What would we expect. CIA stands for, Clumsy Incompetent Asses.
But seriously, from the day I heard the hum of the Nixon tapes, I have
tracked about two tons of missing documents, files and tapes. Of
course we can't weigh the lost email that gets accidentally sent into
Outer Space. What is surprising, and speaks to the real incompetence
of our highly qualified officials, is the number of documents, emails,
files and tapes that have been left in place. I'd at least like to
think that the folks spying on me have a little class.
And by the way, Obama has slipped just a little bit more in my
opinion, after his dismal efforts to protect our American Way of Life.
American Way of Life...and that would be?...
Carl Jarvis
On 5/16/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
> Home > Whoops? CIA Watchdog 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate
> Torture Report
> ________________________________________
> Whoops? CIA Watchdog 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate Torture
> Report
> By Sarah Lazare [1] / AlterNet [2]
> May 16, 2016
> AddThis Sharing Buttons
> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+More AddThis Share
> optionsShare to Email
> The years-long battle to force the Obama administration to release the
> nearly-7,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee's report detailing the
> CIA's
> post-9/11 torture program just took an absurd new turn.
> According to exclusive reporting [3] from Yahoo News correspondent Michael
> Isikoff, the CIA inspector general's office says it "mistakenly" destroyed
> its sole copy of the mass document "at the same time lawyers for the
> Justice
> Department were assuring a federal judge that copies of the document were
> being preserved."
> While the deleted report was not the only copy in existence, the foul-up is
> already proving an embarrassment for the office, which is "responsible for
> independent oversight of the CIA," according to [4] its materials.
> Citing information obtained by "multiple intelligence community sources
> familiar with the incident," Isikoff explains:
> The incident was privately disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee
> and the Justice Department last summer, the sources said. But the
> destruction of a copy of the sensitive report has never been made public.
> Nor was it reported to the federal judge who, at the time, was overseeing a
> lawsuit seeking access to the still classified document under the Freedom
> of
> Information Act, according to a review of court files in the case.
> .The deletion of the document has been portrayed by agency officials to
> Senate investigators as an "inadvertent" foul-up by the inspector general.
> In what one intelligence community source described as a series of errors
> straight "out of the Keystone Cops," CIA inspector general officials
> deleted
> an uploaded computer file with the report and then accidentally destroyed a
> disk that also contained the document, filled with thousands of secret
> files
> about the CIA's use of "enhanced" interrogation methods.
> This is not the first time CIA evidence has gone missing. Isikoff notes:
> Ironically in light of the inspector general's actions, the intelligence
> committee's investigation was triggered by the CIA's admission in 2007 that
> it had destroyed another key piece of evidence - hours of videotapes of the
> waterboarding of two "high value" detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim
> al-Nashiri.
> What's more, in 2014 the CIA hacked into [5] the computers used by the
> Senate committee overseeing the report, but was later absolved [6] for the
> breach by the inspector general's office.
> Repeated queries from Yahoo News prompted Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
> who oversaw the investigation, to write a letter [7] last Friday to CIA
> director John Brennan requesting that he provide a copy of the report to
> the
> CIA inspector general "immediately."
> "Your prompt response will allay my concern that this was more than an
> 'accident,'" she continued, adding: "I believe that it is important to
> remedy this situation immediately."
> According to [8] the ACLU, the torture report is the "most comprehensive
> account of the torture program to date." The heavily redacted key findings
> and executive summary of the investigation were released [9] to the public
> at the end of 2014, revealing that the CIA repeatedly lied to the public
> about the effectiveness of its brutal torture methods, which included forms
> of assault referred to as "rectal feeding," as well as long-term sleep
> deprivation and threats levied against the family members of those forced
> to
> undergo abuse.
> Survivors of torture [10] and children who endured forced rendition have
> repeatedly called [11] for the full release of the report, as well as
> accountability for the atrocities brought to light. Yet the Obama
> administration granted blanket immunity [12] to all Bush-era CIA torturers
> and has vigorously fought against calls for transparency. Just days ago, a
> court rejected an ACLU lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act
> demanding the full release of the report-a decision the civil liberties
> group intends to appeal.
> "The CIA inspector general's 'inadvertent' destruction of this copy of the
> full torture report is extremely disturbing and should have been reported
> to
> the court," Ashley Gorski, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National
> Security Project, told AlterNet. The CIA's destruction of the report defies
> Congress's intent, which is that the agency uses the study so that the
> mistakes of the past are never repeated."
> Yet, in remarks made last month, presumptive Republican nominee Donald
> Trump
> declared [13] he plans to escalate the CIA torture program. "They asked me,
> What do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump? I said I love it. I love
> it, I think it's great," he said. "And I said the only thing is, we should
> make it much tougher than waterboarding, and if you don't think it works
> folks, you're wrong."
> Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for
> Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn
> Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare [14].
> Share on Facebook Share
> Share on Twitter Tweet
>
> Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@alternet.org'. [15]
> [16]
> ________________________________________
> Source URL:
> http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/whoops-cia-watchdog-mistakenly-destr
> oys-its-sole-copy-senate-torture-report
> Links:
> [1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sarah-lazare-0
> [2] http://alternet.org
> [3]
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-report-on-cia-torture-1429636113023030.htm
> l?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb
> [4] https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general
> [5]
> https://news.vice.com/article/the-google-search-that-made-the-cia-spy-on-the
> -us-senate
> [6]
> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2015-press-re
> leases-statements/statements-on-agency-accountability-board-findings.html
> [7]
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2834606-Feinstein-to-Brennan.html
> [8] https://www.aclu.org/cases/senate-torture-report-foia
> [9] https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf
> [10]
> http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2014/04/03/cia-torture-victim-calls-dec
> lassification-senate-report
> [11]
> http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/cia-torture-report-a-good-start-but-child-v
> ictims-of-rendition-absent/
> [12]
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-departmen
> t-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
> [13]
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/20/trump-on-waterboarding-i-love-it-i-think-i
> ts-great-video/
> [14] https://twitter.com/sarahlazare
> [15] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Whoops? CIA Watchdog
> 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate Torture Report
> [16] http://www.alternet.org/
> [17] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
>
> Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
> Home > Whoops? CIA Watchdog 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate
> Torture Report
>
> Whoops? CIA Watchdog 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate Torture
> Report
> By Sarah Lazare [1] / AlterNet [2]
> May 16, 2016
> AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to
> Google+More
> AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
> The years-long battle to force the Obama administration to release the
> nearly-7,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee's report detailing the
> CIA's
> post-9/11 torture program just took an absurd new turn.
> According to exclusive reporting [3] from Yahoo News correspondent Michael
> Isikoff, the CIA inspector general's office says it "mistakenly" destroyed
> its sole copy of the mass document "at the same time lawyers for the
> Justice
> Department were assuring a federal judge that copies of the document were
> being preserved."
> While the deleted report was not the only copy in existence, the foul-up is
> already proving an embarrassment for the office, which is "responsible for
> independent oversight of the CIA," according to [4] its materials.
> Citing information obtained by "multiple intelligence community sources
> familiar with the incident," Isikoff explains:
> The incident was privately disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee
> and the Justice Department last summer, the sources said. But the
> destruction of a copy of the sensitive report has never been made public.
> Nor was it reported to the federal judge who, at the time, was overseeing a
> lawsuit seeking access to the still classified document under the Freedom
> of
> Information Act, according to a review of court files in the case.
> .The deletion of the document has been portrayed by agency officials to
> Senate investigators as an "inadvertent" foul-up by the inspector general.
> In what one intelligence community source described as a series of errors
> straight "out of the Keystone Cops," CIA inspector general officials
> deleted
> an uploaded computer file with the report and then accidentally destroyed a
> disk that also contained the document, filled with thousands of secret
> files
> about the CIA's use of "enhanced" interrogation methods.
> This is not the first time CIA evidence has gone missing. Isikoff notes:
> Ironically in light of the inspector general's actions, the intelligence
> committee's investigation was triggered by the CIA's admission in 2007 that
> it had destroyed another key piece of evidence - hours of videotapes of the
> waterboarding of two "high value" detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim
> al-Nashiri.
> What's more, in 2014 the CIA hacked into [5] the computers used by the
> Senate committee overseeing the report, but was later absolved [6] for the
> breach by the inspector general's office.
> Repeated queries from Yahoo News prompted Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
> who oversaw the investigation, to write a letter [7] last Friday to CIA
> director John Brennan requesting that he provide a copy of the report to
> the
> CIA inspector general "immediately."
> "Your prompt response will allay my concern that this was more than an
> 'accident,'" she continued, adding: "I believe that it is important to
> remedy this situation immediately."
> According to [8] the ACLU, the torture report is the "most comprehensive
> account of the torture program to date." The heavily redacted key findings
> and executive summary of the investigation were released [9] to the public
> at the end of 2014, revealing that the CIA repeatedly lied to the public
> about the effectiveness of its brutal torture methods, which included forms
> of assault referred to as "rectal feeding," as well as long-term sleep
> deprivation and threats levied against the family members of those forced
> to
> undergo abuse.
> Survivors of torture [10] and children who endured forced rendition have
> repeatedly called [11] for the full release of the report, as well as
> accountability for the atrocities brought to light. Yet the Obama
> administration granted blanket immunity [12] to all Bush-era CIA torturers
> and has vigorously fought against calls for transparency. Just days ago, a
> court rejected an ACLU lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act
> demanding the full release of the report-a decision the civil liberties
> group intends to appeal.
> "The CIA inspector general's 'inadvertent' destruction of this copy of the
> full torture report is extremely disturbing and should have been reported
> to
> the court," Ashley Gorski, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National
> Security Project, told AlterNet. The CIA's destruction of the report defies
> Congress's intent, which is that the agency uses the study so that the
> mistakes of the past are never repeated."
> Yet, in remarks made last month, presumptive Republican nominee Donald
> Trump
> declared [13] he plans to escalate the CIA torture program. "They asked me,
> What do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump? I said I love it. I love
> it, I think it's great," he said. "And I said the only thing is, we should
> make it much tougher than waterboarding, and if you don't think it works
> folks, you're wrong."
> Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for
> Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn
> Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare [14].
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
> Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@alternet.org'. [15]
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[16]
>
> Source URL:
> http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/whoops-cia-watchdog-mistakenly-destr
> oys-its-sole-copy-senate-torture-report
> Links:
> [1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sarah-lazare-0
> [2] http://alternet.org
> [3]
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-report-on-cia-torture-1429636113023030.htm
> l?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb
> [4] https://www.cia.gov/offices-of-cia/inspector-general
> [5]
> https://news.vice.com/article/the-google-search-that-made-the-cia-spy-on-the
> -us-senate
> [6]
> https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2015-press-re
> leases-statements/statements-on-agency-accountability-board-findings.html
> [7]
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2834606-Feinstein-to-Brennan.html
> [8] https://www.aclu.org/cases/senate-torture-report-foia
> [9] https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf
> [10]
> http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2014/04/03/cia-torture-victim-calls-dec
> lassification-senate-report
> [11]
> http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/cia-torture-report-a-good-start-but-child-v
> ictims-of-rendition-absent/
> [12]
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-departmen
> t-immunity-bush-cia-torturer
> [13]
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/20/trump-on-waterboarding-i-love-it-i-think-i
> ts-great-video/
> [14] https://twitter.com/sarahlazare
> [15] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Whoops? CIA Watchdog
> 'Mistakenly' Destroys Its Sole Copy of Senate Torture Report
> [16] http://www.alternet.org/
> [17] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
>
>
>
Monday, May 16, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
Right you are, Miriam. In fact the propaganda being heaped upon our
heads at every turn, is so effective that most Americans believe that
the nations troubles are caused by...fill in the blank. Blacks;
Mexicans; Jews; Asians; Gays; drugs; Terrorist threats; too big
government; supporting lazy worthless people. You might want to add
your favorites to the list.
And here's the dirty little secret. Our troubles are not caused by
any of the above listed. But one thing they all have in common, they
do not have a voice in this government. There is no strong Political
Party to represent their needs. The Democrat Party, once the voice
and support of the Working Class, has abandoned us and moved to where
the money is. The Republican Party, once the darling of the Rich, has
moved so far Right that it represents only mavericks, White Racists,
and Crazies. Oh yes, also religious zealots.
Perhaps Bernie Sanders efforts will gather enough like thinking people
that a new People's Party will rise up and represent the interests of
the 99%. But for this to happen there will need to be a return to
sanity by the Working Class. There must be a rejection of Corporate
First Class Citizenry; the removal of money from political campaigns;
and the uniting of those factions now struggling against one another,
into one solid union. Instead of thinking of our own little group, we
must begin to see a battle between the Drones and the Worker Bees. If
your taxes are going to the support of the rich, you are a Worker Bee,
no matter whether you wear a blue collar or a white collar, whether
you work two or three part time jobs or have a comfortable office,
whether you place your Faith in God, or Allah, or some other Deity, or
in your own inner self.
We need to stand together in support of our differences as well as in
support of our commonalities.
The bottom line is that we Working Class People have the tools at hand
to do the job...if we will only take them up, together.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Actually, the Democratic party of today is equivalent to the Republican
> Party of yester year. It represents Business, the Corporate elite and the
> intellectual elite. I'm not sure what the Republican Party is. We don't
> have a party that represents middle and low income people anymore. That's
> possibly because most people now-a-days, think they're special, a member of
> one elite or another.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 5:45 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> Well if true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then that verifies what I
> was just saying about many Sanders' supporters being closet republicans
> whose real agenda is to derail any democratic candidate thus ensuring a
> republican victory. The write in effort is a real joke. If he doesn't
> numerically have enough support to win a nomination than he surely doesn't
> have enough numeric support to win as a write in candidate, and don't even
> get me started about Jill Stein. So the real question is does Sanders know
> that he is really a republican operative or is he still so naïve to believe
> anything but that?
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 4:54 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> There is a strong movement among Sanders' supporters to either write in his
> name or vote for Jill Stein. There's a whole website devoted to the effort
> of preventing people from voting for Clinton, and I sent the URL to the list
> yesterday, I think. There is also a petition to Ssanders, asking him to
> leave the Democratic Party and run independently or with Jill Stein on the
> Green Party ticket. There are lots of articles about this floating around
> which I haven't posted.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 4:34 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> Frank,
> From where I sit, Sanders has been pretty consistent. He talks about a
> social revolution, but protects the Empire's World Dominance. His great
> reforms will never happen because the money will still be going into our
> eternal war and the expansion of the American Empire. My guess, and it's
> only a guess, is that when Clinton is declared the Party candidate, Sanders
> will release his supporters and delegates to vote their conscience. I
> suspect that many will turn to Clinton as the lesser of two Evils. Some of
> us will look for any Left Wing candidate as a protest vote, in the belief
> that either Clinton or Trump will destroy whatever is left of the once proud
> Working Class.
