[mpen-dayton4] FW: "great words (from Bond’s Family)" & "Tobacco + Koch = Tea Party" & "Four votes short (Iran)" & "Iran Update: August 20" & "Bernie takes on the media" and more
FYI. Best, Munsup
P.S. Please reply back to me with 'unsubscribe' added on the subject line if you no longer want to receive
my e-Newsletters. The convenient link to unsubscribe is no longer available due to security reasons.
P.P.S. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest" - Thomas Paine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· FW: Tobacco + Koch = Tea Party
· FW: Tim Wise - "White Like Me"
· FW: Remembering the life and legacy of Julian Bond
· FW: Four votes short (Iran)
· FW: Iran Update: August 20
· FW: "Extremely troublesome"
· FW: [VIDEO] How the Iran nuclear deal benefits terrorists
· FW: S. Korea orders border evacuations as North declares readiness for war following exchange of fire
· FW: The TPP Arbitration Clause
· FW: Bernie takes on the media
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim
Subject: great words (from Bond's Family)
At http://academeblog.org/2015/08/20/remembering-julian-bond/ you'll find a wonderful essay "Remembering Julian Bond" by Robert Borosage. In it, Julian Bond's grandfather is quoted as having said the following while giving the commencement address at Berea College:
"The pessimist from his corner looks out on the world of wickedness and sin, and blinded by all that is good or hopeful in the condition and progress of the human race, bewails the present state of affairs and predicts woeful things for the future."
"In every cloud he beholds a destructive storm, in every flash of lightning an omen of evil, and in every shadow that falls across his path a lurking foe."
"He forgets that the clouds also bring life and hope, that lightning purifies the atmosphere, that shadow and darkness prepare for sunshine and growth, and that hardships and adversity nerve the race, as the individual, for greater efforts and grander victories."
Borsage goes on to write,
"Greater efforts and grander victories." That was the promise made by the generation born in slavery more than 140 years ago. That was the promise made by the generation that won the great world war for democracy more than five decades ago. That was the promise made by those who brought democracy to America's darkest corners four decades ago, and that is the promise we must all seek to honor today.
P.S. The grandfather was, apparently, James Bond. How cool is that!? See https://www.berea.edu/cgwc/tribute-to-james-bonds-family
From: Eric Kramer
Subject: Tobacco + Koch = Tea Party
Is this surprising? I rather think not... 
E
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html
From: Fire2020
Subject: Tim Wise - "White Like Me"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItiXR5m1yAY&feature=share
From: Morris Dees; Founder, Southern Poverty Law Center// FIGHTING HATE // TEACHING TOLERANCE // SEEKING JUSTICE
Subject: Remembering the life and legacy of Julian Bond
Photo credit: The Washington Post
Please help us say farewell to our dear friend Julian Bond this Saturday at 2:00 p.m.
Julian's family will hold a private service in which his ashes will be committed to the Gulf of Mexico. While that ceremony is private, the family asks that you join them in solidarity by spreading flower petals on a body of water:
"Since we fully understand and appreciate that many of you consider Julian to be part of your family and would like to be a part of his official home going, we extend the following invitation.
We invite you to gather at a body of water near your home and precisely at 2:00 p.m. CDT [Saturday, August 22nd], spread flower petals on the water and join us in bidding farewell to Horace Julian Bond.
This gesture will mean a great deal to us as a family and also provide some comfort in knowing that you share our loss."
I encourage you to reflect on Julian's life by reading our commemoration and timeline of his life and accomplishments and a farewell from our Teaching Tolerance program.
We hope you will participate in this celebration of life.
From: Ben & Jerry
Subject: Four votes short (Iran)
It's Ben and Jerry, the co-founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. We're writing today about keeping America out of another war in the Middle East.
Lobbyists and billionaires plan to spend over $40 million to stop the diplomatic deal with Iran—the one the Obama Administration negotiated to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.1 That's dangerous, because if too many Democrats listen to the flood of hawkish, misinformation-ridden TV ads—and if they vote with Republicans—they could override the president's agreement in just about a month.
This agreement is the only peaceful way to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. And it's a critical test for what sort of nation we're going to be. As Senator Bernie Sanders says, "the test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, it is how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner."2
It may seem hard to fight back against $40 million in spending and win. But MoveOn has found a way. It's called a "donor strike"—a pledge to not give money to Democrats who risk taking us to war, and to the party committees (like the DSCC) that support them.
We just joined MoveOn's "donor strike", and we hope you will too. Signing the petition takes just 30 seconds, and it sends an incredibly powerful message.
