling on all members to vote against this "disastrous" bill. *We need to pressure members of Congress to vote against this NDAA that doesn?t end the war -- and we need your help getting them on the record. **Here?s how you can help:* 1. Take a look at this spreadsheet and call your representatives in the House and Senate at 202-224-3121 to tell them to vote NO on any NDAA that doesn?t end the war -- and ask them if they will do so. When you reach a staffer, you can say: ?I urge [Rep. or Senator] to vote NO on any NDAA that fails to end the Yemen war as Democratic leaders promised they would. I urge [Rep. or Senator] to publicly announce their intention to vote NO on any NDAA that doesn?t end the war. Can you tell me how [Rep. or Senator] intends to vote?? If you?re not allowed to talk to a human but have the opportunity to leave a voice mail, you can say: ?I urge [Rep. or Senator] to vote NO on any NDAA that fails to end the Yemen war as Democratic leaders promised they would. I urge [Rep. or Senator] to publicly announce their intention to vote NO on any NDAA that doesn?t end the war.? 2. Fill out this survey form to let us know the results of your outreach. We will update the tracker as results come in. 3. Tweet at your members of the House and Senate (and others!) to ask them to vote against the NDAA if it doesn?t end the war and to let us know if they will. A list of Twitter handles for Members of Congress is here . You can tweet something like: "Pentagon support for the Saudi regime?s #YemenWar has helped kill hundreds of thousands of people. [MEMBER TWITTER HANDLE] must oppose the #NDAA if it doesn't end U.S. support for #YemenWar. Will [MEMBER TWITTER HANDLE] vote NO on #NDAA?" 4. Retweet our post on Twitter. 5. If we already have results for your Representative or Senators, please call and tweet them anyway and tell them to oppose the NDAA if it doesn?t end the Yemen war. Thank you for all you do to make U.S. foreign policy more just, Erik Sperling, Sarah Burns, and the Just Foreign Policy team [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] ? 2019 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:50:33 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 09:50:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace] FCNL: Tell Congress: Vote NO on NDAA that Does Not End Endless War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *From:* Hassan El-Tayyab, FCNL *Sent:* Tuesday, December 10, 2019 9:30 AM *Subject:* Tell Congress: Vote NO on NDAA that Does Not End Endless War I?ve got some urgent news. Congressional negotiations for the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have ended and FCNL has learned that the final bill completely fails to reassert Congress?s war authority and end endless wars. | *View online ?* [image: Friends Committee on National Legislation] Dear Claudia, *I?ve got some urgent news.* Congressional negotiations for the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have ended and FCNL has learned that the final bill completely fails to reassert Congress?s war authority and end endless wars. Our top three priorities are being stripped out, meaning this NDAA won?t end U.S. support for the Saudi-UAE led war in Yemen; it won?t prevent an unauthorized war against Iran; and it won?t repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization ? even 8 years after the Iraq war ended. This is immoral and a complete abdication of Congressional responsibility. *Your voice is needed. **Urge your member of congress to vote no when the NDAA comes to the floor this week!* *Call Now* Approving an NDAA without these critical provisions would enable more endless war, damage U.S. national security, erode congressional war authority, and reject the will of the American people to promote peace. While this is indeed unfortunate news, this is not over yet. Thank you for making this important call to Rep. Sarbanes and for standing up for peace. By working together, we can make a difference. [image: Hassan El-Tayyab] In Solidarity, *Hassan El-Tayyab* *Legislative Representative for Middle East Policy* *Update your contact information. * [image: Friends Committee on National Legislation] We are Quakers and friends changing public policy. *Find Events* | *Make a Donation* | *More About FCNL* Follow us on: [image: Twitter] [image: Facebook] [image: Instagram] [image: YouTube] 245 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 | 800-630-1330 ? Friends Committee on National Legislation | Powered by ActionKit | Design by Threespot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 15:35:54 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:35:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Politico: "So much for a progressive NDAA" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *So much for a progressive NDAA:* The final bill, however, also jettisons many of the progressive proposals included in the House bill. Not included are provisions to limit funding for a border wall, overturn Trump's transgender troop ban, mandate congressional approval for war with Iran and withdraw U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen's civil war. *"There is no pressing reason for Congress to shower Trump, his Saudi friends, and the Pentagon contractors of the military-industrial complex with this $738 billion taxpayer giveaway right now," Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna said in a statement . *"We owe it to the American people to go back to the drawing board." And here's the detail on the F-35. Sorry, liberals, there's no money for tuition-free public college, there's no money for universal health care, there's no money for Green New Deal. But here's a billion dollars for Lockheed Martin for twelve warplanes that the Pentagon didn't ask for. *Weapons: *The legislation authorizes billions to procure weapons, including eight new Boeing F-15EX fighters for the Air Force and an extra $1 billion for 12 more Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters than the administration requested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 15:39:43 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:39:43 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: What just happened? CODEPINK References: <5defbb9617931_432e92af548770@asgworker-qmb3-13.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: > > > > Dear Karen, > > The Democrats in Congress just passed up the chance to end U.S. involvement in the brutal Saudi-led war on Yemen and instead agreed to a no-strings-attached $750 billion giveaway to the Pentagon. This is outrageous. The floor vote will be tomorrow, so act now. > > Contact Congress right now and demand they VOTE NO on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). > > Call 1-833-STOP-WAR > > When you are connected, use this script: > > Hello. My name is _____ and I?m a constituent of Representative/Senator ______. I?m calling today to urge him/her to vote NO on the NDAA as it does not contain any critical anti-war provisions, not even the House-passed Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment to invoke the War Powers Act to end U.S. support for the Saudi-UAE led war in Yemen. I would also like to urge him/her to contact Speaker Pelosi and ask her to do everything she can to block the NDAA. It is imperative that we do not simply give $750 billion to the Pentagon. I look forward to hearing if he/she will or will not support my request. > > After you make this call, send an email to Speaker Pelosi telling her to use her position to block the NDAA . > Congress has spent months negotiating the final NDAA, but in the end, they stripped away the amendments to end the war in Yemen, prevent a war with Iran, block arms sales to the Saudis, and more.House Armed Services Committee chair Representative Adam Smith didn?t even ensure that his own amendment, the Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment to invoke the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, stayed in. Without at least this one anti-war amendment, the NDAA is nothing more than a $750 billion giveaway to the Pentagon, $750 billion for more endless wars. > > Senator Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have announced that they will vote no and are asking others to join them. Call 1-833-STOP-WAR now to tell your Representatives to vote NO. Then send an email to Speaker Pelosi telling her to use her position in the House to do everything that she can to block the NDAA . > > Approving an NDAA without any critical anti-war provisions perpetuates the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, rejects the will of the American people who have indicated in a clear and unmistakable way that they want to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, risks a war with Iran, and keeps the U.S. in an endless cycle of endless wars. It is imperative that Congress VOTE NO on the NDAA when it goes to a full floor vote tomorrow. > > Towards ending these wars, > Ann, Ariel Carley, Caty, Clara, Cody, Emily, Enas, Jodie, Kelly, Leonardo, Mark, Medea, Michelle, Nancy, Paki, Raegan, Teri and Tighe > > PS: We can?t do what we do without you and your support. Please give and help us continue to make peace a priority. > > > > > > > ? Copyright 2019 | www.codepink.org > Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 10 15:39:43 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:39:43 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: What just happened? CODEPINK References: <5defbb9617931_432e92af548770@asgworker-qmb3-13.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: > > > > Dear Karen, > > The Democrats in Congress just passed up the chance to end U.S. involvement in the brutal Saudi-led war on Yemen and instead agreed to a no-strings-attached $750 billion giveaway to the Pentagon. This is outrageous. The floor vote will be tomorrow, so act now. > > Contact Congress right now and demand they VOTE NO on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). > > Call 1-833-STOP-WAR > > When you are connected, use this script: > > Hello. My name is _____ and I?m a constituent of Representative/Senator ______. I?m calling today to urge him/her to vote NO on the NDAA as it does not contain any critical anti-war provisions, not even the House-passed Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment to invoke the War Powers Act to end U.S. support for the Saudi-UAE led war in Yemen. I would also like to urge him/her to contact Speaker Pelosi and ask her to do everything she can to block the NDAA. It is imperative that we do not simply give $750 billion to the Pentagon. I look forward to hearing if he/she will or will not support my request. > > After you make this call, send an email to Speaker Pelosi telling her to use her position to block the NDAA . > Congress has spent months negotiating the final NDAA, but in the end, they stripped away the amendments to end the war in Yemen, prevent a war with Iran, block arms sales to the Saudis, and more.House Armed Services Committee chair Representative Adam Smith didn?t even ensure that his own amendment, the Smith-Khanna-Schiff-Jayapal amendment to invoke the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, stayed in. Without at least this one anti-war amendment, the NDAA is nothing more than a $750 billion giveaway to the Pentagon, $750 billion for more endless wars. > > Senator Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have announced that they will vote no and are asking others to join them. Call 1-833-STOP-WAR now to tell your Representatives to vote NO. Then send an email to Speaker Pelosi telling her to use her position in the House to do everything that she can to block the NDAA . > > Approving an NDAA without any critical anti-war provisions perpetuates the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, rejects the will of the American people who have indicated in a clear and unmistakable way that they want to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, risks a war with Iran, and keeps the U.S. in an endless cycle of endless wars. It is imperative that Congress VOTE NO on the NDAA when it goes to a full floor vote tomorrow. > > Towards ending these wars, > Ann, Ariel Carley, Caty, Clara, Cody, Emily, Enas, Jodie, Kelly, Leonardo, Mark, Medea, Michelle, Nancy, Paki, Raegan, Teri and Tighe > > PS: We can?t do what we do without you and your support. Please give and help us continue to make peace a priority. > > > > > > > ? Copyright 2019 | www.codepink.org > Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 18:48:45 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:48:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Peace Action: Act now to stop capitulation on Pentagon budget In-Reply-To: <51.6F.29168.CD1EFED5@asv11mtam010.ngpweb.com> References: <51.6F.29168.CD1EFED5@asv11mtam010.ngpweb.com> Message-ID: I suspect that Rodney Davis is a lost cause on this. But Durbin should not be. And a statement of opposition from Durbin would help us move Democrats in the House... ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jon Rainwater, Peace Action Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:20 PM Subject: Act now to stop capitulation on Pentagon budget To: Robert Naiman Robert, I need you to take an important action today. Back in October, I told you about several crucial amendments that we successfully helped pass through the House of Representatives? version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). They included: - Blocking the Trump administration from starting an unauthorized war with Iran - Ending U.S. support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen - Reasserting Congressional authority in debating and authorizing wars by repealing the 2002 Iraq war authorization - Keeping new, ?low-yield? nuclear weapons out of President Trump?s hands - Limiting Trump from diverting Pentagon funding to build ?the wall? on the U.S./Mexico border - Stopping Trump?s discriminatory ban on transgender servicemembers In the conference committee?s bill merging differences between the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, *every single one of these important amendments was stripped out.* This FY2020 NDAA bill has been so severely stripped of these crucial House-passed provisions essential to keep the Trump administration in check that it represents a near total capitulation. {First Name or ?Friend?}, this is an outrage and requires immediate action! *Please take a brief moment today to call your representative and senators and demand that they vote NO on the FY2020 NDAA.* The House could vote as early as tomorrow, so please call today! Here?s what I need you to do: 1) Call the Congressional Switchboard at *202-224-3121* 2) Ask to be connected to your representative or senators, and when connected, here?s your script: *"Hello, my name is (your name) and I?m a constituent calling from (your city). I?m calling today to urge (representative/senator________) to vote NO on a 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that does not contain the House-passed provisions to end the authorization for the war in Iraq, stop U.S. support for the Saudi-UAE led war in Yemen, prevent Trump from starting an unauthorized war with Iran, and restrict new, ?low-yield? nuclear weapons. I look forward to hearing why (representative/senator_______) will or will not support my request."* *This bill authorizes and outrageous $738 billion for the Pentagon with almost nothing to constrain the Trump administration?s reckless and dangerous foreign policy.* It is a blank check for endless wars, fuel for the further militarization of U.S. foreign policy, and a gift to Donald Trump. Please call your members of Congress today and urge them to vote NO! Thanks for taking action today, Jon Rainwater Peace Action P.S. We need to generate as much opposition to this terrible bill as possible. Please share this message with your family, friends, and colleagues to maximize our impact! Peace Action 8630 Fenton St Suite 934 Silver Spring, MD 20910 United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 22:55:09 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:55:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace] 350 Action: Hold Biden accountable In-Reply-To: <33eeb4-1ab46-5df0121a@list.350.org> References: <33eeb4-1ab46-5df0121a@list.350.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Clarissa Brooks - 350 Action <350action at 350.org> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:46 PM Subject: Hold Biden accountable To: Robert Naiman We need a climate candidate that's ready to show up for climate issues Robert, It's incredible to think how far we've come in the past 10 years ? from climate justice being treated as a niche issue in politics to millions of people marching worldwide in the global Climate Strikes. In the years ahead, we need an ally in the White House who works at the scale of the crisis ? someone who is willing to fight for the end of the fossil fuel industry. *Presidential candidates are making history with bold climate agendas.* Warren and Sanders have released robust climate justice plans that take into account the need to address environmental racism head-on. But of the candidate leading national polls, Joe Biden is lagging behind the pack with potentially dire consequences. *It?s time to hold Vice President Biden to a higher standard ? sign this petition urging Biden to show real climate leadership.* In the last decade, Biden supported regressive Obama-era energy policies like promoting fracking, nuclear expansion and oil leases on public lands. And so far in this election, there?s little indication that he?s meaningfully evolved on climate justice issues. Biden?s policies don?t reflect a sense of urgency around solving the climate crisis or an understanding of how environmental racism affects frontline communities. On the campaign trail, he?s rubbed shoulders with fossil fuel lobbyists and attended fundraisers hosted by fossil fuel company founders. So it?s no surprise that Biden hasn?t made a public commitment to hold fossil fuel industry executives accountable for the climate crisis. We deserve better. *We need to see Biden commit to end fracking, oppose new fossil fuel infrastructure, hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the crisis, and advance a robust plan for climate justice.* *Take two minutes today **to sign this petition to demand that Joe Biden fight for the future we deserve. Let?s hold Vice President Biden and all candidates to a higher standard.* Until we win, Clarissa ------------------------------ This message has been authorized and paid for by 350 Action , 20 Jay St, Suite 732, Brooklyn, NY 11201, May Boeve, Executive Director. This message has not been expressly authorized, requested, or approved by any federal, state, or local candidate, candidate?s committee or their agents, or by any ballot issue committee. Connect with 350 Action on Facebook and Twitter . Did someone forward you this message? Sign up for email alerts here. Help 350 Action shift the politics of climate change. Donate to power our movement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 13:14:41 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:14:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?ITT=3A_BREAKING=3A_Elizabeth_Warren_Joins_Bern?= =?utf-8?q?ie_Sanders_in_Opposing_Trump=E2=80=99s_Massive_War_Budge?= =?utf-8?q?t?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: BOOM. Sarah Lazare, live like her. http://inthesetimes.com/article/22206/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-trump-ndaa-militarism-defense-spending-war BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren Joins Bernie Sanders in Opposing Trump?s Massive War Budget All other 2020 candidates have remained silent on how they will vote. BY Sarah Lazare *Update:* Following publication of this piece, a Senate spokesperson for Elizabeth Warren contacted *In These Times* with the following comment: ?I just saw your piece on the NDAA. She does not support this level of defense funding and does not plan to vote in favor of the NDAA.? Warren then tweeted the following remarks: ?The Pentagon?s budget has been too large for too long. I cannot support a defense bill that?s a $738 billion Christmas present to giant defense contractors & undermines our values and security.? *Earlier:* Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the only 2020 presidential hopeful who has pledged to vote against?and loudly denounced?the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020, a $738 billion military spending bill that would mark a $22 billion increase over last year. The other frontrunner in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is tasked with negotiating the contents of the bill, but has so far remained silent on how she will vote. None of the other Democratic presidential candidates in Congress?Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)?have indicated their voting intention, either. The initial House version of the NDAA included certain restrictions on how military spending could be used, including measures prohibiting the allocation of funds to an unauthorized war with Iran and stopping U.S. military support for the war on Yemen. But a new compromise bill, released Monday, strips these out. While the compromise offers some concessions, such as paid parental leave for some federal workers, peace campaigners characterize it as a win for the Right. The House and Senate are expected to vote as soon as this week on the bill, which includes authorization for Trump?s proposed ?space force? as part of the compromise. Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, an antiwar organization, tells *In These Times* the bill is dangerous, failing to rein in the military in any meaningful way. ?This NDAA does nothing to end our role in the horrific war in Yemen, doesn't explicitly defund unauthorized war with Iran, doesn't repeal the Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force, and among many other policies that ratchet up the new Cold War with Russia and China, doesn't ban dangerous low-yield nukes that will contribute to a new arms race.? Just Foreign Policy is part of a coalition of antiwar organizations that is contacting lawmakers in the House and Senate, asking them to vote no on the bill. So far, few have publicly pledged to vote no on the legislation. On December 9, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) released a statement rejecting the NDAA as a bill of ?astonishing moral cowardice.? The statement declares, ?Congress should have used this National Defense Authorization Act to stop our endless wars. Instead, this bill does nothing to rein in out-of-control military spending.? ?Every member of Congress should vote against this measure,? the statement continues. ?There is no pressing reason for Congress to shower Trump, his Saudi friends, and the Pentagon contractors of the military-industrial complex with this $738-billion taxpayer giveaway right now.? Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) have also pledged to vote against the bill, according to Sperling, who says Just Foreign Policy spoke directly to their staff. Several of the presidential candidates, including Warren and Sanders, previously pushed for reforms to the NDAA that are not included in the latest version. But none except Sanders has publicly committed to voting no. While peace campaigners contacted Warren?s office Tuesday asking her to reject the NDAA, the Massachusetts senator has not released a statement. She voted in favor of the NDAA for 2018, which gave Trump a bigger war budget than he had initially requested, but voted no to the NDAA for 2019. Sanders has rejected every NDAA under Trump. Sperling said that even if Warren ends up voting against the bill, it?s important for politicians to come out early?and strongly?against the NDAA. ?It's not only important to vote the right way, but to come out with a strong statement and show leadership early. Members of Congress are looking for guidance from the major national political leaders, and sitting on the sideline can send the signal that defeating endless war is not a priority.? Warren did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sarah Lazare Sarah Lazare is web editor at *In These Times*. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at @sarahlazare. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 14:19:18 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Roll Call: "Dems got rolled"; Sarah Lazare: "rolled" = "refused to fight" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please RT: https://twitter.com/sarahlazare/status/1204759259424215042 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 229238 bytes Desc: not available URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 17:44:18 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:44:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace] @RepDebDingell: NDAA does nothing to end Yemen war. I cannot support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *PLEASE RT.* https://twitter.com/RepDebDingell/status/1204793624556396551 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 53900 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 11 14:59:04 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:59:04 -0800 Subject: [Peace] The Most Significant Afghanistan Papers Revelation Is How Difficult They Were To Make Public References: <139971992.7500.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Subject: [New post] The Most Significant Afghanistan Papers Revelation Is How Difficult They Were To M > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > The Most Significant Afghanistan Papers Revelation Is How Difficult They Were To Make?Public by Caitlin Johnstone > The Washington Post has published clear , undeniable evidence that US government officials have been lying to the public about the war in Afghanistan, a shocking revelation for anyone who has done no research whatsoever into the history of US interventionism. > > In all seriousness it was a very good and newsworthy publication, and those who did the heavy lifting bringing the Afghanistan Papers into public awareness deserve full credit. The frank comments of US military officials plainly stating that from the very beginning this was an unwinnable conflict, initiated in a region nobody understood, without anyone being able to so much as articulate what victory would even look like, make up an extremely important piece of information that is in conflict with everything the public has been told about this war by their government. > > But the most significant revelation to come out of this story is not in the Afghanistan Papers themselves. > > > The most significant Afghanistan Papers revelation comes from The Washington Post's account of the extremely difficult time they had extricating these important documents from the talons of government secrecy, as detailed in a separate article titled "How The Post unearthed The Afghanistan Papers ". WaPo explains how the papers were ultimately obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which, after they were initially rejected by the US government, needed to be supplemented over three years with two lawsuits. > > "The Post?s efforts to obtain the Afghanistan documents also illustrate how difficult it can be for journalists ? or any citizen ? to pry public information from the government," WaPo reports. "The purpose of FOIA is to open up federal agencies to public scrutiny. But officials determined to thwart the spirit of the law can drag out requests for years, hoping requesters will eventually give up." > > "In October 2017, The Post sued the inspector general in U.S. District Court in Washington ? a step that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees ? to obtain the Flynn interview materials," WaPo adds. > > Now, The Washington Post is a giant, for-profit corporate media outlet which is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is currently listed as the wealthiest person on earth. Does anyone reading this have hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their life to spend battling the US government into complying with its own transparency laws? Are any of the alternative media outlets which consistently oppose US imperialism able to afford many such expenditures? I would guess not. > > Is it not disturbing that the American taxpayer has to depend on outlets like The Washington Post, a neocon-packed outlet with an extensive history of promoting US interventionism at every opportunity, to extract these documents from behind the wall of government opacity? > > > > > After all, by WaPo's own admission it both sought and published the Afghanistan Papers in order to take a swing at Donald Trump. According to the?Post it went down this path in 2016 initially seeking documents on Michael Flynn, who was then part of the Trump campaign, after receiving a tip that he'd made some juicy statements about the war in Afghanistan to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). WaPo then made the decision to publish the papers now rather than waiting for its legal battle for more information to complete because Trump is currently in the midst of negotiating with the Taliban over a potential troop withdrawal. > > "The Post is publishing the documents now, instead of waiting for a final ruling, to inform the public while the Trump administration is negotiating with the Taliban and considering whether to withdraw the 13,000 U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan," WaPo reports . > > It is obviously an inherently good thing that WaPo poured its immense wealth and resources into pursuing and publishing these documents. But would it have done so if those documents hadn't presented an opportunity to embarrass the Trump administration? What kinds of information does the notoriously war-happy WaPo notspend its wealth and resources pursuing and publishing? Probably a whole lot. > > It is a very safe assumption that, because of the immense walls of government opacity that have been built up around the unconscionable things America's elected and unelected leadership is doing, there are far, far more evil things that are far, far worse than anything revealed in the Afghanistan Papers that we don't know about, and that we don't even know we don't know about. Is it not deeply disturbing that we have to pray that some war-loving, establishment-supporting billionaire media outlet will have a partisan agenda to advance if we want to know about even a tiny sliver of this information? > > I?m waiting for something like the #AfghanistanPapers to be released about U.S. involvement in Syria. > > The story won?t be one about corruption and false reports of progress but of knowingly helping Al Qaeda, its radical rebel friends, even ISIS. > > ? Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) December 10, 2019 > I mean, it's not like the Afghanistan Papers revealed anything we didn't already know. It's been public knowledge for many years that there was a preexisting agenda to invade Afghanistan well before September 11 , it's been public knowledge that many lies were put in place after the invasion, and it's been public knowledge for a long time that we're being lied to about how well the war is going. All these new revelations did was reify and draw attention to what anyone with an ear to the ground already knew: like all other US-led military interventions, we were lied to about Afghanistan. It's not like the US government was staving off some massive unknown bombshell revelation with its resistance to WaPo's FOIA requests. Yet it resisted them anyway, just because it was more convenient. > > Julian Assange once said "The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect political security, not national security," and we see this tacitly confirmed by the US government in its massive backlogs of unanswered FOIA requests, illegitimate refusals, unjustifiable redactions and exploitation of loopholes to retain as much security as possible. As one Twitter follower recently put it , "The FOIA was enacted in 1966 to make legally compulsory the opening of government activities to 'sunlight'. Fifty-three years later, the government has learned how to neutralize the law and once again hide their misconduct. Classifying everything is one way, requiring an expensive 'lawsuit' is another." > > It shouldn't work this way. People shouldn't have to count on immoral plutocratic media institutions to get their government to tell them the truth about what's being done in their name using their tax dollars. A free nation would have privacy for its citizenry and transparency for its government; with the growing increase in surveillance and government secrecy across the entire US-centralized empire, what we're getting is the exact opposite. > > _____________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 11, 2019 at 3:04 am | Tags: afghanistan , FOIA , Freedom of Information Act , papers , transparency , war , washington post | Categories: Article , News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1WY > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/11/the-most-significant-afghanistan-papers-revelation-is-how-difficult-they-were-to-make-public/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Dec 12 02:37:17 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:37:17 -0600 Subject: [Peace] I Knew the War in Afghanistan was a Lie Message-ID: <48BF2829-8AC3-406B-9A26-75EB6FB16C6A@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-delusion-behind-the-war-in-afghanistan/ From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 14:17:24 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:17:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace] NYT: House Passes $738 Billion Military Bill With Space Force and Parental Leave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We got stomped. Of course we were losing the vote. The deal was cut, the fix was in. But we didn't need to lose it this badly. 60 Rs voted against the Engel-McCaul resolution on Syria. We should have gotten at least 60 votes, and we would have if the first alerts went on Monday. One day is not enough time to mobilize our forces. We need two days. We knew on Monday what the outcome was, we did not need to wait for the conference report to come out. And we knew how to finesse the fact that we hadn't seen the conference report, that language was in the alert that was drafted on Sunday: "vote NO on any NDAA that doesn't end the Yemen war." This lesson needs to be nailed to the wall. We need two days. Silver linings department: 1. The story that Barbara Lee and Jim McGovern are in charge of peace issues in the House is over. They did nothing to help us, absolutely nothing. Barbara Lee put out a statement after the vote. That's ridiculous. People who cared put out statements before the vote. That's why Ro Khanna is quoted in the New York Times article and Jim McGovern isn't, why Ilhan Omar is quoted in the New York Times article and Barbara Lee isn't. Jim McGovern and Barbara Lee can't be in charge of peace issues in the House because they're too close to Pelosi. End of story. 2. The story that there was an address for this besides Nancy Pelosi is over. Adam Smith did what Nancy Pelosi told him to do. If we wanted a different outcome, we needed to move Pelosi. We moved Pelosi before. We got her to co-sponsor the Khanna Yemen WPR. We did that by throwing up a demonstration outside her office in San Francisco. That's the kind of thing we needed to do if we wanted to move Pelosi. 3. The fact that Warren came out *immediately, *as soon as the In These Times article appeared, is a very positive sign which shows how the world is supposed to be and why we need to push for D no votes in the Senate. *In These Times! A little socialist rag in Chicago! *Warren's office was on it like *lightning*. Oh, the Bernie forces are mobilizing. Well, here we are, standing right next to you, reporting for duty. What's your grievance? That's how the world is supposed to be. 4. The New York Times article is very strong. Look at the subhead. War powers is right there. The reporter got it and told the story and the editors got it too. The only thing worse than losing is being a tree that falls in the forest and doesn't make a sound. When we went down, we made a sound. That's a kind of victory. 5. NYT confirms that Jared intervened on behalf of the Saudis to strip our provisions. This is a guy who had his security clearance taken away because of being an agent of foreign powers. And now we understand the world in which we live. And the House Democratic leadership is going on about military aid to Ukraine. Welcome to the desert of the real. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/politics/house-ndaa-space-force-leave.html House Passes $738 Billion Military Bill With Space Force and Parental Leave A bipartisan group of lawmakers agreed to give troops a pay raise and the president his Space Force, while jettisoning a slew of measures that would have reined in the president?s war powers. By Catie Edmondson Dec. 11, 2019 WASHINGTON ? The House on Wednesday passed a $738 billion military policy bill that would authorize the creation of the Space Force championed by President Trump as the sixth branch of the military and secure paid parental leave for more than two million federal workers. The 377-to-48 vote reflected broad bipartisan support for the compromise package, one of the nation?s most expensive military policy bills to date. It passed over the opposition of a bloc of progressive Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans who objected to its steep price tag and its omission of provisions they had proposed to limit the president?s power on an array of military matters. Most House Republicans threw their support behind the measure, joining with Democrats to ensure its passage. It was part of a year-end burst of bipartisan legislating that has broken out this week, even as the Democratic-led House moves toward impeaching Mr. Trump. The approval of the package marked a resolution to months of partisan fighting over exactly what would be contained in the must-pass legislation. In July, the House passed its version of the bill, which sought to rein in Mr. Trump?s authority on policy after policy, over Republican opposition. That touched off a behind-the-scenes round of haggling in which lawmakers had to reconcile the House bill with a far less confrontational version passed in the Republican-controlled Senate. Determined to meet the year-end deadline for renewing the legislation and demonstrate their party could legislate on issues of national security even as they pursue the president?s removal, Democratic negotiators conceded on a series of hot-button issues. ?This is exactly what the American people have been demanding of government, that we can actually move forward on legislating, on governing, to show that we are adults that are able to get things done on issues of national security,? said Representative Andy Kim, a freshman Democrat who represents a New Jersey district that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016. ?Even in a time of divided government.? The Senate is expected to take up the compromise bill and send it to the president?s desk as early as next week. But the compromise left some liberal Democrats seething. While it does not authorize any money to replenish military construction funds Mr. Trump diverted to pay for his wall on the southern border, it also does not contain a measure backed by Democrats to prevent him from raiding the fund in the future. Stronger language that would have forced the cleanup of a dangerous class of chemicals, known as PFAS, was dropped. And the final version jettisoned several other provisions passed by House Democrats: to ban new detainees from being placed at the military detention facility at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba; to prohibit the sale of certain types of munitions to Saudi Arabia; and to require Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval before taking any military action against Iran. Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, said in a statement that she would not support the bill even though it contained some amendments she sponsored. ?This bill commits the U.S. to endless involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, continues funding for endless war? under a 2001 military authorization and ?does nothing to prevent the administration from launching a disastrous war with Iran,? she said. But Democratic leaders trumpeted the bill for what it did contain: a White House-approved measure that would extend 12 weeks of paid parental leave to civilian federal employees, a 3 percent pay raise for troops and the end to a Defense Department policy known as the widow?s tax, which prevents the surviving family members of military personnel from receiving their full benefits. Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, issued a scathing defense of the bill on Wednesday, calling it ?the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades.? ?Throughout the negotiations I failed in one way: I was unable to turn President Trump, Leader McConnell and Chairman Inhofe into Democrats and convince them to suddenly accept all of the provisions they despise,? he said in the statement, referring to Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. Smith led the final stages of the negotiations off Capitol Hill and bargained directly with Jared Kushner, the president?s son-in-law and senior adviser, according to three officials familiar with the private talks who insisted on anonymity to describe them. Mr. Smith declined on Wednesday to comment on Mr. Kushner?s role or the broader negotiations. Most of the provisions in the compromise bill had already been finalized by the time discussions reached him. But it was Mr. Kushner who helped broker a deal to create the Space Force, a chief priority of the president?s, in exchange for the paid parental leave, a measure championed by his wife, Ivanka Trump, also a senior adviser to the president. ?In the case of the White House, they wanted both,? said Senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican and key ally of Mr. Trump?s who sits on the Armed Services Committee and has been a vocal backer of Space Force. ?At the end of the day, the president gets two victories.? Mr. Trump appeared to regard the deal with a measure of amazement on Wednesday before the vote. ?Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA,? he wrote on Twitter, using an acronym for the National Defense Authorization Act. It was also Mr. Kushner who intervened on measures targeting Saudi Arabia that would have prohibited arms sales or military assistance to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. He said they were nonstarters for the White House, according to the officials. Representative Ro Khanna of California, who led a series of amendments seeking to curtail the president?s war powers on Iran and Saudi Arabia, called the omission of those measures from the final version ?astonishing moral cowardice? in a joint statement with Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont. ?We can?t allow the Republicans to continue a policy of expanding military budgets and foreign intervention with a tactic of throwing us a bone every year on a progressive policy,? Mr. Khanna said in an interview. Catie Edmondson is a reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. @CatieEdmondson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 17:12:13 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:12:13 -0800 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?=22Why_I_Don=E2=80=99t_Talk_More_About_9/11=22?= =?utf-8?q?_by_Caitlin_Johnstone?= References: <139971992.7508.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Why I Don?t Talk More About?9/11 by Caitlin Johnstone > For some reason 9/11 keeps coming up in my online interactions with people, both with establishment loyalists who call me a "9/11 truther" and with skeptics who say I don't write enough about what really happened on that day 18 years ago. So I figured I'll bang out a few quick paragraphs on the subject in the interest of transparency, and so I don't have to keep having the same conversations over and over again. > > My position on 9/11 itself is pretty simple: I don't know exactly what happened on the eleventh of September 2001, and I think anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty exactly what happened is fulla shit. But it's also extremely obvious that the world was lied to about what happened by the US government and its allies, as evidenced by the massive, glaring plot holes in the official 9/11 narrative. > > The most concise and rock-solid compilation of these plot holes that I have ever seen was compiled by conspiracy analyst James Corbett in this five-minute video and its accompanying source notes . Corbett made this video eight years ago on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and to this day I believe it's the strongest and most irrefutable case against the official narrative. > > > I have never once seen anyone even attempt to refute Corbett's video, because as an argument it is completely unassailable. The brilliant thing about it is that, while it's called "9/11: A Conspiracy Theory", all it actually contains is the official narrative about how the alleged Al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack US buildings with jet planes is officially theorized to have taken place, per the establishment narrative. Corbett simply tells the story, exactly as it exists in mainstream discourse, but he tells the full story all at once while omitting the part where the storyteller tries to make it all sound perfectly reasonable and plausible. When you hear the official narrative repeated in this way, it's transparently self-evident that the public hasn't been told the truth. > > So why don't I talk about this more? It seems like it's right in my wheelhouse, right? 9/11 was used to manufacture consent for multiple wars in a highly suspicious way that just so happened to align with preexisting imperial geostrategic agendas, and if everyone could understand that they were deceived by their own government and media about something so important, the entire evil empire would come crashing down. Based on all my other writings you'd assume this would be something I'd be focused on facilitating. > > But I don't. I very rarely mention 9/11 except in passing. There are two reasons for this: > > Firstly, the narrative control battle has already been decisively won by the other side. The mainstream understanding is that anyone who talks about what really happened on 9/11 is a crazy crackpot who must not be listened to, because the establishment narrative control campaign to discredit and demonize critical thinking on the subject succeeded many years ago. If today's ubiquitous internet access had happened to coincide with 9/11 and the grassroots push to find out the truth behind it, that narrative control would have been far more difficult if not impossible for the establishment to shore up. But the timing didn't work out that way, and now the narrative is fully locked down except in the margins of discourse which have no effect on the mainstream. > > Secondly, even if there were some way to show everyone in the western world the truth of what happened on 9/11, the establishment propaganda machine would immediately narrative manage the problem away. The operation would be blamed on rogue actors, maybe a few powerful establishment loyalists would face consequences (though probably not) and be replaced with other establishment loyalists, and then the imperial propaganda machine would pace everyone into an understanding of why it's still right and necessary to support the US-centralized empire and its globe-sprawling war machine. The status quo would march on essentially undisturbed. This is one hundred percent guaranteed as long as the empire still has a functioning propaganda engine. > > How To Defeat The Empire > > "What I do advocate, in as many different ways as I can come up with, is a decentralized guerrilla psywar against the institutions which enable the powerful to manipulate the way ordinary people think, act and vote."https://t.co/4F5dWaURdq > ? Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 10, 2019 > This is why I focus on attacking the establishment propaganda machine using clear, undeniable arguments against which people haven't been preemptively prejudiced against by narrative management campaigns, in a way that people can verify independently for themselves. > > As I explain in my article "How To Defeat The Empire ", people can only hope to oust the oppression machine by using the power of their numbers to do so, and they won't use the power of their numbers to do so as long as they're successfully propagandized. The way to kill the empire's ability to propagandize people is not to run up to them saying things they've already been conditioned to view as bat shit insane, it's to help them see in their own experience that those outlets are behaving in an untrustworthy way here and now. Distrust in the mass media is already at an all-time high, so all it takes is a little nudge in the right direction. > > That's where I choose to pour my energy. Not into attacking a heavily-armored narrative about something that happened 18 years ago, but into independently verifiable deceptions happening here and now like the mass media's conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal, Bellingcat's easily debunked lies , and the various deceitful narratives used to manufacture consent for the imprisonment of Julian Assange. I can point to these things in a way that people will actually get curious about and look into for themselves, rather than slamming the cognitive door with a conditioned reflexive "LOL shit up 9/11 truther." > > It is good and right to ask questions about 9/11, but that's a rabbit hole that only opens up for people when it opens up for them. You can't force people to jump down it. Believing I should keep pushing 9/11 truth on principle because they lied to us about something evil is like believing I should keep bashing my face into a brick wall on principle because it shouldn't be there rather than simply walking around and going through the open door. > > Anyway, that's the conclusion my experience and study of this puzzle has brought me to. I'm open to changing my mind at a later date, but that's what seems the most effective way to fight the machine for the time being. > > ____________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 12, 2019 at 3:46 am | Tags: 9/11 , caitlin johnstone , September 11 , truth | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1X6 > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/12/why-i-dont-talk-more-about-911/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 17:12:13 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:12:13 -0800 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?=22Why_I_Don=E2=80=99t_Talk_More_About_9/11=22?= =?utf-8?q?_by_Caitlin_Johnstone?= References: <139971992.7508.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Why I Don?t Talk More About?9/11 by Caitlin Johnstone > For some reason 9/11 keeps coming up in my online interactions with people, both with establishment loyalists who call me a "9/11 truther" and with skeptics who say I don't write enough about what really happened on that day 18 years ago. So I figured I'll bang out a few quick paragraphs on the subject in the interest of transparency, and so I don't have to keep having the same conversations over and over again. > > My position on 9/11 itself is pretty simple: I don't know exactly what happened on the eleventh of September 2001, and I think anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty exactly what happened is fulla shit. But it's also extremely obvious that the world was lied to about what happened by the US government and its allies, as evidenced by the massive, glaring plot holes in the official 9/11 narrative. > > The most concise and rock-solid compilation of these plot holes that I have ever seen was compiled by conspiracy analyst James Corbett in this five-minute video and its accompanying source notes . Corbett made this video eight years ago on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and to this day I believe it's the strongest and most irrefutable case against the official narrative. > > > I have never once seen anyone even attempt to refute Corbett's video, because as an argument it is completely unassailable. The brilliant thing about it is that, while it's called "9/11: A Conspiracy Theory", all it actually contains is the official narrative about how the alleged Al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack US buildings with jet planes is officially theorized to have taken place, per the establishment narrative. Corbett simply tells the story, exactly as it exists in mainstream discourse, but he tells the full story all at once while omitting the part where the storyteller tries to make it all sound perfectly reasonable and plausible. When you hear the official narrative repeated in this way, it's transparently self-evident that the public hasn't been told the truth. > > So why don't I talk about this more? It seems like it's right in my wheelhouse, right? 