> But however it goes, we who are not Republicans, have no representation in
> this Oligarchy. The Democrat Party is the new Upper Class Party, while the
> old Republican Party has become the Party of the Crazies.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 5/15/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Just more political dupe and poop. Although I had real hopes for
>> Bernie it appears he has gone down the same path as any of the big
>> dogs feeding on the corporate entrails. While initially speaking about
>> social issues to dupe us he now obviously only wants to dismantle the
>> democratic party and leave the working class with a republican president
>> who will further poop on us.
>> Well maybe the Wednesday after the election he'll invite us all onto
>> his yacht which he will purchase from all of the GOP/Tea Party thank you
>> money.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
>> Bailey
>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:39 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
>> crisis
>>
>> Then I would expect you to criticize Sanders for using the word
>> socialist so indiscriminately. He does confuse understanding when he
>> calls himself a socialist and then takes no socialist positions.
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2016 4:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>> All those people who are talking about a political revolution,
>>> including Bernie, are just talking about a change in the Democratic
>>> party. People want it to represent the interest of low and middle
>>> income people. They want it to go back to a social welfare state
>>> similar to what they remember in the 40's and 50's. Bernie would like
>>> that social welfare state to include the kinds of social programs found
>>> in western european countries.
>>> He's talking about regulated capitalism or social democracy. And
>>> that is what most of his supporters want. They are not really looking
>>> for a socialist state or revolution. But they do want change. Whether
>>> or not that is possible, remains to be seen. But again, all these
>>> labels, these words being used indiscriminately, are very confusing.
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>> Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:24 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left
>>> in crisis
>>>
>>> And that is especially not going to happen even if Bernie is elected
>>> president because he has no perspective for abolishing capitalism at
>>> all.
>>> That is what makes him a fake socialist.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2016 12:42 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> Fact: Any candidate, regardless of Party affiliation, will not,
>>>> repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
>>>>
>>>> Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA
>>>> is a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
>>>>
>>>> Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the
>>>> thorough replacement of an established government or political
>>>> system by the people governed".
>>>> Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of
>>>> the military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
>>>> military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a
>>>> people's uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie
>>>> were elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism
>>>> reigns, there can be no compromise.
>>>> So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and
>>>> Stein in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like
>>>> this:
>>>> I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
>>>> Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
>>>> there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted
>>>> out in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they
>>>> like best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game.
>>>> But nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and
>>>> if that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the
>>>> next, in hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the
>>>> quarterbacks will dare try something out of left field. They have
>>>> all been thoroughly schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They
>>>> know all of the rules.
>>>> I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
>>>> start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
>>>> around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
>>>> I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
>>>> this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to
>>>> cheer for one quarterback or another.
>>>> Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
>>>> do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the
>>>> 1%, they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us
>>>> understand that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land"
>>>> is not on the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about
>>>> putting our own team on Center Field.
>>>>
>>>> "Preacher" Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>>>> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-soci
>>>>> a m ay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
>>>>>
>>>>> / 18 hours ago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May 2016 Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>> By JEFF MACKLER
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
>>>>> Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
>>>>> His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy
>>>>> itself, has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S.
>>>>> socialist movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an
>>>>> extraordinary level of confusion and disarray. The spectacle of
>>>>> most U.S. socialist organizations' supporting, in one form or
>>>>> another, an open Democrat is a sure sign of a left in crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
>>>>> percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his
>>>>> race with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent
>>>>> of all remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention
>>>>> majority and
>>>>> 82 percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates.
>>>>> The latter have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy
>>>>> and pledged long ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these
>>>>> lifelong professional ruling-class politicians will accede to the
>>>>> "popular will" and shift to Sanders is absurd. But promoting this
>>>>> illusion is Sanders' current bait-and-switch tactic.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders
>>>>> to "fight on." He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED
>>>>> National Public Radio (NPR) interview: "I think we are perpetuating
>>>>> the political revolution by significantly increasing the level of
>>>>> political activity that we're seeing in this country. I think it is
>>>>> good for the United States of America and good for the Democratic
>>>>> Party to have a vigorous debate, to engage people in the political
>>>>> process" (emphasis added).
>>>>>
>>>>> NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
>>>>> "energizing voters" and, therefore, "boosting the Democratic Party
>>>>> to victory in November." He contended that Democrats do well and
>>>>> Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. "So I'm going to do
>>>>> everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country
>>>>> and get young people, working people, involved in the political
>>>>> process."
>>>>>
>>>>> Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late
>>>>> April, Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he
>>>>> would fight for his delegates to have substantial convention
>>>>> representation on the Democratic Party's "Platform Committee,"
>>>>> where party leaders supposedly would hammer out the program to be
>>>>> implemented should Clinton win. Only the most naïve in politics
>>>>> believe that ruling-class policies are decided by a handful of
>>>>> delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party conventions. Sadly,
>>>>> however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe that the Sanders
>>>>> campaign represents some sort of "political revolution"
>>>>> that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review
>>>>> this almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a
>>>>> welcome addition to the periodically orchestrated "lesser evil"
>>>>> sham employed by ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating
>>>>> and sophisticated think tanks. They know full well that capitalist
>>>>> elections are essential to maintaining the myth of democracy, on
>>>>> the one hand, and to dissipating the anger and hatred at its
>>>>> inherently anti-working class, racist, and sexist policies into
>>>>> safe electoral channels, on the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well before Sanders proclaimed his "democratic socialism," national
>>>>> polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
>>>>> socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49
>>>>> percent of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over
>>>>> capitalism.
>>>>> Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism
>>>>> over socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole
>>>>> were higher, with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring
>>>>> socialism—in their view a more egalitarian and less predatory
>>>>> society, in which human solidarity and social welfare trump the
>>>>> greed of the elite one percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past
>>>>> year as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic
>>>>> Party. He has consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating
>>>>> that "dissident"
>>>>> ideas, or perhaps better, "dissident" rhetoric—as with his
>>>>> frequently touted expression, "political revolution"—is acceptable
>>>>> terminology inside this tried and true ruling-class institution,
>>>>> the nation's infamous "graveyard of social movements."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics
>>>>> just as well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of
>>>>> capitalism's most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the
>>>>> feminist, humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned
>>>>> politician they are projecting as Clinton's campaign image today.
>>>>> As we go to press [May 11] a nervous Clinton has moved another step
>>>>> to the "left," according to the New York Times, by embracing in
>>>>> part Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for all" proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Political discontent rising in U.S. population
>>>>>
>>>>> In due time, we will all "feel the Bern," or better, witness the
>>>>> "fizzle," when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling
>>>>> votes on Clinton's behalf to save the nation from the "greater
>>>>> evil"—Donald Trump. Step one in the current two-stage "lesser-evil"
>>>>> game was Sanders'
>>>>> shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back
>>>>> into the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders' making
>>>>> every effort to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled
>>>>> into his orbit but might yet decide to quit the electoral shell
>>>>> game in disgust with the thought of voting for Clinton.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that capitalism's media pundits felt compelled to lend an
>>>>> air of legitimacy to Sanders' fake socialism is an indication of
>>>>> the questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
>>>>> percolating in the consciousness of working people.
>>>>>
>>>>> A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
>>>>> percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
>>>>> positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine
>>>>> percent had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in
>>>>> explaining why Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party
>>>>> candidates, largely refrained from the red-baiting tirades that
>>>>> have been the usual stock-in-trade of capitalist politics.
>>>>> Attacking Sanders as a socialist might well have the effect of
>>>>> advancing his credibility, not to mention socialism's!
>>>>>
>>>>> In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes
>>>>> shape in forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of
>>>>> capital and its liberal "third-party" middle-class-based variants
>>>>> like the Green Party, working people will find genuine political
>>>>> avenues and mass organizations of struggle to express their disgust
>>>>> at capitalist austerity and social regression. This combination of
>>>>> renewed and massive mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated
>>>>> and democratically led union fightbacks, and in anti-racist,
>>>>> anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and pro-environment struggles will
>>>>> undoubtedly find an expression in the political arena.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this magnificent and longed for "music of the future," based on
>>>>> the deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties,
>>>>> to be effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the
>>>>> endless variations of "lesser evilism" that are consciously
>>>>> presented by the most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist
>>>>> politics—can only be grounded on the foundation of working-class
>>>>> independence. The desire for political "independence," however
>>>>> vague this term might be, is today gaining ground in the United
>>>>> States. A full 43 percent of the electorate, according to a recent
>>>>> Gallop Poll, is registered as Independent, with Democratic Party
>>>>> registration at 32 percent, and Republican Party registered voters
>>>>> at 23 percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where
>>>>> registered independents are excluded in the primary process,
>>>>> Hillary Clinton's margin of victory over Sanders was quite
>>>>> significant. In states with an "open primary," that is, where
>>>>> "independent" voters can participate, Sanders is expected to win a
>>>>> substantial, but still insufficient majority, as in the June 7
>>>>> California primary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full
>>>>> story since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the
>>>>> eligible electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual
>>>>> percentage of all eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent!
>>>>> The vast majority of non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more
>>>>> generally, many of whom are consciously excluded due to reactionary
>>>>> legislation or are disillusioned with the entire electoral charade.
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. left collapses before Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no doubt that Sanders' "political revolution" and
>>>>> "anti-establishment" rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
>>>>> "democratic socialism," has captured the imagination of and spiked
>>>>> interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist
>>>>> ideas more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the
>>>>> consciously orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and
>>>>> its pundits are more than capable of appealing to the best
>>>>> instincts and highest aspirations of working people for a better
>>>>> life for all in order to once again lure them into their
>>>>> life-extinguishing anaconda-like institutional clutches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who
>>>>> seriously consider themselves socialists—have been active
>>>>> partisans, if not enthusiastic advocates, of today's
>>>>> ruling-class-promoted Bernie Sanders brand of lesser-evilism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders'
>>>>> supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
>>>>> Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
>>>>> city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist
>>>>> and against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed
>>>>> Socialist Alternative's Seattle campaigns, and the associated
>>>>> Socialist Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis.
>>>>> Socialist Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns,
>>>>> contributed financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went
>>>>> door-to-door, and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring
>>>>> socialist effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist
>>>>> Alternative originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these
>>>>> campaigns as joint efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But
>>>>> Green Party leaders rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist
>>>>> Alternative with a critical decision as to how to proceed. To their
>>>>> credit, they took the high road in working-class politics and ran
>>>>> as socialists, but their penchant for the middle-class Green Party
>>>>> was never far from their perspectives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist
>>>>> working-class politics against the Democratic Party, has been
>>>>> abandoned, with Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually
>>>>> campaigning for Sanders in all the Democratic Party primary contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant
>>>>> gives an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She
>>>>> writes:
>>>>> "To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would
>>>>> be the opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the
>>>>> vital energy and momentum we have built over this historic past
>>>>> year. We simply can't afford to make this mistake. That's why I
>>>>> have launched a petition calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the
>>>>> way to November as an independent, and to use his campaign as a
>>>>> launch pad for a new political party of the 99%."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sawant immediately continues: "If Bernie's only concern is that
>>>>> running independently could open the door to a President Trump,
>>>>> then why could he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where
>>>>> it's generally clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win?
>>>>> Even in this way, while not putting his name on the ballot in the
>>>>> 5-10 closely contested 'swing states,' he could still run an
>>>>> historic campaign if linked to building a new party" (emphasis in
>>>>> original).
>>>>>
>>>>> But Sawant's "new party" in this case is, again, the middle-class,
>>>>> pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its
>>>>> supporters to vote Democrat in "swing states" or simply declined to
>>>>> seek ballot status in these "contested states." Sawant's petition
>>>>> calls on Sanders to run on the same ticket as the Green Party's
>>>>> presumptive presidential candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace
>>>>> Stein on the ballot with Sanders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is important to remind readers that the terms "independent"
>>>>> and "third party" are not always clear. There are several "third
>>>>> parties"
>>>>> today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
>>>>> politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to
>>>>> liberal, reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the
>>>>> Working Families Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green
>>>>> Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in
>>>>> six states via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan's incipient
>>>>> fascist Reform Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party's ballot line
>>>>> in return for making reactionary statements limiting the right of
>>>>> women to abortion and restricting immigrants from entering the
>>>>> country.
>>>>> (See Nader's June 21, 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the
>>>>> American Conservative.)
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these "third parties" are independent of and against the
>>>>> fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans.
>>>>> Or, to be precise, none seek to organize the working class to
>>>>> replace the capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the
>>>>> private ownership and control of the nation's banks, corporations,
>>>>> and wealth is ended, and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to
>>>>> reorganize society for the common good. None are based on,
>>>>> financed, and controlled by working-class organizations like trade
>>>>> unions or other democratic mass working-class organizations. None,
>>>>> as a matter of class principle, reject voting for capitalist
>>>>> parties. Indeed, in local elections, as well as national, Greens
>>>>> routinely endorse "progressive" Democrats, and in races where the
>>>>> Republican is a bit too overtly reactionary, "not so progressive
>>>>> Democrats."