Click here to sign the petition. Join us in pledging to withhold contributions from Democrats who sabotage diplomacy with Iran.
MoveOn members collectively contribute boatloads of money to Democrats each year—mostly in modest chunks like $5, $25, or $50. But it adds up to millions.
That's why a petition pledging not to contribute a dime to any Democrats who put us on a path to war—or party committees that support them (like the DSCC)—will send a powerful message.
Click here to add your name. Pledge to withhold contributions from Democrats if they undermine diplomacy with Iran and put us on a path to war.
More than 25,000 of us have signed this pledge already, pledging to withhold $11 million in contributions. Now, just imagine if 100,000 or 200,000 of us sign ... Together, we could pledge to withhold $40 million—the amount that's being spent on negative TV ads!
Collectively, we're just as powerful as the billionaires running these ads, if we flex our muscles and make our voices heard.
Signing the petition will take you about 30 seconds. Are you in?
Click here to add your name. Tell Democrats you won't give them your money if they vote to put us on a path to war.
This deal is a victory for our national security, the American people, and folks around the world. It resolves a big-time global security concern without resorting to dropping bombs for ten years. (Think Iraq.)
If the Senate overrides President's Obama's Iran deal, it risks putting us on a path toward war. But despite that—and despite thousands of phone calls, petitions, and meetings—we're still FOUR VOTES SHORT of what we need to stop the Senate from doing just that, according to media reports.3
Click here to sign the petition. Join us in pledging to withhold contributions from Democrats who sabotage diplomacy with Iran.
The bottom line is this: This agreement is the only way to keep us off a path to war.Major national security experts, our nation's top military brass, President Obama, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a whole host of others all agree: the alternative to this diplomatic agreement with Iran would be war.
War means American women and men in uniform will die. It means tens of thousands of civilians will perish. And it means billions—maybe trillions—of taxpayer dollars (which should go to things like green energy development, health care, or schools) will be drained from the federal budget.
You know who would love that? Big military contractors and their armies of lobbyists. But the rest of us would be in deep, deep trouble.
Hell no. Will you join us in sending a not-to-be-missed message to Democrats in Congress by committing to withhold contributions from any Democrat who succeeds in sabotaging President Obama's diplomatic agreement with Iran?
Click here to sign the petition. Tell Democrats you won't give them your money if they vote to put us on a path to war.
Sources:
1. "Big money and ads clash over Iran nuclear deal," USA Today, July 22, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=305727&id=129674-1195276-%3DYvciFx&t=6
2. "Bernie Sanders, After Call From Obama, Announces Support for Iran Deal," The New York Times, August 7, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=306254&id=129674-1195276-%3DYvciFx&t=7
3. "Whip count: Where the Senate stands on the Iran deal," The Washington Post, August 13, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=306202&id=129674-1195276-%3DYvciFx&t=8
Want to support our work? MoveOn member contributions have powered our work together for more than 17 years. Hundreds of thousands of people chip in each year—which is why we're able to be fiercely independent, answering to no individual, corporation, politician, or political party. You can become a monthly donor by clicking here, or chip in a one-time gift here.
From: Brian Shankman, AIPAC Director of Regional Affairs and Development
Subject: Iran Update: August 20
The Associated Press has uncovered a major new development about the proposed nuclear deal and secret side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
According to the report, these "separate arrangements" suggest that Iran will be entrusted to deploy its own inspectors as part of the IAEA's investigation of the Parchin military facility—where Iran is believed to have carried out illicit nuclear weaponization activities.
By allowing Iran a lead role in the investigation of its nuclear activities, the deal undermines the IAEA's credibility and suggests that the full extent of Iran's weaponization efforts will never be known.
As The Wall Street Journal suggested in an important editorial last night, "the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program will now be trusted to come clean about those lies."
Please click here to contact your members of Congress now, and urge them to reject a deal that relies on Iranian self-inspection.
As more details come to light about this deal, it is increasingly clear that it fails to meet congressional standards of a good deal.
According to a new CNN/ORC poll released today, 56% of Americans now say they think Congress should reject the deal with Iran.
J.B. Pritzker, a former co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and a self-declared "lifelong Democrat," reiterated this point in an op-ed published today. "For the sake of our values and our security, Congress should reject this deal, leave the sanctions in place, and support efforts to negotiate a better agreement."
Please share these articles with those in your network, and urge your family and friends to contact Congress today. Your leadership is essential to ensuring our lawmakers in Washington understand the grave dangers of this deal.
Please call and email Congress today.