9/11 was used to manufacture consent for multiple wars in a highly suspicious way that just so happened to align with preexisting imperial geostrategic agendas, and if everyone could understand that they were deceived by their own government and media about something so important, the entire evil empire would come crashing down. Based on all my other writings you'd assume this would be something I'd be focused on facilitating. > > But I don't. I very rarely mention 9/11 except in passing. There are two reasons for this: > > Firstly, the narrative control battle has already been decisively won by the other side. The mainstream understanding is that anyone who talks about what really happened on 9/11 is a crazy crackpot who must not be listened to, because the establishment narrative control campaign to discredit and demonize critical thinking on the subject succeeded many years ago. If today's ubiquitous internet access had happened to coincide with 9/11 and the grassroots push to find out the truth behind it, that narrative control would have been far more difficult if not impossible for the establishment to shore up. But the timing didn't work out that way, and now the narrative is fully locked down except in the margins of discourse which have no effect on the mainstream. > > Secondly, even if there were some way to show everyone in the western world the truth of what happened on 9/11, the establishment propaganda machine would immediately narrative manage the problem away. The operation would be blamed on rogue actors, maybe a few powerful establishment loyalists would face consequences (though probably not) and be replaced with other establishment loyalists, and then the imperial propaganda machine would pace everyone into an understanding of why it's still right and necessary to support the US-centralized empire and its globe-sprawling war machine. The status quo would march on essentially undisturbed. This is one hundred percent guaranteed as long as the empire still has a functioning propaganda engine. > > How To Defeat The Empire > > "What I do advocate, in as many different ways as I can come up with, is a decentralized guerrilla psywar against the institutions which enable the powerful to manipulate the way ordinary people think, act and vote."https://t.co/4F5dWaURdq > ? Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 10, 2019 > This is why I focus on attacking the establishment propaganda machine using clear, undeniable arguments against which people haven't been preemptively prejudiced against by narrative management campaigns, in a way that people can verify independently for themselves. > > As I explain in my article "How To Defeat The Empire ", people can only hope to oust the oppression machine by using the power of their numbers to do so, and they won't use the power of their numbers to do so as long as they're successfully propagandized. The way to kill the empire's ability to propagandize people is not to run up to them saying things they've already been conditioned to view as bat shit insane, it's to help them see in their own experience that those outlets are behaving in an untrustworthy way here and now. Distrust in the mass media is already at an all-time high, so all it takes is a little nudge in the right direction. > > That's where I choose to pour my energy. Not into attacking a heavily-armored narrative about something that happened 18 years ago, but into independently verifiable deceptions happening here and now like the mass media's conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal, Bellingcat's easily debunked lies , and the various deceitful narratives used to manufacture consent for the imprisonment of Julian Assange. I can point to these things in a way that people will actually get curious about and look into for themselves, rather than slamming the cognitive door with a conditioned reflexive "LOL shit up 9/11 truther." > > It is good and right to ask questions about 9/11, but that's a rabbit hole that only opens up for people when it opens up for them. You can't force people to jump down it. Believing I should keep pushing 9/11 truth on principle because they lied to us about something evil is like believing I should keep bashing my face into a brick wall on principle because it shouldn't be there rather than simply walking around and going through the open door. > > Anyway, that's the conclusion my experience and study of this puzzle has brought me to. I'm open to changing my mind at a later date, but that's what seems the most effective way to fight the machine for the time being. > > ____________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 12, 2019 at 3:46 am | Tags: 9/11 , caitlin johnstone , September 11 , truth | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1X6 > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/12/why-i-dont-talk-more-about-911/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 12:59:21 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:59:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Do you know what 1 year anniversary is happening today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, boys and girls, it's the one year anniversary of the Senate passage of the Sanders-Lee-Murphy Yemen War Powers Resolution. Bow your heads and weep. https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158932337112656 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 311915 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Dec 13 16:04:28 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:04:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Notes Message-ID: <441e1803-abbe-af39-d54c-07b6ba596f8e@forestfield.org> These notes are a few things we're not being told to pay attention to while the Democrats ignore the needs of the people with their impeachment proceedings. There's double-digit hours of coverage for impeachment talk but no time for discussing US-led wars, trillions spent on US-led wars, lives lost or irrevocably changed because of US-led wars, Medicare for All, a national jobs program, living-wage jobs, laying potable water pipes to every home, cutting the military (I refuse to call it "defense") budget by 50% (at least) and ending homelessness, handing out tax-free money to every citizen, and more. War and lies: Afghanistan US presidents Obama, G.W. Bush, and Trump have lied repeatedly. This report gets no TV coverage (that might make one want to put tough questions to former VP Biden) but it's run now during the convenient distraction of the Democrats impeachment proceedings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/ -- Craig Whitlock on " At war with the truth: U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it, an exclusive Post investigation found." > The documents were generated by a federal project examining the root > failures of the longest armed conflict in U.S. history. They include > more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with > people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats > to aid workers and Afghan officials. [...] > In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism > of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired > in nearly two decades of warfare. > > With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare > pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with > second-guessing and backbiting. > > ?We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan ? we > didn?t know what we were doing,? Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general > who served as the White House?s Afghan war czar during the Bush and > Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015. He added: > ?What are we trying to do here? We didn?t have the foggiest notion of > what we were undertaking.? > > ?If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction .?.?. > 2,400 lives lost,? Lute added, blaming the deaths of U.S. military > personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon and > the State Department. ?Who will say this was in vain?? > > Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, > many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in > action, according to Defense Department figures. > > The interviews, through an extensive array of voices, bring into sharp > relief the core failings of the war that persist to this day. They > underscore how three presidents ? George W. Bush, Barack Obama and > Donald Trump ? and their military commanders have been unable to deliver > on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan. > > With most speaking on the assumption that their remarks would not become > public, U.S. officials acknowledged that their warfighting strategies > were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted enormous sums of money > trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation. [...] > The Lessons Learned interviews also reveal how U.S. military commanders > struggled to articulate who they were fighting, let alone why. > > Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an > adversary? What about the Islamic State and the bewildering array of > foreign jihadists, let alone the warlords on the CIA?s payroll? > According to the documents, the U.S. government never settled on an > answer. > > As a result, in the field, U.S. troops often couldn?t tell friend from > foe. > > ?They thought I was going to come to them with a map to show them where > the good guys and bad guys live,? an unnamed former adviser to an Army > Special Forces team told government interviewers in 2017. ?It took > several conversations for them to understand that I did not have that > information in my hands. At first, they just kept asking: ?But who are > the bad guys, where are they???? > > The view wasn?t any clearer from the Pentagon. > > ?I have no visibility into who the bad guys are,? Rumsfeld complained in > a Sept. 8, 2003, snowflake. ?We are woefully deficient in human > intelligence.? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDz_C13GIw -- Jimmy Dore's coverage of this Washington Post article includes a summary at the end: > Jimmy Dore: And you know what's hilarious? Barack Obama used to say this > was the smart war. This was the smart war. [...] He used to say they > have a foreign policy of strong and dumb, we want to have strong and > smart. And the Iraq war was the dumb war, Afghan [war] was the smart > war[1]. That was the smart war: the one where we go "we have no idea what > we're doing", "we have no idea who the enemy is", "we don't know where > the enemy is". But keep sending soldiers there to get killed, right? > Keep sending soldiers there to get maimed. Wow. And so now you know why > they have to smear Tulsi when she asks a question about the war, know > you know why they have to smear her. I'm always suspicious why you're > not allowed to ask questions about anything, even stupid questions. If > it's stupid, who cares then? So whenever someone tries to shut you down > for asking a question there's always something there. And that's what > they're doing to Tulsi. They're smearing her like crazy because she's on > to something and they can't have people questioning our wars because > they know if we did we'd find out all this stuff and the jig would be up > and we wouldn't be spending a trillion dollars on our defense budget > every year and some of those people would be out of jobs. Imagine how > powerful that industry is: they just added $80 billion to all of those > defense contractors bank accounts. Can you imagine having an industry > that generates a billion dollars? $80 billion. [...] They added that on > to the top of the Pentagon budget. I'm just trying to help people wrap > [their mind] around that number and how much money they're throwing at > the military and this is what they're trying to do with it. [...] Joe > Biden tries to pretend that Bernie's the guy who's wasting our money? > This [article shows] what Joe Biden did. [1] Obama ran on positioning himself as a peace candidate regarding the war in Iraq calling that war "a dumb war; a rash war; a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics". But the war in Afghanistan he said we must continue: > We?ve got to get the job done [in Afghanistan]. And that requires us to > have enough troops so that we?re not just air-raiding villages and > killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there. There's a related article about this in https://nwdailymarker.com/2009/07/afghanistan-its-your-dumb-war-now-president-obama/ . Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPt_Gzyh4Dg -- RT's report on "Trump's $738bn military budget: What does it pay for?" More war based on lies: Syria Dan Cohen on "Why was the Syria chemical report redacted" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEwsK40baaI Caitlin Johnstone on "Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal Action" https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/journalist-newsweek-suppressed-opcw-scandal-and-threatened-me-with-legal-action-7f85f490e610?source=---------3------------------ > A Newsweek journalist has resigned after the publication reportedly > suppressed his story about the ever-growing OPCW scandal, the revelation > of immensely significant plot holes in the establishment Syria narrative > that you can update yourself on by watching this short seven-minute > video or this more detailed video here. > > ?Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish > newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no > valid reason,? journalist Tareq Haddad reported today via Twitter. > > ?I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition > to evidence from another case where info inconvenient to US government > was removed, though it was factually correct,? Haddad said. ?I plan on > publishing these details in full shortly. However, after asking my > editors for comment, as is journalistic practice, I received an email > reminding me of confidentiality clauses in my contract. I.e. I was > threatened with legal action.? > > Haddad added that he is now seeking legal advice and looking into the > possibility of whistleblower protections for himself, and said at the > very least he will publish the information he has while omitting > anything that could subject him to legal retaliation from his former > employer. > > ?I could have kept silent and kept my job, but I would not have been > able to continue with a clean conscience,? Haddad said. ?I will have > some instability now but the truth is more important.? > > This is the first direct insider report we?re getting on the mass > media?s conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal that I wrote about > just the other day. In how many other newsrooms is this exact same sort > of suppression happening, including threats of legal action, to > journalists who don?t have the courage or ability to leave and speak > out? There is no logical reason to assume that Haddad is the only one > encountering such roadblocks from mass media editors; he?s just the only > one going public about it. > > Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the > US-centralized empire, with examples of stories that its editors did > permit to go to print including an article by an actual, current > military intelligence officer explaining why US prosecution of Julian > Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White Helmets, and > despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard. The outlet will occasionally > print oppositional-looking articles like this one by Ian Wilkie > questioning the establishment Syria narrative, but not without > immediately turning around and publishing an attack on Wilkie?s piece by > Eliot Higgins, a former Atlantic Council Senior Fellow who is the > cofounder of the NED-funded imperial narrative management firm > Bellingcat. Newsweek also recently published an article attacking Tucker > Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a > bogus Bellingcat article I debunked shortly after its publication. Labor: "Great Employment Numbers: 44% of Fully Employed Make $18,000 a Year or Less" -- The Real News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctg_PxNCawI Let's not forget that under slavery we had full employment. Perhaps employment percentages don't tell the story well or get to what we really need. -J From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 16:04:33 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:04:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace] DoD Approps idea: Codify DoD suspension of "operational training" of Saudi pilots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158932849292656 DoD Approps idea: Codify DoD suspension of "operational training" of Saudi pilots Here's an idea on DoD Approps: codify the DoD suspension of "operational training" of Saudi pilots. We're at a strange juncture. The White House, Pelosi and Smith just shut down every idea we had for Congress to do anything to limit Pentagon participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. At the same time, DoD just suspended the "operational training" of Saudi pilots after the Pensacola shooting. They're allowed to attend lectures, but not to touch guns or fly planes. So, let's codify what is _*already Administration policy*_. This is a key idea, codifying what is already Administration policy. This is part of how we almost won on Saudi cluster bombs in the House. Obama had already stopped it by the time the House voted. So we said: ?it's not a radical idea.? Obama already stopped it. We're just saying that you should codify the policy that Obama is already doing, because Congress should be in charge of this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:59:05 2019 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:59:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace] The Afghanistan Scam | From Tulsi Gabbard for President - Official Website Message-ID: https://www.tulsi2020.com/updates/2019-12-13-afghanistan-scam?sourceid=1014165&ms=em191214&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=em191214&emci=f0abec8b-cc1d-ea11-a601-2818784d6d68&emdi=bfd0a0fe-cd1d-ea11-a601-2818784d6d68&ceid=181852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 13:15:20 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 05:15:20 -0800 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNew_post=5D_America=E2=80=99s_Two-He?= =?utf-8?q?aded_One_Party_System?= References: <139971992.7522.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Subject: [New post] America?s Two-Headed One Party System > Date: December 13, 2019 at 19:08:16 PST > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > America?s Two-Headed One Party?System by Caitlin Johnstone > There's a scene from John Steinbeck's The Pearl that's been coming back to me over and over again ever since I started writing about US politics. I find it amazing that this scene hasn't become a political meme yet, given Steinbeck's fame and given its perfect illustration of the fake two-party system that we see in western so-called democracies. > > The Pearl is a short novel about a poor fisherman, Kino, who discovers the titular enormous gem in an oyster and goes to sell it to the pearl buyers in town. What he doesn't know is that the buyers, while they have multiple offices and pretend to compete with each other, all actually work for the same owner. > > "Kino has found the Pearl of the World," Steinbeck writes . "In the town, in little offices, sat the men who bought pearls from the fishers. They waited in their chairs until the pearls came in, and then they cackled and fought and shouted and threatened until they reached the lowest price the fisherman would stand." > > "And when the buying was over, these buyers sat alone and their fingers played restlessly with the pearls, and they wished they owned the pearls. For there were not many buyers really - there was only one, and he kept these agents in separate offices to give a semblance of competition." > > When Kino brings the priceless pearl to the sellers, they put on a performance, working together to deceive him into thinking it has no value in order to cheat him out of it for a ridiculously low price. > > The man behind the desk said: "I have put a value on this pearl. The owner here does not think it fair. I will ask you to examine this - this thing and make an offer. Notice," he said to Kino, "I have not mentioned what I have offered." > > The first dealer, dry and stringy, seemed now to see the pearl for the first time. He took it up, rolled it quickly between thumb and forefinger, and then cast it contemptuously back into the tray. > > "Do not include me in the discussion," he said dryly. "I will make no offer at all. I do not want it. This is not a pearl - it is a monstrosity." His thin lips curled. > > Now the second dealer, a little man with a shy soft voice, took up the pearl, and he examined it carefully. He took a glass from his pocket and inspected it under magnification. Then he laughed softly. > > "Better pearls are made of paste," he said. "I know these things. This is soft and chalky, it will lose its color and die in a few months. Look-" He offered the glass to Kino, showed him how to use it, and Kino, who had never seen a pearl's surface magnified, was shocked at the strange-looking surface. > > The third dealer took the pearl from Kino's hands. "One of my clients likes such things," he said. "I will offer five hundred pesos, and perhaps I can sell it to my client for six hundred." > > Kino reached quickly and snatched the pearl from his hand. He wrapped it in the deerskin and thrust it inside his shirt. The man behind the desk said, "I'm a fool, I know, but my first offer stands. I still offer one thousand. What are you doing?" he asked, as Kino thrust the pearl out of sight. > > "I am cheated," Kino cried fiercely. "My pearl is not for sale here. I will go, perhaps even to the capital." > > Now the dealers glanced quickly at one another. They knew they had played too hard; they knew they would be disciplined for their failure, and the man at the desk said quickly, "I might go to fifteen hundred." > > This is exactly how the two-headed one-party system works, in America and elsewhere. One party owned by one imperialist oligarchic class is placed in two separate offices "to give some semblance of competition," just like Steinbeck's pearl buyers. And just like Steinbeck's pearl buyers they work together to deceive the people into accepting the lowest possible bid, in their case meaning the acceptance of virtually no change at all from the imperialist oligarchic status quo. > > You see this kleptocratic dynamic at play regardless of who is in office. When the two-headed one-party system convinced Americans to sell their pearl to Barack Obama, for example, their payment took the form of a corporatist healthcare scam deceitfully labeled the Affordable Care Act and a pathetic temporary band-aid on the sucking chest wound of environmental peril, along with a continuation and expansion of all of Bush's most depraved foreign and domestic policies. > > Then Kino, angry and determined never again to be deceived, sold his pearl to the Republican Party. This time his payment consisted of a tax break for the wealthy and some verbiage about a wall, along with a continuation and expansion of all of Obama's most depraved foreign and domestic policies. > > This pattern repeats over and over and over again, whether it's the presidency or Congress, and the people never learn their lesson. They're trained to think of the two parties as competing, when really they're more like the left fist and the right fist on the same boxer. An orthodox-stance boxer uses the left jab and the right cross in conjunction with each other in one-two punch combinations to accomplish the same goal, namely to leave his opponent staring up at the arena lights and rethinking his life decisions. And in this case, the boxer's opponent is you. > > Ralph Nader, who to this day is still falsely smeared as responsible for George W Bush's pseudo-victory over Al Gore in 2000, occasionally shares an anecdote about the time he told his father that what America needs is a good third party. > > "I'll settle for a second," his father replied. > > This is the kind of clear seeing we all need to have. We need to not fall into the drama of the two-handed puppet show and mistake what we are seeing for two separate and competing entities. We need to see and be aware of the puppeteer at all times. > > Look past the "semblance of competition" and watch what the pearl buyers are actually doing. > > Ignore their words. > > Ignore their fake pro-wrestling kayfabe combat over impeachment agendas they know will never bear fruit and their Russia conspiracies they know are pure nonsense. > > Watch their actual behaviors instead. > > Don't fall for the illusion. > > Don't get sucked into the drama of the two-handed puppet show. > > Don't be deceived, Kino. > > Don't sell your pearl. > > __________________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 14, 2019 at 3:06 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone , democrats , Politics , republicans , Steinbeck , The Pearl | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Xk > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/14/americas-two-headed-one-party-system/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 13:15:20 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 05:15:20 -0800 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNew_post=5D_America=E2=80=99s_Two-He?= =?utf-8?q?aded_One_Party_System?= References: <139971992.7522.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Subject: [New post] America?s Two-Headed One Party System > Date: December 13, 2019 at 19:08:16 PST > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > America?s Two-Headed One Party?System by Caitlin Johnstone > There's a scene from John Steinbeck's The Pearl that's been coming back to me over and over again ever since I started writing about US politics. I find it amazing that this scene hasn't become a political meme yet, given Steinbeck's fame and given its perfect illustration of the fake two-party system that we see in western so-called democracies. > > The Pearl is a short novel about a poor fisherman, Kino, who discovers the titular enormous gem in an oyster and goes to sell it to the pearl buyers in town. What he doesn't know is that the buyers, while they have multiple offices and pretend to compete with each other, all actually work for the same owner. > > "Kino has found the Pearl of the World," Steinbeck writes . "In the town, in little offices, sat the men who bought pearls from the fishers. They waited in their chairs until the pearls came in, and then they cackled and fought and shouted and threatened until they reached the lowest price the fisherman would stand." > > "And when the buying was over, these buyers sat alone and their fingers played restlessly with the pearls, and they wished they owned the pearls. For there were not many buyers really - there was only one, and he kept these agents in separate offices to give a semblance of competition." > > When Kino brings the priceless pearl to the sellers, they put on a performance, working together to deceive him into thinking it has no value in order to cheat him out of it for a ridiculously low price. > > The man behind the desk said: "I have put a value on this pearl. The owner here does not think it fair. I will ask you to examine this - this thing and make an offer. Notice," he said to Kino, "I have not mentioned what I have offered." > > The first dealer, dry and stringy, seemed now to see the pearl for the first time. He took it up, rolled it quickly between thumb and forefinger, and then cast it contemptuously back into the tray. > > "Do not include me in the discussion," he said dryly. "I will make no offer at all. I do not want it. This is not a pearl - it is a monstrosity." His thin lips curled. > > Now the second dealer, a little man with a shy soft voice, took up the pearl, and he examined it carefully. He took a glass from his pocket and inspected it under magnification. Then he laughed softly. > > "Better pearls are made of paste," he said. "I know these things. This is soft and chalky, it will lose its color and die in a few months. Look-" He offered the glass to Kino, showed him how to use it, and Kino, who had never seen a pearl's surface magnified, was shocked at the strange-looking surface. > > The third dealer took the pearl from Kino's hands. "One of my clients likes such things," he said. "I will offer five hundred pesos, and perhaps I can sell it to my client for six hundred." > > Kino reached quickly and snatched the pearl from his hand. He wrapped it in the deerskin and thrust it inside his shirt. The man behind the desk said, "I'm a fool, I know, but my first offer stands. I still offer one thousand. What are you doing?" he asked, as Kino thrust the pearl out of sight. > > "I am cheated," Kino cried fiercely. "My pearl is not for sale here. I will go, perhaps even to the capital." > > Now the dealers glanced quickly at one another. They knew they had played too hard; they knew they would be disciplined for their failure, and the man at the desk said quickly, "I might go to fifteen hundred." > > This is exactly how the two-headed one-party system works, in America and elsewhere. One party owned by one imperialist oligarchic class is placed in two separate offices "to give some semblance of competition," just like Steinbeck's pearl buyers. And just like Steinbeck's pearl buyers they work together to deceive the people into accepting the lowest possible bid, in their case meaning the acceptance of virtually no change at all from the imperialist oligarchic status quo. > > You see this kleptocratic dynamic at play regardless of who is in office. When the two-headed one-party system convinced Americans to sell their pearl to Barack Obama, for example, their payment took the form of a corporatist healthcare scam deceitfully labeled the Affordable Care Act and a pathetic temporary band-aid on the sucking chest wound of environmental peril, along with a continuation and expansion of all of Bush's most depraved foreign and domestic policies. > > Then Kino, angry and determined never again to be deceived, sold his pearl to the Republican Party. This time his payment consisted of a tax break for the wealthy and some verbiage about a wall, along with a continuation and expansion of all of Obama's most depraved foreign and domestic policies. > > This pattern repeats over and over and over again, whether it's the presidency or Congress, and the people never learn their lesson. They're trained to think of the two parties as competing, when really they're more like the left fist and the right fist on the same boxer. An orthodox-stance boxer uses the left jab and the right cross in conjunction with each other in one-two punch combinations to accomplish the same goal, namely to leave his opponent staring up at the arena lights and rethinking his life decisions. And in this case, the boxer's opponent is you. > > Ralph Nader, who to this day is still falsely smeared as responsible for George W Bush's pseudo-victory over Al Gore in 2000, occasionally shares an anecdote about the time he told his father that what America needs is a good third party. > > "I'll settle for a second," his father replied. > > This is the kind of clear seeing we all need to have. We need to not fall into the drama of the two-handed puppet show and mistake what we are seeing for two separate and competing entities. We need to see and be aware of the puppeteer at all times. > > Look past the "semblance of competition" and watch what the pearl buyers are actually doing. > > Ignore their words. > > Ignore their fake pro-wrestling kayfabe combat over impeachment agendas they know will never bear fruit and their Russia conspiracies they know are pure nonsense. > > Watch their actual behaviors instead. > > Don't fall for the illusion. > > Don't get sucked into the drama of the two-handed puppet show. > > Don't be deceived, Kino. > > Don't sell your pearl. > > __________________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 14, 2019 at 3:06 am | Tags: caitlin johnstone , democrats , Politics , republicans , Steinbeck , The Pearl | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Xk > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/14/americas-two-headed-one-party-system/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 14:50:27 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:50:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Lib Dems must acknowledge how corrupt the national DP has become Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158935935327656 Liberal Democrats in the United States need to acknowledge how corrupt the national Democratic Party has become. The first step to dealing with a problem is acknowledging it. Adam Smith, the Democratic chair of the House Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-controlled House, now claims there's nothing he can do to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. Democrats who accept this claim are complicit in the corruption of the national Democratic Party. It's not morally acceptable to shrug one's shoulders about this. If liberal Democrats in the United States would acknowledge the extent of the corruption of the national Democratic Party, we could have a meaningful conversation about what to do about it. We can't have a meaningful conversation about what to do about it as long as liberal Democrats in the United States are in denial about the extent of the corruption of the national Democratic Party. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 16:32:49 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:32:49 -0800 Subject: [Peace] The facade Message-ID: There is a current, new direction the Democrats are forced to take, to clean up their image. We shouldn?t be fooled though, it?s the position many have been taking for some time now, given they aren?t able to hide it any longer. The strategy: point out the ?division? within the Party, and how necessary it is to vote and support the new ?left wing? of the Democrat Party ie Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, AOC, etc., as they battle the conservative Pelosi, Adam Smith, Schumer etc., and all the other war mongers, who supported everything the Republicans have been doing, with an occasional complaint, to maintain the image of ?liberal.? It shows a lack of comprehension and acknowledgement that our institutions are broken, our capitalist system of empire is dying, and a total lack of knowledge related to history and power. These people aren?t ignorant or stupid, but they are counting on our ignorance and stupidity to continue this circus of elections ensuring our elitist oligarchs maintain power under our two headed one Party system, thus ensuring a third Party does not challenge their power. Our foreign policy continues as if on auto pilot, it matters not which of the two Party system is in power. The goal: to keep us focused on ?individuals," as the USG continues to destroy and impoverish, both here and abroad, as if removal of specific individuals will eliminate the rot of our system, given the corporate capitalist powers behind the throne. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 14 16:32:49 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 08:32:49 -0800 Subject: [Peace] The facade Message-ID: There is a current, new direction the Democrats are forced to take, to clean up their image. We shouldn?t be fooled though, it?s the position many have been taking for some time now, given they aren?t able to hide it any longer. The strategy: point out the ?division? within the Party, and how necessary it is to vote and support the new ?left wing? of the Democrat Party ie Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, AOC, etc., as they battle the conservative Pelosi, Adam Smith, Schumer etc., and all the other war mongers, who supported everything the Republicans have been doing, with an occasional complaint, to maintain the image of ?liberal.? It shows a lack of comprehension and acknowledgement that our institutions are broken, our capitalist system of empire is dying, and a total lack of knowledge related to history and power. These people aren?t ignorant or stupid, but they are counting on our ignorance and stupidity to continue this circus of elections ensuring our elitist oligarchs maintain power under our two headed one Party system, thus ensuring a third Party does not challenge their power. Our foreign policy continues as if on auto pilot, it matters not which of the two Party system is in power. The goal: to keep us focused on ?individuals," as the USG continues to destroy and impoverish, both here and abroad, as if removal of specific individuals will eliminate the rot of our system, given the corporate capitalist powers behind the throne. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Dec 14 23:55:39 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:55:39 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #443 notes Message-ID: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #443 A "My Back Pages" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nexp4s5ZHR8 A list of links to references made on the show. John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of Peace" ISBN-10: 1298792835 ISBN-13: 978-1298792839 Possibly complete text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23749238_The_Economic_Consequences_Of_Peace_In_The_Middle_East Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages" Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDbbO2OLHY Lyrics: https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-back-pages-lyrics-bob-dylan.html The Byrds' "My Back Pages" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4 Boris Johnson's win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8wdjG_gFY -- Outcome coverage summary (RT) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2K_HJ-Jc1s -- CrossTalk (RT) discussion Michael Roberts' blog "The Next Recession" https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ Michael Roberts on "Get Brexit Done!" https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/get-brexit-done/ What Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: > Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of > the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. > > Questioner: Not drug patents? > > Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no > aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the > Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are > encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on > anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, > nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said > he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of > his doing this deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: > Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris > Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports > [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and > pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about > breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost > of medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a > hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] > is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents and > information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out copies > of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was > speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably > was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since > released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a > very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why > these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in > the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's > denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very > serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? Taft?Hartley Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley National Labor Relations Act of 1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf ISBN-10: 0252064399 ISBN-13: 978-0252064395 Palmer Raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids Thomas Edsall on "Trump Has a Gift for Tearing Us Apart" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-immigration.html Steven H. Woolf, MD & Heidi Schoomaker on "Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756187 Peter Strzok & Lisa Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok Carter Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- Jimmy Dore on the Inspector General report indicating how the FBI lied to the FISA court about Carter Page working for the CIA and how Page now has a good reason to sue the FBI and win. Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: That?s Neoliberalism for You" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/13/roaming-charges-thats-neoliberalism-for-you/ Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal Pres. Trump's recent executive order https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sign-executive-order-targeting-college-anti-semitism-israel-boycotts-n1099601 Steven Salaita on "Renouncing Israel on Principle" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/12/renouncing-israel-on-principle/ Jim Dey https://www.news-gazette.com/users/profile/jim%20dey/ J.B. Nicholson notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015481.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051688.html -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 17:32:30 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 09:32:30 -0800 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #443 notes In-Reply-To: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> References: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Again, I always enjoy the discussion taking place on NFN. Nonetheless I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his ?anti-war stance,? due to what he said as a candidate,? boring. I?m convinced the Dems know very well they won?t remove Trump from office, their goal being, anything to defeat him or any Republican in the next election as worth doing, and using it to further vilify Russia, and paint a portrait of Ukraine as a worthy ally makes it worth their while, in spite of the lack of evidence presented, obvious to those watching closely. Impeachment related to the issue they chose to use is nonsense compared to the many crimes committed by both Party Administrations over the years, thus making this impeachment almost a joke, if it didn?t involve the attention of so many Americans, keeping them ignorant of important issues needing to be addressed. While I agree with David?s analysis of local, and Jewish organizations failure to address a major issue, that of Israeli barbarism, while focusing only on concerns related to domestic issues of immigration or racism superficially, rather than applying a deeper analysis, examining cause and effect, then offering solutions, to be of little consequence. David himself admits is ?trivial.? It?s trivial in that it negates the good works these groups do and therefore doesn?t really get the point across to most people viewing issues superficially thus placing them on the defense. I?m not Jewish so perhaps unlike David I don?t take it personally or apply greater expectations to those who aren?t really interested in what happens to those not in my nation, ignoring what my nation does to others elsewhere in the world. I?m referring to the 47 million Muslims killed since 9/11, in our wars against terrorism, of which David refers often. However, in relation to this is a most important point brought up by David, is that anti-semitism is more likely in the US now, as a result of the barbarism of Israel, and the Trump Administration?s recent policy initiatives related to Israel and ?anti-semitism? in the US. Anti-semitism is rising in Europe, specifically Germany and Ukraine, primarily due to economics, and imperialism, with the US directly responsible for promoting Nazi?s to power in Ukraine in 2014. Very important information related is the little noticed new ?Nafta/trade deal with Canada.? One might refer to it as the new TPP, the original having failed under the Obama Administration, though Trump gets credit for abandoning, but as usual anything defeated that the capitalist elites want imposed, comes back rebranded. It matters not which Party is in power. > On Dec 14, 2019, at 15:55, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > News from Neptune #443 > A "My Back Pages" edition > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nexp4s5ZHR8 > > A list of links to references made on the show. > > John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of Peace" > ISBN-10: 1298792835 > ISBN-13: 978-1298792839 > Possibly complete text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23749238_The_Economic_Consequences_Of_Peace_In_The_Middle_East > > Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages" > Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDbbO2OLHY > Lyrics: https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-back-pages-lyrics-bob-dylan.html > > The Byrds' "My Back Pages" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4 > > > > > Boris Johnson's win > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8wdjG_gFY -- Outcome coverage summary (RT) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2K_HJ-Jc1s -- CrossTalk (RT) discussion > > > > > Michael Roberts' blog "The Next Recession" > https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ > > Michael Roberts on "Get Brexit Done!" > https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/get-brexit-done/ > > What Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: > >> Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. >> Questioner: Not drug patents? >> Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of his doing this deal. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: > >> Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost >> of medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents and >> information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out copies >> of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably >> was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? > > > > > Taft?Hartley Act > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley > > National Labor Relations Act of 1935 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 > > Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf > ISBN-10: 0252064399 > ISBN-13: 978-0252064395 > > Palmer Raids > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids > > > > > Thomas Edsall on "Trump Has a Gift for Tearing Us Apart" > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-immigration.html > > Steven H. Woolf, MD & Heidi Schoomaker on "Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017" > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756187 > > > > > Peter Strzok & Lisa Page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok > > Carter Page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page > Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- Jimmy Dore on the Inspector General report indicating how the FBI lied to the FISA court about Carter Page working for the CIA and how Page now has a good reason to sue the FBI and win. > > Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: That?s Neoliberalism for You" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/13/roaming-charges-thats-neoliberalism-for-you/ > > Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal > > > > > Pres. Trump's recent executive order > https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sign-executive-order-targeting-college-anti-semitism-israel-boycotts-n1099601 > > Steven Salaita on "Renouncing Israel on Principle" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/12/renouncing-israel-on-principle/ > > Jim Dey > https://www.news-gazette.com/users/profile/jim%20dey/ > > > > > > > > > J.B. Nicholson notes > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015481.html > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051688.html > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 20:05:00 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 12:05:00 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Democratic Socialism Message-ID: ?Revolution or Reform briefly covers the history of Socialism in the US" https://youtu.be/nG-wf9Z0iqY From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 15 20:05:00 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 12:05:00 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Democratic Socialism Message-ID: ?Revolution or Reform briefly covers the history of Socialism in the US" https://youtu.be/nG-wf9Z0iqY From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 23:25:33 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 18:25:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Sarah Lazare v. Adam Schiff on NDAA vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 3000 people have liked this tweet by Sarah Lazare who is not a Famous Person. This proves that a bunch of people care about this and are paying attention. https://twitter.com/sarahlazare/status/1206058243396636673 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 215271 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Dec 16 08:11:01 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 02:11:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #443 notes In-Reply-To: References: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <3F338DA5-1753-49F2-ACF3-B0805B592F5D@newsfromneptune.com> Thanks for your comments as always. You write, ?... I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his 'anti-war stance,' due to what he said as a candidate, boring." Boring because it?s so obviously true? Of course it is: . But I disagree with your general account. I think the Democrats have concluded that they have little chance of denying Trump a second term in the normal course of events, given their possible candidates. (The one who has the best chance is Bernie, and for the Dem organization, he?s worse than Trump.) Therefore they have to get him out another way - impeachment, 25th Amendment, even coup (see Adm. McRaven in the NYT!). Not to do so is to cripple the Bush-Obama fp (and long before) of using war & war provocations to retard the economic integration of Eurasia. And you know how seriously the p.e. (?Deep State,? if you wish) takes that. Regards, CGE > On Dec 15, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Again, I always enjoy the discussion taking place on NFN. Nonetheless I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his ?anti-war stance,? due to what he said as a candidate,? boring. > > I?m convinced the Dems know very well they won?t remove Trump from office, their goal being, anything to defeat him or any Republican in the next election as worth doing, and using it to further vilify Russia, and paint a portrait of Ukraine as a worthy ally makes it worth their while, in spite of the lack of evidence presented, obvious to those watching closely. > > Impeachment related to the issue they chose to use is nonsense compared to the many crimes committed by both Party Administrations over the years, thus making this impeachment almost a joke, if it didn?t involve the attention of so many Americans, keeping them ignorant of important issues needing to be addressed. > > While I agree with David?s analysis of local, and Jewish organizations failure to address a major issue, that of Israeli barbarism, while focusing only on concerns related to domestic issues of immigration or racism superficially, rather than applying a deeper analysis, examining cause and effect, then offering solutions, to be of little consequence. David himself admits is ?trivial.? It?s trivial in that it negates the good works these groups do and therefore doesn?t really get the point across to most people viewing issues superficially thus placing them on the defense. I?m not Jewish so perhaps unlike David I don?t take it personally or apply greater expectations to those who aren?t really interested in what happens to those not in my nation, ignoring what my nation does to others elsewhere in the world. I?m referring to the 47 million Muslims killed since 9/11, in our wars against terrorism, of which David refers often. However, in relation to this is a most important point brought up by David, is that anti-semitism is more likely in the US now, as a result of the barbarism of Israel, and the Trump Administration?s recent policy initiatives related to Israel and ?anti-semitism? in the US. > > Anti-semitism is rising in Europe, specifically Germany and Ukraine, primarily due to economics, and imperialism, with the US directly responsible for promoting Nazi?s to power in Ukraine in 2014. > > Very important information related is the little noticed new ?Nafta/trade deal with Canada.? One might refer to it as the new TPP, the original having failed under the Obama Administration, though Trump gets credit for abandoning, but as usual anything defeated that the capitalist elites want imposed, comes back rebranded. It matters not which Party is in power. > > > >> On Dec 14, 2019, at 15:55, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: >> >> News from Neptune #443 >> A "My Back Pages" edition >> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nexp4s5ZHR8 >> >> A list of links to references made on the show. >> >> John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of Peace" >> ISBN-10: 1298792835 >> ISBN-13: 978-1298792839 >> Possibly complete text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23749238_The_Economic_Consequences_Of_Peace_In_The_Middle_East >> >> Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages" >> Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDbbO2OLHY >> Lyrics: https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-back-pages-lyrics-bob-dylan.html >> >> The Byrds' "My Back Pages" >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4 >> >> >> >> >> Boris Johnson's win >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8wdjG_gFY -- Outcome coverage summary (RT) >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2K_HJ-Jc1s -- CrossTalk (RT) discussion >> >> >> >> >> Michael Roberts' blog "The Next Recession" >> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ >> >> Michael Roberts on "Get Brexit Done!" >> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/get-brexit-done/ >> >> What Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: >> >>> Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. >>> Questioner: Not drug patents? >>> Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of his doing this deal. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: >> >>> Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost >>> of medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents and >>> information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out copies >>> of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably >>> was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? >> >> >> >> >> Taft?Hartley Act >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley >> >> National Labor Relations Act of 1935 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 >> >> Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf >> ISBN-10: 0252064399 >> ISBN-13: 978-0252064395 >> >> Palmer Raids >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids >> >> >> >> >> Thomas Edsall on "Trump Has a Gift for Tearing Us Apart" >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-immigration.html >> >> Steven H. Woolf, MD & Heidi Schoomaker on "Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017" >> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756187 >> >> >> >> >> Peter Strzok & Lisa Page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok >> >> Carter Page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page >> Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- Jimmy Dore on the Inspector General report indicating how the FBI lied to the FISA court about Carter Page working for the CIA and how Page now has a good reason to sue the FBI and win. >> >> Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: That?s Neoliberalism for You" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/13/roaming-charges-thats-neoliberalism-for-you/ >> >> Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal >> >> >> >> >> Pres. Trump's recent executive order >> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sign-executive-order-targeting-college-anti-semitism-israel-boycotts-n1099601 >> >> Steven Salaita on "Renouncing Israel on Principle" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/12/renouncing-israel-on-principle/ >> >> Jim Dey >> https://www.news-gazette.com/users/profile/jim%20dey/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> J.B. Nicholson notes >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015481.html >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051688.html >> >> -J >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Dec 16 08:29:11 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 02:29:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #443 notes In-Reply-To: References: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <120191FD-A5BA-4CB1-AC99-5F1AE9E38AE1@newsfromneptune.com> Karen-- Thanks for your comments as always. You write, ?... I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his 'anti-war stance,' due to what he said as a candidate, boring.? Boring because it?s so obviously true? Of course it is: ?The Trump administration will announce as early as this week plans to withdraw around 4,000 troops from Afghanistan, U.S. media reported. Talks between the United States and the Taliban resumed a week ago as the parties sought a path to reduce violence or even reach a ceasefire. U.S. President Donald Trump insisted last month on the need for a ceasefire and made a surprise visit to Bagram on November 28 to celebrate Thanksgiving with troops and meet Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Trump has previously indicated he wants to wind down U.S. military entanglements abroad where possible.? {english.cctv.com} But I disagree with your general account. I think the Democrats have concluded that they have little chance of denying Trump a second term in the normal course of events, given their possible candidates. (The one who has the best chance is Bernie, and for the Dem organization, he?s worse than Trump.) Therefore they have to get Trump out another way - impeachment, 25th Amendment, even coup (see Adm. McRaven in the NYT!). Not to do so is to cripple the Bush-Obama fp (and long before) of using war & war provocations to retard the economic integration of Eurasia. And you know how seriously the p.e. (?Deep State,? if you wish) takes that. Regards, CGE > On Dec 15, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Again, I always enjoy the discussion taking place on NFN. Nonetheless I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his ?anti-war stance,? due to what he said as a candidate,? boring. > > I?m convinced the Dems know very well they won?t remove Trump from office, their goal being, anything to defeat him or any Republican in the next election as worth doing, and using it to further vilify Russia, and paint a portrait of Ukraine as a worthy ally makes it worth their while, in spite of the lack of evidence presented, obvious to those watching closely. > > Impeachment related to the issue they chose to use is nonsense compared to the many crimes committed by both Party Administrations over the years, thus making this impeachment almost a joke, if it didn?t involve the attention of so many Americans, keeping them ignorant of important issues needing to be addressed. > > While I agree with David?s analysis of local, and Jewish organizations failure to address a major issue, that of Israeli barbarism, while focusing only on concerns related to domestic issues of immigration or racism superficially, rather than applying a deeper analysis, examining cause and effect, then offering solutions, to be of little consequence. David himself admits is ?trivial.? It?s trivial in that it negates the good works these groups do and therefore doesn?t really get the point across to most people viewing issues superficially thus placing them on the defense. I?m not Jewish so perhaps unlike David I don?t take it personally or apply greater expectations to those who aren?t really interested in what happens to those not in my nation, ignoring what my nation does to others elsewhere in the world. I?m referring to the 47 million Muslims killed since 9/11, in our wars against terrorism, of which David refers often. However, in relation to this is a most important point brought up by David, is that anti-semitism is more likely in the US now, as a result of the barbarism of Israel, and the Trump Administration?s recent policy initiatives related to Israel and ?anti-semitism? in the US. > > Anti-semitism is rising in Europe, specifically Germany and Ukraine, primarily due to economics, and imperialism, with the US directly responsible for promoting Nazi?s to power in Ukraine in 2014. > > Very important information related is the little noticed new ?Nafta/trade deal with Canada.? One might refer to it as the new TPP, the original having failed under the Obama Administration, though Trump gets credit for abandoning, but as usual anything defeated that the capitalist elites want imposed, comes back rebranded. It matters not which Party is in power. > > > >> On Dec 14, 2019, at 15:55, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: >> >> News from Neptune #443 >> A "My Back Pages" edition >> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nexp4s5ZHR8 >> >> A list of links to references made on the show. >> >> John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of Peace" >> ISBN-10: 1298792835 >> ISBN-13: 978-1298792839 >> Possibly complete text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23749238_The_Economic_Consequences_Of_Peace_In_The_Middle_East >> >> Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages" >> Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDbbO2OLHY >> Lyrics: https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-back-pages-lyrics-bob-dylan.html >> >> The Byrds' "My Back Pages" >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4 >> >> >> >> >> Boris Johnson's win >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8wdjG_gFY -- Outcome coverage summary (RT) >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2K_HJ-Jc1s -- CrossTalk (RT) discussion >> >> >> >> >> Michael Roberts' blog "The Next Recession" >> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ >> >> Michael Roberts on "Get Brexit Done!" >> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/get-brexit-done/ >> >> What Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: >> >>> Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. >>> Questioner: Not drug patents? >>> Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of his doing this deal. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: >> >>> Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost >>> of medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents and >>> information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out copies >>> of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably >>> was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? >> >> >> >> >> Taft?Hartley Act >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley >> >> National Labor Relations Act of 1935 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 >> >> Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf >> ISBN-10: 0252064399 >> ISBN-13: 978-0252064395 >> >> Palmer Raids >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids >> >> >> >> >> Thomas Edsall on "Trump Has a Gift for Tearing Us Apart" >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-immigration.html >> >> Steven H. Woolf, MD & Heidi Schoomaker on "Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017" >> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756187 >> >> >> >> >> Peter Strzok & Lisa Page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok >> >> Carter Page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page >> Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- Jimmy Dore on the Inspector General report indicating how the FBI lied to the FISA court about Carter Page working for the CIA and how Page now has a good reason to sue the FBI and win. >> >> Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: That?s Neoliberalism for You" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/13/roaming-charges-thats-neoliberalism-for-you/ >> >> Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal >> >> >> >> >> Pres. Trump's recent executive order >> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sign-executive-order-targeting-college-anti-semitism-israel-boycotts-n1099601 >> >> Steven Salaita on "Renouncing Israel on Principle" >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/12/renouncing-israel-on-principle/ >> >> Jim Dey >> https://www.news-gazette.com/users/profile/jim%20dey/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> J.B. Nicholson notes >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015481.html >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051688.html >> >> -J >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 14:26:55 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 06:26:55 -0800 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #443 notes In-Reply-To: <120191FD-A5BA-4CB1-AC99-5F1AE9E38AE1@newsfromneptune.com> References: <7d18f43d-3c72-4e0f-ec75-9e33481d38fa@forestfield.org> <120191FD-A5BA-4CB1-AC99-5F1AE9E38AE1@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Carl? True, if Bernie, Trump will be defeated, but will the Dems. allow Bernie? Any other mainstream candidate will lose to Trump, but just about any Dem. will win over Pence. There is current speculation that something is taking place within the Republican Party in respect to Trump, given his announced resolution of the Trade Agreement with China bringing no elation, no recriminations from the Republicans. Trump being dethroned means a far more malleable a puppet, Pence, for the ruling elites with the Dems. winning the next election. Keeping Trump in power may bring about a win for Bernie, better than any other scenario related to elections. Though as I keep pointing out, ? will Bernie be allowed to accomplish the goals he has set out?? Doubtful, and as to foreign policy, it will continue as planned immediately after WW2, and with continued militarism resources will continue to be allocated to the military rather than social services. > On Dec 16, 2019, at 00:29, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > Karen-- > > Thanks for your comments as always. You write, ?... I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his 'anti-war stance,' due to what he said as a candidate, boring.? > > Boring because it?s so obviously true? Of course it is: > > ?The Trump administration will announce as early as this week plans to withdraw around 4,000 troops from Afghanistan, U.S. media reported. Talks between the United States and the Taliban resumed a week ago as the parties sought a path to reduce violence or even reach a ceasefire. U.S. President Donald Trump insisted last month on the need for a ceasefire and made a surprise visit to Bagram on November 28 to celebrate Thanksgiving with troops and meet Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Trump has previously indicated he wants to wind down U.S. military entanglements abroad where possible.? {english.cctv.com} > > But I disagree with your general account. I think the Democrats have concluded that they have little chance of denying Trump a second term in the normal course of events, given their possible candidates. (The one who has the best chance is Bernie, and for the Dem organization, he?s worse than Trump.) > > Therefore they have to get Trump out another way - impeachment, 25th Amendment, even coup (see Adm. McRaven in the NYT!). Not to do so is to cripple the Bush-Obama fp (and long before) of using war & war provocations to retard the economic integration of Eurasia. > > And you know how seriously the p.e. (?Deep State,? if you wish) takes that. Regards, CGE > > >> On Dec 15, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Again, I always enjoy the discussion taking place on NFN. Nonetheless I find the continuing conversation related to the Trump impeachment and the assumption it is being done by the Democrats because they fear his ?anti-war stance,? due to what he said as a candidate,? boring. >> >> I?m convinced the Dems know very well they won?t remove Trump from office, their goal being, anything to defeat him or any Republican in the next election as worth doing, and using it to further vilify Russia, and paint a portrait of Ukraine as a worthy ally makes it worth their while, in spite of the lack of evidence presented, obvious to those watching closely. >> >> Impeachment related to the issue they chose to use is nonsense compared to the many crimes committed by both Party Administrations over the years, thus making this impeachment almost a joke, if it didn?t involve the attention of so many Americans, keeping them ignorant of important issues needing to be addressed. >> >> While I agree with David?s analysis of local, and Jewish organizations failure to address a major issue, that of Israeli barbarism, while focusing only on concerns related to domestic issues of immigration or racism superficially, rather than applying a deeper analysis, examining cause and effect, then offering solutions, to be of little consequence. David himself admits is ?trivial.? It?s trivial in that it negates the good works these groups do and therefore doesn?t really get the point across to most people viewing issues superficially thus placing them on the defense. I?m not Jewish so perhaps unlike David I don?t take it personally or apply greater expectations to those who aren?t really interested in what happens to those not in my nation, ignoring what my nation does to others elsewhere in the world. I?m referring to the 47 million Muslims killed since 9/11, in our wars against terrorism, of which David refers often. However, in relation to this is a most important point brought up by David, is that anti-semitism is more likely in the US now, as a result of the barbarism of Israel, and the Trump Administration?s recent policy initiatives related to Israel and ?anti-semitism? in the US. >> >> Anti-semitism is rising in Europe, specifically Germany and Ukraine, primarily due to economics, and imperialism, with the US directly responsible for promoting Nazi?s to power in Ukraine in 2014. >> >> Very important information related is the little noticed new ?Nafta/trade deal with Canada.? One might refer to it as the new TPP, the original having failed under the Obama Administration, though Trump gets credit for abandoning, but as usual anything defeated that the capitalist elites want imposed, comes back rebranded. It matters not which Party is in power. >> >> >> >>> On Dec 14, 2019, at 15:55, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: >>> >>> News from Neptune #443 >>> A "My Back Pages" edition >>> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nexp4s5ZHR8 >>> >>> A list of links to references made on the show. >>> >>> John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of Peace" >>> ISBN-10: 1298792835 >>> ISBN-13: 978-1298792839 >>> Possibly complete text: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23749238_The_Economic_Consequences_Of_Peace_In_The_Middle_East >>> >>> Bob Dylan's "My Back Pages" >>> Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtDbbO2OLHY >>> Lyrics: https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-back-pages-lyrics-bob-dylan.html >>> >>> The Byrds' "My Back Pages" >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80l4XIPJC4 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Boris Johnson's win >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK8wdjG_gFY -- Outcome coverage summary (RT) >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2K_HJ-Jc1s -- CrossTalk (RT) discussion >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Roberts' blog "The Next Recession" >>> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> Michael Roberts on "Get Brexit Done!" >>> https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/13/get-brexit-done/ >>> >>> What Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn say about secret US/UK talks about the NHS. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTffUvBFZs -- UK Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson said: >>> >>>> Boris Johnson: We are absolutely resolved that there will be no sale of the NHS, no privatisation, the NHS is not on the table in any way. >>>> Questioner: Not drug patents? >>>> Boris Johnson: In no way, the NHS is in no way on the table, in no aspect whatever and this, as I say, is continually brought up by the Labour Party as a diversionary tactic from the difficulties they are encountering particularly over the problem about leadership on anti-Semitism and then the great vacuity about their policy on Brexit, nobody knows what side Mr. Corbyn would come down on, in fact he said he's going to be neutral so you're left wondering what the point is of his doing this deal. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTwu0zl1XQ -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said: >>> >>>> Jeremy Corbyn: If you watch the first TV debate between me and Boris Johnson you'll have seen me hold up these censored, blacked-out reports [Corbyn held up a hardcopy of censored blacked-out reports]. Pages and pages of censored blacked-out reports of secret US and UK talks about breaking open our NHS to US corporations and thus driving up the cost >>>> of medicines. What I have here [Corbyn unzipped a black case holding a hardcopy of a document which he removed from the case and then held up] is something I can reveal to you. 451 pages of unredacted documents and >>>> information, all of it here [people dressed in scrubs handed out copies >>>> of a document to people assembled in the hall where Corbyn was speaking]. His [Boris Johnson's] government released this [presumably >>>> was holding the censored document], we [the Labour Party] have since released this [presumably holding the uncensored document] which is a very different version of events. Perhaps he would like to explain why these documents confirm the US is demanding the NHS is on the table in the trade talks. These uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson's denials in absolute tatters. Voters need to ask themselves some very serious questions. Is the NHS safe in Boris Johnson's hands? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Taft?Hartley Act >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley >>> >>> National Labor Relations Act of 1935 >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935 >>> >>> Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60 by Elizabeth A. Fones-Wolf >>> ISBN-10: 0252064399 >>> ISBN-13: 978-0252064395 >>> >>> Palmer Raids >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thomas Edsall on "Trump Has a Gift for Tearing Us Apart" >>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-immigration.html >>> >>> Steven H. Woolf, MD & Heidi Schoomaker on "Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017" >>> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2756187 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Peter Strzok & Lisa Page >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok >>> >>> Carter Page >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page >>> Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- Jimmy Dore on the Inspector General report indicating how the FBI lied to the FISA court about Carter Page working for the CIA and how Page now has a good reason to sue the FBI and win. >>> >>> Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: That?s Neoliberalism for You" >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/13/roaming-charges-thats-neoliberalism-for-you/ >>> >>> Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisoning >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Pres. Trump's recent executive order >>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sign-executive-order-targeting-college-anti-semitism-israel-boycotts-n1099601 >>> >>> Steven Salaita on "Renouncing Israel on Principle" >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/12/renouncing-israel-on-principle/ >>> >>> Jim Dey >>> https://www.news-gazette.com/users/profile/jim%20dey/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> J.B. Nicholson notes >>> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015481.html >>> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051688.html >>> >>> -J >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 14:37:12 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:37:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Look how often Booker and Klobuchar voted with Bernie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158943014872656 Booker - 90% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/B001288-cory-booker/116 Klobuchar - 88% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/K000367-amy-klobuchar/116 Bennet - 71% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/B001267-michael-bennet/116 Gillibrand - 95% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/G000555-kirsten-e-gillibrand/116 Harris - 90% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/H001075-kamala-harris/116 Durbin - 76% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/D000563-richard-j-durbin/116 Schumer - 83% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/S000148-charles-e-schumer/116 Warren - 95% https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/W000817-elizabeth-warren/116 1. Look how Booker and Klobuchar are *sticking to Bernie like glue. * 2. Look how Schumer is doing exactly the thing that McConnell accused him of doing. *Schumer is voting with Bernie to give cover to the 2020 Dems who are voting with Bernie.* 3. We don't have a way of easily looking up how the 2020 Dems and Schumer voted when Bernie and Warren were voting together. *I bet you a dollar they stuck to Bernie and Warren like Superglue.* 4. A million Democrats just watched Ro Khanna say that it's Orwellian to call the Trump-Pelosi NDAA "progressive." https://twitter.com/RepRoKhanna/status/1204884415136116737 5, This means that how Booker and Klobuchar and Schumer vote on the Trump-Pelosi NDAA that doesn't end the Yemen war is *Real Data*. What's your "over-under"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 15:39:41 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:39:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace] FCNL is pushing for Senate no votes on Trump-Pelosi NDAA Message-ID: Feel free to spread this info without my name on it. https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158943157267656 FCNL is pushing for no votes in the Senate on the Trump-Pelosi NDAA that doesn't end the Yemen war. This is public info. Here is their statement which they are sending to the Senate. https://www.fcnl.org/updates/reject-unchecked-war-funding-2537 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 17:12:43 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:12:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace] TODAY: Ask Senate Dems to Stand with Bernie & Warren against Pentagon Bill Backed by Trump/Pelosi In-Reply-To: <4458246681.310272100@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <4458246681.310272100@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Erik at Just Foreign Policy Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:04 AM Subject: TODAY: Ask Senate Dems to Stand with Bernie & Warren against Pentagon Bill Backed by Trump/Pelosi To: [image: Just Foreign Policy] Dear Robert, Nancy Pelosi and House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith crammed a Pentagon funding bill through the House last week that increases the military budget and doesn?t end the Yemen war. You can see which House members voted no on the NDAA here and who voted yes here (click on the images and scroll to see the full list). Rep. Ro Khanna gave a powerful speech on the House floor , calling it "Orwellian" that some Democrats would actually call this $738 billion military bill ?progressive?. Now it?s the Senate?s turn. And what?s really interesting about the Senate right now is that five Senators are running for President, and two of them are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who both have denounced this bill and pledged to vote no. This is going to generate media attention about which Democrats vote with Bernie and Warren against the Pentagon and the Yemen war and which Democrats vote with Trump and Pelosi. Obviously, we want those stories to say that Senate Democrats are standing with the leaders who oppose insane Pentagon spending and the brutal Yemen war, not that Senate Democrats sided with Trump and Pelosi and in favor of endless military spending and war. This is the *final push on this year?s NDAA* - we need your help! If you have Democratic Senators, we need you to call them tomorrow (Monday) at 202-224-3121 and report your call here to help us keep track of how Senators plan to vote. Demand Progress and FCNL are also urging calls this week! If you are on Twitter, please retweet this tweet to Democratic Leader Schumer . Every time it is retweeted, his staff receives a notification that another person is urging him to vote no. Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Erik, Sarah, and the Just Foreign Policy Team [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] ? 2019 Just Foreign Policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:19:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:19:31 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Chris Hedges: Hope Lies in the Streets References: Message-ID: > > > > MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2019 > > > FEATURED STORY > > > > ACTIVISM > > > Hope Lies in the Streets > > By Chris Hedges ? Civil disobedience is the last tool we have to prevent corporate tyranny and save the planet. Read more > > > NEWS > > > > NATIONAL (U.S.A.) > > Sanders and Omar Lead Largest Rally in New Hampshire for 2020 Vote > > By Julia Conley ? "We're proud to be radical," Omar tells the enthusiastic crowd. Read more > > > > ENVIRONMENT > > Ultra-Fast Computers Could Avert Global Disaster > > By Tim Radford ? The Earth?s survival demands ?the urgency of the space race.? Read more > > > > ARTS AND CULTURE > > > > BOOK REVIEW > > We Are All Female and We All Hate It > > By Eric Newman ? A new book redefines ?female? as the universal experience of ?let[ting] someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense.? Read more > > > > CARTOON > > > > The Devos Who Stole Christmas > BY ADAM ZYGLIS ? > > > > > > > > > > > Truthdig 1158 26th Street #443 Santa Monica, CA 90403-4698 > > Support Truthdig | Contact Us | Unsubscribe | Update Profile > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:19:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:19:31 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Chris Hedges: Hope Lies in the Streets References: Message-ID: > > > > MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2019 > > > FEATURED STORY > > > > ACTIVISM > > > Hope Lies in the Streets > > By Chris Hedges ? Civil disobedience is the last tool we have to prevent corporate tyranny and save the planet. Read more > > > NEWS > > > > NATIONAL (U.S.A.) > > Sanders and Omar Lead Largest Rally in New Hampshire for 2020 Vote > > By Julia Conley ? "We're proud to be radical," Omar tells the enthusiastic crowd. Read more > > > > ENVIRONMENT > > Ultra-Fast Computers Could Avert Global Disaster > > By Tim Radford ? The Earth?s survival demands ?the urgency of the space race.? Read more > > > > ARTS AND CULTURE > > > > BOOK REVIEW > > We Are All Female and We All Hate It > > By Eric Newman ? A new book redefines ?female? as the universal experience of ?let[ting] someone else do your desiring for you, at your own expense.? Read more > > > > CARTOON > > > > The Devos Who Stole Christmas > BY ADAM ZYGLIS ? > > > > > > > > > > > Truthdig 1158 26th Street #443 Santa Monica, CA 90403-4698 > > Support Truthdig | Contact Us | Unsubscribe | Update Profile > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:04:14 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:04:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Ask_a_Libertarian_to_=E2=80=9CPass_for_Democra?= =?utf-8?q?t=E2=80=9D_for_a_Day_to_Vote_for_Peace?= Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158946423672656 Ask a Libertarian to ?Pass for Democrat? for a Day to Vote for Peace A door in Iowa, 2016. I?m in uniform: Bernie hat, Bernie hoodie. There?s no need to introduce myself when the door opens; everybody understands immediately who I am and what I?m doing on their doorstep. ?I like Bernie,? the guy says. So, you?ll caucus for Bernie? ?Nope,? the guy says. ?I?m an Independent.? But, Bernie?s an Independent! ?I know,? the guy says. ?I like Bernie. But I?m not going to caucus as a Democrat.? There was nothing I could do. Just like a tree that was standing by the water, he would not be moved. We shook hands and parted friends. I admired his stubbornness, even if I didn?t like the result. A door in Minnesota, 2016. I?m in uniform: Bernie hat, Bernie hoodie. ?I like Bernie,? the guy says. ?But I don?t want to caucus as a Democrat.? Listen, I say conspiratorially. They call it a ?caucus? in Minnesota, _*but you don?t have to stay for the meeting*_. You go in, you vote, you turn around, you leave. ?Really??? the guy says. *Hook! Reel!* I lower my voice to a whisper. _*Listen*_, I say. _*Nobody needs to know you voted Democrat. Your secret is safe with me. I promise not to write anything down.*_ He laughs nervously. _*Nailed it!*_ That?s what?s holding him back. He?s afraid someone?s going to find out he voted ?Democrat? to vote for Bernie. Maybe he?s afraid his drinking buddies will razz him if they find out he voted Democrat. _*Listen*_, Independents and Libertarians and Republicans of America who hate war. _You can?t get Democratic Cooties from voting Democrat one time._ Me and my Democrat friends vote Republican all the time when that?s the best way for us to have influence to get what we want. I would have voted for Ron Paul in the Illinois primary in 2012 if my mother hadn?t interfered by choosing that week to die. There was no primary on the Democratic side, nobody was running against Obama, it would have cost me nothing to vote for Ron Paul, and even now I regret that I didn?t have the opportunity to do so. That?s exactly the situation that Libertarians and Independents and Republicans who hate war and the National Security State face now. Regardless of how you feel about Trump now, he has no race in the Republican primary. There?s nothing you can meaningfully do to stop him from becoming or help him become the Republican nominee. That?s baked into the cake now. Whereas, the race on the Democratic side is _*very*_ fluid right now. _*Bernie can beat Biden*_. _*Biden is a War Criminal*._ America will be a different country on war and peace if Bernie beats Biden in the Democratic primary, regardless of what happens in November. And if Bernie becomes POTUS, America will be _*very*_ different on war and peace. _*There will be no more unconstitutional war on behalf of the Saudi regime when Bernie is POTUS.*_ Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina are key. Bernie?s a little ahead in New Hampshire, a little behind in Iowa, a little behind in South Carolina. He could win all three. If he wins all three, it?s a whole new ballgame. If he wins all three, he?s the frontrunner, he can stomp War Criminal Biden all the way to the nomination. Here?s how contingent this is, how close it is, how much the outcome depends on the actions of a small number of people. I was in the Waterloo office in Iowa. The night of the caucus, we had a ?victory party? at a nearby bar, except that it wasn?t a real victory party, because we didn?t win. But we came very close. I walked into the bar, saw the young African-American student who ran the Waterloo office, and sat down next to her. ?*Martin O?Malley*,? was all she said. She spat the words. There was no subject, no verb. Only an object of pure hate. She blamed Martin O?Malley for the fact that we lost Iowa. Do you even know who Martin O?Malley is? Does anybody care now who Martin O?Malley is? That guy?s not a comma in the history of the United States now. But the young woman who ran the Waterloo office blamed Martin O?Malley for the fact that we didn?t win Iowa. How might history be different if we had won Iowa in 2016? Imagine if half of the Independents and Libertarians and Republicans in America who hate unconstitutional war would suck it up for one day and ?pass for Democrat? to vote for Bernie. Imagine how we could change history. Imagine how much unconstitutional war we could prevent, how many innocent human beings wouldn?t have to cruelly and stupidly and uselessly die, how much of our tax dollars we could save, how we could spend that money on useful stuff in America, or even on useless stuff in America that doesn?t kill people. Wouldn?t it be worth ?passing as a Democrat? for _*one single day*_ to see that dawn? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:16:25 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:16:25 -0800 Subject: [Peace] CIA Democrats back CIA-led impeachment Message-ID: WS CIA Democrats back CIA-led impeachment By Patrick Martin 17 December 2019 Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) announced Monday that they would vote for the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday when it comes before the House of Representatives. Both women had decade-long careers in the CIA before they won Republican-held seats in the House in the 2018 election. Slotkin and Spanberger are two of the eleven Democrats elected for the first time in 2018 who come directly from national-security backgrounds into elective office, and whom the World Socialist Web Site identified and publicized as the CIA Democrats . Their recruitment to run for open or Republican-held seats was a joint operation by the Democratic Party leadership and the military-intelligence apparatus to insure that the incoming House?after the expected Democratic takeover?would be firmly aligned with the national-security establishment. Far more military-intelligence Democrats were elected than followers and supporters of Bernie Sanders. They far outnumber the so-called ?squad,? the four newly elected female representatives from minority backgrounds who have been given massive publicity. With the pro-impeachment declarations by Slotkin, Spanberger and, also on Monday, Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army special forces operative, ten of the eleven ?CIA Democrats? have now said they will vote for the impeachment articles. The other seven include Max Rose of New York, a former unit commander in Afghanistan; Andy Kim of New Jersey, a former military adviser in Afghanistan and member of the National Security Council; Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a former military helicopter pilot; Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, a former State Department official specializing in ?human rights? provocations; Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a former Air Force captain; Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, a Marine Corps prosecutor; and Elaine Luria of Virginia, who commanded a Navy warship. The eleventh, Jared Golden of Maine, voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry resolution last month and is expected to support impeachment as well, but he has not yet made the public commitment. Slotkin declared her support for impeachment in an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press on Monday morning, followed by a town meeting at Oakland University in Rochester Hills, Michigan, a northern suburb of Detroit. The op-ed column emphasized that Slotkin was all for bullying weak foreign governments, as Trump did with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Her objection was to the purpose of the bullying, not the method. ?To be clear, presidents from both parties have leveraged the powerful role of the United States to get foreign countries to do what?s in our interest,? she wrote. ?It?s quite standard, as senior U.S. officials wield leverage to increase our own national security. But here?s the fundamental difference: President Trump used the power of the presidency for his own benefit, to give himself some advantage in the very election that would determine whether he remained in office.? She added, ?Over the past few days, I have done what I was trained to do as a CIA officer who worked for both Republicans and Democrats ? In the national security world, we are trained to make hard calls, even if they are unpopular??if we believe the security of the country is at stake.? What the congresswoman was ?trained to do as a CIA officer? was to pursue the interests of American imperialism by the most ruthless and bloodthirsty methods. She served three tours as a CIA agent in Iraq, becoming the principal intelligence ?briefer? for the US ambassador in Baghdad, the effective ruler of the country. She then worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, an individual with a record in US imperialist war crimes going back to Vietnam and Central America. As we wrote in 2018, ?After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, ?homeland defense? and cyber warfare.? For Slotkin, supporting an impeachment drive initiated by the CIA itself, through the complaint filed by the so-called whistleblower, amounts to just following orders. Nonetheless, the corporate media glorified her decision as though it was a heroic act of considerable political courage. Slotkin and Spanberger were among seven newly elected Democrats with military-intelligence backgrounds who signed an op-ed column published September 23 in the Washington Post, giving their support to the opening of an impeachment inquiry based on the Ukraine national-security charges. All seven had previously been opponents of impeachment when the issue was raised over Trump?s separation of immigrant children and parents, his illegal ban on Muslim visitors, and his unconstitutional diversion of funds to build his wall on the US-Mexico border. While the White House, congressional Republicans and their media mouthpieces have put considerable pressure on the 31 Democratic representatives who won ?Trump districts??congressional districts where Trump won more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016?it appears that only a handful will break ranks. Jeff Van Drew, a conservative Democrat elected in the Second District of New Jersey, comprising the southern quarter of the state and including Atlantic City, announced he would vote against impeachment and switch his party affiliation to the Republicans. Collin Peterson, representing the largely rural Seventh District of Minnesota, comprising most of the western third of the state, will also vote against. Van Drew and Peterson were the only Democrats who opposed the resolution approving the impeachment inquiry. Some 24 of the 31 have announced their support for impeachment (including seven CIA Democrats), as of Monday night. The author also recommends: Democrats combine impeachment and collaboration with Trump [16 December 2019] WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:16:25 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:16:25 -0800 Subject: [Peace] CIA Democrats back CIA-led impeachment Message-ID: WS CIA Democrats back CIA-led impeachment By Patrick Martin 17 December 2019 Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) announced Monday that they would vote for the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday when it comes before the House of Representatives. Both women had decade-long careers in the CIA before they won Republican-held seats in the House in the 2018 election. Slotkin and Spanberger are two of the eleven Democrats elected for the first time in 2018 who come directly from national-security backgrounds into elective office, and whom the World Socialist Web Site identified and publicized as the CIA Democrats . Their recruitment to run for open or Republican-held seats was a joint operation by the Democratic Party leadership and the military-intelligence apparatus to insure that the incoming House?after the expected Democratic takeover?would be firmly aligned with the national-security establishment. Far more military-intelligence Democrats were elected than followers and supporters of Bernie Sanders. They far outnumber the so-called ?squad,? the four newly elected female representatives from minority backgrounds who have been given massive publicity. With the pro-impeachment declarations by Slotkin, Spanberger and, also on Monday, Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army special forces operative, ten of the eleven ?CIA Democrats? have now said they will vote for the impeachment articles. The other seven include Max Rose of New York, a former unit commander in Afghanistan; Andy Kim of New Jersey, a former military adviser in Afghanistan and member of the National Security Council; Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a former military helicopter pilot; Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, a former State Department official specializing in ?human rights? provocations; Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, a former Air Force captain; Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, a Marine Corps prosecutor; and Elaine Luria of Virginia, who commanded a Navy warship. The eleventh, Jared Golden of Maine, voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry resolution last month and is expected to support impeachment as well, but he has not yet made the public commitment. Slotkin declared her support for impeachment in an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press on Monday morning, followed by a town meeting at Oakland University in Rochester Hills, Michigan, a northern suburb of Detroit. The op-ed column emphasized that Slotkin was all for bullying weak foreign governments, as Trump did with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Her objection was to the purpose of the bullying, not the method. ?To be clear, presidents from both parties have leveraged the powerful role of the United States to get foreign countries to do what?s in our interest,? she wrote. ?It?s quite standard, as senior U.S. officials wield leverage to increase our own national security. But here?s the fundamental difference: President Trump used the power of the presidency for his own benefit, to give himself some advantage in the very election that would determine whether he remained in office.? She added, ?Over the past few days, I have done what I was trained to do as a CIA officer who worked for both Republicans and Democrats ? In the national security world, we are trained to make hard calls, even if they are unpopular??if we believe the security of the country is at stake.? What the congresswoman was ?trained to do as a CIA officer? was to pursue the interests of American imperialism by the most ruthless and bloodthirsty methods. She served three tours as a CIA agent in Iraq, becoming the principal intelligence ?briefer? for the US ambassador in Baghdad, the effective ruler of the country. She then worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, an individual with a record in US imperialist war crimes going back to Vietnam and Central America. As we wrote in 2018, ?After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, ?homeland defense? and cyber warfare.? For Slotkin, supporting an impeachment drive initiated by the CIA itself, through the complaint filed by the so-called whistleblower, amounts to just following orders. Nonetheless, the corporate media glorified her decision as though it was a heroic act of considerable political courage. Slotkin and Spanberger were among seven newly elected Democrats with military-intelligence backgrounds who signed an op-ed column published September 23 in the Washington Post, giving their support to the opening of an impeachment inquiry based on the Ukraine national-security charges. All seven had previously been opponents of impeachment when the issue was raised over Trump?s separation of immigrant children and parents, his illegal ban on Muslim visitors, and his unconstitutional diversion of funds to build his wall on the US-Mexico border. While the White House, congressional Republicans and their media mouthpieces have put considerable pressure on the 31 Democratic representatives who won ?Trump districts??congressional districts where Trump won more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016?it appears that only a handful will break ranks. Jeff Van Drew, a conservative Democrat elected in the Second District of New Jersey, comprising the southern quarter of the state and including Atlantic City, announced he would vote against impeachment and switch his party affiliation to the Republicans. Collin Peterson, representing the largely rural Seventh District of Minnesota, comprising most of the western third of the state, will also vote against. Van Drew and Peterson were the only Democrats who opposed the resolution approving the impeachment inquiry. Some 24 of the 31 have announced their support for impeachment (including seven CIA Democrats), as of Monday night. The author also recommends: Democrats combine impeachment and collaboration with Trump [16 December 2019] WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue Dec 17 23:45:12 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:45:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace] AWARE on the Air #499 notes Message-ID: <688f704f-fdb4-18b7-3a5c-c9a9c6312ff6@forestfield.org> AWARE on the Air #499 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9chEHIg6djE Feedback to C. G. Estabrook at carl at newsfromneptune.com C. G. Estabrook on "Support for the impeachment nonsense is support for the CIA/Deep State agenda" https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051653.html Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Richard Tuck on "The Left Case for Brexit" https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/left-case-brexit Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/ https://archive.md/75YUm Responses to "The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war" https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/responses-from-people-featured-in-the-afghanistan-papers/2019/12/08/086864aa-0bed-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html https://archive.md/PIGjW Major Danny Sjursen on "We Have Just Been Handed the Pentagon Papers of Our Generation" https://www.thenation.com/article/afghanistan-papers-forever-war/ "Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge" by Major Danny Sjursen ISBN-10: 1611687810 ISBN-13: 978-1611687811 Chris Hedges, Sara Flounders interviews from RT's "In Question" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lQQiKzKMs Sara Flounders' website https://sanctionskill.org https://iacenter.org "Violence in Central America with Oscar Martinez" interview with Chris Hedges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao7eOKHJQyY Aaron Mat? interviews Matt Taibbi on the IG report and its consequences for media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sQfvRO7ldk "Going Underground" with Afshin Rattansi interviews Jimmy Dore on Russiagate, the IG report, and how the Democrats are essentially promoting Trump's re-election; interview with Morgan Spurlock on "Super Size Me 2" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gwJY4PrGVo "Santa Claus Accused Of Quid Pro Quo For Giving Children Gifts In Exchange For Good Behavior" https://babylonbee.com/news/ho-ho-no-santa-claus-accused-of-quid-pro-quo-after-giving-children-gifts-in-exchange-for-good-behavior https://drrichswier.com/2019/12/17/santa-claus-accused-of-quid-pro-quo-for-giving-children-gifts-in-exchange-for-good-behavior/ http://hardnoxandfriends.com/2019/12/16/santa-accused-of-quid-pro-quo/ Alan Dershowitz on "Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment" https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment The Jimmy Dore Show https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/videos Tucker Carlson Tonight https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlTLHnxSVuIzrARlmz9oCfQEF08UV-v-E Nuremberg trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials Andrew Stewart on "What Happens After Bernie Sanders Wins?" https://washingtonbabylon.com/after-bernie-wins/ OPCW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_the_Prohibition_of_Chemical_Weapons Interview with former Newsweek journalist about how he quit when Newsweek wouldn't publish his work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFaCb7LMKds Caitlin Johnstone on "Journalist: Newsweek Suppressed OPCW Scandal And Threatened Me With Legal Action" https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/journalist-newsweek-suppressed-opcw-scandal-and-threatened-me-with-legal-action-7f85f490e610?source=---------3------------------ Glenn Greenwald on "The Inspector General?s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media" https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/ -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:16:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:16:31 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Nato and Angelina/Brad Message-ID: A good FB example related to Nato, from a former State Dept. Official, who did two tours of duty in the USSR. One would think the simplicity is to enlighten the simple folk, but given he has only former US State Dept. Officials on his FB page, and no share button, well I guess thats the point, the simple folk following lockstep USG policies. I responded with a desire to disband Nato altogether as a means of securing peace in the world. "So many reasons have been given for granting NATO membership to additional countries that I felt an urge to create a simper criterion, the Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) test. If you are interested in it, read further. Ukrainian NATO Membership: The Angelina Jolie Test Let us posit that Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) accepts my right to request her to join with me in connubial bliss. Does accepting that right also require her to accept my request? Common sense says that she will call the police, ignore me, or just say no, perhaps in that order of probability. Let us further imagine, however, that she replies, perhaps not kindly but accurately enough, that I am not sufficiently rich, good-looking, or talented for candidacy as her consort. Imagining nevertheless all the benefits I would gain from this alliance, I determine to overcome her objections. I become rich, hire plastic surgeons and personal trainers to mold me into, say, Brad Pitt, and discover a hitherto undiscovered talent for playing the didgeridoo. Having met her requirements, I renew my suit. Surely now she is obligated to accept me. Not exactly. She can still just say no, or advise me, probably through her attorneys, that she has other priorities, relationships and interests that preclude my attaining my heart?s desire under any circumstances. And so it is with international alliances. The oft-repeated trope that any country has the right to apply for NATO membership would be unobjectionable were it not accompanied by the assumption that having first applied and then met NATO?s requirements, the applicant has a right to be accepted into membership. A strategic alliance may well be to the benefit of the applicant, but it does not thereby follow that it is in the interest of the grantor. It would be kinder of the perspective grantor to make that clear in the beginning, but not having done so creates no obligation to say yes in the end. There are numerous reasons why the United States should not agree to even consider NATO membership for Ukraine, either now or later. The most important is that it has no vital interests in the country and should not accept an obligation to go to war on behalf of countries in which it has no vital interests. Of almost equal importance, the U.S. relationship with Russia is far more important than the relationship with Ukraine and this is one of the most neuralgic issues in that relationship. Further, while it is up to Ukraine to determine what its own national interests are, it does that country no kindness to allow it to delude itself that it will not have to work out a relationship with Russia that both sides can live with. So, the next time someone tries to persuade you that Ukraine should be a candidate for NATO membership, ask yourself whether Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) is likely to marry you.