>>>>>
>>>>> Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
>>>>> percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
>>>>> independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported
>>>>> for his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to
>>>>> change its spots. Or better, it's akin to yet again playing
>>>>> politics in the ruling class' institutional party ballpark.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like
>>>>> the Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have
>>>>> habitually supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today
>>>>> supports Clinton, while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until
>>>>> Sanders drops out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on
>>>>> Sanders to run for the presidency as an "independent" or as the
>>>>> Green Party candidate. The Workers International League also speaks
>>>>> favorably of an "independent" campaign by Sanders. Workers World
>>>>> Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, both of which
>>>>> have called for votes for left-sounding Democrats in the past,
>>>>> including Jesse Jackson, are fielding their own presidential
>>>>> candidates this time around, but nevertheless have called for
>>>>> Democratic Party primary votes for Sanders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
>>>>> generated by capitalism's deepening crises and sparked by the
>>>>> Sanders campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have
>>>>> sponsored a series of well-attended public debates where most of
>>>>> the above socialist organizations, as well as representatives from
>>>>> the Labor for Bennie campaign, shared the platform for fruitful
>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>> While the "lesser evil" syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the
>>>>> presentations of these socialist groups, we were heartened to see
>>>>> that the Marxist-grounded revolutionary socialist ideas of
>>>>> Socialist Action were well received and that our proud party, a
>>>>> consistent participant and advocate of independent mass-action
>>>>> united-front mobilizations against all aspects of capitalist racism
>>>>> and plunder, won new members to the cause of socialist revolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Share this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 43Share on
>>>>> Facebook (Opens in new window)43 Click to share on Google+ (Opens
>>>>> in new
>>>>> window)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
>>>>> Sawant, Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Related posts
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Sanders campaign a 'new movement'?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialist Action sponsors election debates
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Post navigation
>>>>>
>>>>> ← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Newspaper Archives
>>>>> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015
>>>>> (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10)
>>>>> August 2015
>>>>> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014
>>>>> (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6)
>>>>> August 2014
>>>>> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014
>>>>> (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11)
>>>>> December 2013
>>>>> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13)
>>>>> August
>>>>> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April
>>>>> 2013
>>>>> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17)
>>>>> December
>>>>> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
>>>>> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
>>>>> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
>>>>> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May
>>>>> 2011
>>>>> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January
>>>>> 2011
>>>>> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6)
>>>>> September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2)
>>>>> May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
>>>>> January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October
>>>>> 2009
>>>>> (16) September 2009
>>>>> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10)
>>>>> December
>>>>> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008
>>>>> (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
>>>>> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
>>>>> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006
>>>>> (11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15)
>>>>> August 2006
>>>>> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
>>>>> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August
>>>>> 2005
>>>>> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
>>>>> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December
>>>>> 2004
>>>>> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22)
>>>>> August
>>>>> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
>>>>> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001
>>>>> (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October
>>>>> 2000
>>>>> (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June
>>>>> 2000
>>>>> (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000
>>>>> (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26)
>>>>> October 1999
>>>>> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June
>>>>> 1999
>>>>> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
>>>>> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>>>>>
>>>>> Search
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Get Involved
>>>>> Donate to help support our work
>>>>> Get email updates
>>>>> Join Socialist Action
>>>>>
>>>>> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook View
>>>>> SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
heads at every turn, is so effective that most Americans believe that
the nations troubles are caused by...fill in the blank. Blacks;
Mexicans; Jews; Asians; Gays; drugs; Terrorist threats; too big
government; supporting lazy worthless people. You might want to add
your favorites to the list.
And here's the dirty little secret. Our troubles are not caused by
any of the above listed. But one thing they all have in common, they
do not have a voice in this government. There is no strong Political
Party to represent their needs. The Democrat Party, once the voice
and support of the Working Class, has abandoned us and moved to where
the money is. The Republican Party, once the darling of the Rich, has
moved so far Right that it represents only mavericks, White Racists,
and Crazies. Oh yes, also religious zealots.
Perhaps Bernie Sanders efforts will gather enough like thinking people
that a new People's Party will rise up and represent the interests of
the 99%. But for this to happen there will need to be a return to
sanity by the Working Class. There must be a rejection of Corporate
First Class Citizenry; the removal of money from political campaigns;
and the uniting of those factions now struggling against one another,
into one solid union. Instead of thinking of our own little group, we
must begin to see a battle between the Drones and the Worker Bees. If
your taxes are going to the support of the rich, you are a Worker Bee,
no matter whether you wear a blue collar or a white collar, whether
you work two or three part time jobs or have a comfortable office,
whether you place your Faith in God, or Allah, or some other Deity, or
in your own inner self.
We need to stand together in support of our differences as well as in
support of our commonalities.
The bottom line is that we Working Class People have the tools at hand
to do the job...if we will only take them up, together.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> Actually, the Democratic party of today is equivalent to the Republican
> Party of yester year. It represents Business, the Corporate elite and the
> intellectual elite. I'm not sure what the Republican Party is. We don't
> have a party that represents middle and low income people anymore. That's
> possibly because most people now-a-days, think they're special, a member of
> one elite or another.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 5:45 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> Well if true, and I have no reason to doubt you, then that verifies what I
> was just saying about many Sanders' supporters being closet republicans
> whose real agenda is to derail any democratic candidate thus ensuring a
> republican victory. The write in effort is a real joke. If he doesn't
> numerically have enough support to win a nomination than he surely doesn't
> have enough numeric support to win as a write in candidate, and don't even
> get me started about Jill Stein. So the real question is does Sanders know
> that he is really a republican operative or is he still so naïve to believe
> anything but that?
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 4:54 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> There is a strong movement among Sanders' supporters to either write in his
> name or vote for Jill Stein. There's a whole website devoted to the effort
> of preventing people from voting for Clinton, and I sent the URL to the list
> yesterday, I think. There is also a petition to Ssanders, asking him to
> leave the Democratic Party and run independently or with Jill Stein on the
> Green Party ticket. There are lots of articles about this floating around
> which I haven't posted.
>
> Miriam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 4:34 PM
> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
> crisis
>
> Frank,
> From where I sit, Sanders has been pretty consistent. He talks about a
> social revolution, but protects the Empire's World Dominance. His great
> reforms will never happen because the money will still be going into our
> eternal war and the expansion of the American Empire. My guess, and it's
> only a guess, is that when Clinton is declared the Party candidate, Sanders
> will release his supporters and delegates to vote their conscience. I
> suspect that many will turn to Clinton as the lesser of two Evils. Some of
> us will look for any Left Wing candidate as a protest vote, in the belief
> that either Clinton or Trump will destroy whatever is left of the once proud
> Working Class.
> But however it goes, we who are not Republicans, have no representation in
> this Oligarchy. The Democrat Party is the new Upper Class Party, while the
> old Republican Party has become the Party of the Crazies.
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 5/15/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@littlebreezes.com> wrote:
>> Just more political dupe and poop. Although I had real hopes for
>> Bernie it appears he has gone down the same path as any of the big
>> dogs feeding on the corporate entrails. While initially speaking about
>> social issues to dupe us he now obviously only wants to dismantle the
>> democratic party and leave the working class with a republican president
>> who will further poop on us.
>> Well maybe the Wednesday after the election he'll invite us all onto
>> his yacht which he will purchase from all of the GOP/Tea Party thank you
>> money.
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
>> Bailey
>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:39 PM
>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in
>> crisis
>>
>> Then I would expect you to criticize Sanders for using the word
>> socialist so indiscriminately. He does confuse understanding when he
>> calls himself a socialist and then takes no socialist positions.
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2016 4:11 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
>>> All those people who are talking about a political revolution,
>>> including Bernie, are just talking about a change in the Democratic
>>> party. People want it to represent the interest of low and middle
>>> income people. They want it to go back to a social welfare state
>>> similar to what they remember in the 40's and 50's. Bernie would like
>>> that social welfare state to include the kinds of social programs found
>>> in western european countries.
>>> He's talking about regulated capitalism or social democracy. And
>>> that is what most of his supporters want. They are not really looking
>>> for a socialist state or revolution. But they do want change. Whether
>>> or not that is possible, remains to be seen. But again, all these
>>> labels, these words being used indiscriminately, are very confusing.
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org
>>> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Roger
>>> Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
>>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:24 PM
>>> To: blind-democracy@freelists.org
>>> Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left
>>> in crisis
>>>
>>> And that is especially not going to happen even if Bernie is elected
>>> president because he has no perspective for abolishing capitalism at
>>> all.
>>> That is what makes him a fake socialist.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2016 12:42 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
>>>> Fact: Any candidate, regardless of Party affiliation, will not,
>>>> repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
>>>>
>>>> Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA
>>>> is a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
>>>>
>>>> Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the
>>>> thorough replacement of an established government or political
>>>> system by the people governed".
>>>> Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of
>>>> the military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
>>>> military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a
>>>> people's uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie
>>>> were elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism
>>>> reigns, there can be no compromise.
>>>> So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and
>>>> Stein in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like
>>>> this:
>>>> I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
>>>> Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
>>>> there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted
>>>> out in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they
>>>> like best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game.
>>>> But nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and
>>>> if that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the
>>>> next, in hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the
>>>> quarterbacks will dare try something out of left field. They have
>>>> all been thoroughly schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They
>>>> know all of the rules.
>>>> I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
>>>> start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
>>>> around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
>>>> I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
>>>> this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to
>>>> cheer for one quarterback or another.
>>>> Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
>>>> do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the
>>>> 1%, they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us
>>>> understand that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land"
>>>> is not on the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about
>>>> putting our own team on Center Field.
>>>>
>>>> "Preacher" Carl Jarvis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
>>>>> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-soci
>>>>> a m ay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
>>>>>
>>>>> / 18 hours ago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May 2016 Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>> By JEFF MACKLER
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
>>>>> Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
>>>>> His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy
>>>>> itself, has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S.
>>>>> socialist movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an
>>>>> extraordinary level of confusion and disarray. The spectacle of
>>>>> most U.S. socialist organizations' supporting, in one form or
>>>>> another, an open Democrat is a sure sign of a left in crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
>>>>> percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his
>>>>> race with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent
>>>>> of all remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention
>>>>> majority and
>>>>> 82 percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates.
>>>>> The latter have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy
>>>>> and pledged long ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these
>>>>> lifelong professional ruling-class politicians will accede to the
>>>>> "popular will" and shift to Sanders is absurd. But promoting this
>>>>> illusion is Sanders' current bait-and-switch tactic.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders
>>>>> to "fight on." He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED
>>>>> National Public Radio (NPR) interview: "I think we are perpetuating
>>>>> the political revolution by significantly increasing the level of
>>>>> political activity that we're seeing in this country. I think it is
>>>>> good for the United States of America and good for the Democratic
>>>>> Party to have a vigorous debate, to engage people in the political
>>>>> process" (emphasis added).
>>>>>
>>>>> NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
>>>>> "energizing voters" and, therefore, "boosting the Democratic Party
>>>>> to victory in November." He contended that Democrats do well and
>>>>> Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. "So I'm going to do
>>>>> everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country
>>>>> and get young people, working people, involved in the political
>>>>> process."
>>>>>
>>>>> Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late
>>>>> April, Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he
>>>>> would fight for his delegates to have substantial convention
>>>>> representation on the Democratic Party's "Platform Committee,"
>>>>> where party leaders supposedly would hammer out the program to be
>>>>> implemented should Clinton win. Only the most naïve in politics
>>>>> believe that ruling-class policies are decided by a handful of
>>>>> delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party conventions. Sadly,
>>>>> however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe that the Sanders
>>>>> campaign represents some sort of "political revolution"
>>>>> that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review
>>>>> this almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a
>>>>> welcome addition to the periodically orchestrated "lesser evil"
>>>>> sham employed by ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating
>>>>> and sophisticated think tanks. They know full well that capitalist
>>>>> elections are essential to maintaining the myth of democracy, on
>>>>> the one hand, and to dissipating the anger and hatred at its
>>>>> inherently anti-working class, racist, and sexist policies into
>>>>> safe electoral channels, on the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well before Sanders proclaimed his "democratic socialism," national
>>>>> polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
>>>>> socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49
>>>>> percent of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over
>>>>> capitalism.
>>>>> Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism
>>>>> over socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole
>>>>> were higher, with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring
>>>>> socialism—in their view a more egalitarian and less predatory
>>>>> society, in which human solidarity and social welfare trump the
>>>>> greed of the elite one percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past
>>>>> year as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic
>>>>> Party. He has consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating
>>>>> that "dissident"
>>>>> ideas, or perhaps better, "dissident" rhetoric—as with his
>>>>> frequently touted expression, "political revolution"—is acceptable
>>>>> terminology inside this tried and true ruling-class institution,
>>>>> the nation's infamous "graveyard of social movements."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics
>>>>> just as well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of
>>>>> capitalism's most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the
>>>>> feminist, humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned
>>>>> politician they are projecting as Clinton's campaign image today.
>>>>> As we go to press [May 11] a nervous Clinton has moved another step
>>>>> to the "left," according to the New York Times, by embracing in
>>>>> part Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for all" proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Political discontent rising in U.S. population
>>>>>
>>>>> In due time, we will all "feel the Bern," or better, witness the
>>>>> "fizzle," when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling
>>>>> votes on Clinton's behalf to save the nation from the "greater
>>>>> evil"—Donald Trump. Step one in the current two-stage "lesser-evil"
>>>>> game was Sanders'
>>>>> shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back
>>>>> into the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders' making
>>>>> every effort to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled
>>>>> into his orbit but might yet decide to quit the electoral shell
>>>>> game in disgust with the thought of voting for Clinton.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that capitalism's media pundits felt compelled to lend an
>>>>> air of legitimacy to Sanders' fake socialism is an indication of
>>>>> the questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
>>>>> percolating in the consciousness of working people.
>>>>>
>>>>> A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
>>>>> percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
>>>>> positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine
>>>>> percent had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in
>>>>> explaining why Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party
>>>>> candidates, largely refrained from the red-baiting tirades that
>>>>> have been the usual stock-in-trade of capitalist politics.
>>>>> Attacking Sanders as a socialist might well have the effect of
>>>>> advancing his credibility, not to mention socialism's!
>>>>>
>>>>> In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes
>>>>> shape in forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of
>>>>> capital and its liberal "third-party" middle-class-based variants
>>>>> like the Green Party, working people will find genuine political
>>>>> avenues and mass organizations of struggle to express their disgust
>>>>> at capitalist austerity and social regression. This combination of
>>>>> renewed and massive mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated
>>>>> and democratically led union fightbacks, and in anti-racist,
>>>>> anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and pro-environment struggles will
>>>>> undoubtedly find an expression in the political arena.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this magnificent and longed for "music of the future," based on
>>>>> the deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties,
>>>>> to be effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the
>>>>> endless variations of "lesser evilism" that are consciously
>>>>> presented by the most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist
>>>>> politics—can only be grounded on the foundation of working-class
>>>>> independence. The desire for political "independence," however
>>>>> vague this term might be, is today gaining ground in the United
>>>>> States. A full 43 percent of the electorate, according to a recent
>>>>> Gallop Poll, is registered as Independent, with Democratic Party
>>>>> registration at 32 percent, and Republican Party registered voters
>>>>> at 23 percent.
>>>>>
>>>>> These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where
>>>>> registered independents are excluded in the primary process,
>>>>> Hillary Clinton's margin of victory over Sanders was quite
>>>>> significant. In states with an "open primary," that is, where
>>>>> "independent" voters can participate, Sanders is expected to win a
>>>>> substantial, but still insufficient majority, as in the June 7
>>>>> California primary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full
>>>>> story since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the
>>>>> eligible electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual
>>>>> percentage of all eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent!