From: Rebecca Vilkomerson; Executive Director of JVP
Subject: "Extremely troublesome"
Don't let the opponents of the Iran Deal get the upper hand –
visit www.diplomacynotwar.org to stop them in their tracks.
Netanyahu wants war.
If you want peace,
email Congressnow.
The Jewish Federation of Detroit? Opposed to the Iran Deal.
The Jewish Federation of Miami? Opposed to the Iran Deal.
The Jewish Federation of Orange County? They find it "Extremely troublesome."
AIPAC? Don't get me started.
When these major Jewish communal organizations oppose the Iran deal, they're not speaking up for their members: most Jews in the U.S. support the Iran Deal. They're not speaking for security experts and foreign-policy analysts: hundreds are on record for the deal. They're speaking for their donors, and for the old guard of Jewish institutional gatekeepers.
In the last couple of weeks, two prominent Senators - New Jersey's Bob Menendez and New York's Chuck Schumer - have announced they'll oppose the deal. That means there are now two senior Democratic Senators who've said they'd rather march into another horrific, pointless war like Iraq than stand up to Netanyahu -- and they could bring others with them. We need to work harder than ever to make sure we convince other Senators and Representatives to support the deal.
JVP is fighting back, and we need you standing with us. We're sending our message to Congress loud and clear -- we support Diplomacy, not War.
Click here to visit DiplomacyNotWar.org and contact Rep. Michael Turner, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Sen. Rob Portman in support of diplomacy.
We can't let them win -- not with so much at stake. Several Senators are still on the fence, so we need to make sure they hear our message: As Jews and allies, as Americans and others, we stand strong for peace.
We've already sent over 50,000 messages to Congress, urging Senators and Representatives to support the Iran Deal. But that's nowhere near enough. AIPAC is dumping millions of dollars into slick campaigns to bully elected officials into voting their way. We don't have Sheldon Adelson's big bucks, but we do have you. And your voice matters.
Will you add your name and contact Rep. Michael Turner, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and Sen. Rob Portman now?
This deal can stand - it has to stand. And we're the ones who have to make it happen
From: Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, Alert@nuclearfreeiran.org
Subject: [VIDEO] How the Iran nuclear deal benefits terrorists
General David A. Deptula is a retired 3-star general with 34 years of service under his belt. An iconic airman, Deptula is a highly regarded security expert who has spent his career defending the United States and leading US assistance to victims of natural disasters across the world.
At this moment, the Iran nuclear deal and how Congress will vote worries General Deptula. Here's why: The deal increases the likelihood of terrorists getting ahold of a nuclear weapon. That poses a major threat to the United States and our allies.
Watch our TV spot highlighting General Deptula's problem with the Iran nuclear agreement.
P.S. After you watch General Deptula's message, make sure to call your member of Congress and urge them to reject a bad nuclear deal with Iran.
From: CLG_News
Subject: S. Korea orders border evacuations as North declares readiness for war following exchange of fire
News Updates from CLG
21 August 2015; http://www.legitgov.org/
All links are here: http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
S. Korea orders border evacuations as North declares readiness for war following exchange of fire | 21 Aug 2015 | South Korean sources claim there is evidence that North Korea is about to test-fire short and medium-range missiles, a source said. It comes a day after the two rival nations exchanged artillery fire across the border. "The North is showing signs of deploying a Scud missile near Wonsan and a Rodong missile in the North Pyeongan Province," a government source told the Yonhap news agency, citing data from a radar system that South Korean and US military operate jointly. "It seems that (the North) is weighing the timing of the firing under its strategic intention to increase military tension on the Korean Peninsula to the highest level," the source noted...The leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un has ordered frontline combined forces to enter a state of war from 5:00p.m. (0830 GMT) on Friday, the official KCNA news agency reports.
Kim Jong-un orders North Korean frontline troops onto war footing --Supreme Leader orders his troops to be in a 'wartime state' after exchange of artillery fire with South Korea | 21 Aug 2015 | Kim Jong-un has ordered front-line North Korean troops onto a war-footing as tensions on the border with South Korea soared following an exchange of artillery fire. South Korea fired dozens of artillery rounds towards North Korea during the day after the North shelled across the border to protest against anti-Pyongyang propaganda broadcasts by Seoul - the first exchange of fire in 10 months. In the early hours of Friday morning, North Korea's Supreme Leader ordered his troops to be in a "wartime state".