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:16:31 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:16:31 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Nato and Angelina/Brad Message-ID: A good FB example related to Nato, from a former State Dept. Official, who did two tours of duty in the USSR. One would think the simplicity is to enlighten the simple folk, but given he has only former US State Dept. Officials on his FB page, and no share button, well I guess thats the point, the simple folk following lockstep USG policies. I responded with a desire to disband Nato altogether as a means of securing peace in the world. "So many reasons have been given for granting NATO membership to additional countries that I felt an urge to create a simper criterion, the Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) test. If you are interested in it, read further. Ukrainian NATO Membership: The Angelina Jolie Test Let us posit that Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) accepts my right to request her to join with me in connubial bliss. Does accepting that right also require her to accept my request? Common sense says that she will call the police, ignore me, or just say no, perhaps in that order of probability. Let us further imagine, however, that she replies, perhaps not kindly but accurately enough, that I am not sufficiently rich, good-looking, or talented for candidacy as her consort. Imagining nevertheless all the benefits I would gain from this alliance, I determine to overcome her objections. I become rich, hire plastic surgeons and personal trainers to mold me into, say, Brad Pitt, and discover a hitherto undiscovered talent for playing the didgeridoo. Having met her requirements, I renew my suit. Surely now she is obligated to accept me. Not exactly. She can still just say no, or advise me, probably through her attorneys, that she has other priorities, relationships and interests that preclude my attaining my heart?s desire under any circumstances. And so it is with international alliances. The oft-repeated trope that any country has the right to apply for NATO membership would be unobjectionable were it not accompanied by the assumption that having first applied and then met NATO?s requirements, the applicant has a right to be accepted into membership. A strategic alliance may well be to the benefit of the applicant, but it does not thereby follow that it is in the interest of the grantor. It would be kinder of the perspective grantor to make that clear in the beginning, but not having done so creates no obligation to say yes in the end. There are numerous reasons why the United States should not agree to even consider NATO membership for Ukraine, either now or later. The most important is that it has no vital interests in the country and should not accept an obligation to go to war on behalf of countries in which it has no vital interests. Of almost equal importance, the U.S. relationship with Russia is far more important than the relationship with Ukraine and this is one of the most neuralgic issues in that relationship. Further, while it is up to Ukraine to determine what its own national interests are, it does that country no kindness to allow it to delude itself that it will not have to work out a relationship with Russia that both sides can live with. So, the next time someone tries to persuade you that Ukraine should be a candidate for NATO membership, ask yourself whether Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) is likely to marry you.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 17:59:23 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:59:23 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Common Censored Message-ID: Ignore the style, if you?re over age 50, focus on the substance. http://commoncensored.libsyn.com/episode-87-corbyn-crashes-trump-impeachment-afghanistan-papers-5g-health-risks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 18 17:59:23 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:59:23 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Common Censored Message-ID: Ignore the style, if you?re over age 50, focus on the substance. http://commoncensored.libsyn.com/episode-87-corbyn-crashes-trump-impeachment-afghanistan-papers-5g-health-risks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 14:24:23 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:24:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Sarah Lazare: CAP Publicly <> From UAE. + 8 Mo., Still Mtg w UAE Lobbyists. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Check this out. My emphasis. [...] Some of Katulis? own writing appears to contradict even CAP's belated statement of ?full support? for U.S. withdrawal from the Yemen War. In March 2019, Katulis and CAP chief operating officer Gordon Gray co-authored an article that played down the importance of ending U.S. support for the war. ?*Ending U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition will not stop the war* or address the humanitarian crisis,? they wrote. ?Successfully and comprehensively addressing the grave situation in Yemen will require patient diplomacy, which inevitably will see ups and downs given the nature of the conflict and the combatants inside and outside Yemen.? [...] For 500 points, which key leading Democratic Member of the House recently said something *very similar* to this, at a spectacular juncture? For 500 points, which post will Katulis occupy in the Executive Branch if Biden is POTUS? http://inthesetimes.com/article/22226/center-for-american-progress-uae-lobbying-fara-disclosures-influence CAP Publicly Distanced Itself From the UAE. 8 Months Later, It Was Still Meeting with UAE Lobbyists. A foreign policy expert at the influential think tank remained close to UAE lobbyists. BY SARAH LAZARE This January, the Center for American Progress (CAP) declared it would no longer accept funding from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). ?With a rising undemocratic tide around the world, and serious questions about which side of that struggle our own president stands on, it seemed clear that all Americans should take extra steps and leave no doubt where they stand,? a spokesperson for CAP told the Guardian. The pledge came amid public outcry over Saudi Arabia?s murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for the Washington Post, in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. Since 2014, CAP had received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the UAE, a close ally of Saudi Arabia. CAP, founded by Clinton staffer John Podesta, is widely seen as the think tank that wields the most influence on the Democratic Party. During this time, the group had been conspicuously silent on the U.S.-UAE-Saudi war on Yemen, which was condemned by human rights groups. But CAP appears not to have taken all steps to rid itself of UAE influence. According to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) records, which disclose lobbyists? financial relationships with foreign governments, a high-level CAP staffer continued meeting with a UAE lobbyist for at least eight months after CAP pledged to stop taking UAE donations. FARA filings show that Harbour Group, a lobbying firm, received $2,863,574.34 from the UAE and $160,008.09 from Saudi Arabia during the six-month period ending on March 31, 2019. That same filing shows that, during this time period, Richard Mintz, managing director of Harbour Group, had ?multiple contacts? with Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at CAP known for his close relationship with the UAE. These meetings extended from October 1 to March 30, indicating they continued for two months after CAP pledged it would stop taking UAE money. While the record does not disclose details of these meetings, it says the topic of their discussions were ?UAE foreign policy.? It didn?t stop there. A newly released FARA filing shows that, from April 1 to September 30, Harbour lobbyists repeatedly met and communicated with Katulis. During that time period, the lobbying firm received $3,558,776.35 from the UAE (no U.S. lobbying payments from Saudi Arabia were listed). While FARA documents are scant on details, frustrating transparency advocates, the filing notes that Richard Mintz, managing director of Harbour Group, met with Katulis from April 1 to September 30. Under ?subject matter,? the filing merely states ?Iran/Yemen/Red Sea??three top geopolitical concerns of the UAE. The same filing notes that two other Harbour Group lobbyists had contact with Katulis: Adam Sharon who had a ?lunch, catch-up meeting? with him on August 22, and Matthew Triaca, who sent Katulis an email on August 29. The two FARA documents only list meetings up to the end of September, so the meetings may be ongoing. While these meetings do not contradict CAP?s statement that it is no longer receiving UAE money, it does raise questions about ongoing UAE influence. Asked for comment, CAP spokesperson Sam Hananel told In These Times via email, ?The Center for American Progress no longer accepts funding from the United Arab Emirates. Following the conclusion of the grant period, CAP staff finalized and submitted reports associated with past work.? CAP declined repeated requests to comment on the content of the meetings between Mintz and Katulis. The refusal is notable, given that CAP has *called for increased * transparency on lobbying disclosures, citing the threat of Russian interference. Harbour Group and Mintz did not respond to requests for an interview. CAP declined on Katulis' behalf. Think tanks meet with all sorts of people, and a meeting alone does not prove undue political influence. However, a large number of meetings over a significant time span suggests a closer relationship, and one more likely to be mutually beneficial. CAP and Katulis? relationship with UAE lobbyists goes back further. A recent report by Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy found that UAE ?foreign agents,? most commonly Harbour?s Richard Mintz, contacted Katulis ?at least 11 times according to their 2018 FARA filings, primarily regarding a ?CAP group trip to UAE/KSA? in late April and early May 2018,? writes Freeman (who also provided In These Times the FARA documents for this article.). The records show that then, as now, Mintz was the main contact for Katulis. The report, further, notes that CAP was among the top five think tanks most contacted by the UAE in 2018. CAP has long exerted significant influence over the center of the Democratic Party, and played a tremendous role in shaping Obama administration policy, with Time reporting in 2008 that ?not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.? Katulis? bio boasts his political influence, noting that, ?for more than a decade, he has advised senior U.S. policymakers on foreign policy and has provided expert testimony several times to key congressional committees.? Katulis, meanwhile, wears another hat: He is a senior advisor to Albright Stonebridge Group, a ?global business strategy firm? with offices in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The UAE office is led by Jad Mneymneh, who previously served in the Crown Prince Court of Abu Dhabi?s Office of Strategic Affairs. While a spokesperson for the firm said its does not lobby the U.S. government or take on ?client work that involves activities covered by FARA,? journalist Lee Fang noted on Twitter that the group is an influence peddler. While the firm may not partake in activities that warrent FARA reporting, its staffer?Katulis?does perform such activities at CAP, like testifying before Congress. There is reason to think that Katulis? relationships have had an impact. A January 16 Intercept report by Ryan Grim and Clio Chang found that, in the aftermath of the Khashoggi killing, Katulis objected to an initial statement from CAP condemning Saudi Arabia for the murder and calling for concrete consequences. Thanks to Katulis? input, the statement was watered down and instead called for ?additional steps to reassess? the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. CAP?s statement that it would no longer take UAE funding came amid public scrutiny fueled, in part, by these revelations. The implications of these ties are not theoretical. The Yemen war has killed at least 100,000 people, and the U.S.-Saudi-UAE coalition is responsible for more than 8,000 of 12,000 known civilian deaths, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project. For more than four and a half years, the powerful think tank has tacitly supported the Yemen War through its silence. Even as the mainstream of the Democratic Party turned against the war under President Trump, the think tank stayed mum, despite weighing in on a number of other foreign policy issues, from Russian interference in the election to Trump?s decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal. During a heated -congressional effort to end U.S. support for the Yemen War by invoking the War Powers resolution, CAP was silent, coming out in support only after the resolution passed with broad Democratic backing. (It was ultimately vetoed by Trump in April.) Some of Katulis? own writing appears to contradict even CAP's belated statement of ?full support? for U.S. withdrawal from the Yemen War. In March 2019, Katulis and CAP chief operating officer Gordon Gray co-authored an article that played down the importance of ending U.S. support for the war. ?Ending U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition will not stop the war or address the humanitarian crisis,? they wrote. ?Successfully and comprehensively addressing the grave situation in Yemen will require patient diplomacy, which inevitably will see ups and downs given the nature of the conflict and the combatants inside and outside Yemen.? Though allegedly no longer funding CAP directly, the UAE government was likely delighted to see such a statement come from a leading Democratic Party-aligned think tank. SARAH LAZARE Sarah Lazare is web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at @sarahlazare. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 20:32:26 2019 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:32:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Large Sunny Bedroom to rent in house in Crystal Lake Park Message-ID: > Description: One sunny Bedroom in a 4 bedroom house in Crystal Lake Park. > Available January 1 2020. > > The room can be rented unfurnished, or can be furnished---with new > hardwood floors, new new wall to wall rug, curtains, and freshly painted. > The room has a very large closet, plenty of storage space, central AC, a > porch in the front, a fruit and flower garden in back. The house is 5 > blocks away from Down Town Urbana, is located near the Gold Line for easy > access, and is across the street from School for Designing a Society. The > home is a cat-friendly space with two indoor cats currently living there. > Unfortunately, no other pets would be allowed at this time. This home is > also a non-smoking home. Current residents are quiet artists and > professional people. > > *Rental price is $600 per month, *which* includes all utilities* (heat, > AC, water, sewage, laundry machines,internet, trash, and recycle) > > This bedroom is on the 2nd floor, west side of house, is 16'8" x > 11'4??it?s really the size of a studio apartment! Please contact me if > you?re interested??susanroseparenti at gmail.com > [image: 20171218_181247.jpeg] [image: 20171218_164733.jpeg] -- *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: 20171218_181247.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 101248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20171218_164733.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92154 bytes Desc: not available URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 20:36:27 2019 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:36:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Large Sunny Room to rent, in Crystal Lake Park Message-ID: Description: One sunny Bedroom in a 4 bedroom house in Crystal Lake Park. > Available January 1 2020. > > The room can be rented unfurnished, or can be furnished---with new > hardwood floors, new wall to wall rug, curtains, and freshly painted. The > room has a very large closet, plenty of storage space, central AC, a porch > in the front, a fruit and flower garden in back. The house is 5 blocks away > from Down Town Urbana, is located near the Gold Line for easy access, and > is across the street from School for Designing a Society. The home is a > cat-friendly space with two indoor cats currently living there. > Unfortunately, no other pets would be allowed at this time. This home is > also a non-smoking home. Current residents are quiet artists and > professional people. > > *Rental price is $600 per month, *which* includes all utilities* (heat, > AC, water, sewage, laundry machines,internet, trash, and recycle) > > This bedroom is on the 2nd floor, west side of house, is 16'8" x > 11'4??it?s really the size of a studio apartment! Please contact me if > you?re interested??susanroseparenti at gmail.com > [image: 20171218_181247.jpeg] [image: 20171218_164733.jpeg] -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * *The School for Designing a Society *www.designingasociety.net *Like us on Facebook !* -- *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 Thu Dec 19 20:38:49 2019 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:38:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Photos of Room! Message-ID: -- *Susan Parenti* *Educational Coordinator * [image: 20171218_164733.jpeg] [image: 20171218_181247.jpeg] *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: 20171218_164733.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 92154 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20171218_181247.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 101248 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Dec 20 00:39:41 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:39:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Notes Message-ID: <6361cc0b-c832-cc2d-f5fb-e0d719440a5e@forestfield.org> News is coming fast Need time to digest it all Constipation hurts Here are some topics to consider discussing on News from Neptune and/or AWARE on the Air. If I had to give the notes a theme name, I'd call them the "exploitation edition". Syria/War: More OPCW leaks further confirm the alleged Syrian chemical attack was a staged chemical weapons incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o6RA6C2WDM -- Aaron Mat? interviews former Newsweek journalist Tareq Haddad who quit his job over Newsweek's refusal to cover the OPCW?s [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] unfolding Syria scandal. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/19/newsweek-reporter-quits-after-editors-block-coverage-of-opcw-syria-scandal/ -- > According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW > officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that > undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical > weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad?s editors at > Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. ?If I don?t find > another position in journalism because of this, I?m perfectly happy to > accept that consequence,? Haddad says. ?It?s not desirable. But there is > no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn?t report > something like this.? https://tareqhaddad.com/2019/12/14/lies-newsweek-and-control-of-the-media-narrative-first-hand-account/ -- Haddad's own account of what happened and why he left Newsweek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJbdIqwJBU -- Jimmy Dore interviews Max Blumenthal on many topics including the corporate/neocon support for smearing anyone who pointed out the Venezuelan coup (including The Grayzone Project crew's Anya Parampil & Max Blumenthal), and the additional OPCW leaks which confirm that the Syrian chemical attack was a manufactured pretext to ostensibly justify the US/UK/French coordinated attack. Here's a transcript of the Syria portion of the interview starting around 41m08s into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJbdIqwJBU Background: Higgins is a founder of Bellingcat, a website known for spreading neocon-supporting lies in the Skripal and Douma investigations among others. Relating to the US' Venezuela coup attempts, Blumenthal was arrested and had his home raided on the basis of the allegation from a 58-year-old immigrant woman who supports the Venezuelan coup. As of mid-December 2019, police recently dropped Blumenthal's false charges. [On screen: Jimmy Dore shows https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1191679166111977479 a tweet from Eliot Higgins which Dore is about to read.] > Jimmy Dore: [...] by this guy, Eliot Higgins, who, by the way, got his > expertise by, I'm not kidding, he got his expertise in weapons, because > he considers himself a weapons expert, by playing videogames. Not > kidding. Not kidding. That's in the New York Times. So this guy says > "Documenting Max Blumenthal's Arrest for Assaulting a 58-Year-Old > Immigrant Woman from Venezuela". > > Max Blumenthal: Yeah, this sort of 'open source journalism' that Eliot > Higgins admires where they basically put a bunch of phony arrest > warrants and court documents in this by someone who is just constantly > smearing me. And Eliot Higgins knew exactly what he was doing which is > to put it out there and then say 'Let's all remember he's innocent > before being proven guilty'. Why would you put all this out there? It's > obvious that you want me to be locked away because you don't like my > journalism and I have done significant damage to your narrative. And > that's just what it is, it's a narrative that he's putting forward. He > uses open source journalism to create a plausible narrative without > going to the ground, there's no field journalism there, that supports > western foreign policy. So he was the guy that, apparently, when the US > put pressure on the OPCW [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical > Weapons] to declare that a chemical attack had, in fact, occurred in the > suburb of Douma which was used to trigger a US military assault on > Syria, he was the guy along with Bellingcat, that the OPCW went to to > doctor their report which has now been completely discredited. > > Jimmy Dore: What do you mean they went to him to doctor it? > > Max Blumenthal: It looks to be the case, this is what Ted Postol, an > actual rocket scientist I think told Aaron Mat?, this is what we're > learning, and Higgins hasn't denied it, which is that Bellingcat had > substantial input into the phony OPCW report. And when I say it was > doctored, look at Jonathan Steele, one of the journalists who got to > meet with the OPCW whistleblower, that whistleblower told Steele that > three US officials approached the OPCW and demanded that they produce a > report stating that a chemical attack had occurred even though they had > no scientific evidence or any evidence that one [such attack] had > [occurred]. And so in comes Bellingcat, apparently, and the report still > wasn't really a very strong report, but then when it dropped Bellingcat > touted that it shows 'oh, that there are organophosphorate on the > scene'. > > Jimmy Dore: [shaking his head 'no'] Didn't show that. Didn't show that. > That was false, in fact there were people who contradicted that: they > suppressed their findings and didn't include it in the report. > > Max Blumenthal: Yeah, so the point is, this guy is, it appears that he > and Bellingcat have been involved in lying the public into a military > assault. So when I called him out for this disgusting Twitter post he > came back at me and said 'Max, got any war crimes to deny?'. I don't > know what war crimes I'm denying. But the response to him is that it > appears you were involved in what could have been a war crime. > > Jimmy Dore: Yeah. > > Max Blumenthal: What the US did to Syria was a war crime. > > Jimmy Dore: Right. > > Max Blumenthal: And he [Eliot Higgins] is supplying the background noise > for that with Bellingcat. They [Higgins & Bellingcat] have a lot of > questions to answer about their involvement in this doctored report. > > Jimmy Dore: I have a feeling they're never gonna answer any of those > questions, Max. And everybody knows who Bellingcat is now. All they have > to do is go to YouTube; that video [of Jimmy Dore on Eliot Higgins with > Dore's live audience] has gotten tens of thousands of views, if not a > hundred. And so anybody can just refer -- just go to his [Higgins'] > Twitter feed and I post that video all the time so people who follow him > know who he is. And he's not foolin' anybody. > > Max Blumenthal: Consider the dissonance between the conversation we're > having now and the conversation people are witnessing here about > Bellingcat and their record and what's sold to the rest of the public. > Bellingcat just won an international Emmy for this bunk documentary > about how great they are and what a genius Higgins is. And they're being > celebrated in the New York Times, and in fact, one of the New York Times > new Directors of Investigation came out of Bellingcat. So the New York > Times is actually hiring people from this organization which is > intimately linked to the national security state. So it's like they're > all part of the same apparatus. If you're not turning to alternative > media on this you're going to be left completely in the dark about why > we are going to war or sanctioning this or that country. > > Jimmy Dore: So the budget director, David Stockman, for Ronald Reagan > [...] was recently on Fox Business with Maria Buttafuoco [Maria > Bartiromo] and they were pushing the Syria lie and he [Stockman] said of > course he [Assad] didn't gas his own people! Like everybody says so! > Well he [Stockman] says you've gotta quit listening to the mainstream > media! Get outside the mainstream -- this is a guy from the Reagan > administration telling Fox News that they've gotta get out of the > mainstream news if they wanna get the truth about Syria. So I think > people know [not to trust the mainstream media]. I don't think anybody > believes the mainstream media anymore on Syria, do you? > > Max Blumenthal: I actually went through Douma where the attack occurred. > I wasn't able to go to the location because the Syrian military controls > access. But I went through Douma, I saw it. And I went with someone who > was from Douma who actually had to leave because the so-called Moderate > Rebels took over his neighborhood and set up a recruiting center for the > Saudi-funded militia known as the Army of Islam. And he told me that > everybody in Syria, this wasn't affiliated with someone from the Syrian > government, [...] he told me that everybody was watching that day that > the chemical attack was said to have occurred. And the rebels in the > area are said to have been completely defeated. The Syrian military had > no reason to drop a chemical weapon, they'd already won! And then the > last-ditch attempt by the rebels to stir up a US military event -- > intervention -- took place where they basically staged this incident. > And nobody in Syria believed there was a chemical attack. [...] They > were watching live on TV, there was a livestream setup in the area on > all the state TV channels so it wasn't like they were trying to hide > anything either. And when I went to Syria, I just got mercilessly > attacked by this same echo chamber because, obviously, they don't want > me to show what's going on in and around Damascus. Labor/Exploitation: Child labor in the Congolese cobalt mines gets a court hearing as Congolese families sue tech giants over their dead, maimed, and exploited children who have suffered mining cobalt for the tech giants. Cobalt is used in batteries which are found in every tracker/cell phone, laptop, and car; cobalt is thus one of many materials needed for our so-called "green future" in which we shift to powering more of our gadgets with batteries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lQQiKzKMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJyELDmmFvA -- RT's reports (RT is one of the few places to get coverage that doesn't shy away from criticizing the tech industry on this issue; plenty of other corporate-framed discussion sites like Slashdot and Hacker News permit neoliberal commentary which discourage questioning modern-day tech practices and discourage keeping older computers for longer). jbn: Free software has a part to play in this as well -- free software is published software which we're free to run, inspect, share, and modify including commercially. Free software gives us a practical reason to care about how our computers work, even if we're non-technical computer users who can't directly use the technical information ourselves. Computers that operate fully using free software are computers that we can keep in service longer. The computers we use were very likely produced with exploitative practices, but we can make processes that use the advanced capabilities of today's computers by not relying on others getting newer computers every other year (which is exactly what tracker/cell phone manufacturers urge us all to do about once every other year). Current practices fuel the exploitation which Alphabet (Google), Apple, and other tech giants are rightly accused of. Democrats/Russiagate: What if the impeachment process doesn't go well for the Democrats? "Plan B" is to bring back the Mueller report! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmXrYjFll7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24z4bxIgP4k -- RT: It's difficult to understand the purpose of last night's impeachment vote: why should the upper house of the US Congress pass judgment on Donald Trump when Democrats already have a 'plan B'? The House Judiciary Committee said it will continue to investigate Donald Trump regardless of the outcome. But what else is left to investigate? Well, the House Judiciary Committee is saying that they will resurrect the dead, i.e., the Mueller Report. This will give them a chance to get back to their roots and bring up that old Russian collusion agenda and they can get the impeachment hearings going all over again: From US House Judiciary Committee legal brief: > The public version of the Mueller Report contains numerous redactions... > These rule 6(E) redactions withhold information about President Trump's > knowledge of his campaign's contacts with Russian officials and > WikiLeaks and therefore bear on whether the President committed > impeachable offenses... RT's reports indicating that Rep. Nancy Pelosi seems unwilling to introduce the articles of impeachment to the Senate and even she realizes that the Democrats are giving voters no reason to go vote Democrat (or vote at all); after all, impeachment does not give voters Medicare for All, a living wage, potable water pipes, a national jobs program, cleaner air, free education, nor does it end wars or bring back the soldiers, contractors, and their weapons. Voting: Exclusive RT interview with Greg Palast: Expect red state voter purge in 2020 --Greg Palast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSUTcZ5oX8 -- RT's interview with Greg Palast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWgZUsMbWU -- Jimmy Dore's coverage of the same issue and Bernie Sanders' response which motivates nobody to vote for his candidacy. FBI: FBI found to be lying to FISA court. Jimmy Dore offers multiple examinations of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLx1ofEAz4 -- Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC defends FBI lying to FISA court. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VurVs8yg8lQ -- MSNBC claiming it's telling their viewers the facts, which would be a new thing for that network to the extent their claim is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzRVoPE94 -- MSNBC defends lying and discredited Steele dossier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb0gyt9Vriw -- James Comey downplays how his FBI lied to get FISA warrants, lies about how hard FISA warrants are to get (they're incredibly easy to get -- In 2013 we saw reports much like what Mother Jones published including "FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests" from https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ which is coming from Mother Jones, a source that has been incredibly sympathetic to neocon coverage) In https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ David Corn wrote in 2013: > After last week?s revelations extensive National Security Agency > surveillance of phone and internet communications, President Barack > Obama made it a point to assure Americans that, not to worry, there is > plenty of oversight of his administration?s snooping programs. ?We?ve > got congressional oversight and judicial oversight,? he said Friday, > referring in part to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), > which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for > surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or > terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the > more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 > years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That?s a rate of .03 > percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight > is actually being provided. Similar stories throughout the years: 2015: https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ 2017: https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/fisa-surveillance-requests-are-almost-never-rejected/ 2017: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/last-6-years-record-fisa-court-denied-0-9400-electronic-surveillance which includes: > In the last six years on record (2010-2015), the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court did not deny a single application out of the 9,400 > the government submitted seeking authority ?to conduct electronic > surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes? under the terms of the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to reports filed by the > U.S. Justice Department. > > The last time the court denied an electronic surveillance application > under FISA was 2009. That year, the court denied one application > outright and denied another in part. This CNSNews.com story also includes a chart showing year by year the number of applications, how many were approved, approved-but-modified, withdrawn, denied-in-part, and denied. 2019: https://www.thetcanada.com/2019/12/18/fisa-court-fbi-secretive-surveillance-court-rebukes-fbi/ which includes: > [...] open criticism of a federal agency is uncommon for the secretive > FISA court, some observers were skeptical that procedural tweaks would > generate sincere reform, given that FBI agents are already required to > swear under threat of perjury that every application is truthful and > accurate. > > The court itself, meanwhile, seldom turns down an FBI request, with a > minuscule 0.03 percent rejection rate over its 30-plus years in > operation. There is little reason to expect that to change after January > 10. Assange: Medical experts are "not allowed in" to Julian Assange hearing RT remains one of the few places one can get coverage of how Assange is doing, coverage of the pro-press freedom/pro-release Assange protests outside Belmarsh prison (where is Assange is unjustifiably being held well beyond any requirement by legal judgment), and coverage at each Assange court hearing. This is another mark of shame for other allegedly progressive news outlets including Democracy Now which (according to their own website: https://www.democracynow.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=assange) apparently doesn't conduct interviews with Assange's father John Shipton (https://www.democracynow.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=Shipton returns no hits as of 2019-12-19) and other attendees of Assange-related events. Occasionally DN guests speak on Assange's behalf but that's not the same as what RUPTLY does: RT visits the site of the event, points a camera at the people there, lets them speak, and then runs the recorded footage. This is famously how RUPTLY (RT's comment-free dead-roll camera outlet) got the only footage we have of Assange being forced out of the Ecuadorian embassy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMZU2DnPD4Q -- RT interview with interviewees who wanted to bring medical testimony to court, and summarize findings by Nils Melzer, the UN rapporteur on torture who visited Assange in May 2019, who says that Assange's condition is consistent with someone suffering from torture. https://on.rt.com/9z0f -- Nils Melzer is quoted: > Given the strongly perceptible public and official prejudice held > against Mr. Assange in the United States, there are serious reasons to > doubt that he would receive a fair trial before an impartial judicial > body as required under human rights law. > > I underscore my most serious concern that, if Mr. Assange were to be > extradited or otherwise surrendered to the United States... he would be > exposed to a real risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading > treatment or punishment. > > [Assange shows] all symptoms typical for prolonged and sustained > exposure to severe psychological stress, anxiety and related mental and > emotional suffering in an environment highly conducive to major > depressive and post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD).? https://cdnv.rt.com/files/2019.06/5cfcb89ddda4c876728b463d.mp4 -- Christopher Hedges interview with Nils Melzer from July 7, 2019 https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/461420-julian-assange-prison-torture/ -- transcript of above interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYk-_E_BUcQ -- recent RT interview with Nils Melzer Healthcare: US healthcare delivery is coming to UK. John Pilger's latest documentary, "The Dirty War on the NHS", covers what that means and how this has been in the works for years. Perhaps the American people can help warn the UK away from this shift before they lose what the UK public sees as a widely-valued institution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlJGL8Z52YE -- John Pilger's latest documentary "The Dirty War on the NHS" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHZcXrc9_wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkH-JPlTgMQ -- John Pilger interviewed by Afshin Rattansi on RT's "Going Underground" about "The Dirty War on the NHS" Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDkALRz5Rk -- DW's documentary on "How poor people survive in the USA". The last segment of this is not as good as the previous segments, but this does help show what's in store for the UK's poor when the NHS becomes nothing but a brand wherein healthcare is decided upon by HMOs. -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Dec 21 18:32:46 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:32:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #444 notes Message-ID: <6082e61d-08eb-93e6-4e64-faab5bbc9280@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #444 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQboZen0Ve8 A "Present" edition Tulsi Gabbard voted "Present" on Trump impeachment https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/20/roaming-charges-7/ -- Jeffrey St. Clair's notes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozPpQjLf_1M -- Jimmy Dore interview with Rep. Gabbard about this vote "Bernie & the Sandernistas" by Jeffrey St. Clair https://store.counterpunch.org/product/bernie-the-sandernistas/ Katie Halper on "Tonight?s Democratic Debate Co-Moderator Has a Longstanding Anti-Bernie Bias" https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/12/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-yamiche-alcindor Frank Bruni on "Give Joe Biden His Due" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/opinion/wine-cave-debate.html The Babylon Bee on "The Bee Explains: Impeachment" https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-impeachment/ Democracy Now on "As Democratic Field Gets Whiter, DNC Should ?Press Pause? & Fix Process Shutting Out People of Color" https://www.democracynow.org/2019/12/20/democratic_debate_lack_of_diversity Jeremy Corbyn on what his pronouns are https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/16/jeremy-corbyn-pronouns-lgbt-equality-pinknews-awards-eastenders/ -- PinkNews on "Jeremy Corbyn shares his pronouns in solidarity with trans community at PinkNews Awards" https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3719713-My-name-is-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-my-pronouns-are-he-him -- discussion on mumsnet ("by parents for parents") Thomas B. Edsall on "Are There Limits to the Rights Revolution?" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/opinion/transgender-rights-democrats.html Nina Paley's "Neenster" and blog https://neenster.org/ http://blog.ninapaley.com/ Marxism mailing list archives http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/archives.htm -- older archives https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/listinfo/marxism -- current archives and form to subscribe or unsubscribe Liam Stack on "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html Transgender sprinters finish 1st, 2nd at Connecticut girls indoor track championships https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/06/19/girls-say-connecticuts-transgender-athlete-policy-violates-title-ix-file-federal-complaint/ Views about transgenderism and sex in sport from Reason.com https://reason.com/2019/03/11/who-is-a-woman-in-sport/ https://reason.com/2019/03/14/sex-testing-in-elite-sport/ Benjamin Studebaker & Aimee Terese's show "What's Left?" https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/ -- list of recent episodes https://twitter.com/whatisleftpod -- Twitter account https://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:595199712/sounds.rss -- RSS feed Yves Smith on "Tucker Carlson Tears into Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer for Strip Mining American Towns" https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/12/tucker-carlson-tears-into-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer-for-strip-mining-american-towns.html Joti Brar is a leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) https://twitter.com/joti2gaza -- Twitter posts https://thecommunists.org/ Truthdig https://www.truthdig.com/ Jeffrey St. Clair on "Roaming Charges: You Go Back, Jack, Do It Again" in regards to Truthdig https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/20/roaming-charges-7/ Common Dreams https://www.commondreams.org/ "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey ISBN-13: 978-0199283279 ISBN-10: 0199283273 Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwmYneezNE -- Afshin Rattansi interviews Jimmy Dore on bipartisan support for neoconservatism & neoliberalism; real meaning of Trump impeachment Jimmy Dore on Bernie Sanders campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWgZUsMbWU -- on Sanders objection to voter purge by GOP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NohSCoBNYqM -- "Un-endorsing" Cenk Uyghur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ_GR38HcPs -- Cenk Uyghur replies Walden Bello on "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/10/capitalism-with-chinese-characteristics/ Walden Bello on "Good Riddance to the WTO" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/20/good-riddance-to-the-wto/ "This is Hell!" Show RSS feed: https://thisishell.com/rss.xml Brian Mier on "Chronicle of a Coup Foretold" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/20/chronicle-of-a-coup-foretold-2/ Brasil Wire http://www.brasilwire.com/ Philip Weiss on "Israeli Jews are ?equivalent of Seminoles deciding to take over Florida? and Palestinians are the cowboys ? Jeffrey Goldberg reemerges" https://mondoweiss.net/2019/12/israeli-jews-are-equivalent-of-seminoles-deciding-to-take-over-florida-and-arabs-are-the-cowboys-jeffrey-goldberg-reemerges/ "A Hidden Life" written & directed by Terrence Malick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hidden_Life_(2019_film) Michael McCaffrey on "A Hidden Life is the Story of a Farmer Who Resisted Hitler - NOT a Metaphor for Anti-Trump #Resistance" http://mpmacting.com/blog/2019/12/19/a-hidden-life-is-not-metaphor-for-resistance-but-an-indictment-of-empire-adoring-establishmentarians Philosophize This! http://philosophizethis.org/ RSS feed: https://philosophizethis.libsyn.com/rss Episode discussing Leo Strauss: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/philosophizethis/Leo_Strauss.mp3?dest-id=144660 Episodes on Nietzsche: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/philosophizethis/Nietzsche_Part_1.mp3?dest-id=144660 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/philosophizethis/Will_to_Power.mp3?dest-id=144660 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/philosophizethis/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra.mp3?dest-id=144660 https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/philosophizethis/Nietzsche_On_Love.mp3?dest-id=144660 J.B. Nicholson notes [lists.chambana.net was unreachable or returning a 502 error as this set of notes were edited. The notes posted to peace and peace-discuss mailing lists should eventually show up somewhere on these URLs.] https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/ https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/ -J From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Dec 21 23:47:41 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:47:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Updated pointer to research notes In-Reply-To: <6082e61d-08eb-93e6-4e64-faab5bbc9280@forestfield.org> References: <6082e61d-08eb-93e6-4e64-faab5bbc9280@forestfield.org> Message-ID: I wrote: > J.B. Nicholson notes > [lists.chambana.net was unreachable or returning a 502 error as this set of > notes were edited. The notes posted to peace and peace-discuss mailing > lists should eventually show up somewhere on these URLs.] > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/ > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/ The web archives are online now so here are the more specific URLs for these notes: https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051707.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015514.html From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Dec 22 01:25:03 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:25:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace] CJ Hopkins' column Message-ID: <7683B6AD-BF99-4AF3-982F-4532586EEECD@newsfromneptune.com> https://consentfactory.org/2019/12/18/the-year-of-manufactured-hysteria/ From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Dec 22 02:16:26 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 20:16:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Via Kim Carlson Message-ID: <9B1CF362-5EFE-446C-994D-2268FCEDC37F@newsfromneptune.com> Paula Densnow is in FB jail yet again for telling the inconvenient truth. I shared this post of hers a while back, but considering the dismal state of affairs, it merits posting again. "I got my nursing license and my last job long before the increasing repression started. I watched as the young ones were forced to give their fingerprints, pee in cups and pay for background checks, but that particular net skipped me. Everyone adjusts to the new paradigm, no matter how outrageously oppressive. When I told the young 'uns that we didn't used to submit to such indignities, that applying for a job was separate from being accused of a crime, they didn't believe me. Surely, it was ever thus, that your boss had the power to make you prove yourself innocent, or be considered guilty. Now I am watching as the tribe I used to belong to, the liberal tribe, is expertly herded towards acceptance of a police state and endless war. They used to support free speech. Now they cheer on censorship and approve of physically attacking anyone who says something they don't like. They used to support a free press. Now they yammer on about the need to censor, and they enthusiastically support the persecution of Julian Assange. They used to distrust the CIA and the FBI. Now they viciously attack anyone who points out obvious lies and abuse of power by those agencies. They used to oppose war. Now they scream about the Evil Russians and the Devious Chinese, the Horrible North Koreans and the Oppressed Syrians and Venezuelans, and happily support provocations to those countries (among others). I am left standing here on the beach, feeling the sand slip away under my feet, as the tide goes out, and this country becomes more and more fascist, with my former tribe happily swimming with the sharks. I value my Facebook friends around the world, who are also watching with horror, as the boot stomps on more and more faces. Thank you for holding fast to your values." From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Dec 22 02:30:06 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 20:30:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Sjursen on impeachment fraud Message-ID: <1E79CA08-082D-4848-8E4F-B5BD066D34A7@newsfromneptune.com> https://original.antiwar.com/Danny_Sjursen/2019/12/19/the-united-states-of-impeachment/ From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 17:53:23 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 09:53:23 -0800 Subject: [Peace] NFN In-Reply-To: References: <6082e61d-08eb-93e6-4e64-faab5bbc9280@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Carl I?m sorry, if it appears I?m always bashing your statements on NFN, in spite of supporting your primary anti-war views. Please tell me how does voting ?present,? as did Tulsi Gabbard, in reference to Impeachment, differ from ?abstention?? How does it prove ?courage,? rather than ?cowardice,? as a local Representative here, was accused a couple years ago, when abstaining from a vote related to BDS. Please don?t repeat what Tulsi said, as I don?t see anything said by or as a candidate of value. BDS is an issue in which Tulsi clearly supported Israel with her vote recently. Which begs the question, how does an anti-war candidate support Israel in their continued murder of Palestinians? David I?m also a fan of Walden Bello, as he has been involved in Social Protection issues with the ILO, as well as having a presence in Bangkok some years ago, though a Filipino national. Now retired from the U. of Philippines, he is a lecturer at Binghamton University in the US. His article on Counterpunch to which you refer is good, though something he overlooked to mention is: 1) The Scarborough Island contention, referred to in the article, between the Philippines and China, was orchestrated by the US. Not one Filipino Attorney was present in relation to the trial that took place with the ICCLOS/International Court on Law of the Seas. The island had never been used by the Philippines, and upon taking office current President Duerte dismissed the issue saying ?we don?t want it, China can have it,? infuriating the US. He has now changed his tune and is demanding it be returned to the Philippines. Duerte, not a nice guy, neither was Saddam, nor is Assad, represents a small vulnerable nation with US military bases populating the island, Duerte had the US military bases closed in the south, but the remaining bases in the north are still there, pointing at China. Put simply the Philippines is a very vulnerable nation, having been a former and current US colony in one way or another. I await further articles on this topic by Walden Bello, hoping he will point out the reason China has become so defensive, that being the US Pivot to China during the Obama Administration placing US battleships throughout the South China Sea. Too many Asian indigenous peoples, especially the Filipino?s having been colonized by the US, have relatives working around the world, especially in the US are western wannabe?s. Our soft power of film, education, missionaries whether Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. have had the propaganda effect the Council on Foreign Relations perfected over the years. Hong Kong, and India having been colonized by the Brits, tend to have forgotten the past horrors inflicted by colonization, now worship all that the west has to offer. Some might refer to it as white supremacist adulation. Carl and I discussed the situation of the Philippines on AOTA many times. 