>>>>> The vast majority of non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more
>>>>> generally, many of whom are consciously excluded due to reactionary
>>>>> legislation or are disillusioned with the entire electoral charade.
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. left collapses before Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no doubt that Sanders' "political revolution" and
>>>>> "anti-establishment" rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
>>>>> "democratic socialism," has captured the imagination of and spiked
>>>>> interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist
>>>>> ideas more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the
>>>>> consciously orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and
>>>>> its pundits are more than capable of appealing to the best
>>>>> instincts and highest aspirations of working people for a better
>>>>> life for all in order to once again lure them into their
>>>>> life-extinguishing anaconda-like institutional clutches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who
>>>>> seriously consider themselves socialists—have been active
>>>>> partisans, if not enthusiastic advocates, of today's
>>>>> ruling-class-promoted Bernie Sanders brand of lesser-evilism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders'
>>>>> supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
>>>>> Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
>>>>> city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist
>>>>> and against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed
>>>>> Socialist Alternative's Seattle campaigns, and the associated
>>>>> Socialist Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis.
>>>>> Socialist Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns,
>>>>> contributed financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went
>>>>> door-to-door, and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring
>>>>> socialist effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist
>>>>> Alternative originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these
>>>>> campaigns as joint efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But
>>>>> Green Party leaders rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist
>>>>> Alternative with a critical decision as to how to proceed. To their
>>>>> credit, they took the high road in working-class politics and ran
>>>>> as socialists, but their penchant for the middle-class Green Party
>>>>> was never far from their perspectives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist
>>>>> working-class politics against the Democratic Party, has been
>>>>> abandoned, with Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually
>>>>> campaigning for Sanders in all the Democratic Party primary contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant
>>>>> gives an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She
>>>>> writes:
>>>>> "To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would
>>>>> be the opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the
>>>>> vital energy and momentum we have built over this historic past
>>>>> year. We simply can't afford to make this mistake. That's why I
>>>>> have launched a petition calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the
>>>>> way to November as an independent, and to use his campaign as a
>>>>> launch pad for a new political party of the 99%."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sawant immediately continues: "If Bernie's only concern is that
>>>>> running independently could open the door to a President Trump,
>>>>> then why could he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where
>>>>> it's generally clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win?
>>>>> Even in this way, while not putting his name on the ballot in the
>>>>> 5-10 closely contested 'swing states,' he could still run an
>>>>> historic campaign if linked to building a new party" (emphasis in
>>>>> original).
>>>>>
>>>>> But Sawant's "new party" in this case is, again, the middle-class,
>>>>> pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its
>>>>> supporters to vote Democrat in "swing states" or simply declined to
>>>>> seek ballot status in these "contested states." Sawant's petition
>>>>> calls on Sanders to run on the same ticket as the Green Party's
>>>>> presumptive presidential candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace
>>>>> Stein on the ballot with Sanders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here it is important to remind readers that the terms "independent"
>>>>> and "third party" are not always clear. There are several "third
>>>>> parties"
>>>>> today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
>>>>> politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to
>>>>> liberal, reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the
>>>>> Working Families Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green
>>>>> Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in
>>>>> six states via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan's incipient
>>>>> fascist Reform Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party's ballot line
>>>>> in return for making reactionary statements limiting the right of
>>>>> women to abortion and restricting immigrants from entering the
>>>>> country.
>>>>> (See Nader's June 21, 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the
>>>>> American Conservative.)
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these "third parties" are independent of and against the
>>>>> fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans.
>>>>> Or, to be precise, none seek to organize the working class to
>>>>> replace the capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the
>>>>> private ownership and control of the nation's banks, corporations,
>>>>> and wealth is ended, and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to
>>>>> reorganize society for the common good. None are based on,
>>>>> financed, and controlled by working-class organizations like trade
>>>>> unions or other democratic mass working-class organizations. None,
>>>>> as a matter of class principle, reject voting for capitalist
>>>>> parties. Indeed, in local elections, as well as national, Greens
>>>>> routinely endorse "progressive" Democrats, and in races where the
>>>>> Republican is a bit too overtly reactionary, "not so progressive
>>>>> Democrats."
>>>>>
>>>>> Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
>>>>> percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
>>>>> independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported
>>>>> for his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to
>>>>> change its spots. Or better, it's akin to yet again playing
>>>>> politics in the ruling class' institutional party ballpark.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like
>>>>> the Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have
>>>>> habitually supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today
>>>>> supports Clinton, while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until
>>>>> Sanders drops out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on
>>>>> Sanders to run for the presidency as an "independent" or as the
>>>>> Green Party candidate. The Workers International League also speaks
>>>>> favorably of an "independent" campaign by Sanders. Workers World
>>>>> Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, both of which
>>>>> have called for votes for left-sounding Democrats in the past,
>>>>> including Jesse Jackson, are fielding their own presidential
>>>>> candidates this time around, but nevertheless have called for
>>>>> Democratic Party primary votes for Sanders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
>>>>> generated by capitalism's deepening crises and sparked by the
>>>>> Sanders campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have
>>>>> sponsored a series of well-attended public debates where most of
>>>>> the above socialist organizations, as well as representatives from
>>>>> the Labor for Bennie campaign, shared the platform for fruitful
>>>>> exchanges.
>>>>> While the "lesser evil" syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the
>>>>> presentations of these socialist groups, we were heartened to see
>>>>> that the Marxist-grounded revolutionary socialist ideas of
>>>>> Socialist Action were well received and that our proud party, a
>>>>> consistent participant and advocate of independent mass-action
>>>>> united-front mobilizations against all aspects of capitalist racism
>>>>> and plunder, won new members to the cause of socialist revolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Share this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 43Share on
>>>>> Facebook (Opens in new window)43 Click to share on Google+ (Opens
>>>>> in new
>>>>> window)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
>>>>> Sawant, Sanders
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Related posts
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Sanders campaign a 'new movement'?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Socialist Action sponsors election debates
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Post navigation
>>>>>
>>>>> ← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Newspaper Archives
>>>>> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015
>>>>> (11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10)
>>>>> August 2015
>>>>> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014
>>>>> (12) November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6)
>>>>> August 2014
>>>>> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014
>>>>> (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11)
>>>>> December 2013
>>>>> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13)
>>>>> August
>>>>> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April
>>>>> 2013
>>>>> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17)
>>>>> December
>>>>> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
>>>>> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
>>>>> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
>>>>> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May
>>>>> 2011
>>>>> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January
>>>>> 2011
>>>>> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6)
>>>>> September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2)
>>>>> May 2010 (9) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3)
>>>>> January 2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October
>>>>> 2009
>>>>> (16) September 2009
>>>>> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10)
>>>>> December
>>>>> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008
>>>>> (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2)
>>>>> April
>>>>> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
>>>>> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
>>>>> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006
>>>>> (11) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15)
>>>>> August 2006
>>>>> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6)
>>>>> March
>>>>> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
>>>>> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August
>>>>> 2005
>>>>> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
>>>>> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December
>>>>> 2004
>>>>> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22)
>>>>> August
>>>>> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
>>>>> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001
>>>>> (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October
>>>>> 2000
>>>>> (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June
>>>>> 2000
>>>>> (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000
>>>>> (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26)
>>>>> October 1999
>>>>> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June
>>>>> 1999
>>>>> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
>>>>> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>>>>>
>>>>> Search
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Get Involved
>>>>> Donate to help support our work
>>>>> Get email updates
>>>>> Join Socialist Action
>>>>>
>>>>> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook View
>>>>> SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [blind-democracy] No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself Trying for a State of Palestine (Video)
Who was it said, "The Great White Father speaks with Forked Tongue"?
Double talk, double dealing, it has always been the method used to
advance world control by the American Industrial/Military complex.
While we lap up the slop fed to us by the Ruling Classes propaganda
media, believing that we send our loving troops, our best young men
and women, out around the world to promote democracy and independence,
we become confused by the numbers of wars that break out, the regimes
that topple and are replaced by tyrants, the growing numbers of
homeless people driven from their homelands by war and famine. What
would appear to be a totally incompetent effort, keeps on going on.
If Peace and Freedom were truly the goal of the American Empire, then
it would be best advised to bring home all troops and close all
military bases around the Globe, and allow the nations of the world to
solve their own problems.
Oh yes, we would also need to call off the greedy international banks
who hold entire national treasuries captive. But of course, we've
been deceived by that Great White Father's forked tongue. As the
worlds last Super Power, the American Empire is highly successful in
defending the right of its Corporations to rape and plunder at will.
And by the way, we, here at home, are not immune to that rape and
plunder. Our Great American Dream, a job, a home and a family, are
becoming so eroded that the dream is actually no longer the hope of
millions of Americans. We have gone from those days when Dad went off
to work while Mom cared for the home and the children. One income
earned by Dad could sustain the family. Now both Mom and Dad work,
often at two jobs, just to hang on by their fingernails. Streets and
overpasses filled with homeless. Side streets filled with cars being
used as homes for entire families. As our nation crumbles and decay
sets in, we still suck up the poisoned nectar of the Empire.
The question seems to be, Which will get us first, the Forces of
Nature, or our own Stupidity?
Carl Jarvis
On 5/16/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself Trying for a State of Palestine
> (Video)
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_bill_clinton_didnt_kill_himself_to_gi
> ve_the_palestinians_state_20160515/
> AddThis Sharing Buttons
> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
> Posted on May 15, 2016
> By Juan Cole
> This post originally ran on Truthdig contributor Juan Cole's website.
> Former President Bill Clinton on Saturday claimed "I killed myself to give
> the Palestinians a state," and maintained that he secured an agreement,
> which the Palestinians turned down. In fact, no such text was ever
> presented to the Palestinian side, and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
> Barak kept flaking out on commitments previously made, leaving the
> Palestinian negotiators with nothing to agree to. Negoatiator Aaron Miller
> later admitted, "There was not a formalized, written proposal that covered
> the four core issues. There was no deal on the table. None of the issues
> were explained enough in detail to make an agreement, though the Israelis
> made an interesting argument on Jerusalem."
> No time here to go into the paternalist and colonial language about
> "giving"
> the Palestinians a state. They are a stateless people because they are
> unrecognized; they would get a state by recognizing them as such, not
> giving
> them anything.
> Here are signs Clinton didn't put himself out that much:
> 1. From the time Clinton presided over the handshake between Israeli PM
> Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1993 to the end of
> Clinton's term, the number of Israeli colonists on the Palestinian land
> from
> which Rabin had pledged to withdraw just about doubled. In 1993 there were
> between 95,000 and 116,000 Israeli squatters in the West Bank and Gaza. By
> 1996 there were 147,000. By 2000 there were about 200,000. These numbers
> do not include the squatters in East Jerusalem, which Israel has illegally
> annexed in contravention of the UN charter. This stab in the back by the
> Israelis of the Palestine Authority undermined the possibility of a
> Palestinian state. Did Clinton kill himself stopping this vast expansion
> of
> Israeli squatters on Palestinian land? No. Did he do anything at all
> about
> it? No.
> 2. Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the West Bank by the end of
> 1998. It did not. Its troops are still there, guarding sometimes murderous
> or vandalizing Israeli squatters who are trying to displace the
> Palestinians
> from their homes. Did Bill Clinton kill himself to get the Israeli troops
> out of Palestine? No. Did he do anything at all about this collapse of
> Oslo
> process commitments on Israel's part? No.
> 3. Donald Neff writes that in
> "March, 1995 . . . President Clinton invoked the [UN Security Council] veto
> after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution
> calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in
> Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes
> in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the
> 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of
> Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa / Jabal Abu Ghneim
> in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing."
> So did Bill Clinton kill himself stopping Israeli large scale theft of
> Palestinian land while he was supposedly being an honest broker between
> Israel and the Palestinians? No.
> Clinton was the most partisan President for Israel in our country's
> history,
> and was anything but even-handed in his approach to the Palestinians. The
> Palestinians complained that they'd get an Israeli proposal, reject it,
> then
> get the same one from the Americans; there wasn't really any difference
> between the positions of those two.
> Clinton also defended the brutal Israeli assault on defenseless little Gaza
> in 2014, blaming it on Hamas and suggesting that they had craftily
> manipulated world media into blaming the Israelis for killing nearly 2000
> Palestinians. Mr. Clinton did not address the issue of proportionality,
> the
> key one for critics of the assault. Nor did he address the Occupation, the
> displacement of Palestinian families to Gaza by the Israelis, or the siege
> of Gaza, contravening the Geneva Conventions if 1949.
> Bill Clinton's partisanship for the Israeli side and refusal to act as an
> honest broker, refusal to stop squatter settlements, refusal to let the UN
> Security Council demand of Israel that it stop contravening international
> law, and failure to get an actual text to which Palestinian negotiators
> could assent, all these defects doomed the Oslo process and doomed the
> world
> to more turmoil coming out of this interminable conflict. It also
> encouraged the Israeli side to think they could get away with anything and
> so warped them into a Likud far-right regime and an Apartheid state.
> Bill Clinton didn't kill himself getting a Palestinian state. His
> one-sided
> approach to the negotiations ensured that there would be none. Ever.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
> No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself Trying for a State of Palestine
> (Video)
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_bill_clinton_didnt_kill_himself_to_gi
> ve_the_palestinians_state_20160515/
> AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share
> optionsShare to Email
> Posted on May 15, 2016
> By Juan Cole
> This post originally ran on Truthdig contributor Juan Cole's website.
> Former President Bill Clinton on Saturday claimed "I killed myself to give
> the Palestinians a state," and maintained that he secured an agreement,
> which the Palestinians turned down. In fact, no such text was ever
> presented
> to the Palestinian side, and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak kept
> flaking out on commitments previously made, leaving the Palestinian
> negotiators with nothing to agree to. Negoatiator Aaron Miller later
> admitted, "There was not a formalized, written proposal that covered the
> four core issues. There was no deal on the table. None of the issues were
> explained enough in detail to make an agreement, though the Israelis made
> an
> interesting argument on Jerusalem."
> No time here to go into the paternalist and colonial language about
> "giving"
> the Palestinians a state. They are a stateless people because they are
> unrecognized; they would get a state by recognizing them as such, not
> giving
> them anything.
> Here are signs Clinton didn't put himself out that much:
> 1. From the time Clinton presided over the handshake between Israeli PM
> Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1993 to the end of
> Clinton's term, the number of Israeli colonists on the Palestinian land
> from
> which Rabin had pledged to withdraw just about doubled. In 1993 there were
> between 95,000 and 116,000 Israeli squatters in the West Bank and Gaza. By
> 1996 there were 147,000. By 2000 there were about 200,000. These numbers do
> not include the squatters in East Jerusalem, which Israel has illegally
> annexed in contravention of the UN charter. This stab in the back by the
> Israelis of the Palestine Authority undermined the possibility of a
> Palestinian state. Did Clinton kill himself stopping this vast expansion of
> Israeli squatters on Palestinian land? No. Did he do anything at all about
> it? No.