Top British politician likens US troops to ISIS: Labour party frontrunner compared fanatics' barbarity to Americans in Iraq during TV interview | 21 Aug 2015 | Jeremy Corbyn [accurately] compared Islamic State brutality to US military action in Iraq in a TV interview, it emerged yesterday. The Labour leadership frontrunner called for 'acceptance and understanding' of IS supporters while speaking on Russia Today, the Kremlin-backed broadcaster, in June last year. He only condemned 'some' of the brutal regime's actions in Iraq, saying: 'Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what American forces did in Fallujah and other places is quite appalling.'
To read more, please visit here http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
*****
CLG needs your support. http://www.legitgov.org/donate.html
Or, please mail a check or m*ney order to CLG:
Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG) P.O. Box 1142,
Bristol, CT 06011-1142
Contributions to CLG are not tax deductible.
Feel free -- and CLG encourages you -- to forward this newsletter to your lists and friends!
CLG Editor-in-Chief: Lori Price. Copyright © 2015, Citizens for Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved.
From: khalfani718
Subject: The TPP Arbitration Clause
FYI From CLG News. – K
Critics of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal warn about arbitration clause | 19 Aug 2015 | When Australia began prohibiting brand logos and requiring grim pictures of smoking-borne diseases on cigarette packs, tobacco giant Philip Morris fired back using a novel tactic. It turned to an obscure dispute-arbitration clause in a 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to argue that the Australian government's new public-health law amounted to discrimination [!] and an expropriation of a foreign investment. That case, which is pending, illustrates what opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say they fear most about the nearly completed tradecorporate takeover pact: that it will benefit big corporations at the expense of consumers and workers. The provision allows multinational investors to sue foreign governments for expropriation and unfair or unequal treatment, giving them the ability to bring cases before a special, extrajudicial arbitration tribunal that is unavailable to domestic investors.
From the LA Times
Critics of Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal warn about arbitration clause
by Don Lee
When Australia began prohibiting brand logos and requiring grim pictures of smoking-borne diseases on cigarette packs, tobacco giant Philip Morris fired back using a novel tactic.
It turned to an obscure dispute-arbitration clause in a 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong to argue that the Australian government's new public-health law amounted to discrimination and an expropriation of a foreign investment.
That case, which is pending, illustrates what opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say they fear most about the nearly completed trade pact: that it will benefit big corporations at the expense of consumers and workers.
Few things have galvanized critics of the 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal as much as an arbitration clause aimed at protecting foreign businesses from the hazards of investing in countries with weak rule of law and unstable governments.
The provision allows multinational investors to sue foreign governments for expropriation and unfair or unequal treatment, giving them the ability to bring cases before a special, extrajudicial arbitration tribunal that is unavailable to domestic investors.
Though the clause is already common in hundreds of existing treaties around the world, critics fear that the largely secretive arbitration mechanism, however well-intended, will increasingly be exploited by large companies to demand compensation for or exemptions from certain laws and policies meant for the public good.
Although there are not yet any known cases in which multinational companies have succeeded in rolling back such a law, critics of the trade deal point to several cases that they fear could yield that result or chill other nations from enacting similar measures.
Even though Australia's High Court upheld the legality of the cigarette-packaging rule when challenged by other companies, New York-based Philip Morris was still able to able to take action under Australia's treaty with Hong Kong by using a Hong Kong-based unit of the company.
Though the U.S. also has a trade pact with Australia, Philip Morris could not seek a claim under that accord because Australia had refused to include an investor-state dispute settlement provision in the agreement with the U.S.
In another case, Lone Pine Resources, a Canadian firm, is using the fact that it is incorporated in Delaware to access the dispute clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is seeking $250 million in damages from the Canadian government after the province of Quebec issued a moratorium on the controversial drilling method known as fracking.
Opponents of the arbitration provision warn that it's only a matter of time before foreign companies or even perhaps U.S. companies with foreign subsidiaries ramp up their use of the dispute-settlement process to avoid U.S. courts and fight American laws.
"What makes us think we couldn't face a similar challenge?" said Ben Beachy, research director on trade at Public Citizen, a watchdog group and leading critic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Dozens of law school professors — including noted Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe — along with environmentalists, health policy experts and other civil society groups, have raised similar concerns. The issue is certain to heat up once negotiations for the trade pact conclude, possibly in the next few weeks, and details of the sweeping trade accord are disclosed to the public.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the most vocal critics of the investor-state dispute settlement clause, argued in a recent Washington Post opinion piece that the Pacific trade deal "would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations" and "undermine U.S. sovereignty."
Obama administration officials respond that similar arbitration procedures are used every day by businesses, governments and individuals to resolve conflicts. Protection of a citizen's property is a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, Jeffrey Zients, a top economic advisor to Obama, wrote in a White House blog.