2) It needs to be stated, people throughout Southeast Asia, generally dislike China, though knowing little about the nation, but because it?s the Chinese within their own nations who for centuries have controlled business and commerce. Less dislike exists in Thailand where the peoples have intermarried so extensively due to shared culture and religion of Buddhism. Not as much intermarriage has taken place in Catholic/Christian Philippines, and very little at all in either Muslim Malaysia or Indonesia. I mention this because the similarity to the Jews of Europe has not gone unnoticed by some lesser known Asian scholars in the past. Most notably when half a million Chinese Indonesians were murdered in 1965, during regime change, as a result of US fear of Communism taking root there. The US was behind it, and proof was provided on ?Democracy Now," by the Director of a film covering the massacre, going so far as to provide the names of the US Embassy personnel involved. Malaysia also at one time, scapegoated the Chinese minority during economic stress and violence was perpetrated against the Chinese communities. PM Mahathur famous for making racist statements against them, nonetheless when speaking with Chinese Malaysians expressed love for him, as he protected them. The discrimination against the Chinese in Malaysia today in relation to education and employment continues though given their elitist status due to economic success in business and commerce protects them. However, in 1998 after the economic crash of 1997, only one Chinese Malaysian was scapegoated and murdered, while many Chinese working class people were murdered in Indonesia their homes and businesses were destroyed. As always it was the working classes who suffered while the wealthy Chinese Indonesians escaped and to the jubilation of the Thai?s had their money transferred to Bangkok banks. > On Dec 21, 2019, at 15:47, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > I wrote: >> J.B. Nicholson notes >> [lists.chambana.net was unreachable or returning a 502 error as this set of notes were edited. The notes posted to peace and peace-discuss mailing lists should eventually show up somewhere on these URLs.] >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/ >> https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/ > > The web archives are online now so here are the more specific URLs for these notes: > > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051707.html > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015514.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 22:13:12 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:13:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Season's Greetings to Adam Smith and Nancy Pelosi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please RT: https://twitter.com/aishajumaan/status/1208857243879264258 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 180513 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 23:04:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:04:28 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Merry Xmas, and if we want peace in the world, resist propaganda against other nations References: Message-ID: > > > December 21, 2019 China detaining millions of Uyghurs? Serious problems with claims by US-backed NGO and far-right researcher ?led by God? against Beijing > > > Share > Tweet > > Claims that China has detained millions of Uyghur Muslims are based largely on two studies. A closer look at these papers reveals US government backing, absurdly shoddy methodologies, and a rapture-ready evangelical researcher named Adrian Zenz. > By Ajit Singh and Max Blumenthal > > The US House of Representatives passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act on December 3, legislation which calls for the Donald Trump administration to impose sanctions against China over allegations that Beijing has detained millions of Muslim-majority Uyghurs in the western region of Xinjiang. > > To drum up support for the sanctions bill, Western governments and media outlets have portrayed the People?s Republic as a human rights violator on par with Nazi Germany. Republican Rep. Chris Smith, for instance, denounced the Chinese government for what he called the ?mass internment of millions on a scale not seen since the Holocaust,? in ?modern-day concentration camps.? > > The claim that China has detained millions of ethnic Uyghurs in its Xinjiang region is repeated with increasing frequency, but little scrutiny is ever applied. Yet a closer look at the figure and how it was obtained reveals a serious deficiency in data. > > While this extraordinary claim is treated as unassailable in the West, it is, in fact, based on two highly dubious ?studies.? > > The first, by the US government-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders , formed its estimate by interviewing a grand total of eight people. > > The second study relied on flimsy media reports and speculation. It was authored by Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports ?scriptural spanking? of children, and believes he is ?led by God? on a ?mission? against China. > > As Washington ratchets up pressure on China, Zenz has been lifted out of obscurity and transformed almost overnight into a go-to pundit on Xinjiang. He has testified before Congress, providing commentary in outlets from the Wall Street Journal to Democracy Now!, and delivering expert quotes in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? recent ?China Cables? report. His Twitter bio notes that he is ?moving across the Atlantic? from his native Germany. > > Before Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal questioned Zenz about his religious ?mission,? at a recent event about Xinjiang inside the US Capitol, he had received almost entirely uncritical promotion from Western media. > > The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, which first popularized the ?millions detained? figure, has also been able to operate without a hint of media scrutiny. > > Washington-backed NGO claims millions detained after interviewing eight people > The ?millions detained? figure was first popularized by a Washington, DC-based NGO that is backed by the US government, the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD). > > In a 2018 report submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ? often misrepresented in Western media as a UN-authored report ? CHRD ?estimate[d] that roughly one million members of ethnic Uyghurs have been sent to ?re-education? detention camps and roughly two million have been forced to attend ?re-education? programs in Xinjiang.? According to CHRD, this figure was ?[b]ased on interviews and limited data.? > > While CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. > > > > > Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD ?extrapolated estimates? that ?at least 10% of villagers [?] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.? > > Applying these estimated rates to the entirety of Xinjiang, CHRD arrived at the figures submitted to the UN claiming that one million ethnic Uyghurs have been detained in ?re-education detention camps? and two million more have been ?forced to attend day/evening re-education sessions?. > > Thanks to questionable sources like the CHRD, the United States government has accused China of ?arbitrarily detain[ing] 800,000 to possibly more than two million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslims in internment camps designed to erase religious and ethnic identities.? > > Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2018, State Department official Scott Busby stated this this ?is the U.S. government assessment, backed by our intelligence community and open source reporting.? > > The Chinese government has rejected US allegations, and claims that it has in fact established ?vocational education and training centers [?] to prevent the breeding and spread of terrorism and religious extremism.? The Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that ?there [are] no so-called ?re-education camps? in Xinjiang at all. The vocational education and training centers legally operated in Xinjiang aim to help a small number of people affected by terrorist and extremist ideologies and equip them with skills, so that they can be self-reliant and re-integrate into society.? > > In its mounting pressure campaign against China, the US is not only relying on CHRD for data; it is directly funding its operations. As Ben Norton and Ajit Singh previously reported for The Grayzone , CHRD receives significant financial support from Washington?s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . > > The NGO has spent years campaigning on behalf of extreme right-wing opposition figures who celebrate colonialism and call for the ?Westernization? of China. > > ?Leading expert? on Xinjiang relies on speculation and one questionable media report > The second key source for claims that China has detained millions of Uyghur Muslims is Adrian Zenz. He is a senior fellow in China studies at the far-right Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was established by the US government in 1993. > > The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an outgrowth of the National Captive Nations Committee, a group founded by Ukrainian nationalist Lev Dobriansky to lobby against any effort for detente with the Soviet Union. Its co-chairman, Yaroslav Stetsko, was a top leader of the fascist OUN-B militia that fought alongside Nazi Germany during its occupation of Ukraine in World War Two. Together, the two helped found the World Anti-Communist League that was described by journalist Joe Conason as ?the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries.? > > Moss Robeson > @mossrobeson__ > > ? Jul 18, 2019 > > Today in 1983, Vice President George Bush and UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick keynoted an observance of the 25th annual Captive Nations Week in Washington DC attended by Yaroslav Stetsko, a war criminal and Nazi collaborator who became leader of the OUN-B in 1968. > > Moss Robeson > @mossrobeson__ > > Lev Dobriansky, pictured below with Eisenhower & Reagan, invented Captive Nations Week in 1959, and got Yaroslav Stetsko his first visa to the United States in 1958 against the wishes of the CIA & the State Department. Reagan appointed Dobriansky to be Ambassador to the Bahamas. > > > 11 > > 4:10 PM - Jul 18, 2019 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > See Moss Robeson's other Tweets > > > > Today, Dobriansky?s daughter, Paula, sits on the board of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. A former Reagan and George HW Bush official and signatory of the original Project for a New American Century document, Paula Dobriansky has become a fixture in neoconservative circles on Capitol Hill. > > From its office in Washington, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation agitates for regime change from Venezuela to the periphery of China, advancing the ?double genocide? theory that rewrites the history of the Holocaust and posits communism as a deadly evil on par with Hitlerian fascism. > > Zenz?s politicized research on Xinjiang and Tibet has proven one of this right-wing group?s most effective weapons. > > In September of 2018, Zenz wrote an article published in the Central Asian Survey journal concluding that ?Xinjiang?s total re-education internment figure may be estimated at just over one million.? (A condensed version of the article was initially published by the Jamestown Foundation , a neoconservative think tank founded during the height of the Cold War by Reagan administration personnel with the support of then-CIA Director William J. Casey). > > Like the CHRD, Zenz arrived at his estimate ?over 1 million? in a dubious manner. He based it on a single report by Istiqlal TV, a Uyghur exile media organization based in Turkey, which was republished by Newsweek Japan . Far from an impartial journalistic organization, Istiqlal TV advances the separatist cause while playing host to an assortment of extremist figures. > > One such character who often appears on Istiqlal TV is Abdulkadir Yapuquan, a reported leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a separatist group that aims to establish an independent homeland in Xinjiang called East Turkestan. > > ETIM has been designated as a terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda by the US , European Union , and UN Security Council?s Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee . The Associated Press has reported that since ?2013, thousands of Uighurs? have traveled to Syria to train with the Uighur militant group Turkistan Islamic Party and fight alongside al-Qaida,? with ?several hundred join[ing] the Islamic State.? > > The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) has been among the most recalcitrant forces operating in the Al Qaeda-controlled Idlib province, rejecting all ceasefire efforts while indoctrinating children into militancy. TIP leadership has called on foreign Muslims to wage jihad in Syria, publishing an online recruitment video in 2018 that celebrated the 9/11 attacks as holy retaliation against a decadent United States awash in homosexuality and sin. > > > Children of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Idlib, Syria > According to the Los Angeles Times , Yapuquan is ?a regular guest on Istiqlal TV? where his interviews often extended into hours-long emotional tirades against China.? > > Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt reported that Istiqlal TV has also hosted fanatical anti-Semites like Nureddin Y?ld?z , who in an interview on the network, ?called for armed jihad not only in China?s autonomous Xinjiang region but all over the world and described China as a nation of savages, worse than the Jews.? > > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > > #Turkey pres. #Erdogan 's family cleric Nureddin Y?ld?z talks to Uyghur Istiqlal TV, describes #China as nation of savages, worse than Jews. > > > 40 > > 1:01 PM - Jun 26, 2017 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > 114 people are talking about this > > > > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > ? Jun 26, 2017 > > Replying to @abdbozkurt > Nureddin Y?ld?z is linked to Jihadist groups in #Syria , inspired the assassin of #Russia ambassador in Turkey, protected by #Erdogan . > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > Nureddin Y?ld?z, #Erdogan 's family Imam, talks to #Uyghur TV, urges Uyghurs to do Jihad not only against #China but also Jews & others. > > > 25 > > 1:12 PM - Jun 26, 2017 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > 70 people are talking about this > > > > The Istiqlal TV report relied on by Zenz published an unverified table of ?re-education detainee figures? allegedly ?leaked? by Chinese authorities, totaling 892,000 individuals in 68 Xinjiang counties as of Spring 2018. > > Zenz pads this data by citing reports from Radio Free Asia, a US-funded news agency created by the CIA during the Cold War to propagandize against China. (The Uyghur Human Rights Act recently passed by Congress mandates the US Agency for Global Media ? the governmental parent of Radio Free Asia ? to report on Xinjiang, including ?assessments of Chinese propaganda strategies.?) > > With his cobbling of questionable sources, Zenz extrapolates an extremely broad estimate ?at anywhere between several hundred thousand and just over one million.? > > While admitting that ?there is no certainty? to his estimate, he has concluded that it is nevertheless ?reasonable to speculate.? He attempted to evade personal responsibility for the figure?s questionable reliability, however, by stating ?[t]he accuracy of this estimate is of course predicated on the supposed validity of the stated sources.? > > As time goes on, Zenz continues to inflate his speculative estimate of Uyghur detainees. Speaking at an event organized by the US mission in Geneva in March 2019, Zenz stated , ?Although it is speculative it seems appropriate to estimate that up to 1.5 million ethnic minorities [have been detained by China in Xinjiang].? Zenz bumped up his estimate again in a November 2019 interview with Radio Free Asia , claiming China was detaining 1.8 million people. > > In an interview with Der Spiegel , Zenz claimed that China has effectively outlawed the practice of Islam in Xinjiang. ?Anyone in Xinjiang who engages in any type of religious practice, anyone who even has a single Koran verse saved on their mobile phone, will be subjected to a brutal process of reeducation without trial,? he maintained. > > These incendiary claims have vaulted Zenz to the status of international ?expert? on Xinjiang, earned him invites to testify before US Congress and Canadian Parliament, and to deliver commentary in major US media outlets including The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN , and Democracy Now! > > Zenz has also been featured by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) as the leading authority legitimizing their recent ?China Cables? investigation . The ICIJ report asserts that ?[l]inguists, document and Xinjiang experts, including Zenz, who reviewed the documents have expressed confidence in their authenticity.? > > Given Zenz?s habit of speculation and the questionable reliability of the lone Istiqlal TV media report he relies on for his estimates, it is troubling that Western governments and media have accepted and promoted his claims without a trace of skepticism. > > A closer look at Zenz?s own biases should magnify these concerns, as he is a full-blown evangelical End Timer who appears to be believe that God has sent him on a holy crusade against the People?s Republic of China. > > Fundamentalist Christian ?led by God? in mission against China, homosexuality, and gender equality > A born-again Christian who claims to preach at his local church, Adrian Zenz is a lecturer at the European School of Culture and Theology . This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the ?Bible [to be] the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives ,? and whose mission is to ?educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.? > > Zenz?s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal . ?I feel very clearly led by God to do this,? he said. ?I can put it that way. I?m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.? > > Along with his ?mission? against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity. > > Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape : Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist. > > Zenz predicted that the future fall of capitalism will bring to power the Antichrist within a ?few decades.? He identified the force that ?will usher the Antichrist into power? as ?the economic and financial fall of ?Babylon,? with ?Babylon? symbolically representing the world?s global economic system (capitalism).? > > > ?Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation,? by Adrian Zenz and Marlon L. Sias > Along with the fall of capitalism, Zenz also views ?postmodern relativism and tolerance thinking? and their apparent promotion of homosexuality, gender equality, and non-violent parenting to be threats to Christianity and ?[t]he deceptive, leopard-like power behind the Antichrist.? > > ?It is very likely that the global persecution of true believers will center on the charge that they promote ?intolerant views,?? Zenz wrote, ?especially related to preaching against homosexuality.? > > Zenz argued that ?[h]ate crime and anti-discrimination laws will likely play a major role in the suppression of biblical Christianity? and formed part of an ?anti-Christian ?tolerance? campaign? because they ?forbid employers to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientations.? > > ?The outcome of this process is open rebellion against both God and God-given human authority structures?, Zenz stated, decrying that ?[r]ising numbers of countries are banning all forms of physical punishment of children, the primary scriptural method for instilling respect for authority in the young generation and protecting them from rebellious tendencies.? Zenz assures readers that ?true scriptural spanking is loving discipline and not violence.? > > ?Another important God-given authority structure that Satan is attacking through the postmodern spirit is that of gender authority structures?, Zenz continued. ?Through notions of gender equality [?] the enemy is undermining God?s unique but different role assignments for men and women.? > > Given these obscurantist right-wing views, it is not surprising that Zenz?s proclaimed concern for the condition of Muslims in China does not seem to extend to Muslims elsewhere. > > A search of Zenz?s Twitter profile returns no tweets concerning the rise of Islamophobia in the West, nor US wars and drone strikes against Muslim-majority countries. The only Tweet by Zenz concerning Muslims that is unrelated to China is a denial that there is a double standard in how violence is judged when committed by white people compared to Muslims. > > > > ?The End Times is a very fascinating topic? > In his December 10, 2019 testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee , Adrian Zenz took a victory lap of sorts for Congress? passage of the Uyghur Human Rights Act the week before, which placed new sanctions on the Chinese government. Citing the bill?s success, he called for opening a new front against China with a US investigation into ?involuntary labor in relation to Xinjiang.? > > > Adrian Zenz testifying before Congress on December 10, 2019 > That same day, Zenz also appeared on a panel dedicated to Xinjiang that was hosted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in the US Capitol Visitor Center. > > On hand were Republican heavyweights like Sam Brownback , the ferociously anti-LGBT, anti-abortion former governor of Kansas and current US ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, as well as top staffers of Sen. Marco Rubio, the sponsor of virtually every China sanctions bill to be rubber-stamped by Congress in recent weeks. > > > Sam Brownback, a right-wing fundamentalist former senator, at the Victims of Communism panel on Xinjiang. (Zenz is second to his right). > During a question-and-answer session, The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal asked Zenz about his fundamentalist religious views and far-right politics. > > Zenz did not distance himself from his past statements denouncing gender equality and ?tolerance thinking,? or his advocacy for the ?scriptural spanking? of children. Instead, he asserted that there was no inconsistency between those views and the quality of his research on China?s Xinjiang region. > > ?I do have a diverse background and I have personal connections which I do not believe are inconsistent with my research,? Zenz responded to Blumenthal. ?I do not support China?s authoritarian methods in any way, and I do believe there?s a God who is bringing judgment in different forms. The End Times is a very fascinating topic, a very complex topic, and I think, very relevant. And I think it?s good to live aware of that.? > > Moments later, a visibly upset young man rose from his seat to ?condemn the tankie Max Blumenthal.? Unleashing a torrent of insults at Blumenthal, he made no attempt to refute the journalist?s line of questioning. > > The rigorously enforced conviction on display in the politically hermetic chambers of the US Capitol also encompasses the whole of Western media, where even purportedly progressive outlets have provided Zenz with an uncritical platform. > > From Washington?s halls of power to major newsrooms, few are willing to let inconvenient facts get in the way of a new, undeniably faith-based Cold War crusade . > > Share > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 22 23:04:28 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:04:28 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Merry Xmas, and if we want peace in the world, resist propaganda against other nations References: Message-ID: > > > December 21, 2019 China detaining millions of Uyghurs? Serious problems with claims by US-backed NGO and far-right researcher ?led by God? against Beijing > > > Share > Tweet > > Claims that China has detained millions of Uyghur Muslims are based largely on two studies. A closer look at these papers reveals US government backing, absurdly shoddy methodologies, and a rapture-ready evangelical researcher named Adrian Zenz. > By Ajit Singh and Max Blumenthal > > The US House of Representatives passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act on December 3, legislation which calls for the Donald Trump administration to impose sanctions against China over allegations that Beijing has detained millions of Muslim-majority Uyghurs in the western region of Xinjiang. > > To drum up support for the sanctions bill, Western governments and media outlets have portrayed the People?s Republic as a human rights violator on par with Nazi Germany. Republican Rep. Chris Smith, for instance, denounced the Chinese government for what he called the ?mass internment of millions on a scale not seen since the Holocaust,? in ?modern-day concentration camps.? > > The claim that China has detained millions of ethnic Uyghurs in its Xinjiang region is repeated with increasing frequency, but little scrutiny is ever applied. Yet a closer look at the figure and how it was obtained reveals a serious deficiency in data. > > While this extraordinary claim is treated as unassailable in the West, it is, in fact, based on two highly dubious ?studies.? > > The first, by the US government-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders , formed its estimate by interviewing a grand total of eight people. > > The second study relied on flimsy media reports and speculation. It was authored by Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports ?scriptural spanking? of children, and believes he is ?led by God? on a ?mission? against China. > > As Washington ratchets up pressure on China, Zenz has been lifted out of obscurity and transformed almost overnight into a go-to pundit on Xinjiang. He has testified before Congress, providing commentary in outlets from the Wall Street Journal to Democracy Now!, and delivering expert quotes in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists? recent ?China Cables? report. His Twitter bio notes that he is ?moving across the Atlantic? from his native Germany. > > Before Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal questioned Zenz about his religious ?mission,? at a recent event about Xinjiang inside the US Capitol, he had received almost entirely uncritical promotion from Western media. > > The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, which first popularized the ?millions detained? figure, has also been able to operate without a hint of media scrutiny. > > Washington-backed NGO claims millions detained after interviewing eight people > The ?millions detained? figure was first popularized by a Washington, DC-based NGO that is backed by the US government, the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD). > > In a 2018 report submitted to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ? often misrepresented in Western media as a UN-authored report ? CHRD ?estimate[d] that roughly one million members of ethnic Uyghurs have been sent to ?re-education? detention camps and roughly two million have been forced to attend ?re-education? programs in Xinjiang.? According to CHRD, this figure was ?[b]ased on interviews and limited data.? > > While CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. > > > > > Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD ?extrapolated estimates? that ?at least 10% of villagers [?] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.? > > Applying these estimated rates to the entirety of Xinjiang, CHRD arrived at the figures submitted to the UN claiming that one million ethnic Uyghurs have been detained in ?re-education detention camps? and two million more have been ?forced to attend day/evening re-education sessions?. > > Thanks to questionable sources like the CHRD, the United States government has accused China of ?arbitrarily detain[ing] 800,000 to possibly more than two million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other Muslims in internment camps designed to erase religious and ethnic identities.? > > Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2018, State Department official Scott Busby stated this this ?is the U.S. government assessment, backed by our intelligence community and open source reporting.? > > The Chinese government has rejected US allegations, and claims that it has in fact established ?vocational education and training centers [?] to prevent the breeding and spread of terrorism and religious extremism.? The Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated that ?there [are] no so-called ?re-education camps? in Xinjiang at all. The vocational education and training centers legally operated in Xinjiang aim to help a small number of people affected by terrorist and extremist ideologies and equip them with skills, so that they can be self-reliant and re-integrate into society.? > > In its mounting pressure campaign against China, the US is not only relying on CHRD for data; it is directly funding its operations. As Ben Norton and Ajit Singh previously reported for The Grayzone , CHRD receives significant financial support from Washington?s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . > > The NGO has spent years campaigning on behalf of extreme right-wing opposition figures who celebrate colonialism and call for the ?Westernization? of China. > > ?Leading expert? on Xinjiang relies on speculation and one questionable media report > The second key source for claims that China has detained millions of Uyghur Muslims is Adrian Zenz. He is a senior fellow in China studies at the far-right Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was established by the US government in 1993. > > The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an outgrowth of the National Captive Nations Committee, a group founded by Ukrainian nationalist Lev Dobriansky to lobby against any effort for detente with the Soviet Union. Its co-chairman, Yaroslav Stetsko, was a top leader of the fascist OUN-B militia that fought alongside Nazi Germany during its occupation of Ukraine in World War Two. Together, the two helped found the World Anti-Communist League that was described by journalist Joe Conason as ?the organizational haven for neo-Nazis, fascists, and anti-Semitic extremists from two dozen countries.? > > Moss Robeson > @mossrobeson__ > > ? Jul 18, 2019 > > Today in 1983, Vice President George Bush and UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick keynoted an observance of the 25th annual Captive Nations Week in Washington DC attended by Yaroslav Stetsko, a war criminal and Nazi collaborator who became leader of the OUN-B in 1968. > > Moss Robeson > @mossrobeson__ > > Lev Dobriansky, pictured below with Eisenhower & Reagan, invented Captive Nations Week in 1959, and got Yaroslav Stetsko his first visa to the United States in 1958 against the wishes of the CIA & the State Department. Reagan appointed Dobriansky to be Ambassador to the Bahamas. > > > 11 > > 4:10 PM - Jul 18, 2019 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > See Moss Robeson's other Tweets > > > > Today, Dobriansky?s daughter, Paula, sits on the board of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. A former Reagan and George HW Bush official and signatory of the original Project for a New American Century document, Paula Dobriansky has become a fixture in neoconservative circles on Capitol Hill. > > From its office in Washington, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation agitates for regime change from Venezuela to the periphery of China, advancing the ?double genocide? theory that rewrites the history of the Holocaust and posits communism as a deadly evil on par with Hitlerian fascism. > > Zenz?s politicized research on Xinjiang and Tibet has proven one of this right-wing group?s most effective weapons. > > In September of 2018, Zenz wrote an article published in the Central Asian Survey journal concluding that ?Xinjiang?s total re-education internment figure may be estimated at just over one million.? (A condensed version of the article was initially published by the Jamestown Foundation , a neoconservative think tank founded during the height of the Cold War by Reagan administration personnel with the support of then-CIA Director William J. Casey). > > Like the CHRD, Zenz arrived at his estimate ?over 1 million? in a dubious manner. He based it on a single report by Istiqlal TV, a Uyghur exile media organization based in Turkey, which was republished by Newsweek Japan . Far from an impartial journalistic organization, Istiqlal TV advances the separatist cause while playing host to an assortment of extremist figures. > > One such character who often appears on Istiqlal TV is Abdulkadir Yapuquan, a reported leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a separatist group that aims to establish an independent homeland in Xinjiang called East Turkestan. > > ETIM has been designated as a terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda by the US , European Union , and UN Security Council?s Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee . The Associated Press has reported that since ?2013, thousands of Uighurs? have traveled to Syria to train with the Uighur militant group Turkistan Islamic Party and fight alongside al-Qaida,? with ?several hundred join[ing] the Islamic State.? > > The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) has been among the most recalcitrant forces operating in the Al Qaeda-controlled Idlib province, rejecting all ceasefire efforts while indoctrinating children into militancy. TIP leadership has called on foreign Muslims to wage jihad in Syria, publishing an online recruitment video in 2018 that celebrated the 9/11 attacks as holy retaliation against a decadent United States awash in homosexuality and sin. > > > Children of the Turkistan Islamic Party in Idlib, Syria > According to the Los Angeles Times , Yapuquan is ?a regular guest on Istiqlal TV? where his interviews often extended into hours-long emotional tirades against China.? > > Turkish journalist Abdullah Bozkurt reported that Istiqlal TV has also hosted fanatical anti-Semites like Nureddin Y?ld?z , who in an interview on the network, ?called for armed jihad not only in China?s autonomous Xinjiang region but all over the world and described China as a nation of savages, worse than the Jews.? > > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > > #Turkey pres. #Erdogan 's family cleric Nureddin Y?ld?z talks to Uyghur Istiqlal TV, describes #China as nation of savages, worse than Jews. > > > 40 > > 1:01 PM - Jun 26, 2017 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > 114 people are talking about this > > > > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > ? Jun 26, 2017 > > Replying to @abdbozkurt > Nureddin Y?ld?z is linked to Jihadist groups in #Syria , inspired the assassin of #Russia ambassador in Turkey, protected by #Erdogan . > Abdullah Bozkurt > @abdbozkurt > > Nureddin Y?ld?z, #Erdogan 's family Imam, talks to #Uyghur TV, urges Uyghurs to do Jihad not only against #China but also Jews & others. > > > 25 > > 1:12 PM - Jun 26, 2017 > Twitter Ads info and privacy > 70 people are talking about this > > > > The Istiqlal TV report relied on by Zenz published an unverified table of ?re-education detainee figures? allegedly ?leaked? by Chinese authorities, totaling 892,000 individuals in 68 Xinjiang counties as of Spring 2018. > > Zenz pads this data by citing reports from Radio Free Asia, a US-funded news agency created by the CIA during the Cold War to propagandize against China. (The Uyghur Human Rights Act recently passed by Congress mandates the US Agency for Global Media ? the governmental parent of Radio Free Asia ? to report on Xinjiang, including ?assessments of Chinese propaganda strategies.?) > > With his cobbling of questionable sources, Zenz extrapolates an extremely broad estimate ?at anywhere between several hundred thousand and just over one million.? > > While admitting that ?there is no certainty? to his estimate, he has concluded that it is nevertheless ?reasonable to speculate.? He attempted to evade personal responsibility for the figure?s questionable reliability, however, by stating ?[t]he accuracy of this estimate is of course predicated on the supposed validity of the stated sources.? > > As time goes on, Zenz continues to inflate his speculative estimate of Uyghur detainees. Speaking at an event organized by the US mission in Geneva in March 2019, Zenz stated , ?Although it is speculative it seems appropriate to estimate that up to 1.5 million ethnic minorities [have been detained by China in Xinjiang].? Zenz bumped up his estimate again in a November 2019 interview with Radio Free Asia , claiming China was detaining 1.8 million people. > > In an interview with Der Spiegel , Zenz claimed that China has effectively outlawed the practice of Islam in Xinjiang. ?Anyone in Xinjiang who engages in any type of religious practice, anyone who even has a single Koran verse saved on their mobile phone, will be subjected to a brutal process of reeducation without trial,? he maintained. > > These incendiary claims have vaulted Zenz to the status of international ?expert? on Xinjiang, earned him invites to testify before US Congress and Canadian Parliament, and to deliver commentary in major US media outlets including The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN , and Democracy Now! > > Zenz has also been featured by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) as the leading authority legitimizing their recent ?China Cables? investigation . The ICIJ report asserts that ?[l]inguists, document and Xinjiang experts, including Zenz, who reviewed the documents have expressed confidence in their authenticity.? > > Given Zenz?s habit of speculation and the questionable reliability of the lone Istiqlal TV media report he relies on for his estimates, it is troubling that Western governments and media have accepted and promoted his claims without a trace of skepticism. > > A closer look at Zenz?s own biases should magnify these concerns, as he is a full-blown evangelical End Timer who appears to be believe that God has sent him on a holy crusade against the People?s Republic of China. > > Fundamentalist Christian ?led by God? in mission against China, homosexuality, and gender equality > A born-again Christian who claims to preach at his local church, Adrian Zenz is a lecturer at the European School of Culture and Theology . This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the ?Bible [to be] the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives ,? and whose mission is to ?educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.? > > Zenz?s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal . ?I feel very clearly led by God to do this,? he said. ?I can put it that way. I?m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.? > > Along with his ?mission? against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity. > > Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape : Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist. > > Zenz predicted that the future fall of capitalism will bring to power the Antichrist within a ?few decades.? He identified the force that ?will usher the Antichrist into power? as ?the economic and financial fall of ?Babylon,? with ?Babylon? symbolically representing the world?s global economic system (capitalism).? > > > ?Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation,? by Adrian Zenz and Marlon L. Sias > Along with the fall of capitalism, Zenz also views ?postmodern relativism and tolerance thinking? and their apparent promotion of homosexuality, gender equality, and non-violent parenting to be threats to Christianity and ?[t]he deceptive, leopard-like power behind the Antichrist.? > > ?It is very likely that the global persecution of true believers will center on the charge that they promote ?intolerant views,?? Zenz wrote, ?especially related to preaching against homosexuality.? > > Zenz argued that ?[h]ate crime and anti-discrimination laws will likely play a major role in the suppression of biblical Christianity? and formed part of an ?anti-Christian ?tolerance? campaign? because they ?forbid employers to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientations.? > > ?The outcome of this process is open rebellion against both God and God-given human authority structures?, Zenz stated, decrying that ?[r]ising numbers of countries are banning all forms of physical punishment of children, the primary scriptural method for instilling respect for authority in the young generation and protecting them from rebellious tendencies.? Zenz assures readers that ?true scriptural spanking is loving discipline and not violence.? > > ?Another important God-given authority structure that Satan is attacking through the postmodern spirit is that of gender authority structures?, Zenz continued. ?Through notions of gender equality [?] the enemy is undermining God?s unique but different role assignments for men and women.? > > Given these obscurantist right-wing views, it is not surprising that Zenz?s proclaimed concern for the condition of Muslims in China does not seem to extend to Muslims elsewhere. > > A search of Zenz?s Twitter profile returns no tweets concerning the rise of Islamophobia in the West, nor US wars and drone strikes against Muslim-majority countries. The only Tweet by Zenz concerning Muslims that is unrelated to China is a denial that there is a double standard in how violence is judged when committed by white people compared to Muslims. > > > > ?The End Times is a very fascinating topic? > In his December 10, 2019 testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee , Adrian Zenz took a victory lap of sorts for Congress? passage of the Uyghur Human Rights Act the week before, which placed new sanctions on the Chinese government. Citing the bill?s success, he called for opening a new front against China with a US investigation into ?involuntary labor in relation to Xinjiang.? > > > Adrian Zenz testifying before Congress on December 10, 2019 > That same day, Zenz also appeared on a panel dedicated to Xinjiang that was hosted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in the US Capitol Visitor Center. > > On hand were Republican heavyweights like Sam Brownback , the ferociously anti-LGBT, anti-abortion former governor of Kansas and current US ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, as well as top staffers of Sen. Marco Rubio, the sponsor of virtually every China sanctions bill to be rubber-stamped by Congress in recent weeks. > > > Sam Brownback, a right-wing fundamentalist former senator, at the Victims of Communism panel on Xinjiang. (Zenz is second to his right). > During a question-and-answer session, The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal asked Zenz about his fundamentalist religious views and far-right politics. > > Zenz did not distance himself from his past statements denouncing gender equality and ?tolerance thinking,? or his advocacy for the ?scriptural spanking? of children. Instead, he asserted that there was no inconsistency between those views and the quality of his research on China?s Xinjiang region. > > ?I do have a diverse background and I have personal connections which I do not believe are inconsistent with my research,? Zenz responded to Blumenthal. ?I do not support China?s authoritarian methods in any way, and I do believe there?s a God who is bringing judgment in different forms. The End Times is a very fascinating topic, a very complex topic, and I think, very relevant. And I think it?s good to live aware of that.? > > Moments later, a visibly upset young man rose from his seat to ?condemn the tankie Max Blumenthal.? Unleashing a torrent of insults at Blumenthal, he made no attempt to refute the journalist?s line of questioning. > > The rigorously enforced conviction on display in the politically hermetic chambers of the US Capitol also encompasses the whole of Western media, where even purportedly progressive outlets have provided Zenz with an uncritical platform. > > From Washington?s halls of power to major newsrooms, few are willing to let inconvenient facts get in the way of a new, undeniably faith-based Cold War crusade . > > Share > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 16:31:29 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:31:29 -0800 Subject: [Peace] "The Uyghur Issue: How Dare the US lecture China on the Rights of Muslims" by Andre Vltchek, one of my favorite writers Message-ID: The Uyghur Issue: How Can the U.S. Dare Lecturing China About the Rights of the Muslims? By Andre Vltchek Global Research, December 11, 2019 Region: Asia Theme: Police State & Civil Rights , Religion 569 70 35 701 In 2019, I have written a long analysis about ?the Uyghur issue?; analysis which will be soon published as a book. For some time, I have been warning the world that the West, and the United States in particular, are helping to radicalize the Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province and outside. And not only that: I clearly mapped movement of the Uyghur radicals through some countries like Indonesia, towards Turkey, from where they are then injected into brutal war zones like Idlib in Syria. I worked in Idlib area, with the Syrian commanders, and I spoke at length with the Syrian internally displaced people; victims of the Uyghur genocidal attacks. The majority of Uyghur people are Muslims. They have their own, ancient, specific culture and most of them are, of course, very decent human beings. Northwest China is their home. The ?problem? is that Urumqi, Xinjiang, are located on the main branch of BRI (The Belt and Road Initiative) ? an extremely optimistic, internationalist project which is ready to connect billions of people on all continents. The BRI is infrastructural as well as cultural project, which will soon pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and under-development. Washington is horrified that China is taking a lead in building a much brighter future for humanity. It is because, if China succeeds, it could be the end of Western imperialism and neo-colonialism, leading to real freedom and independence for dozens of until now suffering nations. Therefore, Washington has decided to act, in order to preserve the status quo and its dominance over the world. Step one: to antagonize, provoke and to smear China by all means, be it over Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea or, above mentioned ?Uygur Issue?. Step two: to try to turn a part of China?s constitutionally-recognized national minority ? Uyghurs ? into ?rebels?, or more precisely, terrorists. Turkey, a member of NATO, offered the U.S. a helping hand. Uyghurs were flown with their families to Istanbul, with Turkish passports, through hubs in Southeast Asia. Then, their passports were confiscated in Istanbul. Many Uyghurs were recruited, trained, and then transported into war-torn Syria. Smaller group stayed in places like Indonesia, joining jihadi cadres there. When terrorist groups in Syria were almost thoroughly defeated, some Uyghurs were moved to Afghanistan, where I also used to work, and investigated. Needless to say, Afghanistan has a short but important border with China. Why all this complex operation? The answer is simple: NATO/Washington/West hope that the hardened, well-trained Uyghur jihadi fighters will eventually return home to Xinjiang. There, they would start to fight for ?independence?, and while doing that, they would sabotage the BRI. US Trade War with China: Desperate Move to Save Western Empire This way, China would be injured, and its most powerful global project (BRI) would be disrupted. The Chinese government is, naturally, alarmed. It is clear that the West has prepared brilliant trap: 1) If China does nothing, it will have to face extremely dangerous terrorist threat on its own territory (remember Soviet Union being dragged into Afghanistan, and mortally injured by Western trained, financed and supported Mujahedeen? West has long history of using Islam for its Machiavellian designs). 2) If China does something to protect itself, it will get attacked by the Western media and politicians. Precisely this is what is happening now. Everything is ready, prepared. On 12 September 2019, South China Morning Post, reported: ?US Senate passes Uygur Human Rights Policy Act calling for sanctions on Chinese officials over Xinjiang camps Bill also urges Trump administration to prohibit export of goods and services to state agents in Chinese region where upwards of 1 million Uygurs are being held Beijing describes move as a ?gross interference in China?s internal affairs?? Naturally, the so-called rights act to interfere in Xinjiang?s affairs is one great exercise in hypocrisy and intimidation. Let us not forget that the United States is treating Muslim people with absolute spite. It even bans them from entering the country, if they happened to live in certain nations. It arbitrarily bombs them in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, worrying nothing about the loss of civilian lives. It tortures Muslims, and it humiliates them at home and even in their own countries. And frankly: by trying to trigger the Uyghur insurgency in China, Washington is clearly doing a great harm to the Uyghurs themselves, and actually to all people of Northwest China. It is not just wrong; the United States is committing crime against humanity. * China is a multi-national, multi-cultural country. The Muslim culture is part of PRC?s identity. I suggest anyone who doubts that, to travel to Xi?an, one of three ancient capital cities of China. Xi?an is where the old great Silk Road originated (ancient BRI, one could argue). Until now it is proud of its tremendous Muslim monuments, as well as of wonderful Muslim food and music. Every year, tens of millions of Chinese visitors travel to Xi?an, to understand its legacy, and enjoy its culture. The city is loved and appreciated, mainly because of its vibrant Muslim identity. It is thorough nonsense that China is ?anti-Muslim?. Both China (and Russia) are much more tolerant towards Islam than the West. Historically, and currently. The same nonsense is to claim that China is building ?concentration camps? in Xinjiang. China?s position is clear: what the West describes as camps, are ?vocational training centers? where ?trainees? can learn Chinese and gain job skills to stop them becoming victims of ?terrorism and religious extremism?. A group of Muslim Indonesian leaders, which gained access to these so-called ?camps? in Xinjiang, recently told my colleague, that people who spend some time in these institutions can actually sleep at home, at night. Hardly a Guantanamo Bay, frankly speaking. The self-proclaimed ?judge?