> 2. Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the West Bank by the end of
> 1998. It did not. Its troops are still there, guarding sometimes murderous
> or vandalizing Israeli squatters who are trying to displace the
> Palestinians
> from their homes. Did Bill Clinton kill himself to get the Israeli troops
> out of Palestine? No. Did he do anything at all about this collapse of Oslo
> process commitments on Israel's part? No.
> 3. Donald Neff writes that in
> "March, 1995 . . . President Clinton invoked the [UN Security Council] veto
> after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution
> calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in
> Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes
> in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the
> 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of
> Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa / Jabal Abu Ghneim
> in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing."
> So did Bill Clinton kill himself stopping Israeli large scale theft of
> Palestinian land while he was supposedly being an honest broker between
> Israel and the Palestinians? No.
> Clinton was the most partisan President for Israel in our country's
> history,
> and was anything but even-handed in his approach to the Palestinians. The
> Palestinians complained that they'd get an Israeli proposal, reject it,
> then
> get the same one from the Americans; there wasn't really any difference
> between the positions of those two.
> Clinton also defended the brutal Israeli assault on defenseless little Gaza
> in 2014, blaming it on Hamas and suggesting that they had craftily
> manipulated world media into blaming the Israelis for killing nearly 2000
> Palestinians. Mr. Clinton did not address the issue of proportionality, the
> key one for critics of the assault. Nor did he address the Occupation, the
> displacement of Palestinian families to Gaza by the Israelis, or the siege
> of Gaza, contravening the Geneva Conventions if 1949.
> Bill Clinton's partisanship for the Israeli side and refusal to act as an
> honest broker, refusal to stop squatter settlements, refusal to let the UN
> Security Council demand of Israel that it stop contravening international
> law, and failure to get an actual text to which Palestinian negotiators
> could assent, all these defects doomed the Oslo process and doomed the
> world
> to more turmoil coming out of this interminable conflict. It also
> encouraged
> the Israeli side to think they could get away with anything and so warped
> them into a Likud far-right regime and an Apartheid state.
> Bill Clinton didn't kill himself getting a Palestinian state. His one-sided
> approach to the negotiations ensured that there would be none. Ever.
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/ http://www.truthdig.com/
> http://www.truthdig.com/
> http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
> thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
> w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
> C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
> http://www.hopstudios.com/
> http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
> http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
> http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
> owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
> tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
> truthdig.com/connect
>
>
>
>
>
Double talk, double dealing, it has always been the method used to
advance world control by the American Industrial/Military complex.
While we lap up the slop fed to us by the Ruling Classes propaganda
media, believing that we send our loving troops, our best young men
and women, out around the world to promote democracy and independence,
we become confused by the numbers of wars that break out, the regimes
that topple and are replaced by tyrants, the growing numbers of
homeless people driven from their homelands by war and famine. What
would appear to be a totally incompetent effort, keeps on going on.
If Peace and Freedom were truly the goal of the American Empire, then
it would be best advised to bring home all troops and close all
military bases around the Globe, and allow the nations of the world to
solve their own problems.
Oh yes, we would also need to call off the greedy international banks
who hold entire national treasuries captive. But of course, we've
been deceived by that Great White Father's forked tongue. As the
worlds last Super Power, the American Empire is highly successful in
defending the right of its Corporations to rape and plunder at will.
And by the way, we, here at home, are not immune to that rape and
plunder. Our Great American Dream, a job, a home and a family, are
becoming so eroded that the dream is actually no longer the hope of
millions of Americans. We have gone from those days when Dad went off
to work while Mom cared for the home and the children. One income
earned by Dad could sustain the family. Now both Mom and Dad work,
often at two jobs, just to hang on by their fingernails. Streets and
overpasses filled with homeless. Side streets filled with cars being
used as homes for entire families. As our nation crumbles and decay
sets in, we still suck up the poisoned nectar of the Empire.
The question seems to be, Which will get us first, the Forces of
Nature, or our own Stupidity?
Carl Jarvis
On 5/16/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself Trying for a State of Palestine
> (Video)
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_bill_clinton_didnt_kill_himself_to_gi
> ve_the_palestinians_state_20160515/
> AddThis Sharing Buttons
> Share to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
> Posted on May 15, 2016
> By Juan Cole
> This post originally ran on Truthdig contributor Juan Cole's website.
> Former President Bill Clinton on Saturday claimed "I killed myself to give
> the Palestinians a state," and maintained that he secured an agreement,
> which the Palestinians turned down. In fact, no such text was ever
> presented to the Palestinian side, and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
> Barak kept flaking out on commitments previously made, leaving the
> Palestinian negotiators with nothing to agree to. Negoatiator Aaron Miller
> later admitted, "There was not a formalized, written proposal that covered
> the four core issues. There was no deal on the table. None of the issues
> were explained enough in detail to make an agreement, though the Israelis
> made an interesting argument on Jerusalem."
> No time here to go into the paternalist and colonial language about
> "giving"
> the Palestinians a state. They are a stateless people because they are
> unrecognized; they would get a state by recognizing them as such, not
> giving
> them anything.
> Here are signs Clinton didn't put himself out that much:
> 1. From the time Clinton presided over the handshake between Israeli PM
> Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1993 to the end of
> Clinton's term, the number of Israeli colonists on the Palestinian land
> from
> which Rabin had pledged to withdraw just about doubled. In 1993 there were
> between 95,000 and 116,000 Israeli squatters in the West Bank and Gaza. By
> 1996 there were 147,000. By 2000 there were about 200,000. These numbers
> do not include the squatters in East Jerusalem, which Israel has illegally
> annexed in contravention of the UN charter. This stab in the back by the
> Israelis of the Palestine Authority undermined the possibility of a
> Palestinian state. Did Clinton kill himself stopping this vast expansion
> of
> Israeli squatters on Palestinian land? No. Did he do anything at all
> about
> it? No.
> 2. Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the West Bank by the end of
> 1998. It did not. Its troops are still there, guarding sometimes murderous
> or vandalizing Israeli squatters who are trying to displace the
> Palestinians
> from their homes. Did Bill Clinton kill himself to get the Israeli troops
> out of Palestine? No. Did he do anything at all about this collapse of
> Oslo
> process commitments on Israel's part? No.
> 3. Donald Neff writes that in
> "March, 1995 . . . President Clinton invoked the [UN Security Council] veto
> after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution
> calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in
> Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes
> in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the
> 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of
> Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa / Jabal Abu Ghneim
> in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing."
> So did Bill Clinton kill himself stopping Israeli large scale theft of
> Palestinian land while he was supposedly being an honest broker between
> Israel and the Palestinians? No.
> Clinton was the most partisan President for Israel in our country's
> history,
> and was anything but even-handed in his approach to the Palestinians. The
> Palestinians complained that they'd get an Israeli proposal, reject it,
> then
> get the same one from the Americans; there wasn't really any difference
> between the positions of those two.
> Clinton also defended the brutal Israeli assault on defenseless little Gaza
> in 2014, blaming it on Hamas and suggesting that they had craftily
> manipulated world media into blaming the Israelis for killing nearly 2000
> Palestinians. Mr. Clinton did not address the issue of proportionality,
> the
> key one for critics of the assault. Nor did he address the Occupation, the
> displacement of Palestinian families to Gaza by the Israelis, or the siege
> of Gaza, contravening the Geneva Conventions if 1949.
> Bill Clinton's partisanship for the Israeli side and refusal to act as an
> honest broker, refusal to stop squatter settlements, refusal to let the UN
> Security Council demand of Israel that it stop contravening international
> law, and failure to get an actual text to which Palestinian negotiators
> could assent, all these defects doomed the Oslo process and doomed the
> world
> to more turmoil coming out of this interminable conflict. It also
> encouraged the Israeli side to think they could get away with anything and
> so warped them into a Likud far-right regime and an Apartheid state.
> Bill Clinton didn't kill himself getting a Palestinian state. His
> one-sided
> approach to the negotiations ensured that there would be none. Ever.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
> No, Bill Clinton Didn't 'Kill' Himself Trying for a State of Palestine
> (Video)
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_bill_clinton_didnt_kill_himself_to_gi
> ve_the_palestinians_state_20160515/
> AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share
> optionsShare to Email
> Posted on May 15, 2016
> By Juan Cole
> This post originally ran on Truthdig contributor Juan Cole's website.
> Former President Bill Clinton on Saturday claimed "I killed myself to give
> the Palestinians a state," and maintained that he secured an agreement,
> which the Palestinians turned down. In fact, no such text was ever
> presented
> to the Palestinian side, and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak kept
> flaking out on commitments previously made, leaving the Palestinian
> negotiators with nothing to agree to. Negoatiator Aaron Miller later
> admitted, "There was not a formalized, written proposal that covered the
> four core issues. There was no deal on the table. None of the issues were
> explained enough in detail to make an agreement, though the Israelis made
> an
> interesting argument on Jerusalem."
> No time here to go into the paternalist and colonial language about
> "giving"
> the Palestinians a state. They are a stateless people because they are
> unrecognized; they would get a state by recognizing them as such, not
> giving
> them anything.
> Here are signs Clinton didn't put himself out that much:
> 1. From the time Clinton presided over the handshake between Israeli PM
> Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1993 to the end of
> Clinton's term, the number of Israeli colonists on the Palestinian land
> from
> which Rabin had pledged to withdraw just about doubled. In 1993 there were
> between 95,000 and 116,000 Israeli squatters in the West Bank and Gaza. By
> 1996 there were 147,000. By 2000 there were about 200,000. These numbers do
> not include the squatters in East Jerusalem, which Israel has illegally
> annexed in contravention of the UN charter. This stab in the back by the
> Israelis of the Palestine Authority undermined the possibility of a
> Palestinian state. Did Clinton kill himself stopping this vast expansion of
> Israeli squatters on Palestinian land? No. Did he do anything at all about
> it? No.
> 2. Israel agreed to withdraw its troops from the West Bank by the end of
> 1998. It did not. Its troops are still there, guarding sometimes murderous
> or vandalizing Israeli squatters who are trying to displace the
> Palestinians
> from their homes. Did Bill Clinton kill himself to get the Israeli troops
> out of Palestine? No. Did he do anything at all about this collapse of Oslo
> process commitments on Israel's part? No.
> 3. Donald Neff writes that in
> "March, 1995 . . . President Clinton invoked the [UN Security Council] veto
> after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution
> calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in
> Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes
> in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the
> 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of
> Israel's plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa / Jabal Abu Ghneim
> in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing."
> So did Bill Clinton kill himself stopping Israeli large scale theft of
> Palestinian land while he was supposedly being an honest broker between
> Israel and the Palestinians? No.
> Clinton was the most partisan President for Israel in our country's
> history,
> and was anything but even-handed in his approach to the Palestinians. The
> Palestinians complained that they'd get an Israeli proposal, reject it,
> then
> get the same one from the Americans; there wasn't really any difference
> between the positions of those two.
> Clinton also defended the brutal Israeli assault on defenseless little Gaza
> in 2014, blaming it on Hamas and suggesting that they had craftily
> manipulated world media into blaming the Israelis for killing nearly 2000
> Palestinians. Mr. Clinton did not address the issue of proportionality, the
> key one for critics of the assault. Nor did he address the Occupation, the
> displacement of Palestinian families to Gaza by the Israelis, or the siege
> of Gaza, contravening the Geneva Conventions if 1949.
> Bill Clinton's partisanship for the Israeli side and refusal to act as an
> honest broker, refusal to stop squatter settlements, refusal to let the UN
> Security Council demand of Israel that it stop contravening international
> law, and failure to get an actual text to which Palestinian negotiators
> could assent, all these defects doomed the Oslo process and doomed the
> world
> to more turmoil coming out of this interminable conflict. It also
> encouraged
> the Israeli side to think they could get away with anything and so warped
> them into a Likud far-right regime and an Apartheid state.
> Bill Clinton didn't kill himself getting a Palestinian state. His one-sided
> approach to the negotiations ensured that there would be none. Ever.
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_on_why_ubers_can_find_you_b
> etter_than_911_can_video_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/poof_its_forgotten_the_snapchat_version_
> of_american_victory_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_change_means_cities_face_flash_f
> lood_hazards_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_april_17_2016_should_be_remembered_a
> s_brazils_day_of_men_20160516/ http://www.truthdig.com/
> http://www.truthdig.com/
> http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
> thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
> w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
> C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
> http://www.hopstudios.com/
> http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
> http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
> http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
> owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
> tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
> truthdig.com/connect
>
>
>
>
>
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Exposing the Injustice of Vengeance Against the Convicted
John Kiriakou is right on target. We are truly a vengeful people
Despite our claim that our nation is founded on Christian Principles,
we challenge God's proclamation. "For it is written: "Vengeance is
Mine, I will repay, says
the Lord..."
But we just can't wait for God to slam our enemies to the mat. And I
say "Enemies" intentionally. We have come to believe that anyone who
breaks the Law is our enemy and as such, deserves to be put out of
Society. Our attitudes on punishment came to our shores with the
first Settlers from Europe. Vengeance and Eternal Damnation are so
ingrained in our basic beliefs that we have seen one effort after
another to reform our penal system, fail.
And because we have turned our backs, and turned off our compassion,
our prisons have morphed into Slave Camps.
At times I think, "What a different world it was back when I was a
boy". But it was not the world that was different. It was me. Even
as a poor child in a rich man's neighborhood, I lived a privileged
life. We were sheltered from so much of the ugly side of America, the
lynchings, the abuse, the discrimination and the abject contempt
heaped upon so many of our poor people. In my little world, I thought
all Americans lived like I did. As an adult, walking the streets of
cities like Seattle, I learned first hand about our inability to
forgive and to lift up our fallen brothers and sisters. Perhaps it is
not in our nature to change. Perhaps we will go to our extinction
unchanged. But I have to continue believing that so long as there are
those people who have the capacity of embracing the less fortunate,
and forgiving the thoughtless, and sharing from what they have to
offer, then maybe, just maybe we can survive.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Kiriakou writes: "We live in a system that seeks vengeance against those
> convicted of crimes, a society that doesn't just want people to repay their
> debts to society, but wants them to continue to suffer, both during and
> after release. That's why there's no public outcry against the human and
> civil rights violations that current and former prisoners face every day."
>
> A solitary confinement cell at New York City's Rikers Island jail. (photo:
> Bebeto Matthews/AP)
>
>
> Exposing the Injustice of Vengeance Against the Convicted
> By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
> 15 May 16
>
> Prison Legal News (PLN), a magazine dedicated to prison reform and news
> developments related to federal and state prison systems, has filed a
> lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) after the DOC
> banned four issues of the magazine because of "sexually explicit material."
> What's the nature of this sexual material? It's four articles about prison
> guards and other prison employees raping prisoners. The Arizona DOC actions
> are not meant to ensure the smooth running of the prison system, as it
> asserts, but instead to keep prisoners in the dark about official abuse,
> malfeasance, and criminal activity. The DOC has sought to settle the case
> out of court. Even they recognize that they're holding a losing hand.
> The DOC's guidelines regarding prisoners receiving sexually explicit
> material are clear. They state, "Sexually explicit material is defined as
> publications that feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors/acts and/or the
> publication is promoted based on such depictions." The description bears no
> resemblance whatsoever to Prison Legal News, which contains only news
> articles and the occasional advertisement.
> This Arizona DOC's actions are not new to Prison Legal News. Indeed, PLN
> has
> filed dozens of lawsuits against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections
> departments, local jails, and states since 2000. Just this year, for
> example, the Northwest Regional Adult Detention Center in Winchester,
> Virginia, agreed to PLN demands that prisoners be allowed to receive the
> magazine, after initially banning it and all other printed material.
> Similarly, earlier this year the Nevada Department of Corrections agreed to
> pay PLN $475,000 and to allow prisoners to receive the magazine after PLN
> filed a federal suit there. PLN has had similar wins across the country
> over
> the past few years.
> Other prisoners' rights organizations get far more news coverage than PLN,
> a
> publication of the Florida-based Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). The
> Innocence Project, for example, uses DNA evidence to work to exonerate
> those
> people wrongly convicted of murder and serving sentences of life, or even
> death. Every Innocence Project win is major national news.
> But it's the small and underfunded HRDC and PLN that work to defend
> prisoners' rights on virtually every other issue. HRDC currently has
> numerous lawsuits pending against the federal government, states,
> municipalities, and private prisons, not only related to freedom of speech,
> but also to prevent prisons from forcing released prisoners to accept all
> of
> their remaining commissary money on high-fee debit cards; to prevent
> prisons
> from banning all prisoner mail except postcards; and fighting the decision
> made by several private prisons to ban in-person visits in favor of
> expensive video-only visits. PLN and HRDC are also leaders in the fight
> against substandard and incompetent medical care in prisons across the
> country.
> The question is why PLN is the only organization taking on these issues.
> Frankly, in a real democracy, in a country that respects its own
> constitution and the rule of law, PLN and an organization like HRDC would
> not even be necessary. But that's not the society we live in. We live in a
> system that seeks vengeance against those convicted of crimes, a society
> that doesn't just want people to repay their debts to society, but wants
> them to continue to suffer, both during and after release.
> That's why there's no public outcry against the human and civil rights
> violations that current and former prisoners face every day. That's why
> there's no public outcry when prisoners die unnecessarily in prison because
> of substandard medical care. That's why there's anger when governors
> reinstate the voting rights of former felons.
> Society won't change by itself. And certainly the lemmings in Congress
> won't
> lead the way. That's why organizations like HRDC and publications like PLN
> are so important. They are the only voice for prisoners and for the human
> and civil rights prisoners deserve.
>
> ________________________________________
> John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
> He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
> investigator
> with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
> Permission
> to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
> Supported News.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> A solitary confinement cell at New York City's Rikers Island jail. (photo:
> Bebeto Matthews/AP)
> http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
> Exposing the Injustice of Vengeance Against the Convicted
> By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
> 15 May 16
> rison Legal News (PLN), a magazine dedicated to prison reform and news
> developments related to federal and state prison systems, has filed a
> lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) after the DOC
> banned four issues of the magazine because of "sexually explicit material."
> What's the nature of this sexual material? It's four articles about prison
> guards and other prison employees raping prisoners. The Arizona DOC actions
> are not meant to ensure the smooth running of the prison system, as it
> asserts, but instead to keep prisoners in the dark about official abuse,
> malfeasance, and criminal activity. The DOC has sought to settle the case
> out of court. Even they recognize that they're holding a losing hand.
> The DOC's guidelines regarding prisoners receiving sexually explicit
> material are clear. They state, "Sexually explicit material is defined as
> publications that feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors/acts and/or the
> publication is promoted based on such depictions." The description bears no
> resemblance whatsoever to Prison Legal News, which contains only news
> articles and the occasional advertisement.
> This Arizona DOC's actions are not new to Prison Legal News. Indeed, PLN
> has
> filed dozens of lawsuits against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections
> departments, local jails, and states since 2000. Just this year, for
> example, the Northwest Regional Adult Detention Center in Winchester,
> Virginia, agreed to PLN demands that prisoners be allowed to receive the
> magazine, after initially banning it and all other printed material.
> Similarly, earlier this year the Nevada Department of Corrections agreed to
> pay PLN $475,000 and to allow prisoners to receive the magazine after PLN
> filed a federal suit there. PLN has had similar wins across the country
> over
> the past few years.
> Other prisoners' rights organizations get far more news coverage than PLN,
> a
> publication of the Florida-based Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). The
> Innocence Project, for example, uses DNA evidence to work to exonerate
> those
> people wrongly convicted of murder and serving sentences of life, or even
> death. Every Innocence Project win is major national news.
> But it's the small and underfunded HRDC and PLN that work to defend
> prisoners' rights on virtually every other issue. HRDC currently has
> numerous lawsuits pending against the federal government, states,
> municipalities, and private prisons, not only related to freedom of speech,
> but also to prevent prisons from forcing released prisoners to accept all
> of
> their remaining commissary money on high-fee debit cards; to prevent
> prisons
> from banning all prisoner mail except postcards; and fighting the decision
> made by several private prisons to ban in-person visits in favor of
> expensive video-only visits. PLN and HRDC are also leaders in the fight
> against substandard and incompetent medical care in prisons across the
> country.
> The question is why PLN is the only organization taking on these issues.
> Frankly, in a real democracy, in a country that respects its own
> constitution and the rule of law, PLN and an organization like HRDC would
> not even be necessary. But that's not the society we live in. We live in a
> system that seeks vengeance against those convicted of crimes, a society
> that doesn't just want people to repay their debts to society, but wants
> them to continue to suffer, both during and after release.
> That's why there's no public outcry against the human and civil rights
> violations that current and former prisoners face every day. That's why
> there's no public outcry when prisoners die unnecessarily in prison because
> of substandard medical care. That's why there's anger when governors
> reinstate the voting rights of former felons.
> Society won't change by itself. And certainly the lemmings in Congress
> won't
> lead the way. That's why organizations like HRDC and publications like PLN
> are so important. They are the only voice for prisoners and for the human
> and civil rights prisoners deserve.
>
> John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
> He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
> investigator
> with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
> Permission
> to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
> Supported News.
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Despite our claim that our nation is founded on Christian Principles,
we challenge God's proclamation. "For it is written: "Vengeance is
Mine, I will repay, says
the Lord..."
But we just can't wait for God to slam our enemies to the mat. And I
say "Enemies" intentionally. We have come to believe that anyone who
breaks the Law is our enemy and as such, deserves to be put out of
Society. Our attitudes on punishment came to our shores with the
first Settlers from Europe. Vengeance and Eternal Damnation are so
ingrained in our basic beliefs that we have seen one effort after
another to reform our penal system, fail.
And because we have turned our backs, and turned off our compassion,
our prisons have morphed into Slave Camps.
At times I think, "What a different world it was back when I was a
boy". But it was not the world that was different. It was me. Even
as a poor child in a rich man's neighborhood, I lived a privileged
life. We were sheltered from so much of the ugly side of America, the
lynchings, the abuse, the discrimination and the abject contempt
heaped upon so many of our poor people. In my little world, I thought
all Americans lived like I did. As an adult, walking the streets of
cities like Seattle, I learned first hand about our inability to
forgive and to lift up our fallen brothers and sisters. Perhaps it is
not in our nature to change. Perhaps we will go to our extinction
unchanged. But I have to continue believing that so long as there are
those people who have the capacity of embracing the less fortunate,
and forgiving the thoughtless, and sharing from what they have to
offer, then maybe, just maybe we can survive.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Kiriakou writes: "We live in a system that seeks vengeance against those
> convicted of crimes, a society that doesn't just want people to repay their
> debts to society, but wants them to continue to suffer, both during and
> after release. That's why there's no public outcry against the human and
> civil rights violations that current and former prisoners face every day."
>
> A solitary confinement cell at New York City's Rikers Island jail. (photo:
> Bebeto Matthews/AP)
>
>
> Exposing the Injustice of Vengeance Against the Convicted
> By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
> 15 May 16
>
> Prison Legal News (PLN), a magazine dedicated to prison reform and news
> developments related to federal and state prison systems, has filed a
> lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) after the DOC
> banned four issues of the magazine because of "sexually explicit material."
> What's the nature of this sexual material? It's four articles about prison
> guards and other prison employees raping prisoners. The Arizona DOC actions
> are not meant to ensure the smooth running of the prison system, as it
> asserts, but instead to keep prisoners in the dark about official abuse,
> malfeasance, and criminal activity. The DOC has sought to settle the case
> out of court. Even they recognize that they're holding a losing hand.
> The DOC's guidelines regarding prisoners receiving sexually explicit
> material are clear. They state, "Sexually explicit material is defined as
> publications that feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors/acts and/or the
> publication is promoted based on such depictions." The description bears no
> resemblance whatsoever to Prison Legal News, which contains only news
> articles and the occasional advertisement.
> This Arizona DOC's actions are not new to Prison Legal News. Indeed, PLN
> has
> filed dozens of lawsuits against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections
> departments, local jails, and states since 2000. Just this year, for
> example, the Northwest Regional Adult Detention Center in Winchester,
> Virginia, agreed to PLN demands that prisoners be allowed to receive the
> magazine, after initially banning it and all other printed material.
> Similarly, earlier this year the Nevada Department of Corrections agreed to
> pay PLN $475,000 and to allow prisoners to receive the magazine after PLN
> filed a federal suit there. PLN has had similar wins across the country
> over
> the past few years.
> Other prisoners' rights organizations get far more news coverage than PLN,
> a
> publication of the Florida-based Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). The
> Innocence Project, for example, uses DNA evidence to work to exonerate
> those
> people wrongly convicted of murder and serving sentences of life, or even
> death. Every Innocence Project win is major national news.
> But it's the small and underfunded HRDC and PLN that work to defend
> prisoners' rights on virtually every other issue. HRDC currently has
> numerous lawsuits pending against the federal government, states,
> municipalities, and private prisons, not only related to freedom of speech,
> but also to prevent prisons from forcing released prisoners to accept all
> of
> their remaining commissary money on high-fee debit cards; to prevent
> prisons
> from banning all prisoner mail except postcards; and fighting the decision
> made by several private prisons to ban in-person visits in favor of
> expensive video-only visits. PLN and HRDC are also leaders in the fight
> against substandard and incompetent medical care in prisons across the
> country.
> The question is why PLN is the only organization taking on these issues.
> Frankly, in a real democracy, in a country that respects its own
> constitution and the rule of law, PLN and an organization like HRDC would
> not even be necessary. But that's not the society we live in. We live in a
> system that seeks vengeance against those convicted of crimes, a society
> that doesn't just want people to repay their debts to society, but wants
> them to continue to suffer, both during and after release.
> That's why there's no public outcry against the human and civil rights
> violations that current and former prisoners face every day. That's why
> there's no public outcry when prisoners die unnecessarily in prison because
> of substandard medical care. That's why there's anger when governors
> reinstate the voting rights of former felons.
> Society won't change by itself. And certainly the lemmings in Congress
> won't
> lead the way. That's why organizations like HRDC and publications like PLN
> are so important. They are the only voice for prisoners and for the human
> and civil rights prisoners deserve.
>
> ________________________________________
> John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
> He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
> investigator
> with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
> Permission
> to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
> Supported News.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> A solitary confinement cell at New York City's Rikers Island jail. (photo:
> Bebeto Matthews/AP)
> http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
> Exposing the Injustice of Vengeance Against the Convicted
> By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
> 15 May 16
> rison Legal News (PLN), a magazine dedicated to prison reform and news
> developments related to federal and state prison systems, has filed a
> lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) after the DOC
> banned four issues of the magazine because of "sexually explicit material."
> What's the nature of this sexual material? It's four articles about prison
> guards and other prison employees raping prisoners. The Arizona DOC actions
> are not meant to ensure the smooth running of the prison system, as it
> asserts, but instead to keep prisoners in the dark about official abuse,
> malfeasance, and criminal activity. The DOC has sought to settle the case
> out of court. Even they recognize that they're holding a losing hand.
> The DOC's guidelines regarding prisoners receiving sexually explicit
> material are clear. They state, "Sexually explicit material is defined as
> publications that feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors/acts and/or the
> publication is promoted based on such depictions." The description bears no
> resemblance whatsoever to Prison Legal News, which contains only news
> articles and the occasional advertisement.
> This Arizona DOC's actions are not new to Prison Legal News. Indeed, PLN
> has
> filed dozens of lawsuits against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, corrections
> departments, local jails, and states since 2000. Just this year, for
> example, the Northwest Regional Adult Detention Center in Winchester,
> Virginia, agreed to PLN demands that prisoners be allowed to receive the
> magazine, after initially banning it and all other printed material.
> Similarly, earlier this year the Nevada Department of Corrections agreed to
> pay PLN $475,000 and to allow prisoners to receive the magazine after PLN
> filed a federal suit there. PLN has had similar wins across the country
> over
> the past few years.
> Other prisoners' rights organizations get far more news coverage than PLN,
> a
> publication of the Florida-based Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). The
> Innocence Project, for example, uses DNA evidence to work to exonerate
> those
> people wrongly convicted of murder and serving sentences of life, or even
> death. Every Innocence Project win is major national news.
> But it's the small and underfunded HRDC and PLN that work to defend
> prisoners' rights on virtually every other issue. HRDC currently has
> numerous lawsuits pending against the federal government, states,
> municipalities, and private prisons, not only related to freedom of speech,
> but also to prevent prisons from forcing released prisoners to accept all
> of
> their remaining commissary money on high-fee debit cards; to prevent
> prisons
> from banning all prisoner mail except postcards; and fighting the decision
> made by several private prisons to ban in-person visits in favor of
> expensive video-only visits. PLN and HRDC are also leaders in the fight
> against substandard and incompetent medical care in prisons across the
> country.
> The question is why PLN is the only organization taking on these issues.
> Frankly, in a real democracy, in a country that respects its own
> constitution and the rule of law, PLN and an organization like HRDC would
> not even be necessary. But that's not the society we live in. We live in a
> system that seeks vengeance against those convicted of crimes, a society
> that doesn't just want people to repay their debts to society, but wants
> them to continue to suffer, both during and after release.
> That's why there's no public outcry against the human and civil rights
> violations that current and former prisoners face every day. That's why
> there's no public outcry when prisoners die unnecessarily in prison because
> of substandard medical care. That's why there's anger when governors
> reinstate the voting rights of former felons.
> Society won't change by itself. And certainly the lemmings in Congress
> won't
> lead the way. That's why organizations like HRDC and publications like PLN
> are so important. They are the only voice for prisoners and for the human
> and civil rights prisoners deserve.
>
> John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
> He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
> investigator
> with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
> Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
> Permission
> to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
> Supported News.
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
> http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
>
>
>
Friday, May 13, 2016
Re: [blind-democracy] Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
Fact: Any candidate, regardless of Party affiliation, will not,
repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA is
a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough
replacement of an established government or political system by the
people governed".
Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of the
military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a people's
uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie were
elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism reigns,
there can be no compromise.
So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and Stein
in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like this:
I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted out
in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they like
best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game. But
nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and if
that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the next, in
hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the quarterbacks will
dare try something out of left field. They have all been thoroughly
schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They know all of the rules.
I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to cheer
for one quarterback or another.
Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the 1%,
they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us understand
that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land" is not on
the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about putting our
own team on Center Field.
"Preacher" Carl Jarvis
On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-sociamay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
>
>
> Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
>
> / 18 hours ago
>
>
> May 2016 Sanders
>
> By JEFF MACKLER
>
> U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
> Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
> His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy itself,
> has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S. socialist
> movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an extraordinary level of
> confusion and disarray. The spectacle of most U.S. socialist
> organizations' supporting, in one form or another, an open Democrat is a
> sure sign of a left in crisis.
>
> Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
> percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his race
> with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent of all
> remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention majority and 82
> percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates. The latter
> have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy and pledged long
> ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these lifelong professional
> ruling-class politicians will accede to the "popular will" and shift to
> Sanders is absurd. But promoting this illusion is Sanders' current
> bait-and-switch tactic.
>
> It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders to
> "fight on." He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED National
> Public Radio (NPR) interview: "I think we are perpetuating the political
> revolution by significantly increasing the level of political activity
> that we're seeing in this country. I think it is good for the United
> States of America and good for the Democratic Party to have a vigorous
> debate, to engage people in the political process" (emphasis added).
>
> NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
> "energizing voters" and, therefore, "boosting the Democratic Party to
> victory in November." He contended that Democrats do well and
> Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. "So I'm going to do
> everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country and
> get young people, working people, involved in the political process."
>
> Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late April,
> Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he would fight for
> his delegates to have substantial convention representation on the
> Democratic Party's "Platform Committee," where party leaders supposedly
> would hammer out the program to be implemented should Clinton win. Only
> the most naïve in politics believe that ruling-class policies are
> decided by a handful of delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party
> conventions. Sadly, however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe
> that the Sanders campaign represents some sort of "political revolution"
> that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review this
> almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
>
> Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a welcome
> addition to the periodically orchestrated "lesser evil" sham employed by
> ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating and sophisticated think
> tanks. They know full well that capitalist elections are essential to
> maintaining the myth of democracy, on the one hand, and to dissipating
> the anger and hatred at its inherently anti-working class, racist, and
> sexist policies into safe electoral channels, on the other.
>
> Well before Sanders proclaimed his "democratic socialism," national
> polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
> socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49 percent
> of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over capitalism.
> Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism over
> socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole were higher,
> with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring socialism—in their
> view a more egalitarian and less predatory society, in which human
> solidarity and social welfare trump the greed of the elite one percent.
>
> Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past year
> as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic Party. He has
> consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating that "dissident"
> ideas, or perhaps better, "dissident" rhetoric—as with his frequently
> touted expression, "political revolution"—is acceptable terminology
> inside this tried and true ruling-class institution, the nation's
> infamous "graveyard of social movements."
>
> Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics just as
> well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of capitalism's
> most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the feminist,
> humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned politician they are
> projecting as Clinton's campaign image today. As we go to press [May 11]
> a nervous Clinton has moved another step to the "left," according to the
> New York Times, by embracing in part Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for
> all" proposal.
>
> Political discontent rising in U.S. population
>
> In due time, we will all "feel the Bern," or better, witness the
> "fizzle," when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling votes on
> Clinton's behalf to save the nation from the "greater evil"—Donald
> Trump. Step one in the current two-stage "lesser-evil" game was Sanders'
> shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back into
> the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders' making every effort
> to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled into his orbit but
> might yet decide to quit the electoral shell game in disgust with the
> thought of voting for Clinton.
>
> The fact that capitalism's media pundits felt compelled to lend an air
> of legitimacy to Sanders' fake socialism is an indication of the
> questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
> percolating in the consciousness of working people.
>
> A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
> percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
> positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine percent
> had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in explaining why
> Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party candidates, largely
> refrained from the red-baiting tirades that have been the usual
> stock-in-trade of capitalist politics. Attacking Sanders as a socialist
> might well have the effect of advancing his credibility, not to mention
> socialism's!
>
> In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes shape in
> forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of capital and
> its liberal "third-party" middle-class-based variants like the Green
> Party, working people will find genuine political avenues and mass
> organizations of struggle to express their disgust at capitalist
> austerity and social regression. This combination of renewed and massive
> mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated and democratically led
> union fightbacks, and in anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and
> pro-environment struggles will undoubtedly find an expression in the
> political arena.
>
> But this magnificent and longed for "music of the future," based on the
> deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties, to be
> effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the endless
> variations of "lesser evilism" that are consciously presented by the
> most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist politics—can only be
> grounded on the foundation of working-class independence. The desire for
> political "independence," however vague this term might be, is today
> gaining ground in the United States. A full 43 percent of the
> electorate, according to a recent Gallop Poll, is registered as
> Independent, with Democratic Party registration at 32 percent, and
> Republican Party registered voters at 23 percent.
>
> These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where registered
> independents are excluded in the primary process, Hillary Clinton's
> margin of victory over Sanders was quite significant. In states with an
> "open primary," that is, where "independent" voters can participate,
> Sanders is expected to win a substantial, but still insufficient
> majority, as in the June 7 California primary.
>
> Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full story
> since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the eligible
> electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual percentage of all
> eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent! The vast majority of
> non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more generally, many of whom are
> consciously excluded due to reactionary legislation or are disillusioned
> with the entire electoral charade.
>
> U.S. left collapses before Sanders
>
> There is no doubt that Sanders' "political revolution" and
> "anti-establishment" rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
> "democratic socialism," has captured the imagination of and spiked
> interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist ideas
> more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the consciously
> orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and its pundits are
> more than capable of appealing to the best instincts and highest
> aspirations of working people for a better life for all in order to once
> again lure them into their life-extinguishing anaconda-like
> institutional clutches.
>
> Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who seriously
> consider themselves socialists—have been active partisans, if not
> enthusiastic advocates, of today's ruling-class-promoted Bernie Sanders
> brand of lesser-evilism.
>
> Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders'
> supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
> Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
> city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist and
> against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed Socialist
> Alternative's Seattle campaigns, and the associated Socialist
> Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis. Socialist
> Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns, contributed
> financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went door-to-door,
> and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring socialist effort.
>
> This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist Alternative
> originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these campaigns as joint
> efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But Green Party leaders
> rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist Alternative with a critical
> decision as to how to proceed. To their credit, they took the high road
> in working-class politics and ran as socialists, but their penchant for
> the middle-class Green Party was never far from their perspectives.
>
> Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist working-class
> politics against the Democratic Party, has been abandoned, with
> Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually campaigning for Sanders in all
> the Democratic Party primary contests.
>
> In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant gives
> an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She writes:
> "To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would be the
> opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the vital energy
> and momentum we have built over this historic past year. We simply can't
> afford to make this mistake. That's why I have launched a petition
> calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the way to November as an
> independent, and to use his campaign as a launch pad for a new political
> party of the 99%."
>
> Sawant immediately continues: "If Bernie's only concern is that running
> independently could open the door to a President Trump, then why could
> he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where it's generally clear
> the Democratic or Republican candidate will win? Even in this way, while
> not putting his name on the ballot in the 5-10 closely contested 'swing
> states,' he could still run an historic campaign if linked to building a
> new party" (emphasis in original).
>
> But Sawant's "new party" in this case is, again, the middle-class,
> pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its supporters to
> vote Democrat in "swing states" or simply declined to seek ballot status
> in these "contested states." Sawant's petition calls on Sanders to run
> on the same ticket as the Green Party's presumptive presidential
> candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace Stein on the ballot with Sanders.
>
> Here it is important to remind readers that the terms "independent" and
> "third party" are not always clear. There are several "third parties"
> today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
> politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to liberal,
> reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the Working Families
> Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
>
> In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green Party
> presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in six states
> via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan's incipient fascist Reform
> Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party's ballot line in return for making
> reactionary statements limiting the right of women to abortion and
> restricting immigrants from entering the country. (See Nader's June 21,
> 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the American Conservative.)
>
> None of these "third parties" are independent of and against the
> fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Or, to
> be precise, none seek to organize the working class to replace the
> capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the private ownership
> and control of the nation's banks, corporations, and wealth is ended,
> and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to reorganize society for the
> common good. None are based on, financed, and controlled by
> working-class organizations like trade unions or other democratic mass
> working-class organizations. None, as a matter of class principle,
> reject voting for capitalist parties. Indeed, in local elections, as
> well as national, Greens routinely endorse "progressive" Democrats, and
> in races where the Republican is a bit too overtly reactionary, "not so
> progressive Democrats."
>
> Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
> percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
> independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported for
> his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to change its
> spots. Or better, it's akin to yet again playing politics in the ruling
> class' institutional party ballpark.
>
> Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like the
> Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have habitually
> supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today supports Clinton,
> while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until Sanders drops out.
>
> Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on Sanders
> to run for the presidency as an "independent" or as the Green Party
> candidate. The Workers International League also speaks favorably of an
> "independent" campaign by Sanders. Workers World Party and the Party for
> Socialism and Liberation, both of which have called for votes for
> left-sounding Democrats in the past, including Jesse Jackson, are
> fielding their own presidential candidates this time around, but
> nevertheless have called for Democratic Party primary votes for Sanders.
>
> Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
> generated by capitalism's deepening crises and sparked by the Sanders
> campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have sponsored a
> series of well-attended public debates where most of the above socialist
> organizations, as well as representatives from the Labor for Bennie
> campaign, shared the platform for fruitful exchanges. While the "lesser
> evil" syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the presentations of these
> socialist groups, we were heartened to see that the Marxist-grounded
> revolutionary socialist ideas of Socialist Action were well received and
> that our proud party, a consistent participant and advocate of
> independent mass-action united-front mobilizations against all aspects
> of capitalist racism and plunder, won new members to the cause of
> socialist revolution.
>
>
>
>
> Share this:
>
> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
> 43Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)43
> Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
>
>
> May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
> Sawant, Sanders
>
>
> Related posts
>
>
>
>
>
> Is Sanders campaign a 'new movement'?
>
>
>
>
>
> Socialist Action sponsors election debates
>
>
>
>
>
> Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
>
>
> Post navigation
>
> ← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
>
>
>
> Newspaper Archives
> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12) March
> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
> November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
> November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
> March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August
> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April
> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011
> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
> 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
> April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
> December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
> August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
> November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
> September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
> September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
> May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
> January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>
> Search
>
>
> Get Involved
> Donate to help support our work
> Get email updates
> Join Socialist Action
>
> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook
> View SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>
>
> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>
>
>
> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>
>
>
>
>
repeat, WILL NOT head up a political revolution, if elected president.
Reason: The USA is not a Republic. It is not a Democracy. The USA is
a Corporate Capitalist Empire. An Oligarchy.
Second Fact: Revolutions do not start at the top.
Reason: A revolution is, "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough
replacement of an established government or political system by the
people governed".
Although a revolution might begin from within, by the uprising of the
military or a coup by a strongman and his supporters, usually
military, nonetheless, we normally think of a revolution as a people's
uprising. And that ain't going to happen, even if Bernie were
elected. Capitalism is the bugaboo. As long as Capitalism reigns,
there can be no compromise.
So I am back to why I will vote for Sanders in the primary, and Stein
in the general election. My reasoning, such as it is, goes like this:
I am a spectator. The "team", the American Corporate Capitalist
Empire, is on the field of play. The old quarterback is tiring and
there needs to be a replacement. Several quarterbacks are trotted out
in front of the Fans, who are expected to cheer for the one they like
best. The winner of the popular cheering is sent into the game. But
nothing about the game changes. The game goes on as usual, and if
that quarterback can't move the ball, he is replaced with the next, in
hopes that he will turn the tide. But none of the quarterbacks will
dare try something out of left field. They have all been thoroughly
schooled in the fundamentals of the game. They know all of the rules.
I can either cheer for my favorite quarterback or I can go off and
start my own team. Sure, there are other struggling little teams
around. But they will never be allowed to play on the Center Field.
I know full well that no matter what I do, I will not own a piece of
this team. But if I want to be a fan, I'll pause long enough to cheer
for one quarterback or another.
Meanwhile, I can make a difference down here in the trenches. I can
do my best to help folks understand that unless they are among the 1%,
they do not have a team in this fight. When enough of us understand
that we have no representation, and the "Law of the Land" is not on
the books for us, then perhaps we can begin talking about putting our
own team on Center Field.
"Preacher" Carl Jarvis
On 5/13/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> https://socialistaction.org/2016/05/12/may-2016-sanderssanders-sociamay-2016-sanderslism-and-the-u-s-left-in-crisis/
>
>
> Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis
>
> / 18 hours ago
>
>
> May 2016 Sanders
>
> By JEFF MACKLER
>
> U.S. primary election math pundits are now calculating that Bernie
> Sanders cannot win the Democratic Party presidential primary contest.
> His impending demise, and indeed his Democratic Party candidacy itself,
> has sparked a wide-ranging discussion and debate in the U.S. socialist
> movement, and in broader circles, that reveals an extraordinary level of
> confusion and disarray. The spectacle of most U.S. socialist
> organizations' supporting, in one form or another, an open Democrat is a
> sure sign of a left in crisis.
>
> Including 53.5 percent that he won on May 3 in Indiana and his 51.4
> percent in West Virginia, in which he actually lost ground in his race
> with Hillary Clinton, Sanders now needs more than 65 percent of all
> remaining pledged delegates for a pledged convention majority and 82
> percent of all remaining delegates—including super-delegates. The latter
> have been handpicked by the Democratic Party hierarchy and pledged long
> ago to vote for Clinton. Any illusion that these lifelong professional
> ruling-class politicians will accede to the "popular will" and shift to
> Sanders is absurd. But promoting this illusion is Sanders' current
> bait-and-switch tactic.
>
> It is not the math of the matter, however, that motivates Sanders to
> "fight on." He clearly explained his views in a recent KQED National
> Public Radio (NPR) interview: "I think we are perpetuating the political
> revolution by significantly increasing the level of political activity
> that we're seeing in this country. I think it is good for the United
> States of America and good for the Democratic Party to have a vigorous
> debate, to engage people in the political process" (emphasis added).
>
> NPR reported that by staying in the race, Sanders believes he is
> "energizing voters" and, therefore, "boosting the Democratic Party to
> victory in November." He contended that Democrats do well and
> Republicans do poorly when turnout is high. "So I'm going to do
> everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country and
> get young people, working people, involved in the political process."
>
> Following four primary contest losses to Hillary Clinton in late April,
> Sanders insisted that even if he lost the nomination he would fight for
> his delegates to have substantial convention representation on the
> Democratic Party's "Platform Committee," where party leaders supposedly
> would hammer out the program to be implemented should Clinton win. Only
> the most naïve in politics believe that ruling-class policies are
> decided by a handful of delegates cloistered in the backrooms of party
> conventions. Sadly, however, most of the U.S. socialist left believe
> that the Sanders campaign represents some sort of "political revolution"
> that merits their support—in one form or another. We shall review this
> almost bewildering phenomenon shortly.
>
> Sanders, despite his protestations to the contrary, has been a welcome
> addition to the periodically orchestrated "lesser evil" sham employed by
> ruling-class leaders and their ever calculating and sophisticated think
> tanks. They know full well that capitalist elections are essential to
> maintaining the myth of democracy, on the one hand, and to dissipating
> the anger and hatred at its inherently anti-working class, racist, and
> sexist policies into safe electoral channels, on the other.
>
> Well before Sanders proclaimed his "democratic socialism," national
> polls—the Pew polls of three years ago, for example—indicated that
> socialism was on the minds of millions. In a recent Pew poll, 49 percent
> of youth 30 years old and under preferred socialism over capitalism.
> Three years ago, the figure was 46 percent who preferred capitalism over
> socialism. The figures for the Black population as a whole were higher,
> with a significant majority, 55 percent, preferring socialism—in their
> view a more egalitarian and less predatory society, in which human
> solidarity and social welfare trump the greed of the elite one percent.
>
> Sanders is undoubtedly correct in recognizing his role in the past year
> as attempting to bolster the credibility of the Democratic Party. He has
> consciously taken the assignment of demonstrating that "dissident"
> ideas, or perhaps better, "dissident" rhetoric—as with his frequently
> touted expression, "political revolution"—is acceptable terminology
> inside this tried and true ruling-class institution, the nation's
> infamous "graveyard of social movements."
>
> Hillary Clinton and her advisers understand shell game politics just as
> well, as demonstrated by their efforts to remake one of capitalism's
> most heinous warmongers and racist apologists into the feminist,
> humanist, anti-racist, and environmentally concerned politician they are
> projecting as Clinton's campaign image today. As we go to press [May 11]
> a nervous Clinton has moved another step to the "left," according to the
> New York Times, by embracing in part Sanders' single-payer "Medicare for
> all" proposal.
>
> Political discontent rising in U.S. population
>
> In due time, we will all "feel the Bern," or better, witness the
> "fizzle," when Sanders, as promised, stumps the nation hustling votes on
> Clinton's behalf to save the nation from the "greater evil"—Donald
> Trump. Step one in the current two-stage "lesser-evil" game was Sanders'
> shepherding growing and undeniable anti-capitalist sentiments back into
> the Democratic Party. Step two now includes Sanders' making every effort
> to do the same with those who have been hornswoggled into his orbit but
> might yet decide to quit the electoral shell game in disgust with the
> thought of voting for Clinton.
>
> The fact that capitalism's media pundits felt compelled to lend an air
> of legitimacy to Sanders' fake socialism is an indication of the
> questioning nature of our times and the deep discontent that is
> percolating in the consciousness of working people.
>
> A New York Times/CBS News poll last November indicated that some 56
> percent of registered Democrats who were questioned said they felt
> positive about socialism as a governing philosophy. Twenty-nine percent
> had a negative view. This, in itself, goes a long way in explaining why
> Clinton, and in fact, most Republican Party candidates, largely
> refrained from the red-baiting tirades that have been the usual
> stock-in-trade of capitalist politics. Attacking Sanders as a socialist
> might well have the effect of advancing his credibility, not to mention
> socialism's!
>
> In time, when the inevitable and broad-ranging fightback takes shape in
> forms truly independent of and against the twin parties of capital and
> its liberal "third-party" middle-class-based variants like the Green
> Party, working people will find genuine political avenues and mass
> organizations of struggle to express their disgust at capitalist
> austerity and social regression. This combination of renewed and massive
> mobilizations in the streets, in reinvigorated and democratically led
> union fightbacks, and in anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, and
> pro-environment struggles will undoubtedly find an expression in the
> political arena.
>
> But this magnificent and longed for "music of the future," based on the
> deeply felt rejection of the system of two capitalist parties, to be
> effective—to mark a clean and qualitative break with the endless
> variations of "lesser evilism" that are consciously presented by the
> most sophisticated practitioners of capitalist politics—can only be
> grounded on the foundation of working-class independence. The desire for
> political "independence," however vague this term might be, is today
> gaining ground in the United States. A full 43 percent of the
> electorate, according to a recent Gallop Poll, is registered as
> Independent, with Democratic Party registration at 32 percent, and
> Republican Party registered voters at 23 percent.
>
> These facts alone explain why in states like New York, where registered
> independents are excluded in the primary process, Hillary Clinton's
> margin of victory over Sanders was quite significant. In states with an
> "open primary," that is, where "independent" voters can participate,
> Sanders is expected to win a substantial, but still insufficient
> majority, as in the June 7 California primary.
>
> Of course, none of these registered voter statistics tell the full story
> since some 51 million voters, about 25 percent of the eligible
> electorate, are not registered. Further, the actual percentage of all
> eligible voters who vote stands at 55 percent! The vast majority of
> non-voters are Black, Latino, and youth more generally, many of whom are
> consciously excluded due to reactionary legislation or are disillusioned
> with the entire electoral charade.
>
> U.S. left collapses before Sanders
>
> There is no doubt that Sanders' "political revolution" and
> "anti-establishment" rhetoric, not to mention his self-proclaimed
> "democratic socialism," has captured the imagination of and spiked
> interest in the current primary contests as well as in socialist ideas
> more generally. Indeed, this is precisely and, again, the consciously
> orchestrated Sanders project; the U.S. ruling class and its pundits are
> more than capable of appealing to the best instincts and highest
> aspirations of working people for a better life for all in order to once
> again lure them into their life-extinguishing anaconda-like
> institutional clutches.
>
> Tragically, many of those who claim to know better—those who seriously
> consider themselves socialists—have been active partisans, if not
> enthusiastic advocates, of today's ruling-class-promoted Bernie Sanders
> brand of lesser-evilism.
>
> Among these socialists, and perhaps the most prominent, is Sanders'
> supporter in the primary contests, Kshama Sawant, and her Socialist
> Alternative party. Sawant is a two-time winner in recent Seattle
> city-council election contests, where she ran as an open socialist and
> against the Democratic Party machine. Socialist Action hailed Socialist
> Alternative's Seattle campaigns, and the associated Socialist
> Alternative city council run by Ty Moore in Minneapolis. Socialist
> Action enthusiastically participated in these campaigns, contributed
> financially, organized public fund-raising forums, went door-to-door,
> and otherwise widely publicized this inspiring socialist effort.
>
> This is not to say that we were not aware that Socialist Alternative
> originally sought, unsuccessfully, to organize these campaigns as joint
> efforts with the pro-capitalist Green Party. But Green Party leaders
> rejected these overtures, leaving Socialist Alternative with a critical
> decision as to how to proceed. To their credit, they took the high road
> in working-class politics and ran as socialists, but their penchant for
> the middle-class Green Party was never far from their perspectives.
>
> Today, that high road, the road to independent socialist working-class
> politics against the Democratic Party, has been abandoned, with
> Socialist Alternative and Sawant actually campaigning for Sanders in all
> the Democratic Party primary contests.
>
> In an article published in the May 4 issue of CounterPunch, Sawant gives
> an explanation for phase two of their electoral strategy. She writes:
> "To endorse Hillary, even with a more progressive platform, would be the
> opposite of political revolution and would abandon all the vital energy
> and momentum we have built over this historic past year. We simply can't
> afford to make this mistake. That's why I have launched a petition
> calling on Bernie Sanders to run all the way to November as an
> independent, and to use his campaign as a launch pad for a new political
> party of the 99%."
>
> Sawant immediately continues: "If Bernie's only concern is that running
> independently could open the door to a President Trump, then why could
> he not at least campaign in the 40+ states where it's generally clear
> the Democratic or Republican candidate will win? Even in this way, while
> not putting his name on the ballot in the 5-10 closely contested 'swing
> states,' he could still run an historic campaign if linked to building a
> new party" (emphasis in original).
>
> But Sawant's "new party" in this case is, again, the middle-class,
> pro-capitalist Green Party, which has regularly urged its supporters to
> vote Democrat in "swing states" or simply declined to seek ballot status
> in these "contested states." Sawant's petition calls on Sanders to run
> on the same ticket as the Green Party's presumptive presidential
> candidate, Jill Stein—perhaps to replace Stein on the ballot with Sanders.
>
> Here it is important to remind readers that the terms "independent" and
> "third party" are not always clear. There are several "third parties"
> today, ranging from extreme right-wing expressions of capitalist
> politics like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to liberal,
> reformist Democratic Party-oriented outfits like the Working Families
> Party, to the pro-capitalist Green Party.
>
> In the case of the Green Party, let me remind readers that Green Party
> presidential candidate Ralph Nader achieved ballot status in six states
> via heinous agreements with Patrick Buchanan's incipient fascist Reform
> Party. Nader ran on the Reform Party's ballot line in return for making
> reactionary statements limiting the right of women to abortion and
> restricting immigrants from entering the country. (See Nader's June 21,
> 2004, interview with Patrick Buchanan in the American Conservative.)
>
> None of these "third parties" are independent of and against the
> fundamental capitalist politics of the Democrats and Republicans. Or, to
> be precise, none seek to organize the working class to replace the
> capitalist system with a socialist one—in which the private ownership
> and control of the nation's banks, corporations, and wealth is ended,
> and the vast majority, the 99 percent, act to reorganize society for the
> common good. None are based on, financed, and controlled by
> working-class organizations like trade unions or other democratic mass
> working-class organizations. None, as a matter of class principle,
> reject voting for capitalist parties. Indeed, in local elections, as
> well as national, Greens routinely endorse "progressive" Democrats, and
> in races where the Republican is a bit too overtly reactionary, "not so
> progressive Democrats."
>
> Asking Bernie Sanders, a lifelong capitalist politician with a 98
> percent Democratic Party voting record, to run as a candidate
> independent of and against the party he has assiduously supported for
> his entire career is like asking the proverbial leopard to change its
> spots. Or better, it's akin to yet again playing politics in the ruling
> class' institutional party ballpark.
>
> Today, much of the socialist left has made this choice; some, like the
> Communist Party and Democratic Socialists of America, have habitually
> supported Democrats for many decades. The CP today supports Clinton,
> while the DSA supports Sanders—that is, until Sanders drops out.
>
> Solidarity and the International Socialist Organization call on Sanders
> to run for the presidency as an "independent" or as the Green Party
> candidate. The Workers International League also speaks favorably of an
> "independent" campaign by Sanders. Workers World Party and the Party for
> Socialism and Liberation, both of which have called for votes for
> left-sounding Democrats in the past, including Jesse Jackson, are
> fielding their own presidential candidates this time around, but
> nevertheless have called for Democratic Party primary votes for Sanders.
>
> Keenly aware of the rapidly growing interest in socialist ideas
> generated by capitalism's deepening crises and sparked by the Sanders
> campaign, Socialist Action branches across the country have sponsored a
> series of well-attended public debates where most of the above socialist
> organizations, as well as representatives from the Labor for Bennie
> campaign, shared the platform for fruitful exchanges. While the "lesser
> evil" syndrome was undoubtedly at work in the presentations of these
> socialist groups, we were heartened to see that the Marxist-grounded
> revolutionary socialist ideas of Socialist Action were well received and
> that our proud party, a consistent participant and advocate of
> independent mass-action united-front mobilizations against all aspects
> of capitalist racism and plunder, won new members to the cause of
> socialist revolution.
>
>
>
>
> Share this:
>
> Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
> 43Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)43
> Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
>
>
> May 12, 2016 in Elections, Uncategorized. Tags: Democrats, Kshama
> Sawant, Sanders
>
>
> Related posts
>
>
>
>
>
> Is Sanders campaign a 'new movement'?
>
>
>
>
>
> Socialist Action sponsors election debates
>
>
>
>
>
> Sanders seeks nomination by Democrats
>
>
> Post navigation
>
> ← Verizon workers fight corporate greed
>
>
>
> Newspaper Archives
> Newspaper Archives Select Month May 2016 (4) April 2016 (12) March
> 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
> November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
> (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
> 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
> November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
> (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
> March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
> (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August
> 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
> (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
> 2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
> August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April
> 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
> December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
> 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
> (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011
> (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
> 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
> April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
> December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
> (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
> 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
> 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
> August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
> 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
> December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
> April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
> November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
> (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
> 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
> November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
> (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
> March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
> (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
> 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
> 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
> September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
> September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
> May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
> January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
> (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
> (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
> (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
>
> Search
>
>
> Get Involved
> Donate to help support our work
> Get email updates
> Join Socialist Action
>
> View socialistactionusa's profile on Facebook
> View SocialistActionCT's profile on YouTube
>
>
> Subscribe to Our Newspaper
>
>
>
> Blog at WordPress.com. The Expound Theme.
>
>
>
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)