"Unfortunately, foreign courts have not always respected this principle," he said, "and U.S. investors often face a heightened risk of bias or discrimination when abroad."
Zients noted that there have been only 13 investor-state dispute settlement cases brought to judgment against the American government — and the U.S. has won them all.
U.S. business groups said opponents of the arbitration provision have misstated or grossly exaggerated the facts.
For one thing, most of cases brought worldwide under investor-state arbitration processes since the 1960s have come from individuals and small and medium-sized businesses, not large multinational corporations, said Linda Dempsey, vice president of international economics at the National Assn. of Manufacturers.
Such investors include Spence International Investments of El Dorado Hills, Calif., and its partners. They sued the government of Costa Rica in 2013 for alleged expropriation of prime beachfront land that they had planned to develop. Spence filed the case under the investor-state dispute clause in the U.S. free-trade agreement with Central American nations known as CAFTA. The suit is pending.
Dempsey said it's also inaccurate to suggest that any of these decisions, typically rendered by a panel of three lawyers, can overturn a law or policy of a sovereign state. Dempsey noted that the cases most cited by detractors, including the suits by Philip Morris and Lone Pine, haven't been decided yet.
Investors and trade businesses need such legal protections, Dempsey said, particularly in places with high corruption and authoritarian regimes. Governments have been known to send in armies to take over foreign cement plants, gas fields and other operations, as they have done in Venezuela and Russia.
"You are subjecting yourselves to the rules and whims of foreign governments," Dempsey said.
Still, the surge in the number of these investor suits in recent years, including some contentious cases challenging national social goals, has prompted some governments to reassess the need for having an arbitration procedure.
South Africa and Indonesia plan to pull out of or let expire trade agreements with such clauses. Germany has been having second thoughts too after it was sued by a Swedish utility in the wake of Germany's decision to stop using nuclear power. With France and some others also wary of the investor provision, that could complicate free-trade negotiations between the U.S. and the European Union.
Since both the U.S. and the EU have well-developed, independent legal systems, many question why a separate arbitration system is needed, according to Rachel Wellhausen, an international investment specialist at the University of Texas at Austin.
In the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the provision on investor-state arbitration is very strong on transparency, according to draft texts leaked in 2012 and in March. Whenever a lawsuit is filed, for example, it would have to be made public.
Even so, Australia is said to be resisting the inclusion of the arbitration clause, and some other member nations are seeking certain exemptions from such investor suits, including a carve-out for tobacco companies.
Wellhausen's research has turned up 686 investor-state dispute cases since 1990, when the majority of such suits started to be filed. Nobody knows the actual number of investor-state cases because dispute-settlement provisions generally don't require filings to be made public.
Details of proceedings often are kept under wraps, too. Complainants have included firms from all sectors, though utilities and gas and oil topped the list. Companies are of all sizes, though the rising cost of litigation is making it increasingly harder for the mom-and-pop investor, she said.
Of the known closed cases, she said, about a third were won by investors, a third by governments and the remaining third settled, suggesting that companies have had an edge because settlements generally mean compensation to the investor.
Wellhausen counted 147 suits brought by U.S. firms, more than from any other nation. The number is probably higher as some American corporations hold multiple nationalities.
Mobil Corp., for instance, used a Dutch-based unit to file a case in 2007 against Venezuela under the Netherlands-Venezuela investment treaty. Seven years later the company won $1.6 billion plus costs in compensation for assets seized by the country under the late socialist President Hugo Chavez.
To date, most of the investor-state cases have been against developing countries, but the share of suits brought against governments of developed nations has been increasing. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes a mix of economies at different stages of development, Mexico and Vietnam on one end and the U.S. and Japan on the other.
The investor arbitration clause in the Pacific accord is expected to function similarly to what's in the North American Free Trade Agreement and other treaties. Deciding the case would be one arbitrator chosen by the plaintiff, one by the state and the third agreed to by both sides. There would be no appeal process.
Arbitrators are often corporate lawyers paid up to $700 an hour, and it takes time to sift through arguments on complex cases and determine what may constitute expropriation or unfair treatment, terms that leave considerable room for interpretation.
Wellhausen, the University of Texas scholar, said the best argument for the investor-state settlement system is that it helps boost investment flows. But on that, she says, the data is decidedly mixed.
"If it does work [in promoting investments], it's on the margins," she said.
don.lee@latimes.com; Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
From: Eric Kramer
Subject: Bernie takes on the media
Thought you'd appreciate this. He's easily the most open, honest and clearheaded candidate in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGv2SPB8pNU
Eric
End of MPEN e-Newsletter
posted by lucas at 7:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home