- the United States ? has hundreds of high-security prisons, scattered all over the country. It is well known fact that throwing often innocent people to jail is big (privatized) business there, already for long decades. Millions of people are locked in for nothing. How can a country with one of the greatest number of prisoners on earth (on per capita bases) dare to preach anyone about justice? It is actually a great mystery. * What is the true purpose of such acts? The answer is easy to define: It is that the determined unwillingness of the U.S. to share influence on the world, with other, much more humanistic countries, such as China; it is its unwillingness to compete, on the basis of great ideas and goodwill. The more nihilist the U.S. foreign policy becomes, the more it accuses others of ?murder?. The way things function is simple: Washington creates some terrible conflict, somewhere. When the victim-country tries to resolve the conflict, and so-to speak ?extinguish fire?, it is accused of ?violating rights? and gets slammed by sanctions. All this has to stop, at some point, soon. This policy of Washington turns millions of human lives into agony. * Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. This article was first, in shorter version, published on China Daily . Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are ?China Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives ?, ?China with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism , a revolutionary novel ?Aurora? and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: ?Exposing Lies Of The Empire ?. View his other books here . Watch Rwanda Gambit , his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky ?On Western Terrorism? . Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter . His Patreon He is a frequent contributor to Global Research Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright ? Andre Vltchek , Global Research, 2019 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 16:31:29 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:31:29 -0800 Subject: [Peace] "The Uyghur Issue: How Dare the US lecture China on the Rights of Muslims" by Andre Vltchek, one of my favorite writers Message-ID: The Uyghur Issue: How Can the U.S. Dare Lecturing China About the Rights of the Muslims? By Andre Vltchek Global Research, December 11, 2019 Region: Asia Theme: Police State & Civil Rights , Religion 569 70 35 701 In 2019, I have written a long analysis about ?the Uyghur issue?; analysis which will be soon published as a book. For some time, I have been warning the world that the West, and the United States in particular, are helping to radicalize the Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province and outside. And not only that: I clearly mapped movement of the Uyghur radicals through some countries like Indonesia, towards Turkey, from where they are then injected into brutal war zones like Idlib in Syria. I worked in Idlib area, with the Syrian commanders, and I spoke at length with the Syrian internally displaced people; victims of the Uyghur genocidal attacks. The majority of Uyghur people are Muslims. They have their own, ancient, specific culture and most of them are, of course, very decent human beings. Northwest China is their home. The ?problem? is that Urumqi, Xinjiang, are located on the main branch of BRI (The Belt and Road Initiative) ? an extremely optimistic, internationalist project which is ready to connect billions of people on all continents. The BRI is infrastructural as well as cultural project, which will soon pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and under-development. Washington is horrified that China is taking a lead in building a much brighter future for humanity. It is because, if China succeeds, it could be the end of Western imperialism and neo-colonialism, leading to real freedom and independence for dozens of until now suffering nations. Therefore, Washington has decided to act, in order to preserve the status quo and its dominance over the world. Step one: to antagonize, provoke and to smear China by all means, be it over Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea or, above mentioned ?Uygur Issue?. Step two: to try to turn a part of China?s constitutionally-recognized national minority ? Uyghurs ? into ?rebels?, or more precisely, terrorists. Turkey, a member of NATO, offered the U.S. a helping hand. Uyghurs were flown with their families to Istanbul, with Turkish passports, through hubs in Southeast Asia. Then, their passports were confiscated in Istanbul. Many Uyghurs were recruited, trained, and then transported into war-torn Syria. Smaller group stayed in places like Indonesia, joining jihadi cadres there. When terrorist groups in Syria were almost thoroughly defeated, some Uyghurs were moved to Afghanistan, where I also used to work, and investigated. Needless to say, Afghanistan has a short but important border with China. Why all this complex operation? The answer is simple: NATO/Washington/West hope that the hardened, well-trained Uyghur jihadi fighters will eventually return home to Xinjiang. There, they would start to fight for ?independence?, and while doing that, they would sabotage the BRI. US Trade War with China: Desperate Move to Save Western Empire This way, China would be injured, and its most powerful global project (BRI) would be disrupted. The Chinese government is, naturally, alarmed. It is clear that the West has prepared brilliant trap: 1) If China does nothing, it will have to face extremely dangerous terrorist threat on its own territory (remember Soviet Union being dragged into Afghanistan, and mortally injured by Western trained, financed and supported Mujahedeen? West has long history of using Islam for its Machiavellian designs). 2) If China does something to protect itself, it will get attacked by the Western media and politicians. Precisely this is what is happening now. Everything is ready, prepared. On 12 September 2019, South China Morning Post, reported: ?US Senate passes Uygur Human Rights Policy Act calling for sanctions on Chinese officials over Xinjiang camps Bill also urges Trump administration to prohibit export of goods and services to state agents in Chinese region where upwards of 1 million Uygurs are being held Beijing describes move as a ?gross interference in China?s internal affairs?? Naturally, the so-called rights act to interfere in Xinjiang?s affairs is one great exercise in hypocrisy and intimidation. Let us not forget that the United States is treating Muslim people with absolute spite. It even bans them from entering the country, if they happened to live in certain nations. It arbitrarily bombs them in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, worrying nothing about the loss of civilian lives. It tortures Muslims, and it humiliates them at home and even in their own countries. And frankly: by trying to trigger the Uyghur insurgency in China, Washington is clearly doing a great harm to the Uyghurs themselves, and actually to all people of Northwest China. It is not just wrong; the United States is committing crime against humanity. * China is a multi-national, multi-cultural country. The Muslim culture is part of PRC?s identity. I suggest anyone who doubts that, to travel to Xi?an, one of three ancient capital cities of China. Xi?an is where the old great Silk Road originated (ancient BRI, one could argue). Until now it is proud of its tremendous Muslim monuments, as well as of wonderful Muslim food and music. Every year, tens of millions of Chinese visitors travel to Xi?an, to understand its legacy, and enjoy its culture. The city is loved and appreciated, mainly because of its vibrant Muslim identity. It is thorough nonsense that China is ?anti-Muslim?. Both China (and Russia) are much more tolerant towards Islam than the West. Historically, and currently. The same nonsense is to claim that China is building ?concentration camps? in Xinjiang. China?s position is clear: what the West describes as camps, are ?vocational training centers? where ?trainees? can learn Chinese and gain job skills to stop them becoming victims of ?terrorism and religious extremism?. A group of Muslim Indonesian leaders, which gained access to these so-called ?camps? in Xinjiang, recently told my colleague, that people who spend some time in these institutions can actually sleep at home, at night. Hardly a Guantanamo Bay, frankly speaking. The self-proclaimed ?judge?- the United States ? has hundreds of high-security prisons, scattered all over the country. It is well known fact that throwing often innocent people to jail is big (privatized) business there, already for long decades. Millions of people are locked in for nothing. How can a country with one of the greatest number of prisoners on earth (on per capita bases) dare to preach anyone about justice? It is actually a great mystery. * What is the true purpose of such acts? The answer is easy to define: It is that the determined unwillingness of the U.S. to share influence on the world, with other, much more humanistic countries, such as China; it is its unwillingness to compete, on the basis of great ideas and goodwill. The more nihilist the U.S. foreign policy becomes, the more it accuses others of ?murder?. The way things function is simple: Washington creates some terrible conflict, somewhere. When the victim-country tries to resolve the conflict, and so-to speak ?extinguish fire?, it is accused of ?violating rights? and gets slammed by sanctions. All this has to stop, at some point, soon. This policy of Washington turns millions of human lives into agony. * Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. This article was first, in shorter version, published on China Daily . Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are ?China Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives ?, ?China with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism , a revolutionary novel ?Aurora? and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: ?Exposing Lies Of The Empire ?. View his other books here . Watch Rwanda Gambit , his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky ?On Western Terrorism? . Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter . His Patreon He is a frequent contributor to Global Research Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright ? Andre Vltchek , Global Research, 2019 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 19:16:16 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:16:16 -0800 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. Message-ID: This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. THE FRIDAY COVER Read more Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ .? Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign , and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video , he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. ADVERTISING Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign . Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. What does Sanders actually believe? *** Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times , Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall , he passionately supported the bombing. Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka , the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall : ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News : ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? *** Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? *** Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Dec 23 19:47:22 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:47:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ > On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. > > THE FRIDAY COVER > > Read more > > Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? > Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. > > But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? > > > Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. > > And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. > > During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? > > But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. > > Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. > > ADVERTISING > > > > > Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. > > Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. > > What does Sanders actually believe? > > *** > > Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. > > > In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? > > Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. > > Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? > > Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. > > The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. > > > Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." > > Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? > > These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? > > For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? > > > But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. > > Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? > > But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. > > Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. > > > Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? > > The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. > > ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? > > *** > > > Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. > > Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? > > But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? > > Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? > > To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? > > > Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) > > But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? > > *** > > Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. > > Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. > From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 23 20:12:10 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 12:12:10 -0800 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> References: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Excellent article Carl. We like what Bernie has said about the economy, and that he inspired many young people to embrace socialism as a result. I love him for it, and yes compared to all other candidates the Democrats have to offer, he is the best. However, reform isn?t the answer, I don?t blame people for wanting to support him, he offers hope, but hope that is unrealistic given the powers that control both branches of our one Party system of capitalism. I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate, based upon the speech he made, I won?t be fooled again. > On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:47, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ > > >> On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. >> >> THE FRIDAY COVER >> >> Read more >> >> Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? >> Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. >> >> But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? >> >> >> Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. >> >> And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. >> >> During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? >> >> But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. >> >> Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. >> >> ADVERTISING >> >> >> >> >> Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. >> >> Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. >> >> What does Sanders actually believe? >> >> *** >> >> Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. >> >> >> In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? >> >> Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. >> >> Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? >> >> Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. >> >> The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. >> >> >> Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." >> >> Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? >> >> These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? >> >> For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? >> >> >> But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. >> >> Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? >> >> But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. >> >> Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. >> >> >> Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? >> >> The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. >> >> ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? >> >> *** >> >> >> Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. >> >> Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? >> >> But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? >> >> Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? >> >> To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? >> >> >> Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) >> >> But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? >> >> *** >> >> Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. >> >> Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. >> > From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Dec 24 17:43:16 2019 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: References: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <312B7050-E0A2-4D83-858C-14755222E1D9@illinois.edu> I?ll go along with what you write here. But to be a realist?god forbid? in the current situation, it is clear that of all the candidates for 2020, Bernie, as disappointing, and worse, as he has been on foreign policy and military/security budgets in the past, is the best chance to move policies away from even worse than we have at present; he?s better than Obama was in 2012 on almost all issues, and more promising than all the other candidates of the two dominant parties, Tulsi excepted? Far from ideal, hatefull with regard to Venezuela, for example. Hope springs eternal, especially among the young! Another point: Much of the criticism cited in these recent pieces happened many years ago; Is it just possible that he has turned a corner, that he has come to some new understanding? Has age made him wiser, less vulnerable? One has to know his mind, and I don?t. Politicians invariably compromise under electoral and other pressures, but the nature and degree of their compromises determine how history evaluates them. The arguments that we need movements, not electoral politics, in unexceptionable for me, but don?t apply to the actual here-and-now conjuncture, for many reasons mostly related to power structures? media, financial, corporate, religious?, military?. . If things get worse, will it be better? I hope Sanders gets the Dem nomination, but have little xpectation that he will. > On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Excellent article Carl. > > We like what Bernie has said about the economy, and that he inspired many young people to embrace socialism as a result. I love him for it, and yes compared to all other candidates the Democrats have to offer, he is the best. > > However, reform isn?t the answer, I don?t blame people for wanting to support him, he offers hope, but hope that is unrealistic given the powers that control both branches of our one Party system of capitalism. > > I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate, based upon the speech he made, I won?t be fooled again. > > >> On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:47, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ >> >> >>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. >>> >>> THE FRIDAY COVER >>> >>> Read more >>> >>> Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? >>> Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. >>> >>> But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? >>> >>> >>> Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. >>> >>> And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. >>> >>> During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? >>> >>> But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. >>> >>> Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. >>> >>> ADVERTISING >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. >>> >>> Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. >>> >>> What does Sanders actually believe? >>> >>> *** >>> >>> Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. >>> >>> >>> In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? >>> >>> Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. >>> >>> Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? >>> >>> Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. >>> >>> The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. >>> >>> >>> Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." >>> >>> Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? >>> >>> These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? >>> >>> For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? >>> >>> >>> But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. >>> >>> Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? >>> >>> But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. >>> >>> Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. >>> >>> >>> Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? >>> >>> The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. >>> >>> ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? >>> >>> *** >>> >>> >>> Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. >>> >>> Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? >>> >>> But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? >>> >>> Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? >>> >>> To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? >>> >>> >>> Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) >>> >>> But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? >>> >>> *** >>> >>> Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. >>> >>> Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 24 18:24:05 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:24:05 -0800 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: <312B7050-E0A2-4D83-858C-14755222E1D9@illinois.edu> References: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> <312B7050-E0A2-4D83-858C-14755222E1D9@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Mort As they say, ?hope springs eternal.? However, I go along with Chris Hedges on this one, what we are seeing is ?The End of Empire.? and if Bernie gets the nomination and isn?t side stepped this time, we are looking at him winning. Bernie?s running mate, a female, will be the actual winner. K. Harris is unlikely, Elizabeth Warren maybe, hopefully not. Tulsi quite possibly. Team Bernie and Tulsi, offers hope, and keeps the people home and focused on electoral politics. The alternative is more of Trump. If pressure is applied we can scare our Representatives into doing some things, like picking a popular candidate for the Supreme Ct., as opposed to the horrible one we have under Trump. Pressure coming from the streets in 1968 prevented escalation of the war in Vietnam, and encouraged Johnson not to run for election, but it didn?t end it. Nor did it prevent the destruction of Cambodia and Laos. Nixon placated us by implementing the EPA, which like SS has been whittled away, they will throw us a few bones which will keep the comfortable from taking notice of those who are suffering. There are a few things that might be initiated to keep us content, and off the streets, but under our current system we will continue the downward plunge to oblivion, whether due to poverty, rising fascism, global warming, environmental destruction or WW3 with potential nuclear war. These are all fears not to be rejected. Many will recoil from my message of doom and gloom, but so many peoples survival depends upon pressure being applied now, in the streets, and it will take masses across the nation. By ?in the streets? I?m referring to strikes, sit downs, civil resistance, as well as protests. It will have to be the younger generation, as most of us older folks who?ve tried and failed no longer have the energy. > On Dec 24, 2019, at 09:43, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > I?ll go along with what you write here. But to be a realist?god forbid? in the current situation, it is clear that of all the candidates for 2020, Bernie, as disappointing, and worse, as he has been on foreign policy and military/security budgets in the past, is the best chance to move policies away from even worse than we have at present; he?s better than Obama was in 2012 on almost all issues, and more promising than all the other candidates of the two dominant parties, Tulsi excepted? Far from ideal, hatefull with regard to Venezuela, for example. Hope springs eternal, especially among the young! Another point: Much of the criticism cited in these recent pieces happened many years ago; Is it just possible that he has turned a corner, that he has come to some new understanding? Has age made him wiser, less vulnerable? One has to know his mind, and I don?t. Politicians invariably compromise under electoral and other pressures, but the nature and degree of their compromises determine how history evaluates them. > > The arguments that we need movements, not electoral politics, in unexceptionable for me, but don?t apply to the actual here-and-now conjuncture, for many reasons mostly related to power structures? media, financial, corporate, religious?, military?. . If things get worse, will it be better? > > I hope Sanders gets the Dem nomination, but have little xpectation that he will. > >> On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Excellent article Carl. >> >> We like what Bernie has said about the economy, and that he inspired many young people to embrace socialism as a result. I love him for it, and yes compared to all other candidates the Democrats have to offer, he is the best. >> >> However, reform isn?t the answer, I don?t blame people for wanting to support him, he offers hope, but hope that is unrealistic given the powers that control both branches of our one Party system of capitalism. >> >> I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate, based upon the speech he made, I won?t be fooled again. >> >> >>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:47, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. >>>> >>>> THE FRIDAY COVER >>>> >>>> Read more >>>> >>>> Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? >>>> Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. >>>> >>>> But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? >>>> >>>> >>>> Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. >>>> >>>> And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. >>>> >>>> During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? >>>> >>>> But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. >>>> >>>> Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. >>>> >>>> ADVERTISING >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. >>>> >>>> Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. >>>> >>>> What does Sanders actually believe? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. >>>> >>>> >>>> In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? >>>> >>>> Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. >>>> >>>> Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? >>>> >>>> Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. >>>> >>>> The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. >>>> >>>> >>>> Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." >>>> >>>> Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? >>>> >>>> These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? >>>> >>>> For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? >>>> >>>> >>>> But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. >>>> >>>> Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? >>>> >>>> But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. >>>> >>>> Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? >>>> >>>> The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. >>>> >>>> ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> >>>> Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. >>>> >>>> Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? >>>> >>>> But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? >>>> >>>> Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? >>>> >>>> To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) >>>> >>>> But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. >>>> >>>> Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Dec 24 23:55:00 2019 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:55:00 -0600 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: References: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> <312B7050-E0A2-4D83-858C-14755222E1D9@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <009901d5bab5$8e23dea0$aa6b9be0$@comcast.net> " It will have to be the younger generation, as most of us older folks who?ve tried and failed no longer have the energy. " Indeed Karen ! I know I can't run as fast nor am I as strong and flexible as I was just ten years ago. But everyone can contribute something according to their abilities. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 12:24 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: C. G. Estabrook; J.B. Nicholson; Peace; C. G. Estabrook; peace-discuss at chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. Mort As they say, ?hope springs eternal.? However, I go along with Chris Hedges on this one, what we are seeing is ?The End of Empire.? and if Bernie gets the nomination and isn?t side stepped this time, we are looking at him winning. Bernie?s running mate, a female, will be the actual winner. K. Harris is unlikely, Elizabeth Warren maybe, hopefully not. Tulsi quite possibly. Team Bernie and Tulsi, offers hope, and keeps the people home and focused on electoral politics. The alternative is more of Trump. If pressure is applied we can scare our Representatives into doing some things, like picking a popular candidate for the Supreme Ct., as opposed to the horrible one we have under Trump. Pressure coming from the streets in 1968 prevented escalation of the war in Vietnam, and encouraged Johnson not to run for election, but it didn?t end it. Nor did it prevent the destruction of Cambodia and Laos. Nixon placated us by implementing the EPA, which like SS has been whittled away, they will throw us a few bones which will keep the comfortable from taking notice of those who are suffering. There are a few things that might be initiated to keep us content, and off the streets, but under our current system we will continue the downward plunge to oblivion, whether due to poverty, rising fascism, global warming, environmental destruction or WW3 with potential nuclear war. These are all fears not to be rejected. Many will recoil from my message of doom and gloom, but so many peoples survival depends upon pressure being applied now, in the streets, and it will take masses across the nation. By ?in the streets? I?m referring to strikes, sit downs, civil resistance, as well as protests. It will have to be the younger generation, as most of us older folks who?ve tried and failed no longer have the energy. > On Dec 24, 2019, at 09:43, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > I?ll go along with what you write here. But to be a realist?god forbid? in the current situation, it is clear that of all the candidates for 2020, Bernie, as disappointing, and worse, as he has been on foreign policy and military/security budgets in the past, is the best chance to move policies away from even worse than we have at present; he?s better than Obama was in 2012 on almost all issues, and more promising than all the other candidates of the two dominant parties, Tulsi excepted? Far from ideal, hatefull with regard to Venezuela, for example. Hope springs eternal, especially among the young! Another point: Much of the criticism cited in these recent pieces happened many years ago; Is it just possible that he has turned a corner, that he has come to some new understanding? Has age made him wiser, less vulnerable? One has to know his mind, and I don?t. Politicians invariably compromise under electoral and other pressures, but the nature and degree of their compromises determine how history evaluates them. > > The arguments that we need movements, not electoral politics, in unexceptionable for me, but don?t apply to the actual here-and-now conjuncture, for many reasons mostly related to power structures? media, financial, corporate, religious?, military?. . If things get worse, will it be better? > > I hope Sanders gets the Dem nomination, but have little xpectation that he will. > >> On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Excellent article Carl. >> >> We like what Bernie has said about the economy, and that he inspired many young people to embrace socialism as a result. I love him for it, and yes compared to all other candidates the Democrats have to offer, he is the best. >> >> However, reform isn?t the answer, I don?t blame people for wanting to support him, he offers hope, but hope that is unrealistic given the powers that control both branches of our one Party system of capitalism. >> >> I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate, based upon the speech he made, I won?t be fooled again. >> >> >>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:47, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. >>>> >>>> THE FRIDAY COVER >>>> >>>> Read more >>>> >>>> Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? >>>> Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. >>>> >>>> But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? >>>> >>>> >>>> Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. >>>> >>>> And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. >>>> >>>> During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? >>>> >>>> But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. >>>> >>>> Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. >>>> >>>> ADVERTISING >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. >>>> >>>> Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. >>>> >>>> What does Sanders actually believe? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. >>>> >>>> >>>> In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? >>>> >>>> Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. >>>> >>>> Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? >>>> >>>> Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. >>>> >>>> The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. >>>> >>>> >>>> Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." >>>> >>>> Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? >>>> >>>> These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? >>>> >>>> For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? >>>> >>>> >>>> But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. >>>> >>>> Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? >>>> >>>> But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. >>>> >>>> Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? >>>> >>>> The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. >>>> >>>> ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> >>>> Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. >>>> >>>> Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? >>>> >>>> But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? >>>> >>>> Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? >>>> >>>> To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) >>>> >>>> But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? >>>> >>>> *** >>>> >>>> Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. >>>> >>>> Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Dec 25 00:59:02 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:59:02 -0800 Subject: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. In-Reply-To: <009901d5bab5$8e23dea0$aa6b9be0$@comcast.net> References: <75C0B345-43B3-4254-AF80-0BCA90A13D1E@newsfromneptune.com> <312B7050-E0A2-4D83-858C-14755222E1D9@illinois.edu> <009901d5bab5$8e23dea0$aa6b9be0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yes David, as we all should continue to do. > On Dec 24, 2019, at 15:55, David Johnson wrote: > > " It will have to be the younger generation, as most of us older folks who?ve tried and failed no longer have the energy. " > > Indeed Karen ! > > I know I can't run as fast nor am I as strong and flexible as I was just ten years ago. > > But everyone can contribute something according to their abilities. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2019 12:24 PM > To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: C. G. Estabrook; J.B. Nicholson; Peace; C. G. Estabrook; peace-discuss at chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace] In reference to NFN: Bernie the anti-war candidate? I don't think so. > > Mort > > As they say, ?hope springs eternal.? > > However, I go along with Chris Hedges on this one, what we are seeing is ?The End of Empire.? and if Bernie gets the nomination and isn?t side stepped this time, we are looking at him winning. > > Bernie?s running mate, a female, will be the actual winner. K. Harris is unlikely, Elizabeth Warren maybe, hopefully not. Tulsi quite possibly. > > Team Bernie and Tulsi, offers hope, and keeps the people home and focused on electoral politics. The alternative is more of Trump. > > If pressure is applied we can scare our Representatives into doing some things, like picking a popular candidate for the Supreme Ct., as opposed to the horrible one we have under Trump. > > Pressure coming from the streets in 1968 prevented escalation of the war in Vietnam, and encouraged Johnson not to run for election, but it didn?t end it. Nor did it prevent the destruction of Cambodia and Laos. > > Nixon placated us by implementing the EPA, which like SS has been whittled away, they will throw us a few bones which will keep the comfortable from taking notice of those who are suffering. > > There are a few things that might be initiated to keep us content, and off the streets, but under our current system we will continue the downward plunge to oblivion, whether due to poverty, rising fascism, global warming, environmental destruction or WW3 with potential nuclear war. These are all fears not to be rejected. > > Many will recoil from my message of doom and gloom, but so many peoples survival depends upon pressure being applied now, in the streets, and it will take masses across the nation. By ?in the streets? I?m referring to strikes, sit downs, civil resistance, as well as protests. It will have to be the younger generation, as most of us older folks who?ve tried and failed no longer have the energy. > > > >> On Dec 24, 2019, at 09:43, Brussel, Morton K wrote: >> >> I?ll go along with what you write here. But to be a realist?god forbid? in the current situation, it is clear that of all the candidates for 2020, Bernie, as disappointing, and worse, as he has been on foreign policy and military/security budgets in the past, is the best chance to move policies away from even worse than we have at present; he?s better than Obama was in 2012 on almost all issues, and more promising than all the other candidates of the two dominant parties, Tulsi excepted? Far from ideal, hatefull with regard to Venezuela, for example. Hope springs eternal, especially among the young! Another point: Much of the criticism cited in these recent pieces happened many years ago; Is it just possible that he has turned a corner, that he has come to some new understanding? Has age made him wiser, less vulnerable? One has to know his mind, and I don?t. Politicians invariably compromise under electoral and other pressures, but the nature and degree of their compromises determine how history evaluates them. >> >> The arguments that we need movements, not electoral politics, in unexceptionable for me, but don?t apply to the actual here-and-now conjuncture, for many reasons mostly related to power structures? media, financial, corporate, religious?, military?. . If things get worse, will it be better? >> >> I hope Sanders gets the Dem nomination, but have little xpectation that he will. >> >>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Excellent article Carl. >>> >>> We like what Bernie has said about the economy, and that he inspired many young people to embrace socialism as a result. I love him for it, and yes compared to all other candidates the Democrats have to offer, he is the best. >>> >>> However, reform isn?t the answer, I don?t blame people for wanting to support him, he offers hope, but hope that is unrealistic given the powers that control both branches of our one Party system of capitalism. >>> >>> I thought Obama was the anti-war candidate, based upon the speech he made, I won?t be fooled again. >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:47, C. G. Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/ >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This from Politico, a conservative article but there are many other websites, articles available discussing Bernies ?voting record.? Yes, he did say the right thing about Bolivia, it?s over, the US was successful in our efforts at regime change, privatization, massacres of the indigenous peoples so one can say anything about it. But, Venezuela has yet to be accomplished, look at what Bernie is saying there. He supports USG position, that is imperialism. >>>>> >>>>> THE FRIDAY COVER >>>>> >>>>> Read more >>>>> >>>>> Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show ?The DMZ.? >>>>> Bernie Sanders? top foreign policy adviser has an unusual r?sum? for someone in that role. Matt Duss comes from the progressive blogosphere, not the foreign service. He worked for Ralph Nader?s 2000 presidential campaign, and he joked after it was over that he and his colleagues will ?get jobs in the Bush administration.? As The Nation?s David Klion wrote earlier this year, ?No one besides Sanders has hired an adviser with such a clear track record of defying the Blob??the mass of conventional thinkers in Washington?s foreign policy establishment. >>>>> >>>>> But Duss sounded quite Blob-like earlier this month when I asked him what Sanders would do if he faced a humanitarian crisis such as imminent genocide. Would a President Sanders consider using American military force without the support of Congress and the broader public? ?If there?s a situation in which, as president, Senator Sanders feels that he needs to act,? said Duss, ?and he?s spoken to the experts, and he?s engaged with as many people as he possibly could, and comes to that decision point, he?s going to do what he feels is right.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Coming from the foreign policy adviser to any other candidate, this statement wouldn?t raise an eyebrow. But Sanders has tried to position himself as a radical alternative to all his hawkish rivals in both parties. In a recent online video, he made ?no apologies? for his ?opposition to war.? In a major address before his official entry into the presidential race, he pledged to turbocharge American diplomacy with the help of a ?global progressive movement.? In Congress, he has led the effort to end all U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war, insisting that Congress must take back from the president its ?constitutional responsibility over war making.? After running in 2016 on reshaping the American economy, it seems Sanders has now given himself the even more audacious task of dismantling the military-industrial complex. >>>>> >>>>> And yet, as Duss? comment indicates, Sanders is not a pacifist and his opposition to war is not absolute. He has supported military operations on humanitarian grounds. He?s campaigning as a peace candidate, but it?s not implausible that he could end up a war president. >>>>> >>>>> During the 2020 campaign, Sanders has talked about foreign policy far more than any other major presidential candidate?even Joe Biden, whose foreign policy experience is unmatched in the Democratic field. That?s a shift from Sanders? 2016 bid, when he campaigned heavily on his democratic-socialist domestic agenda, leaving himself vulnerable to charges he wasn?t prepared to be commander in chief. Before beginning his second presidential run, Sanders laid out a foreign policy vision that is nothing less than transformational?rejecting the entire ?mindset? that ?military force is decisive in a way that diplomacy is not.? When MoveOn.org invited presidential candidates to share a single ?big idea? at a California forum last month, Sanders did not highlight single-payer health insurance, his signature domestic policy proposal. He chose ?ending endless wars.? >>>>> >>>>> But despite Sanders? bold foreign policy principles, the complete picture of how a President Sanders would exercise his powers overseas remains blurry. Not only has Sanders neglected to offer much policy detail for how he would achieve his peacemaking objectives, but he also has failed to explain how his antiwar rhetoric squares with some of his past positions. Most notably, he supported the 1999 American bombing operation in Kosovo. Even though Sanders has criticized the high cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, he supported the Air Force?s decision to base some of those F-35s in his home state of Vermont, protecting more than 1,000 jobs tied to the military-industrial complex. >>>>> >>>>> Sanders supported what became known as the Global War on Terror at the outset, voting to authorize military force against ?those nations, organizations or persons? connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Like many of his fellow Democrats, he has since become a skeptic of the forever war. In a 2017 address at Westminster College in Missouri, the site of Winston Churchill?s 1946 ?Iron Curtain? speech, Sanders condemned the strategic framework of the war on terrorism as ?a disaster? because of its "heavy-handed military approach,? and singled out drone strikes for their ?high civilian casualties.? And Sanders has long expressed his unease with giving a president too much unilateral authority to deploy weapons of war. He often advocates for a strict interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, the post-Vietnam law that denies the president the power to engage in more than 60 days of military ?hostilities? without formal congressional authorization. >>>>> >>>>> ADVERTISING >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet during his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders? counterterrorism rhetoric was more muted. He said on multiple occasions that while errant drone strikes are ?terrible? and ?counterproductive,? drones have also ?done some good things,? and ?taken out people who should be taken out.? And so, he said, he would continue to use drones, ?very selectively and effectively.? When asked about that shift in tone by Sanders since 2016, Duss argued that President Donald Trump has ?dialed up? the use of drones. How exactly Sanders would dial it down is not yet clear. Duss informed me Sanders would initiate ?a comprehensive review? of American counterterrorism policy?after his inauguration. >>>>> >>>>> Sanders is hardly the first candidate in history to punt the specifics on a complicated, controversial matter to some sort of blue-ribbon commission. But Sanders has been deferring to such a future commission for years, since his 2016 campaign. Three years later, his attacks on the counterterrorism status quo have dramatically intensified, but he appears to have failed to come up with an alternative strategy. >>>>> >>>>> What does Sanders actually believe? >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> Rhetorically, at least, Sanders? critique of the Global War on Terror resembles the Republican attacks on Obamacare: Promise to ?repeal and replace? it without having the ?replace? part figured out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In fairness to Sanders, he has never pretended there are easy answers to complex foreign policy challenges. In a 1999 town hall, then-Congressman Sanders described the Kosovo crisis as ?enormously complicated, enormously difficult.? In a 2015 primary debate with Hillary Clinton, he said Syria ?is a complicated issue. I don't think anyone has a magical solution.? In 2016, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Sanders said pressuring Middle Eastern regimes to do more on counterterrorism, was ?not easy.? This year, while speaking to a reporter for The New Yorker about foreign policy, he sounded positively daunted: ?Look, this is very difficult stuff ? I most certainly do not believe that I have all the answers, or that this is easy stuff. I mean, you?re dealing with so much?my God.? >>>>> >>>>> Voters may find this shocking bit of honesty for a presidential candidate either refreshing or unsettling. Perhaps more wannabe presidents should have the humility to acknowledge that they don?t know everything. But maybe that humility should be reflected in a realistic, detailed foreign policy agenda. >>>>> >>>>> Sanders made that point himself in the 2016 primary, when he chided Hillary Clinton, and in effect, the Blob, about the decision to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya: ?Regime change is easy; getting rid of dictators is easy,? he said. ?But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.? >>>>> >>>>> Back in April 1999, then-Congressman Sanders was on the House floor giving a three-minute speech about the military intervention taking place in what was then known as Yugoslavia. In the first 90 seconds, Sanders gave the familiar argument that military operations?like that one?without congressional authorization are unconstitutional. But for the second half of his remarks, he shifted his focus. Without expending a word to satisfy his own constitutional concerns, Sanders defended the NATO bombing as necessary on moral grounds to stop ?ethnic cleansing,? the war?s euphemism for atrocities targeting ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. >>>>> >>>>> The Kosovo operation is a 20-year old episode, but it?s a rare example of Sanders openly, if not quite transparently, grappling with his conflicting principles?and presidents often have to do that. Sanders voted for a resolution, preferred by the Clinton administration, which ?authorized? the operation without codifying that the authorization was legally required under the War Powers Act. (Sanders, and nearly all of his colleagues, voted against a formal declaration of war.) And when even that resolution failed in the House on a tie vote, Sanders did not insist the operation end on the basis of its constitutional illegitimacy. Five days later at a Montpelier, Vermont, town hall, he passionately supported the bombing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Twenty years later, when it comes to defending NATO allies if attacked, the Blob will be happy to know Duss was unequivocal that Sanders would respond militarily: ?Shared security is something Senator Sanders strongly believes in, and the principle of collective defense is at the core of NATO's founding treaty. It's important for friends and foes alike to have no doubt that the United States will honor this commitment." >>>>> >>>>> Beyond that, Duss told me that cases of ?genocide or of mass atrocities? would ?weigh heavily? on the mind of Sanders as president. And he laid out the questions Sanders would pose: ?Does this meet the level of an emergency, an imminent atrocity? Does it immediately impact the security of the people of the United States? And if it doesn?t, does that imminent atrocity, rise to the level of a global norm which we have interest in enforcing and upholding? And finally, and very important, what are the chances for creating a better outcome having taken this step of introducing U.S. military forces into the situation?? >>>>> >>>>> These are all essential questions, and they are reassuring to Democratic foreign policy experts, even some progressive ones, who want Sanders to leave the door open for military force. Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, an anti-nuclear weapons activist who informally advises Sanders, told me: ?I think Senator Sanders would not hesitate to use military force to defend the country from attack, to defend our vital interests, to prevent atrocities like genocide. But he?s made clear that military force should be the very, very last option.? >>>>> >>>>> For a small but noticeable anti-Bernie strain on the far left, that wiggle room for military strikes makes Sanders a hypocrite. For example, Ajamu Baraka, the last vice presidential nominee for the Green Party, said in an interview that Sanders? openness to military action amounts to ?saying one thing publicly but then appearing to have a different position that is reflected sometimes in his legislative decisions, and I think the Kosovo situation was a very important example of that.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But most of the anti-interventionist left aren?t quibbling about the smattering of past disagreements with Sanders such as Kosovo. They are mostly enthralled at how Sanders? campaign rhetoric is broadening the foreign policy debate. In particular, they are bowled over by how, earlier this year, Sanders used the War Powers Resolution to move a bipartisan bill through Congress demanding Trump end American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war, where the U.S. has supported Saudi Arabia?s intervention. Although the bill was vetoed, the fact that it got to Trump?s desk both legitimized the War Powers Resolution and bolstered Sanders? case that he can get things done in Washington. >>>>> >>>>> Most of the activists with whom I spoke put more emphasis on Yemen than Kosovo when gauging how a President Sanders would involve Congress in his foreign policy. Robert Naiman, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, raved over email: ?Sanders was the first to introduce a privileged resolution invoking the War Powers Resolution to force a vote to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the war and lead it to completion, passage by Congress. That never happened before in the whole history of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.? >>>>> >>>>> But Sanders? proud defense of his Kosovo stance to his antiwar allies should not be ignored. He thundered at the May 1999 Montpelier town hall: ?What do you do to a war criminal who has led, for the first time in modern history, the organized rape as an agent of war, of tens of thousands of women? What do you do to a butcher who has lined up people and shot them? Do you say to them, ?You have won Mr. Milosevic. We are not going to stand up to you. We are going home??? Sanders once put the end of genocide ahead of a strict adherence to the War Powers Resolution, and his foreign policy adviser has now left the door open to him doing it again as president. >>>>> >>>>> Before President Barack Obama?s 2011 intervention in Libya, another instance of the use of American force to try to stop genocide, Sanders initially indicated support for military action. Sanders co-sponsored a Senate resolution that urged ?the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.? The Security Council did just that, setting in motion a multilateral military operation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nine days after hostilities began, however, Sanders wasn?t stoutly defending the Libyan operation, as he had with Kosovo. He was betraying squeamishness about how long the operation would last, telling Fox News: ?Everybody understands Gadhafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.? After the death of Gadhafi and the subsequent destabilization of Libya, Sanders took a far dimmer view of the operation. He said four years later in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton, ?Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.? >>>>> >>>>> The common thread in Kosovo and Libya was Sanders? impulse to stop genocide, mitigated by his strong desire to limit the duration of any hostilities. If you are mainly concerned about getting bogged down in quagmires, you will be comforted by Sanders? discomfort with prolonged military action. However, those that are more comfortable with direct military action are unnerved that Sanders generally doesn?t talk about the nuances of his views on the campaign trail. >>>>> >>>>> ?If the anti-war rhetoric becomes too unequivocal, a leader may compromise their ability to rally popular support in the event that they judge intervention necessary,? said Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, in an email exchange. ?If Bernie Sanders is serious about leaving himself leeway to act militarily where necessary, it would be useful to articulate that idea to his supporters in the context of the campaign.? >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nossel?s concern is indicative of the skepticism Sanders receives from many inside the Blob. While the left loves Sanders? principles and his outsider posture, the Blob worries about his lack of details and experience in crisis situations. Mieke Eoyang, a former congressional staffer who once advised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Senator Ted Kennedy on defense issues, argues that Sanders was largely absent from serious legislating about foreign policy matters throughout the bulk of his congressional career. >>>>> >>>>> Now vice president for the National Security Program at the centrist organization Third Way, Eoyang worries that, despite the occasional examples of supporting military force, Sanders possesses ?a real reluctance to use American power.? ?The president has to make choices about how to exercise American power,? she told me, ?and there are serious negative consequences that flow from inaction as well as action. So you have to choose from a bunch of imperfect outcomes. And I have not seen Bernie, over the course of his career, being willing to select from imperfect outcomes.? >>>>> >>>>> But Blob members are not solely fixated on what, and whether, Bernie would bomb. They also question his faith in people-to-people public diplomacy. ?The devil is always in the detail,? warns Bishop Garrison, a former foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton?s 2016 presidential campaign who founded the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a ?post-partisan? think tank. Asked what Sanders? highly ambitious goal of building a ?global progressive movement that speaks to the needs of working people? to counter ?a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy and kleptocracy? means in practice, Duss said, ?The goal here is to promote the idea that progressives at the civil society level need to be reaching out, and meeting, and working, and networking and coordinating with each other much more energetically than we have been doing up until now, because we see right-wing forces doing that.? >>>>> >>>>> Duss went on: ?Building a global community is not just about relationships between governments, but it?s about relationships between peoples. As president, he would have a foreign policy that worked to protect political space where civil society groups from different countries under different forms of government can build relationships.? >>>>> >>>>> To Garrison, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom with two Bronze Stars, this seemingly heartwarming approach is fraught with danger. ?One could argue you?re talking about interfering with the ongoing political efforts of a society, on a grand and global scale across different sovereign nations. That?s not diplomacy.? While Garrison was supportive of civil society groups that invest in ?local populations,? he worried that Sanders? vision ?sounds like you?re going go in and start an uprising somewhere.? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan Katz, a former State Department official in the Obama administration who has been sounding the alarm about ?democratic backsliding? within the NATO alliance, is more positive about the civil society push, and urged Sanders to show some specific figures for how much money he would ?be willing to put into an effort to promote democracy? abroad. (Duss in turn said it has not been decided yet if a budget proposal, delineating how much money would be cut from the military and redirected elsewhere, would be released during the campaign.) >>>>> >>>>> But Katz, now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund, cautioned against a pro-democracy outreach strategy rooted in a left-versus-right framework of the kind that Sanders seems to envision. ?More often than not,? Katz said, ?in the cases of countries where you have democratic backsliding, it?s not because people on the right or the left don?t want democracy. It?s usually a leader that comes in?an oligarch, an authoritarian?that starts to use and manipulate the system for his or her own good, or to benefit a small group around them.? He added, ?Bernie is narrowly pointing to progressives in terms of a global democracy fight. I like the idea of a global democracy fight. But it?s got to be inclusive ? Otherwise, you?re pitting groups against each other, potentially.? >>>>> >>>>> *** >>>>> >>>>> Duss may have given me a Blob-like response when asked about Sanders? criteria for going to war, but I would not suggest he?s become a card-carrying member. When you talk to Duss, he?s far more likely to say ?military violence? than ?military power.? He told me Sanders? counterterrorism strategy review would ?take a much more aggressive look at how we are using military violence.? Such language doesn?t preclude the use of the military. But Duss, and more important, Sanders, routinely send the signal that they harbor an extreme distaste for the use of force. >>>>> >>>>> Even so, Sanders has views about military intervention that are more complicated than his campaign rhetoric. And that may explain why he hasn?t delved into much detail about foreign policy. Once a candidate wades into the sea of international crises and hypothetical threats, eventually the possibility of military force arises. Any discussion of that risks making Sanders look more like a conventional commander in chief than a revolutionary one. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 22:06:40 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 17:06:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace] If Not Now: Merry Christmas to the Palestinian Christians under occupation Message-ID: https://twitter.com/ifnotnoworg/status/1209865948003520514 [image: image.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 49801 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 01:29:19 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:29:19 -0800 Subject: [Peace] November 18, 2019 Whistleblower: OPCW suppressed Syria chemical evidence after US pressure Message-ID: November 18, 2019 Whistleblower: OPCW suppressed Syria chemical evidence after US pressure Share Tweet A second whistleblower from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has come forward to accuse top OPCW officials of suppressing critical evidence. The evidence undermines allegations that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018 ? an allegation that prompted US-led airstrikes. The second whistleblower also says that three US officials took part in pressuring the OPCW. We speak to veteran journalist Jonathan Steele, the first reporter to interview the second whistleblower. Guest: Jonathan Steele, journalist, author, and The Guardian?s former chief foreign correspondent. Read Jonathan Steele?s article at Counterpunch: ?The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors .? TRANSCRIPT AARON MAT?: Welcome to Push Back. I?m Aaron Mat?. We have been covering the unfolding scandal at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Two whistleblowers from the OPCW have come forward to allege that top officials suppressed evidence collected at the scene of an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government in the city of Douma in April 2018. The evidence that was collected, these whistleblowers say, undermine the claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. But that evidence was never made public. The second whistleblower recently gave testimony at a panel convened by the Courage Foundation. And I?m joined now by the first journalist to interview that second whistleblower. Jonathan Steele is a veteran journalist and the former chief foreign correspondent for The Guardian. Welcome, Jonathan Steele, to Push Back. You recently spoke to the second whistleblower. Talk to us about his position and his main revelations. JONATHAN STEELE: Well, he was one of the members of the team of fact-finders, called the Fact-Finding Mission, which was sent to Syria after the alleged gas attack. And he was the man in charge of deciding what samples to pick up from the ground and in related buildings, and to decide how to collect them. And so, it was a very senior position. They checked in two buildings particularly, one which had a cylinder on the roof and the other which had a cylinder on the upper floor of a nearby building, just below a hole in the roof. Now, the rebels claimed that these two cylinders contained chlorine gas, had been dropped from Syrian government helicopters, that?s why they were in the position where they were found. But there was doubt over that. There was also doubt over the question of whether there had actually been any gas at all. The first whistleblower, his evidence was leaked in the report in March this year, and he came to the conclusion in which he said ? I spoke to him on the telephone ? he came to the conclusion which was accepted by everybody except one other member of the team, that there was a higher probability that these cylinders had been placed manually in the place where they were found, rather than being dropped from helicopters. Well, the new whistleblower was not dealing with the cylinders as such; he was dealing with whether there was gas in the environment. Now, chlorine gas degrades very rapidly, so by the time the inspectors got to the ground, which was about two weeks after the alleged gas attack, it would have evaporated and disappeared. But that didn?t mean there was no possibility of finding out if gas has been used. Because, while it degrades, it contaminates or acts with other chemicals that are in the natural environment. And so, you can test for the?what are called chlorinated organic chemicals, COCs, to see whether the levels are different from what you find in the natural environment, in drinking water, or in the households or in the ground. And they took these samples, when they got back to The Hague ? to the headquarters of the OPCW, which is in Holland in The Hague ? they were sent off to two designated laboratories to be analyzed. And this whistleblower waited eagerly to hear what the conclusions were. And weeks went by, nothing happened, and he then discovered that management had received the results. It hadn?t passed them on to him or the other members of the team. And he also found out that the levels of COCs, chlorinated organic chemicals, in the samples picked up in these key buildings, were lower, lower than those found in the natural environment. So, this suggested there couldn?t have been a gas attack, because you would have expected them to be higher, not lower. He also discovered that a report was going to be issued, which would not contain his findings or his analysis but would claim that the levels were not lower than in the natural environment. In other words, the lab tests would be totally ignored, and he complained to higher management about it. AARON MAT?: And what did management tell him when he complained? JONATHAN STEELE: Well, he complained initially to the director-general of the OPCW, the top person, who said that they should look again and produce a different report, not the management report that the whistleblower got sight of. But while they were preparing this new report, he and colleagues insisted to the head of the fact-finding team, who was also actually another Tunisian called Sami Barrek, that they must include the lower levels of COCs in the report, otherwise this would be distorting the lab analysis that they?d just received. And they got promises that that would happen. But then two days before the report came out, he discovered that, after all, they had not included the lower levels of COCs, and that came out in the interim report in July last year. And then in March this year, the final report was published, which again excluded the low levels of COCs. And so, they concluded ? the whistleblowers have concluded on the basis of the results ? that there had not been a chemical-related event. They didn?t go so far as to say that the issue had been staged. In fact, nor had the original report of the cylinder examination in the previous year had said that. But the inference could be drawn: if there wasn?t a chemical gas attack, how had these cylinders got to the position that they?d got? AARON MAT?: Well, the first report ? the one that was suppressed and ultimately leaked, it was authored by Ian Henderson ? said that the inference could be drawn that the cylinders were manually placed. Suggesting?he didn?t say this part, but after saying that, if you say the cylinders are manually placed, that suggests then that the attack is staged. JONATHAN STEELE: Right. Because of course the rebels were in charge of the area at the time of the alleged gas attack. About a week later they lost control of it. I mean, they?d lost control of a large part of Douma already. The final bit they lost, and they all escaped, many of them went to Turkey. And so, by the time the Syrian government came in there, it was reasonable and safe for the inspectors to go in. By the way, in all the OPCW investigations of chemical gas attacks by the Syrian government, this was the first time that they?d been allowed to go in on the ground, because when the rebels were in control of areas, even though they claimed there had been gas attacks, it was not possible for the OPCW to go in. Either they decided not to go in or they decided security was not good enough for them to be able to go in. So, this Damascus?Douma episode was crucial. First time inspectors had been committed to go into the area and pick up samples from the ground where the gas attack was allegedly taking place. AARON MAT?: And just to specify, when you say the rebels, the group that controlled Douma at the time was a Saudi-backed, Saudi-funded extremist militia called Jaysh al-Islam, and? JONATHAN STEELE: Jaysh-al-Islam, which means in Arabic the Army of Islam. AARON MAT?: Right. And the reason why this story is all the more significant is because this?the allegation that there was a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government prompted, for the second year in a row, airstrikes by the US, also along with Britain and France. And now we are hearing two whistleblowers say that the rationale for those strikes was wrong. But on that point, you have a stunning detail in your article on this, about the second whistleblower?s claims, where you report this. I?ll read it. You?re talking about Bob Fairweather, who was the chef de cabinet at the OPCW, a high-ranking official there, and you?re describing the attempts by the whistleblower to have his samples?have the samples included and to have all the evidence weighed. And you write this: ?On July 4 there was another intervention. Bob Fairweather, the chef de cabinet, invited several members of the drafting team [from the OPCW] to his office. There they found three US officials who were cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented. The Americans told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack, and that the two cylinders found on the roof and upper floor of the building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors left Fairweather?s office, feeling that the invitation to the Americans to address them was unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW?s declared principles of independence and impartiality.? That?s from Jonathan Steele?s piece on this. So, Jonathan Steele, talk to us about that. We have an intervention here by three unnamed American officials. JONATHAN STEELE: Well, it?s pretty much exactly as you read out from my recent article. AARON MAT?: You know, it?s interesting, the panel that heard the second whistleblower?s testimony included Jos? Bustani, the fir?the founding director-general of the OPCW. And Bustani is famous because he was basically forced out of his job by the US, and John Bolton infamously threatened him. JONATHAN STEELE: That?s right. He was the first director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which only started in 1997. And they were, at that time, the US was at that time, obviously ramping up the pressure against Saddam Hussein?s Iraq. And the OPCW had started discussions with Baghdad, with Saddam Hussein?s people, about whether Iraq would join the Chemical Weapons Convention. Various countries were joining; took some time for different countries to come on board. And the US apparently ? and we can only speculate the reasons ? but the US apparently thought that this would undermine its case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, if he voluntarily agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which obviously includes the pledge that you don?t have chemical weapons and that you?ve destroyed them all. So, this would have undermined the case for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and John Bolton was very keen that Bustani stop the negotiations with Iraq. And Bustani initially refused, and they eventually forced him out and told him he had to resign. And so [they] allegedly threatened to take pressures on his family. They said, ?We know where your children live.? At that stage his children were actually living in New York City. AARON MAT?: And now 16 years later we appear, based on what you report here, to have another case of US pressure, political pressure, on the OPCW for a majorly consequential event that involves US military force. Jonathan Steele, you?re a veteran journalist. Are you surprised so far by the lack of global attention to this story? It seems like a major scandal. Two whistleblowers at the world?s top chemical weapons watchdog alleging potential fraud. JONATHAN STEELE: Well, I am rather surprised, because, I mean, people are not afraid to criticize US foreign policy, or British foreign policy, French foreign policy, in general. So, it?s not as though it?s a taboo subject to criticize the big powers for the way they operate. But, somehow, I think in this Syrian case ? because Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, has been so heavily demonized, plus Russia being demonized under Vladimir Putin, and Putin is of course an ally helping to protect the Syrian government ? it seems that they are considered to be so evil, so wicked, that anything that takes the pressure off them a little bit is difficult to analyze and to investigate by the mainstream media, it seems. I mean, I can only speculate why they didn?t want to do it. That?s my guess. AARON MAT?: Well, there?s been widespread bipartisan support spanning across the political spectrum into the left, into left-wing circles, for the proxy war that raged for so long in Syria, and a real refusal, I find, to look at the reality on the ground. But look, let me ask you, as someone who covers this now, along with anybody else who comes forward on this issue, you?re going to be attacked and smeared as an apologist for the Assad government. So, let me ask you, what are your thoughts on the government, on the Syrian government? JONATHAN STEELE: Well, I think the Syrian government is a pretty hardline government, and it?s determined to smash the rebellion that began in 2011. And, increasingly, as the war has become militarized, the opposition started to take arms from abroad, and Jihadi fighters have come in from abroad. It?s degenerated into what you called, rightly, a proxy war, and there?s brutality on both sides. I think the Syrian government has behaved pretty badly, with detentions and torture of people. That seems to be pretty well-documented. And they are bombing from the air. But it?s no worse, I think, the bombing from the air, from what British and American planes have done in Raqqa. If you look at pictures of Raqqa after it was liberated from IS, you see complete streets and residential areas flattened, just as Aleppo, eastern Aleppo, is flattened and Homs was flattened. So, I think the use of air power by both sides in this terrible proxy war in Syria has been pretty much the same on both sides. AARON MAT?: The whistleblowers, both of them, say that they want to testify at an upcoming session of the OPCW. Can you talk about what concerns they want to bring to that session, which is happening later this month, and whether you think they?ll be allowed to do so? JONATHAN STEELE: Well, there?s?in the statutes of the OPCW, it is said that inspectors have the right to register dissent and disagreement, without any fear of adverse consequences to their careers or to their liberty or their promotion prospects and so on. And so, they really want to just exercise their right to express dissent from the official report as it came out, both the interim and the final report. And to speak to all the 193 member states of the OPCW, which is holding its annual conference starting on November the 25th. And it seems a fairly reasonable demand. I mean, the whistleblower that I heard in Brussels last month had a very impressive PowerPoint production, which probably he would like to show if gets permission to do it in The Hague in a week?s time. But I don?t know whether they?they?re going to be given permission to do that or not, because the same people who?ve distorted this report will probably not want any public dissent to be had at the annual conference. But let?s wait and see. There is mounting pressure from public opinion and from media, the alternative media pretty much, and I think individual letters have been written by the Courage Foundation people to all the member states, inviting them to ask for the whistleblowers to give their evidence. And one of the signatories of that letter is Jos? Bustani, the first director-general of the OPCW, who we already just discussed earlier in this interview. AARON MAT?: Right. Also, Hans von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Also, Noam Chomsky, the MIT professor, and others. One thing that you also report that I wanted to ask you about is that the whistleblowers made concerns noted in emails to top officials at the OPCW, and you report that they were asked to basically return those emails or to delete them? JONATHAN STEELE: They were, and they did do that. And I asked Mr. Fairweather by email whether he could explain why that was done, but he didn?t reply. AARON MAT?: Do you know if the whistleblowers have the original copies of the emails that they sent, that made their concerns known? JONATHAN STEELE: I don?t know. I mean, they told me they complied with requests to?the call to send the emails back, so I don?t know exactly what happened. AARON MAT?: But this is key because this could basically bury a paper trail that shows that these whistleblowers expressed their concern and their rejections. JONATHAN STEELE: Yeah, the paper trail would be important. So would the discovery of the actual documents, the initial report written by the whistleblower, the redacted report that was supposed to replace it, and then the third report which was an edited one before the final report, the interim final report that came out in July last year. I mean, we did ask. And I asked, specifically to the whistleblower, whether we could see his report. He declined to do that for reasons which he didn?t explain. But I hope that at some point there?s documents of those reports that will also be published. AARON MAT?: Finally, Jonathan Steele, in speaking to the second whistleblower, what was your impression of him? Do you think that he wanted to do it in this way, or was he hoping that this could be resolved internally? JONATHAN STEELE: He was definitely hoping that it would be resolved internally. And so was Ian Henderson, who wrote the report about the gas cylinders having been more likely placed manually on the ground in Douma. I think the point?basic point is ? and I?m glad you asked the question ? is that these are professional scientists. They?ve worked for many years at the OPCW. They wouldn?t have been sent to Syria to pick up evidence if they?d had strong political views of one kind or another. They just feel annoyed that professional scientific conclusions have been rejected in favor of politically-biased answers which favor the foreign policy agenda of certain powerful Western states. They feel that the science has been corrupted. AARON MAT?: And finally, you reached out to the OPCW and you asked them to respond to the whistleblowers? claims. What did?what did they tell you? JONATHAN STEELE: Well, again, as with Mr. Fairweather, they did?they just didn?t respond. There was plenty of time, like, I wasn?t rushing them, there?s plenty of time, and they still haven?t responded. So, I don?t know what conclusions you draw from that. AARON MAT?: Well, we?ll leave it there for now and continue to cover this story. Hope you?ll come back to join us, Jonathan Steele. Jonathan Steele is a veteran journalist, the former chief foreign correspondent for The Guardian, and the first journalist to interview the second whistleblower who has come forward in the OPCW scandal. Jonathan Steele, thanks very much. JONATHAN STEELE: Thank you for having me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat Dec 28 08:45:19 2019 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 02:45:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace] News from Neptune #445 notes Message-ID: <20953581-7962-c00e-a7d1-3939d6b54134@forestfield.org> News from Neptune #445 A "Ghost of an Anti-War Movement Past" edition Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPA0iXKQkF8 A list of links to items mentioned on the show. "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html The quoted reference comes from Act 3, Scene 4. Jeffrey St. Clair on "The Last Line of Defense: 20 Activist Groups That Are Making a Big Difference" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/27/the-last-line-of-defense-20-activist-groups-that-are-making-a-difference/ Voices For Creative Nonviolence 1249 W. Argyle St. #2 Chicago, Illinois 60640 773-878-3815 http://vcnv.org/ Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New York Times? 1619 Project" https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html All pages on the wsws.org site mentioning "1619 project" https://www.wsws.org/en/search.html?sectionId=&maxResults=100&phrase=1619+project&submit=Search R. L. Stephens on "Between the Black Body and Me" https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle Fannie Lou Hamer and the Freedom Democratic Party and Congressional Run https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer#Freedom_Democratic_Party_and_Congressional_run Julie Wurth on "Local ACLU, NAACP chapters air concerns on achievement gaps in Unit 4" https://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/education/local-aclu-naacp-chapters-air-concerns-on-achievement-gaps-in/article_861752a7-b070-54de-a488-b1e91031cbd7.html Related: Juliann Xu on "Unit 4 must address achievement gap" https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/guest-commentary-unit-must-address-achievement-gap/article_3bdc67f6-454d-5c5e-95fc-2000d268a6fb.html Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Oats for Breakfast" show https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/episode-12-race-class-and-the-left-w-adolph-reed-jr -- initially published interview https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/unlocked-extended-interview-w-adolph-reed-jr -- extended interview Oats for Breakfast https://socialistproject.ca/podcast/ Glen Ford on "The Validity and Usefulness of the Term ?Black Misleadership Class?" https://www.blackagendareport.com/validity-and-usefulness-term-black-misleadership-class Adolph Reed on "Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism" https://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/ Howie Hawkins on "The Green Party Is Not the Democrats? Problem" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/25/the-green-party-is-not-the-democrats-problem/ Howie Hawkins interview with Primo Nutmeg on Russiagate (excerpt) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZZTlzThTo Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABW-_2lnn00 Jimmy Dore on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvbSLYC2PaE Dr. Jill Stein on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y7-IhocQWk Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Primo Nutmeg (which includes Rep. Gabbard saying she'll not run as a third-party and that she's a loyal Democrat) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdl-QbtS1U Rep. Tulsi Gabbard saying she'll support any Democrat who wins the primary which means she'll likely end up supporting someone more belligerent than she speaks about war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI > CBS Interviewer: Earlier this month you told our political reporter > Caitlin Huey-Burns[1] that you would support the Democratic nominee if > you end up not winning the primary. Is there any policy a Democratic > nominee could hold that would persuade you not to elect them in the > general election? > > Tulsi Gabbard: No. I am, as are all of the other candidates that I'm > aware of running for president, committed to defeating Donald Trump in > 2020. I look forward and hope to be able to earn that nomination myself > but if not then I'll join with others in making sure that that happens. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tulsi-gabbard-on-her-political-future/ where CBS' Caitlin Huey-Burns got right to the point: > Caitlin Huey-Burns: Will you ultimately support the Democratic nominee? > > Tulsi Gabbard: Yes. Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro, and Armand Emamdjomeh on "The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war" https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/ https://archive.md/75YUm Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Major Danny Sjursen on "We Have Just Been Handed the Pentagon Papers of Our Generation" https://www.thenation.com/article/afghanistan-papers-forever-war/ Costas Lapavitsas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costas_Lapavitsas Costas Lapavitsas interview with Paul Jay on "The Real News" Transcript: https://therealnews.com/stories/class-struggle-over-brexit-lapavitsas-and-jay Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh65ee5U9Kk Rob Urie on "Gender, Class and Capitalism" https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/08/gender-class-and-capitalism/ Liam Stack on "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html TERF is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF Cedric Johnson on "What Black Life Actually Looks Like" https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/racism-black-lives-matter-inequality J.B. Nicholson's notes https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051707.html https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015514.html -J From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 14:39:22 2019 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 08:39:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #445 notes In-Reply-To: <20953581-7962-c00e-a7d1-3939d6b54134@forestfield.org> References: <20953581-7962-c00e-a7d1-3939d6b54134@forestfield.org> Message-ID: My letter to the News-Gazette, soon to be published, as read on the program: The debate in the *News-Gazette* regarding ?racial disparities? in Unit 4 schools is remarkably uninformed, if not slanderous; unsurprisingly, it occurs within limits set by a society that quite intentionally promotes radical income and wealth inequality based not on ?merit,? but systemic, legalized, and socially-admired greed. In this context, those who call themselves ?liberal? or ?progressive,? and accept capitalism, imperialism and war, use weasel words: ?diversity,? ?equity,? ?equal opportunity,? etc. They speak the obscurantist language of individual attitudes and systemic cultural or racial ?discrimination,? rather than the revelatory language of systemic economic (and environmental) exploitation and its accompanying ?success? at materially, medically, and intellectually hammering working class families. Unit 4 teachers and administrators, some of whom I?ve voluntarily worked with in recent years, range from merely competent to excellent. The A.C.L.U. and N.A.A.C.P., ironically evidencing limited analytical skills, look to ?race? like an inebriated person looks for keys under a streetlight. Nevertheless, corporate-driven ?multicultural? curriculum and testing regimes are designed to certify the ?bright? futures of privileged students, while preparing working class students, regardless of race, for a future of alienation, self-blame, disrespected labor, and financial struggle. If the latter students don?t like that, the neoliberal corporate and political establishment makes it clear they can serve as military cannon fodder, medicate and entertain themselves, go to prison, or labor and suffer in silent desperation and false hope. Schools are at worst bureaucratic accomplices in this rigged system. Liberal critics are oblivious to or enablers of those profiting from its rigging. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:46 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > News from Neptune #445 > A "Ghost of an Anti-War Movement Past" edition > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPA0iXKQkF8 > > A list of links to items mentioned on the show. > > "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare > http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html > The quoted reference comes from Act 3, Scene 4. > > Jeffrey St. Clair on "The Last Line of Defense: 20 Activist Groups That > Are > Making a Big Difference" > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/27/the-last-line-of-defense-20-activist-groups-that-are-making-a-difference/ > > Voices For Creative Nonviolence > 1249 W. Argyle St. #2 > Chicago, Illinois 60640 > 773-878-3815 > http://vcnv.org/ > > > > > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York > Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New > York Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html > > All pages on the wsws.org site mentioning "1619 project" > > https://www.wsws.org/en/search.html?sectionId=&maxResults=100&phrase=1619+project&submit=Search > > R. L. Stephens on "Between the Black Body and Me" > > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle > > Fannie Lou Hamer and the Freedom Democratic Party and Congressional Run > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer#Freedom_Democratic_Party_and_Congressional_run > > Julie Wurth on "Local ACLU, NAACP chapters air concerns on achievement > gaps > in Unit 4" > > https://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/education/local-aclu-naacp-chapters-air-concerns-on-achievement-gaps-in/article_861752a7-b070-54de-a488-b1e91031cbd7.html > > Related: Juliann Xu on "Unit 4 must address achievement gap" > > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/guest-commentary-unit-must-address-achievement-gap/article_3bdc67f6-454d-5c5e-95fc-2000d268a6fb.html > > Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Oats for Breakfast" show > > https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/episode-12-race-class-and-the-left-w-adolph-reed-jr > -- initially published interview > > https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/unlocked-extended-interview-w-adolph-reed-jr > -- extended interview > > Oats for Breakfast > https://socialistproject.ca/podcast/ > > Glen Ford on "The Validity and Usefulness of the Term ?Black Misleadership > Class?" > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/validity-and-usefulness-term-black-misleadership-class > > Adolph Reed on "Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism" > https://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/ > > > > > Howie Hawkins on "The Green Party Is Not the Democrats? Problem" > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/25/the-green-party-is-not-the-democrats-problem/ > > Howie Hawkins interview with Primo Nutmeg on Russiagate (excerpt) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZZTlzThTo > Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABW-_2lnn00 > > Jimmy Dore on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvbSLYC2PaE > > Dr. Jill Stein on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y7-IhocQWk > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Primo Nutmeg (which includes Rep. > Gabbard > saying she'll not run as a third-party and that she's a loyal Democrat) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdl-QbtS1U > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard saying she'll support any Democrat who wins the primary > which means she'll likely end up supporting someone more belligerent than > she speaks about war. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI > > > CBS Interviewer: Earlier this month you told our political reporter > > Caitlin Huey-Burns[1] that you would support the Democratic nominee if > > you end up not winning the primary. Is there any policy a Democratic > > nominee could hold that would persuade you not to elect them in the > > general election? > > > > Tulsi Gabbard: No. I am, as are all of the other candidates that I'm > > aware of running for president, committed to defeating Donald Trump in > > 2020. I look forward and hope to be able to earn that nomination myself > > but if not then I'll join with others in making sure that that happens. > > [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tulsi-gabbard-on-her-political-future/ > where CBS' Caitlin Huey-Burns got right to the point: > > > Caitlin Huey-Burns: Will you ultimately support the Democratic nominee? > > > > Tulsi Gabbard: Yes. > > Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro, and Armand Emamdjomeh on "The Afghanistan > Papers: A secret history of the war" > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/ > https://archive.md/75YUm > > Pentagon Papers > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers > > Major Danny Sjursen on "We Have Just Been Handed the Pentagon Papers of > Our > Generation" > https://www.thenation.com/article/afghanistan-papers-forever-war/ > > > > > Costas Lapavitsas > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costas_Lapavitsas > > Costas Lapavitsas interview with Paul Jay on "The Real News" > Transcript: > > https://therealnews.com/stories/class-struggle-over-brexit-lapavitsas-and-jay > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh65ee5U9Kk > > > > > Rob Urie on "Gender, Class and Capitalism" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/08/gender-class-and-capitalism/ > > Liam Stack on "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for > Anti-Transgender Researcher" > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html > > > TERF is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF > > Cedric Johnson on "What Black Life Actually Looks Like" > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/racism-black-lives-matter-inequality > > > J.B. Nicholson's notes > > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051707.html > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015514.html > > -J > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 15:23:34 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 07:23:34 -0800 Subject: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #445 notes In-Reply-To: References: <20953581-7962-c00e-a7d1-3939d6b54134@forestfield.org> Message-ID: Absolutely Brilliant, you outdid yourself with this one David. > On Dec 28, 2019, at 06:39, David Green via Peace wrote: > > My letter to the News-Gazette, soon to be published, as read on the program: > > The debate in the News-Gazette regarding ?racial disparities? in Unit 4 schools is remarkably uninformed, if not slanderous; unsurprisingly, it occurs within limits set by a society that quite intentionally promotes radical income and wealth inequality based not on ?merit,? but systemic, legalized, and socially-admired greed. > > In this context, those who call themselves ?liberal? or ?progressive,? and accept capitalism, imperialism and war, use weasel words: ?diversity,? ?equity,? ?equal opportunity,? etc. They speak the obscurantist language of individual attitudes and systemic cultural or racial ?discrimination,? rather than the revelatory language of systemic economic (and environmental) exploitation and its accompanying ?success? at materially, medically, and intellectually hammering working class families. > > Unit 4 teachers and administrators, some of whom I?ve voluntarily worked with in recent years, range from merely competent to excellent. The A.C.L.U. and N.A.A.C.P., ironically evidencing limited analytical skills, look to ?race? like an inebriated person looks for keys under a streetlight. Nevertheless, corporate-driven ?multicultural? curriculum and testing regimes are designed to certify the ?bright? futures of privileged students, while preparing working class students, regardless of race, for a future of alienation, self-blame, disrespected labor, and financial struggle. > > If the latter students don?t like that, the neoliberal corporate and political establishment makes it clear they can serve as military cannon fodder, medicate and entertain themselves, go to prison, or labor and suffer in silent desperation and false hope. > > Schools are at worst bureaucratic accomplices in this rigged system. Liberal critics are oblivious to or enablers of those profiting from its rigging. > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:46 AM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > News from Neptune #445 > A "Ghost of an Anti-War Movement Past" edition > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPA0iXKQkF8 > > A list of links to items mentioned on the show. > > "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare > http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html > The quoted reference comes from Act 3, Scene 4. > > Jeffrey St. Clair on "The Last Line of Defense: 20 Activist Groups That Are > Making a Big Difference" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/27/the-last-line-of-defense-20-activist-groups-that-are-making-a-difference/ > > Voices For Creative Nonviolence > 1249 W. Argyle St. #2 > Chicago, Illinois 60640 > 773-878-3815 > http://vcnv.org/ > > > > > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian Gordon Wood on the New York > Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html > > Tom Mackaman on "An interview with historian James McPherson on the New > York Times? 1619 Project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html > > All pages on the wsws.org site mentioning "1619 project" > https://www.wsws.org/en/search.html?sectionId=&maxResults=100&phrase=1619+project&submit=Search > > R. L. Stephens on "Between the Black Body and Me" > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/ta-nehisi-coates-racism-afro-pessimism-reparations-class-struggle > > Fannie Lou Hamer and the Freedom Democratic Party and Congressional Run > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer#Freedom_Democratic_Party_and_Congressional_run > > Julie Wurth on "Local ACLU, NAACP chapters air concerns on achievement gaps > in Unit 4" > https://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/education/local-aclu-naacp-chapters-air-concerns-on-achievement-gaps-in/article_861752a7-b070-54de-a488-b1e91031cbd7.html > > Related: Juliann Xu on "Unit 4 must address achievement gap" > https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/guest-commentary-unit-must-address-achievement-gap/article_3bdc67f6-454d-5c5e-95fc-2000d268a6fb.html > > Adolph Reed, Jr. on "Oats for Breakfast" show > https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/episode-12-race-class-and-the-left-w-adolph-reed-jr > -- initially published interview > https://soundcloud.com/user-108536943/unlocked-extended-interview-w-adolph-reed-jr > -- extended interview > > Oats for Breakfast > https://socialistproject.ca/podcast/ > > Glen Ford on "The Validity and Usefulness of the Term ?Black Misleadership > Class?" > https://www.blackagendareport.com/validity-and-usefulness-term-black-misleadership-class > > Adolph Reed on "Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism" > https://bennorton.com/adolph-reed-identity-politics-is-neoliberalism/ > > > > > Howie Hawkins on "The Green Party Is Not the Democrats? Problem" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/25/the-green-party-is-not-the-democrats-problem/ > > Howie Hawkins interview with Primo Nutmeg on Russiagate (excerpt) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZZTlzThTo > Full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABW-_2lnn00 > > Jimmy Dore on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvbSLYC2PaE > > Dr. Jill Stein on Howie Hawkins supporting Russiagate to Primo Nutmeg > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y7-IhocQWk > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview with Primo Nutmeg (which includes Rep. Gabbard > saying she'll not run as a third-party and that she's a loyal Democrat) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkdl-QbtS1U > > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard saying she'll support any Democrat who wins the primary > which means she'll likely end up supporting someone more belligerent than > she speaks about war. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzVSYBNgOeI > > > CBS Interviewer: Earlier this month you told our political reporter > > Caitlin Huey-Burns[1] that you would support the Democratic nominee if > > you end up not winning the primary. Is there any policy a Democratic > > nominee could hold that would persuade you not to elect them in the > > general election? > > > > Tulsi Gabbard: No. I am, as are all of the other candidates that I'm > > aware of running for president, committed to defeating Donald Trump in > > 2020. I look forward and hope to be able to earn that nomination myself > > but if not then I'll join with others in making sure that that happens. > > [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tulsi-gabbard-on-her-political-future/ > where CBS' Caitlin Huey-Burns got right to the point: > > > Caitlin Huey-Burns: Will you ultimately support the Democratic nominee? > > > > Tulsi Gabbard: Yes. > > Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro, and Armand Emamdjomeh on "The Afghanistan > Papers: A secret history of the war" > https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/ > https://archive.md/75YUm > > Pentagon Papers > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers > > Major Danny Sjursen on "We Have Just Been Handed the Pentagon Papers of Our > Generation" > https://www.thenation.com/article/afghanistan-papers-forever-war/ > > > > > Costas Lapavitsas > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costas_Lapavitsas > > Costas Lapavitsas interview with Paul Jay on "The Real News" > Transcript: > https://therealnews.com/stories/class-struggle-over-brexit-lapavitsas-and-jay > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh65ee5U9Kk > > > > > Rob Urie on "Gender, Class and Capitalism" > https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/08/gender-class-and-capitalism/ > > Liam Stack on "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for > Anti-Transgender Researcher" > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html > > > TERF is an acronym for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF > > Cedric Johnson on "What Black Life Actually Looks Like" > https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/racism-black-lives-matter-inequality > > > J.B. Nicholson's notes > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2019-December/051707.html > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/2019-December/015514.html > > -J > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Dec 28 17:19:55 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:19:55 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Best Crosstalk ever, with guests Brian Becker of ANSWER and James Jafre former Washington insider. Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 17:19:55 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:19:55 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Best Crosstalk ever, with guests Brian Becker of ANSWER and James Jafre former Washington insider. Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Dec 28 20:49:42 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 12:49:42 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Best Crosstalk ever, with guests Brian Becker of ANSWER and James Jafre former Washington insider. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Crosstalk is on RT., three times a week and is accessible online. Peter Lavelle, the host is American and lives in Russia, It?s always brief, and though he is ?conservative,? as he describes himself, James Jaffries a frequent guest is a Republican, so the past couple years I have not paid too much attention given the focus on ?Trump, and russiagate.? Brian Becker of ANSWER, thus a socialist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has his own radio program online, ?Loud and Clear,? and has been a guest on Crosstalk, a couple times. Interesting how the political differences, don?t really matter when faced with the crisis we are faced with today, by those who recognize the signs and symptoms, and are concerned with the fate of all humanity. > On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:09, Morton K. Brussel wrote: > > I agree that this was a brilliant discussion. The only? thing missing?it was after all a short program? was how global economics enters/is background for the conflicts. > Why haven?t I heard of these guys before? > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sat Dec 28 20:49:42 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 12:49:42 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Best Crosstalk ever, with guests Brian Becker of ANSWER and James Jafre former Washington insider. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Crosstalk is on RT., three times a week and is accessible online. Peter Lavelle, the host is American and lives in Russia, It?s always brief, and though he is ?conservative,? as he describes himself, James Jaffries a frequent guest is a Republican, so the past couple years I have not paid too much attention given the focus on ?Trump, and russiagate.? Brian Becker of ANSWER, thus a socialist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has his own radio program online, ?Loud and Clear,? and has been a guest on Crosstalk, a couple times. Interesting how the political differences, don?t really matter when faced with the crisis we are faced with today, by those who recognize the signs and symptoms, and are concerned with the fate of all humanity. > On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:09, Morton K. Brussel wrote: > > I agree that this was a brilliant discussion. The only? thing missing?it was after all a short program? was how global economics enters/is background for the conflicts. > Why haven?t I heard of these guys before? > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sun Dec 29 01:02:00 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:02:00 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Crosstalk. References: Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/ > > Crosstalk is on RT., three times a week and is accessible online. Peter Lavelle, the host is American and lives in Russia, It?s always brief, and though he is ?conservative,? as he describes himself, James Jaffries a frequent guest is a Republican, so the past couple years I have not paid too much attention given the focus on ?Trump, and russiagate.? > > Brian Becker of ANSWER, thus a socialist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has his own radio program online, ?Loud and Clear,? and has been a guest on Crosstalk, a couple times. > > Interesting how the political differences, don?t really matter when faced with the crisis we are faced with today, by those who recognize the signs and symptoms, and are concerned with the fate of all humanity. > > > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:09, Morton K. Brussel > wrote: >> >> I agree that this was a brilliant discussion. The only? thing missing?it was after all a short program? was how global economics enters/is background for the conflicts. >> Why haven?t I heard of these guys before? >> >>> On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Dec 29 01:02:00 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:02:00 -0800 Subject: [Peace] Fwd: Crosstalk. References: Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/ > > Crosstalk is on RT., three times a week and is accessible online. Peter Lavelle, the host is American and lives in Russia, It?s always brief, and though he is ?conservative,? as he describes himself, James Jaffries a frequent guest is a Republican, so the past couple years I have not paid too much attention given the focus on ?Trump, and russiagate.? > > Brian Becker of ANSWER, thus a socialist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has his own radio program online, ?Loud and Clear,? and has been a guest on Crosstalk, a couple times. > > Interesting how the political differences, don?t really matter when faced with the crisis we are faced with today, by those who recognize the signs and symptoms, and are concerned with the fate of all humanity. > > > >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:09, Morton K. Brussel > wrote: >> >> I agree that this was a brilliant discussion. The only? thing missing?it was after all a short program? was how global economics enters/is background for the conflicts. >> Why haven?t I heard of these guys before? >> >>> On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Dec 29 01:47:54 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:47:54 -0800 Subject: [Peace] NFN Message-ID: Excellent program, some of my thoughts: Carl, I thought it was clarified that Rosa Luxemberg was murdered by the Social Democrats of Germany? I do think that needs to be clarified as was suggested previously by David Johnson. Howie Hawkins support for ?russiagate,? is the reason many of us identifying as Greens, have difficulty supporting him for President. H.H. has a long admirable record as a labor leader, its said, he introduced the Green New Deal, I thought it was Ralph Nader, However if he is so ignorant of foreign policy issues, which includes US propaganda, then he should not be the Presidential candidate for the Green Party. I?m pleased to see positive reference of the WSWS.Org. as I have been supportive of them, generally speaking, for years but felt quite isolated in this respect. I know little if nothing about the problems related to Unit 4, but I loved David?s letter because it addressed the issue with analysis that could be and should be applied to so many issues we are dealing with. Identity Politics, becomes a worn label, but liberalism focusing on social problems has us running around like chicken little, screaming ?discrimination,? when in fact the sky really is falling. In Thailand, given Thai Buddhism is very tolerant, discrimination against gays and trans appears not to exist, primarily due to well known privileged elites being known gays or trans. At first glance it appears admirable, but upon close examination one sees the awful destruction, and ruined lives of those gays and trans being exploited, because they are poor. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Dec 29 01:47:54 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:47:54 -0800 Subject: [Peace] NFN Message-ID: Excellent program, some of my thoughts: Carl, I thought it was clarified that Rosa Luxemberg was murdered by the Social Democrats of Germany? I do think that needs to be clarified as was suggested previously by David Johnson. Howie Hawkins support for ?russiagate,? is the reason many of us identifying as Greens, have difficulty supporting him for President. H.H. has a long admirable record as a labor leader, its said, he introduced the Green New Deal, I thought it was Ralph Nader, However if he is so ignorant of foreign policy issues, which includes US propaganda, then he should not be the Presidential candidate for the Green Party. I?m pleased to see positive reference of the WSWS.Org. as I have been supportive of them, generally speaking, for years but felt quite isolated in this respect. I know little if nothing about the problems related to Unit 4, but I loved David?s letter because it addressed the issue with analysis that could be and should be applied to so many issues we are dealing with. Identity Politics, becomes a worn label, but liberalism focusing on social problems has us running around like chicken little, screaming ?discrimination,? when in fact the sky really is falling. In Thailand, given Thai Buddhism is very tolerant, discrimination against gays and trans appears not to exist, primarily due to well known privileged elites being known gays or trans. At first glance it appears admirable, but upon close examination one sees the awful destruction, and ruined lives of those gays and trans being exploited, because they are poor. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Dec 29 02:34:35 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:34:35 -0600 Subject: [Peace] NFN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71758559-40B4-429A-B3D9-2839B730B65E@newsfromneptune.com> The SPD was a self-proclaimed socialist party. "Established in 1863, the SPD is by far the oldest existing political party represented in the German Parliament and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world. It was illegal under the Anti-Socialist Laws from 1878 to 1890. During the First World War, the party split into a pro-war mainstream and the pacifist Independent Social Democratic Party, a part of which went on to form the Communist Party of Germany. The social democrats came to power during the 1918?19 revolution. During the Weimar Republic, the SPD was the strongest party until 1932 and Friedrich Ebert served as the first President of Germany. During the Nazi era (1933?45), the SPD was banned, and social democrats offered resistance against Hitler's dictatorship... "After the SPD supported German involvement in World War I in 1915, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht co-founded the anti-war Spartacus League (Spartakusbund) which eventually became the KPD. During the November Revolution, she co-founded the newspaper Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), the central organ of the Spartacist movement. Luxemburg considered the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 a blunder, but supported the attempted overthrow of the government and rejected any attempt at a negotiated solution. Friedrich Ebert's majority SPD government crushed the revolt and the Spartakusbund by sending in the Freikorps, government-sponsored paramilitary groups consisting mostly of World War I veterans. Freikorps troops captured and summarily executed Luxemburg and Liebknecht during the rebellion. Luxemburg's body was thrown in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin.? Wikipedia See now . > On Dec 28, 2019, at 7:47 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Excellent program, some of my thoughts: > > Carl, I thought it was clarified that Rosa Luxemberg was murdered by the Social Democrats of Germany? I do think that needs to be clarified as was suggested previously by David Johnson. > > Howie Hawkins support for ?russiagate,? is the reason many of us identifying as Greens, have difficulty supporting him for President. H.H. has a long admirable record as a labor leader, its said, he introduced the Green New Deal, I thought it was Ralph Nader, However if he is so ignorant of foreign policy issues, which includes US propaganda, then he should not be the Presidential candidate for the Green Party. > > I?m pleased to see positive reference of the WSWS.Org. as I have been supportive of them, generally speaking, for years but felt quite isolated in this respect. > > I know little if nothing about the problems related to Unit 4, but I loved David?s letter because it addressed the issue with analysis that could be and should be applied to so many issues we are dealing with. Identity Politics, becomes a worn label, but liberalism focusing on social problems has us running around like chicken little, screaming ?discrimination,? when in fact the sky really is falling. > > In Thailand, given Thai Buddhism is very tolerant, discrimination against gays and trans appears not to exist, primarily due to well known privileged elites being known gays or trans. At first glance it appears admirable, but upon close examination one sees the awful destruction, and ruined lives of those gays and trans being exploited, because they are poor. > > > > > > > > > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Dec 29 02:34:35 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:34:35 -0600 Subject: [Peace] NFN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71758559-40B4-429A-B3D9-2839B730B65E@newsfromneptune.com> The SPD was a self-proclaimed socialist party. "Established in 1863, the SPD is by far the oldest existing political party represented in the German Parliament and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world. It was illegal under the Anti-Socialist Laws from 1878 to 1890. During the First World War, the party split into a pro-war mainstream and the pacifist Independent Social Democratic Party, a part of which went on to form the Communist Party of Germany. The social democrats came to power during the 1918?19 revolution. During the Weimar Republic, the SPD was the strongest party until 1932 and Friedrich Ebert served as the first President of Germany. During the Nazi era (1933?45), the SPD was banned, and social democrats offered resistance against Hitler's dictatorship... "After the SPD supported German involvement in World War I in 1915, Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht co-founded the anti-war Spartacus League (Spartakusbund) which eventually became the KPD. During the November Revolution, she co-founded the newspaper Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), the central organ of the Spartacist movement. Luxemburg considered the Spartacist uprising of January 1919 a blunder, but supported the attempted overthrow of the government and rejected any attempt at a negotiated solution. Friedrich Ebert's majority SPD government crushed the revolt and the Spartakusbund by sending in the Freikorps, government-sponsored paramilitary groups consisting mostly of World War I veterans. Freikorps troops captured and summarily executed Luxemburg and Liebknecht during the rebellion. Luxemburg's body was thrown in the Landwehr Canal in Berlin.? Wikipedia See now . > On Dec 28, 2019, at 7:47 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Excellent program, some of my thoughts: > > Carl, I thought it was clarified that Rosa Luxemberg was murdered by the Social Democrats of Germany? I do think that needs to be clarified as was suggested previously by David Johnson. > > Howie Hawkins support for ?russiagate,? is the reason many of us identifying as Greens, have difficulty supporting him for President. H.H. has a long admirable record as a labor leader, its said, he introduced the Green New Deal, I thought it was Ralph Nader, However if he is so ignorant of foreign policy issues, which includes US propaganda, then he should not be the Presidential candidate for the Green Party. > > I?m pleased to see positive reference of the WSWS.Org. as I have been supportive of them, generally speaking, for years but felt quite isolated in this respect. > > I know little if nothing about the problems related to Unit 4, but I loved David?s letter because it addressed the issue with analysis that could be and should be applied to so many issues we are dealing with. Identity Politics, becomes a worn label, but liberalism focusing on social problems has us running around like chicken little, screaming ?discrimination,? when in fact the sky really is falling. > > In Thailand, given Thai Buddhism is very tolerant, discrimination against gays and trans appears not to exist, primarily due to well known privileged elites being known gays or trans. At first glance it appears admirable, but upon close examination one sees the awful destruction, and ruined lives of those gays and trans being exploited, because they are poor. > > > > > > > > > From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 21:20:04 2019 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:20:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace] New Year's Eve Party----You're Invited! Message-ID: *Happy Old Year's Night (2019)* *Welcome New Year's Day (2020)* Hello Friends--This is the beginning of the Roaring Twenties! So--Ring in the New Decade! You?re invited to our New Year?s Eve party, *Tuesday, December 31,* *8pm-1am, *at the Parkhouse (aka School for Designing a Society), *122 Franklin Street Urbana. * Please bring a dish to pass and a beverage of your choice. Let?s share food, drink, music listening and music dancing, poetry to read, musical instruments to play! There will be kid-friendly puppet-making in the basement (8 to 9pm) [image: IMG_0004.JPG] while older kids can dither around upstairs. There?s also a hot tub, so bring a bathing suit and towel, etc. See you there! Susan P & Patch A -- *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: IMG_0004.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 2711372 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 30 15:23:56 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 07:23:56 -0800 Subject: [Peace] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__Why_I_Don=E2=80=99t_Criticize_Russia?= =?utf-8?q?=2C_China=2C_Or_Other_Unabsorbed_Governments?= References: <139971992.7585.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Why I Don?t Criticize Russia, China, Or Other Unabsorbed?Governments by Caitlin Johnstone > Depending on whose political echo chamber I happen to be arguing with on a given day, one common criticism I run into a fair bit which many of my readers have surely also encountered is that I put all my energy into criticizing the foreign policy of the United States and its allies. > > "You're not anti-war, you're only anti-AMERICAN wars!" they say, as though they're delivering some kind of devastating slam-dunk point. "If you're so antiwar, why don't you criticize Assad's war in Syria? If you're such an anti-imperialist, show me where you've ever once criticized Russian imperialism, or Chinese imperialism?" > > The argument being that someone who opposes US-led warmongering isn't really motivated by a desire for peace and an opposition to war unless they're also voicing opposition to all other violent governments in the world. If you're only criticizing US imperialism and not the imperialism of other nations, you must be motivated by something far more sinister, perhaps a hatred for the United States of America. > > I have three responses to this feeble line of argumentation, which I'll list here for the benefit of anyone else who'd like to make use of them: > > 1. People making this argument never apply its own logic to themselves. > Nobody criticizes all misdeeds by all governments everywhere in the world. If you run into someone making this "you have to criticize all bad governments or your criticisms are invalid" argument on Twitter, just do an advanced search for their Twitter handle plus "Duterte" or "Sisi" or one of the other US-allied tyrants who the mainstream media haven't spent years demonizing, and you'll find that they've never made a single mention of those leaders the entire time they've had that account. > > What this proves, of course, is that they don't actually practice the belief that all misdeeds by all governments are equally worthy of condemnation. What they actually practice is the belief that one ought to criticize the governments they hear their television criticizing: Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc. The governments the US State Department and the CIA don't like. The disobedient governments. The governments which have resisted absorption into the blob of the US-centralized empire. > > They don't put the logic of their own argument into practice because it is impossible to put into practice. Everyone's only got so much time in the day, so you have to choose where to put your focus. I personally choose to put my focus on the single most egregious offender in warmongering and imperialism. Which takes us to: > > 2. The US empire is by far the worst warmongering imperialist force on the planet. > US-led regime change interventionism is literally always disastrous and literally never helpful. This is an indisputable fact. Imperialists get very frustrated when I take my stand there in arguments online, because it is an unassailable position. That's usually when the ad hominems start flying. > > All things are not equal. This isn't something you should have to explain to grown adults, but such is the nature of propaganda. It is true that other governments do evil things; as far as I can tell this becomes pretty much a given as soon as a government is allowed to have a military force and keep important secrets from its citizenry. Obviously Russia, China and other unabsorbed governments are no exception to this rule. But the US is worse, by orders of magnitude. > > No other nation comes anywhere remotely close. No other nation is circling the planet with hundreds of military bases and engaged in dozens of undeclared military operations. No other nation has cultivated a giant globe-sprawling empire in the form of tightly knit alliances with powerful murderous governments like the UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No other nation is constantly laboring to sabotage and undermine any government which refuses to be absorbed into military and economic alliance with it using sanctions, staged coups, covert CIA operations, color revolutions, economic manipulations, propaganda, the arming of dissident militias, and launching full-scale military invasions. Only the US and the nations that its cancerous empire has metastasized into are doing anything like that on anywhere near the scale. > > So since I, like everyone else, only have enough time in the day to oppose so many different evils in the world, I choose to pour my energy into opposing the single most egregious offender. An offender which doesn't get nearly enough opposition, in my opinion. > > 3. I have a special responsibility for the evils of the empire in which I live. > When asked in an interview why he spends the bulk of his time criticizing his own government, Noam Chomsky replied : > > ?My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that: namely, I can do something about it. So even if the US was responsible for 2% of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2% I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one?s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.? > > When people here in Australia ask about what I do for a living, I sometimes jokingly tell them I write about Australian foreign policy, which means that I write about US foreign policy. I've written many times about how Australia functions as Washington's basement gimp, an impotent vassal which functions as little more than a US military/intelligence asset in terms of meaningful international affairs. > > So all I really am doing here is applying Chomsky's philosophy to the reality of an empire in which sovereign nations do not exist to any meaningful extent; as a member of a state within that empire I focus on US government malfeasance in the same way I would if I were living in Alaska or Hawaii. > > All I'm doing is pointing my personal skill set at what I see as the biggest problem in the world: a murderous empire in which I happen to reside and therefore bear special responsibility for opposing. Which is simply the only sane stand for anyone to take, in my opinion. > > ________________________ > > Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I?m trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I?ve written) in any way they like free of charge. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | December 30, 2019 at 3:34 am | Tags: america , caitlin johnstone , empire , military , usa , war | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Yl > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/30/why-i-dont-criticize-russia-china-or-other-unabsorbed-governments/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 14:29:34 2019 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 09:29:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace] Aisha Jumaan: Rep. Smith's office said they'd ban Saudi arms deals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is key. Adam Smith led activists to believe that they were going to get something in the bill to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen. But then Adam Smith didn't get anything. NOW Adam Smith excuses himself by citing "Republican obstruction," the Dem leader equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." If you're not prepared to fight on our issues, stop taking our money, our votes, and our time. Get out of the way and let someone else lead. Adam Smith must go. *Que se vayan todos.* [...] Aisha Jumaan, who runs the Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation, said she was "blindsided" by Smith's decision to compromise on Yemen. She said one of Smith's staffers told her the day before the conference report signatures were collected and the final report was filed that language banning arms sales would be included in the NDAA. When she found out the next day that it wasn't, she and her organization were "shocked and quite sad." [...] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/12/23/42309924/humanitarian-groups-outraged-over-concessions-in-military-spending-bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Sat Dec 28 18:09:32 2019 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 12:09:32 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Best Crosstalk ever, with guests Brian Becker of ANSWER and James Jafre former Washington insider. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree that this was a brilliant discussion. The only? thing missing?it was after all a short program? was how global economics enters/is background for the conflicts. Why haven?t I heard of these guys before? > On Dec 28, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyKF2S4KaQ&fbclid=IwAR3Uy4RAtAb-rXigyizNPff5hpRq9G7_Uhv-WwNBFvi6heS1fDpQPO07Gvs _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Dec 30 19:37:04 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:37:04 -0800 Subject: [Peace] From the Nation Message-ID: Print <> US and South Korean battleships in the western Pacific Ocean in May of 2017. (Reuters / Courtesy of the US Navy) Ready To Fight Back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation?s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. This week, cries of alarm about North Korea?s possible resumption of ICBM testing?or worse?will reverberate through the media. The coverage began on Sunday, when The New York Times brought out David Sanger, its star national security reporter, for a front-page screamer designed to bring the standoff in Northeast Asia to a Christmas boil. American military and intelligence sources are ?tracking North Korea?s actions by the hour? and ?bracing for an imminent test of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching American shores,? Sanger reported. The crisis was inevitable because, over the past 18 months of sporadic talks between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, the ?North has bolstered its arsenal of missiles and its stockpile of bomb-ready nuclear material.? But the Times, as it does frequently in its coverage of these talks, omitted key developments on the Korean Peninsula, including in the South, that have contributed to the current standoff. ? TOP ARTICLES 3/5 READ MORE The Bernie Blackout Is Over <> Perhaps the most overlooked is the massive military buildup in South Korea over the past two years. On December 9, as tensions were rising once again, the South Korean Air Force released to the media a stunning video recreation of a preemptive attack on the North Korean ballistic missile network that Kim may soon test again. RELATED ARTICLE SOUTH KOREANS ARE PLEADING FOR A BREAKTHROUGH IN THE US?NORTH KOREA TALKS Tim Shorrock The four-minute film was first broadcast on JTBC, a major television network. It shows South Korea?s crack pilots?who are heavily supplied with US-made weapons?finding and then pummeling a North Korean ICBM launch site with drones, missiles, heavy bombers, and stealth fighters. Among them are the Global Hawk, the giant surveillance aircraft made by Northrop Grumman, and stealth F-35A attack planes made by Lockheed Martin. ?The glory of victory is promised under any circumstances,? the narrator declares over a background of stirring martial music. The film portrays the Republic of Korea as a valiant, independent force, acting swiftly with its precision strike capabilities to destroy Pyongyang?s long-range Hwasong-14 ICBM, which North Korea first tested in 2017 and which US and ROK officials fear it may test again. The film is a reminder that South Korea, through its alliance with the United States, has built one of the most powerful armed forces in the world?the seventh largest, according to a recent survey ?and outspends its rival to the North, the 18th largest, by a ratio of five to one. It also underscores the determination of President Moon Jae-in, a former special forces soldier who set the denuclearization talks in motion with his famous Olympic diplomacy in 2018, to defend his nation?s security at all costs. CURRENT ISSUE View our current issue Subscribe today and Save up to $129. But it?s also a sign of a US-led military buildup in Northeast Asia that has raised tensions in the region to an alarming degree, even as North Korea threatens to resume the ballistic-missile testing that sparked the last crisis on the peninsula, in 2017. The buildup includes: The US military?s tests of missiles previously banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the arms agreement abandoned by the Trump administration . The massive military machine built by South Korea in recent years, as illustrated in the ROK Air Force video. It has been fueled by massive purchases of sophisticated US weapons that have been pushed by US think tanks with ties to the US arms industry. The simultaneous and rapid expansion of US and Japanese military capabilities in Northeast Asia designed to confront North Korea, curb China?s growing military prowess, and enhance Washington?s strategic position in the region. Taken together, these developments signal a dangerous escalation of tensions?a realization that may even be dawning on US national security reporters. ?The Trump administration?s shadow war with North Korea is set to intensify in the next three weeks, as Pyongyang appears to be preparing an end to its more than 18-month moratorium on testing of its nuclear program, and as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?s self-imposed year-end deadline for diplomacy draws near,? CBS News?s Margaret Brennan reported on December 13. That story was one in a series of alarming reports about the North?s latest testings of new rocket engines at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, which Kim shut down in 2018 as a concession to Trump. Those tests, and a series of 15 short- and medium-range missile launches earlier this year, are universally seen as underscoring Kim?s determination to abandon the denuclearization negotiations and find a ?new path ? in 2020 unless the United States puts forward fresh proposals that the Kim regime finds acceptable. SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation?s work. ?The dialogue touted by the U.S. is, in essence, nothing but a foolish trick hatched to keep the DPRK bound to dialogue and use it in favor of the political situation and election in the U.S.,? Ri Thae Song, North Korea?s vice foreign minister for US affairs, said earlier this month, using the country?s official name. ?What is left to be done now is the U.S. option, and it is entirely up to the U.S. what Christmas gift it will select to get.? In response, Trump has said that Kim could lose ?everything? if he ended his self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and missile testing, and recently revived his threats of tough military action. ?If we have to, we will do it,? he said on December 3. And last week, Gen. Charles Brown, the top US Air Force commander in the Asia-Pacific region, predicted that Kim?s promised gift will most likely be ?a long range ballistic missile.? Many US analysts, such as Fox analyst Harry Kazianis , believe such a test is imminent, possibly as early as Christmas Day. They also see Kim?s latest missile and engine tests as sure signs that the North is not, in fact, getting rid of its nuclear weapons. ?Reversible steps are being reversed, and North Korea is essentially ?renuclearizing,?? Vipin Narang, an MIT security studies professor, tweeted after the latest Sohae test. But, as Trump?s recent demands to expand US nuclear capabilities show, so is the USA. And to those who follow the region closely, the signs of a US ?shadow war? are everywhere. The most obvious is the acceleration of US surveillance of North Korea from bases in Okinawa and Guam, thus allowing the intelligence tracking ?by the hour? alluded to by Sanger. In the latest such incident, on December 19, the Pentagon dispatched a Navy EP-3E surveillance plane over the peninsula; it was preceded four days earlier by an Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball surveillance and reconnaissance plane. A week earlier, on December 11, the US Air Force flew an RQ-4 Global Hawk over Korea, while the Pentagon ordered a strategic B-52H Stratofortress bomber capable of nuclear strikes to patrol the adjoining seas off Japan. The Stratofortress was accompanied by a KC-135 refueling aircraft, which can keep bombers in the air for days. In recent weeks, South Korea?s Yonhap news agency reports , the United States has also deployed the Navy?s P-3C maritime surveillance plane and an RC-135U Combat Sent (which the USAF says ?provides strategic electronic reconnaissance information to the president, secretary of defense [and] Department of Defense leaders?). Yonhap noted that ?the B-52H, a long-range and large-payload multirole bomber, is one of the U.S. Air Force?s principal strategic assets.? In fact, the frightening sight of a B-52 over Korean skies has been a favorite US signal of its determination and destructive powers for decades. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has started testing a new series of ballistic missiles designed to counter Chinese and Iranian weapons but also perfectly capable of striking North Korea. The latest test of a land-based missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on December 12, was the second test of a weapon banned under the INF treaty. The first involved a Tomahawk cruise missile deployed on US warships and submarines. ?Top Pentagon officials have wanted to deploy the previously banned INF missiles to the Western Pacific to counter China?s military expansion and provocations in the South China Sea,? Fox News reported . ?The missiles could be deployed to Guam, and within range of mainland China.? That?s also where the B-52s that regularly fly over and close to Korea are based. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Dec 30 19:37:04 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:37:04 -0800 Subject: [Peace] From the Nation Message-ID: Print <> US and South Korean battleships in the western Pacific Ocean in May of 2017. (Reuters / Courtesy of the US Navy) Ready To Fight Back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation?s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. This week, cries of alarm about North Korea?s possible resumption of ICBM testing?or worse?will reverberate through the media. The coverage began on Sunday, when The New York Times brought out David Sanger, its star national security reporter, for a front-page screamer designed to bring the standoff in Northeast Asia to a Christmas boil. American military and intelligence sources are ?tracking North Korea?s actions by the hour? and ?bracing for an imminent test of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching American shores,? Sanger reported. The crisis was inevitable because, over the past 18 months of sporadic talks between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, the ?North has bolstered its arsenal of missiles and its stockpile of bomb-ready nuclear material.? But the Times, as it does frequently in its coverage of these talks, omitted key developments on the Korean Peninsula, including in the South, that have contributed to the current standoff. ? TOP ARTICLES 3/5 READ MORE The Bernie Blackout Is Over <> Perhaps the most overlooked is the massive military buildup in South Korea over the past two years. On December 9, as tensions were rising once again, the South Korean Air Force released to the media a stunning video recreation of a preemptive attack on the North Korean ballistic missile network that Kim may soon test again. RELATED ARTICLE SOUTH KOREANS ARE PLEADING FOR A BREAKTHROUGH IN THE US?NORTH KOREA TALKS Tim Shorrock The four-minute film was first broadcast on JTBC, a major television network. It shows South Korea?s crack pilots?who are heavily supplied with US-made weapons?finding and then pummeling a North Korean ICBM launch site with drones, missiles, heavy bombers, and stealth fighters. Among them are the Global Hawk, the giant surveillance aircraft made by Northrop Grumman, and stealth F-35A attack planes made by Lockheed Martin. ?The glory of victory is promised under any circumstances,? the narrator declares over a background of stirring martial music. The film portrays the Republic of Korea as a valiant, independent force, acting swiftly with its precision strike capabilities to destroy Pyongyang?s long-range Hwasong-14 ICBM, which North Korea first tested in 2017 and which US and ROK officials fear it may test again. The film is a reminder that South Korea, through its alliance with the United States, has built one of the most powerful armed forces in the world?the seventh largest, according to a recent survey ?and outspends its rival to the North, the 18th largest, by a ratio of five to one. It also underscores the determination of President Moon Jae-in, a former special forces soldier who set the denuclearization talks in motion with his famous Olympic diplomacy in 2018, to defend his nation?s security at all costs. CURRENT ISSUE View our current issue Subscribe today and Save up to $129. But it?s also a sign of a US-led military buildup in Northeast Asia that has raised tensions in the region to an alarming degree, even as North Korea threatens to resume the ballistic-missile testing that sparked the last crisis on the peninsula, in 2017. The buildup includes: The US military?s tests of missiles previously banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the arms agreement abandoned by the Trump administration . The massive military machine built by South Korea in recent years, as illustrated in the ROK Air Force video. It has been fueled by massive purchases of sophisticated US weapons that have been pushed by US think tanks with ties to the US arms industry. The simultaneous and rapid expansion of US and Japanese military capabilities in Northeast Asia designed to confront North Korea, curb China?s growing military prowess, and enhance Washington?s strategic position in the region. Taken together, these developments signal a dangerous escalation of tensions?a realization that may even be dawning on US national security reporters. ?The Trump administration?s shadow war with North Korea is set to intensify in the next three weeks, as Pyongyang appears to be preparing an end to its more than 18-month moratorium on testing of its nuclear program, and as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?s self-imposed year-end deadline for diplomacy draws near,? CBS News?s Margaret Brennan reported on December 13. That story was one in a series of alarming reports about the North?s latest testings of new rocket engines at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, which Kim shut down in 2018 as a concession to Trump. Those tests, and a series of 15 short- and medium-range missile launches earlier this year, are universally seen as underscoring Kim?s determination to abandon the denuclearization negotiations and find a ?new path ? in 2020 unless the United States puts forward fresh proposals that the Kim regime finds acceptable. SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation?s work. ?The dialogue touted by the U.S. is, in essence, nothing but a foolish trick hatched to keep the DPRK bound to dialogue and use it in favor of the political situation and election in the U.S.,? Ri Thae Song, North Korea?s vice foreign minister for US affairs, said earlier this month, using the country?s official name. ?What is left to be done now is the U.S. option, and it is entirely up to the U.S. what Christmas gift it will select to get.? In response, Trump has said that Kim could lose ?everything? if he ended his self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and missile testing, and recently revived his threats of tough military action. ?If we have to, we will do it,? he said on December 3. And last week, Gen. Charles Brown, the top US Air Force commander in the Asia-Pacific region, predicted that Kim?s promised gift will most likely be ?a long range ballistic missile.? Many US analysts, such as Fox analyst Harry Kazianis , believe such a test is imminent, possibly as early as Christmas Day. They also see Kim?s latest missile and engine tests as sure signs that the North is not, in fact, getting rid of its nuclear weapons. ?Reversible steps are being reversed, and North Korea is essentially ?renuclearizing,?? Vipin Narang, an MIT security studies professor, tweeted after the latest Sohae test. But, as Trump?s recent demands to expand US nuclear capabilities show, so is the USA. And to those who follow the region closely, the signs of a US ?shadow war? are everywhere. The most obvious is the acceleration of US surveillance of North Korea from bases in Okinawa and Guam, thus allowing the intelligence tracking ?by the hour? alluded to by Sanger. In the latest such incident, on December 19, the Pentagon dispatched a Navy EP-3E surveillance plane over the peninsula; it was preceded four days earlier by an Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball surveillance and reconnaissance plane. A week earlier, on December 11, the US Air Force flew an RQ-4 Global Hawk over Korea, while the Pentagon ordered a strategic B-52H Stratofortress bomber capable of nuclear strikes to patrol the adjoining seas off Japan. The Stratofortress was accompanied by a KC-135 refueling aircraft, which can keep bombers in the air for days. In recent weeks, South Korea?s Yonhap news agency reports , the United States has also deployed the Navy?s P-3C maritime surveillance plane and an RC-135U Combat Sent (which the USAF says ?provides strategic electronic reconnaissance information to the president, secretary of defense [and] Department of Defense leaders?). Yonhap noted that ?the B-52H, a long-range and large-payload multirole bomber, is one of the U.S. Air Force?s principal strategic assets.? In fact, the frightening sight of a B-52 over Korean skies has been a favorite US signal of its determination and destructive powers for decades. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has started testing a new series of ballistic missiles designed to counter Chinese and Iranian weapons but also perfectly capable of striking North Korea. The latest test of a land-based missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on December 12, was the second test of a weapon banned under the INF treaty. The first involved a Tomahawk cruise missile deployed on US warships and submarines. ?Top Pentagon officials have wanted to deploy the previously banned INF missiles to the Western Pacific to counter China?s military expansion and provocations in the South China Sea,? Fox News reported . ?The missiles could be deployed to Guam, and within range of mainland China.? That?s also where the B-52s that regularly fly over and close to Korea are based. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Dec 31 17:18:01 2019 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:18:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace] Big stories of 2019 Message-ID: <5D04AAA3-E9E7-474B-A0E4-93F2142F04F3@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/12/the-moa-year-in-review.html ? The vindication of Donald Trump by the Mueller and Horowitz 'Russiagate' investigations. The Democrats, driven by the security state, then continued their coup attempt against Trump by impeaching him over 'Ukrainegate'. ? The slow but continuing retreat of the U.S. from the Middle East demonstrated by its lack of reaction even after the attack on the Saudi oil installations and the shooting down of a large U.S. drone by Iran. ? The Boeing 737 MAX disaster. ? The manipulations of reports about alleged chemical incidents in Syria by the OPCW. My predictions on these issue for next year are: ? The unreasonable campaign against Trump will hurt the Democrats in the 2020 elections. Unless something unforeseeable happens Trump will be reelected. ? The U.S. will pull its troops out of Iraq and Syria. ? The MAX will not be allowed back into the air unless Boeing ditches MCAS and finds a better way to make the plane certifiable. ? Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if major new evidence comes to light. ### From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 21:24:40 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:24:40 -0800 Subject: [Peace] So much for our Peace President, not!!! Message-ID: A US proxy war between Iraq and Iran, again. A recipe for regime change in Iran, given our provocations, and sanctions killing Iranians. Just add a little proxy war with Iraq and wallah death and destruction, just the way we like it. ?This is your time?: Trump calls for Iraqis to rise up against Iran 31 Dec, 2019 17:52 / Updated 1 hour ago Get short URL Protesters throw stones at the US embassy in Baghdad ? Reuters / Wissm al-Okily 150 Follow RT on President Donald Trump has called on ?millions? of people in Iraq to resist Iran, as the fallout over US airstrikes on an Iran-backed militia brings Washington and Tehran one step closer to proxy war. ?To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don?t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time!,? Trump tweeted on Tuesday. Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don?t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time! 99K 7:44 AM - Dec 31, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 38.2K people are talking about this Earlier on Tuesday, the president accused Iran of ?orchestrating an attack on the US embassy in Iraq,? as scores of protesters stormed the compound chanting ?death to America,? waving Hezbollah flags and setting fires. Embassy security forces fought back with stun grenades, and US officials told Reuters that additional Marines would be deployed to the embassy to bolster security. The protests were triggered by US airstrikes on three Kataib Hezbollah targets in Iraq and two in Syria on Sunday. Washington blames the Iranian-supported militia for attacking a coalition base in Kirkuk on Friday, a strike that killed one American contractor and left several US troops injured. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the Kirkuk attack, and Iran has denied responsibility for any militia attacks on US personnel. Yet Washington has pinned the blame on Tehran, with Trump claiming that ?Iran killed? the contractor and State Secretary Mike Pompeo declaring it an ?Iranian proxy attack.? Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified! 124K 4:02 AM - Dec 31, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 49K people are talking about this Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has claimed that Kataib Hezbollah and its allied Shia militias that make up the ?Popular Mobilization Forces? are under the control of the Iraqi government in ?95 percent of cases,? and has warned the US against policing their activities. Yet, many on the ground see these Shia militias as doing the bidding of Tehran. Trump?s tweet seems therefore to be aimed at Iraq?s Sunni minority, many of whom fear the growth in power of the Shia militias. However, it is unclear what exactly Trump is calling for. The US president issued similar statements last year, declaring that the ?US is watching? as ?the people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.? However, Trump never acted militarily against the Islamic Republic, and the government in Tehran remains in power. ALSO ON RT.COM US sends reinforcements to its Baghdad embassy amid Iraqi protests over strikes Still, calling for Iraqi resistance against the influence of Tehran is an inflammatory message at a time of heightened tension between America and Iran. As Mahdi attempts to balance relations with both sides, the Iraqi PM accused the United States of violating his country?s sovereignty with its airstrikes, while his National Security Council said it rejects the idea of Iraq becoming a battlefield for the US and Iran to fight over. Iraq?s top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the American airstrikes, but also called on the militias to refrain from revenge attacks, ?to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Dec 31 21:24:40 2019 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:24:40 -0800 Subject: [Peace] So much for our Peace President, not!!! Message-ID: A US proxy war between Iraq and Iran, again. A recipe for regime change in Iran, given our provocations, and sanctions killing Iranians. Just add a little proxy war with Iraq and wallah death and destruction, just the way we like it. ?This is your time?: Trump calls for Iraqis to rise up against Iran 31 Dec, 2019 17:52 / Updated 1 hour ago Get short URL Protesters throw stones at the US embassy in Baghdad ? Reuters / Wissm al-Okily 150 Follow RT on President Donald Trump has called on ?millions? of people in Iraq to resist Iran, as the fallout over US airstrikes on an Iran-backed militia brings Washington and Tehran one step closer to proxy war. ?To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don?t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time!,? Trump tweeted on Tuesday. Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump To those many millions of people in Iraq who want freedom and who don?t want to be dominated and controlled by Iran, this is your time! 99K 7:44 AM - Dec 31, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 38.2K people are talking about this Earlier on Tuesday, the president accused Iran of ?orchestrating an attack on the US embassy in Iraq,? as scores of protesters stormed the compound chanting ?death to America,? waving Hezbollah flags and setting fires. Embassy security forces fought back with stun grenades, and US officials told Reuters that additional Marines would be deployed to the embassy to bolster security. The protests were triggered by US airstrikes on three Kataib Hezbollah targets in Iraq and two in Syria on Sunday. Washington blames the Iranian-supported militia for attacking a coalition base in Kirkuk on Friday, a strike that killed one American contractor and left several US troops injured. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the Kirkuk attack, and Iran has denied responsibility for any militia attacks on US personnel. Yet Washington has pinned the blame on Tehran, with Trump claiming that ?Iran killed? the contractor and State Secretary Mike Pompeo declaring it an ?Iranian proxy attack.? Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified! 124K 4:02 AM - Dec 31, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 49K people are talking about this Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has claimed that Kataib Hezbollah and its allied Shia militias that make up the ?Popular Mobilization Forces? are under the control of the Iraqi government in ?95 percent of cases,? and has warned the US against policing their activities. Yet, many on the ground see these Shia militias as doing the bidding of Tehran. Trump?s tweet seems therefore to be aimed at Iraq?s Sunni minority, many of whom fear the growth in power of the Shia militias. However, it is unclear what exactly Trump is calling for. The US president issued similar statements last year, declaring that the ?US is watching? as ?the people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.? However, Trump never acted militarily against the Islamic Republic, and the government in Tehran remains in power. ALSO ON RT.COM US sends reinforcements to its Baghdad embassy amid Iraqi protests over strikes Still, calling for Iraqi resistance against the influence of Tehran is an inflammatory message at a time of heightened tension between America and Iran. As Mahdi attempts to balance relations with both sides, the Iraqi PM accused the United States of violating his country?s sovereignty with its airstrikes, while his National Security Council said it rejects the idea of Iraq becoming a battlefield for the US and Iran to fight over. Iraq?s top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the American airstrikes, but also called on the militias to refrain from revenge attacks, ?to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: