[mpen-dayton4] FW: "save the world" & "No child should stand alone in court" & "DT could" & "Is Hillary a Neo-Con, a Neo-Lib or Both?" & and more
FYI. Best, Munsup
P.S. Please reply back to me with 'unsubscribe' 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 to protect my email servers.
P.P.S. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest" - Thomas Paine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· FW: save the world
· FW: Fight for the open net - stop the rate regulation bill
· FW: No child should stand alone in court
· FW: Bernie Sanders [PETITION]: Stop President Obama's deportation raids
· FW: SHAMEFUL. Two months and counting...
· FW: GOP Obstruction by the numbers (UNPRECEDENTED)
· FW: DT could
· FW: Elizabeth Warren vs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (update)
· FW: Violence Is The Crutch Of Those Incapable Of A Real Political Revolution,
Harrison Reports On The NV Democratic Convention Turmoil And More
· FW: Consortium News - Political Look in the Past
· FW: Is Hillary a Neo-Con, a Neo-Lib or Both?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Lucas; Member, Veterans for Peace From: MARGARET PETERS | |
|
|
From: Donna De La Cruz, Reform Immigration FOR America
Subject: No child should stand alone in court
How old does a person need to be to be able to represent themselves in court? 21? 18? 15?
A senior Justice Department immigration judge said earlier this year that children as young as 3- or 4-years-old could stand alone in immigration court without a lawyer.
While the Obama Administration targets Central American refugee families for deportation, many young children are forced to go through the deportation process without ever speaking to a lawyer. That is outrageous. Add your name to call on President Obama to correct this breach of justice.
Seoh, I've written to you before on the many ways our immigration system is outdated or dysfunctional--but this is a new low.
With growing violence and instability in Central American countries, many young families are heading north to seek refuge from violence in the United States. We have a humanitarian obligation to help these children and mothers, but the President's response has been to shunt these refugees through the deportation process as quickly and quietly as possible.
Many of these families don't have a legal advocate with them throughout this process, but you can advocate for their rights today by telling President Obama to provide legal counsel for all children in immigration hearings. Add your name to the petition today!
From: Judy Burnette
Subject: FW: Bernie Sanders [PETITION]: Stop President Obama's deportation raids
" ... Donald Trump has of course called for building a 'Great Wall' along the border with Mexico.
Hillary Clinton previously said that these same children who fled violence in Latin America 'should be sent back' in order to 'send a clear message.'
I happen to see things differently ... " - JB
Sign my petition asking President Obama to stop his plans for raids and deportations of hundreds of women and children who fled horrific violence in Latin America.
My father Eli immigrated to America from Poland in 1921 after World War I at the age of 17. He was not a refugee fleeing war, although much of his family later became victims of the Holocaust. He came to America looking to make a better life. He never made a lot of money, but it didn't matter because he was able to start a family and send his two sons to college. That meant the world to him and he loved this country.
While my father came here as an immigrant seeking economic opportunity, many immigrants arrived in our country fleeing war, oppression and violence. This is true today for thousands of women and unaccompanied children who came to our country in the last several years fleeing horrific violence in Latin America.
This week the media reported something that I find not just wrong, but inhumane: President Obama is currently planning "a month-long series of raids in May and June to deport hundreds of Central American mothers and children" who came to our country fleeing that same violence.
Sending women and children back into harm's way after they already fled horrendous violence in Central America is painful and inhumane, and must be stopped.
Sign my petition asking President Obama to stop these raids and to make sure that families fleeing violence in Central America are protected from deportation.
Sign My Petition »
Donald Trump has of course called for building a "Great Wall" along the border with Mexico. Hillary Clinton previously said that these same children who fled violence in Latin America "should be sent back" in order to "send a clear message."
I happen to see things differently. I don't believe that the United States should turn away from our historic role as a haven for the oppressed.
I recently met a young Salvadoran woman who came to the United States on her own at the age of 15 to flee gangs trying to recruit her. I've also spoken with many children who have told me with tears streaming down their faces that they live in daily fear that their parents will be taken away.
The United States of America must continue to be a refuge for the poor, the tired, the oppressed, and certainly for women and children fleeing horrific violence.
I urge President Obama to use his executive authority to protect families by extending Temporary Protective Status for those who fled from Central America, and I ask you to join me.
Add your name to mine to ask President Obama to stop planned raids and deportations of families fleeing violence in Central and Latin America.
Together, we can speak up to protect these families.
Paid for by Bernie 2016
From: Alex Hart, Online Team; PFAW Supreme Court Campaign
Subject: SHAMEFUL. Two months and counting...
|
Senate Republicans' partisan blockade of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court is filled with hypocrisy and disrespect for the President, the Court, and the Constitution.
Do you agree?
Demand that Republican senators do their job and give the president's nominee a hearing and a vote!>>
This week marks TWO MONTHS since President Obama did his job and nominated DC Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Republican senators, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, continue to block the most basic, fair consideration of this eminently qualified and respected nominee.
They are refusing to do their constitutional duty … all to preserve the chance for a President Donald Trump to name the next Supreme Court justice!
Tell GOP senators: give the president's nominee a hearing and a vote>>
We need you to help keep the heat on obstructionist Republican senators.
We're using every pressure point we can. Many of these senators are up for re-election, and their blockade of the Supreme Court vacancy is tremendously unpopular. Many of them are going against things they've said in the past about the Senate's job in considering and approving Court nominees AND about the nominee, Merrick Garland, himself -- and we're exposing their hypocrisy.
Some of these Republican senators insist that waiting until after the election will let "the people" have a say in who replaces Justice Scalia, but the people already did have a say when they elected, and then re-elected, President Obama.
Some of these Republicans are more honest, and fully admit that their unprecedented obstruction is about keeping the ideological balance on the Court from shifting.
This partisan power play is shameful. It's already been more than two months…
Please add your name to demand that Republicans stop their obstruction of the Garland nomination>>
After you take action, please share and spread the word.
From: Ben Betz; Online Engagement Director, People For the American Way
Subject: GOP Obstruction by the numbers (UNPRECEDENTED)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is the reason President Obama's Supreme Court nominee has not had a hearing -- or even had one scheduled.
He's also the reason the lower federal courts are in a judicial CRISIS, with vacancies piling up that are crippling the courts and leading to countless Americans being denied access to justice.
As Judiciary Chair, Grassley has so much power. If he abandons his unprecedented partisan obstruction and shows leadership by DOING HIS JOB, he could likely bring a wave of GOP senators with him and actually solve the judicial crisis instead of exacerbating it.
But Sen. Grassley's shown that he is not going to do the right thing on his own, and that's why we need to turn up the heat and ramp up some serious grassroots pressure on him right away.
Sign the petition: Demand Chairman Grassley STOP his judicial obstruction>>
Now for some numbers…
Including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, there are currently 57 pending federal court nominees!
The total number of current vacancies has nearly DOUBLED since Grassley took over as Judiciary Committee Chair, going from the low 40s now to 81!
When Democrats had a Senate majority under President George W. Bush, then-Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy worked with senators to confirm 45 Bush judges compared to just 17 Obama judges confirmed under Grassley in a similar timeframe.
In the past 16 months, the Senate has confirmed just 17 of president Obama's judicial nominees. In the same period in 2007-08, under President George W. Bush, the Democratic-majority Senate confirmed 45. And in 1991-92, with a Democratic majority under President George H.W. Bush, the Senate confirmed 82.[1]
So, under Chairman Grassley's "leadership", the Republican Senate is confirming just 38% as many judges as the Democratic Senate in 2008 and 21% as many as the Democratic Senate in 1992.
The pace of judicial confirmations under Chairman Chuck Grassley has been GLACIAL … and it's totally unacceptable.
Please join us in demanding that Sen. Grassley END his obstruction>>
The lower federal courts where these vacancies are stacking up are tremendously important. While the Supreme Court hears roughly 100 cases per year, federal district courts across the country hear about 350,000. And the decisions of those courts are the final word around 90% of the time.
The number of formally-designated "Judicial Emergencies" -- where the per-judge caseload is high enough that Americans in those jurisdictions are being denied access to justice -- has nearly tripled in the last two years, from 12 in January 2014, to 32 in April 2016!
From: Andrew Tierman
Subject: DT could
DT could win, despite lib myths contra; see succinct video at
https://www.facebook.com/moveon/videos/vb.7292655492/10153454110680493/?type=2&theater
and share the worry!
From: Emma Crossen, Courage Campaign
Subject: Elizabeth Warren vs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (update)
The big Wall Street banks have a new best friend in Washington. Her name is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and she's the head of the Democratic National Committee.
Representative Wasserman Schultz has raised millions of dollars from big banks.(1),(2) And now she's co-sponsoring legislation to block Senator Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from cracking down on predatory payday lenders.
But thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of Courage Campaign members, she's facing enormous pressure to end her attacks on the CFPB. For the first time ever, she's facing a progressive primary challenger, and yesterday, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski called on her to step down from her role as DNC chair.(3)
We're turning up the heat on Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and demanding that the CFPB be allowed to do its job. Will you chip in?
Payday lenders are notoriously-predatory short-term loan operations that target low-income communities and communities of color to charge interest rates that would make a loan shark blush.(4)
It's exactly the kind of abusive behavior that inspired Sen. Warren to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the first place.
Unless top Democrats like Rep. Wasserman Schultz team up with Republicans in Congress to block the CFPB, we are confident that the CFPB will lay down the law with payday lenders.
That's why it's so important that we keep up the pressure to hold Rep. Wasserman Schultz accountable -- and show other Democrats that we won't stand for this kind of behavior.
Will you join us in standing with Sen. Elizabeth Warren's CPFB by making a donation today?
Thank you for fighting for a fair economy,
Emma, along with Annie, Eddie, Kelsey, Laura, Lindsay, Moonyoung, Scottie, and Tim (the Courage team)
1. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/3238?t=5&akid=2776.790590.7aT0AW
2. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/3239?t=7&akid=2776.790590.7aT0AW
3. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/3240?t=9&akid=2776.790590.7aT0AW
4. http://act.couragecampaign.org/go/2660?t=11&akid=2776.790590.7aT0AW
From: tbacane
Subject: FW: Violence Is The Crutch Of Those Incapable Of A Real Political Revolution, Harrison Reports On The NV Democratic Convention Turmoil And More
While we must condemn all violence we must remain aware that the Orange Clown and his puppets may well engage in "FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS", making it appear that those who oppose them are the violent ones. Don't fall for their tricks!
The Pen wrote on May 17, 2016 that:
There is no excuse, none whatsoever, for violence in the purported service of a political campaign, or even the threat of violence. It is the crutch response of those who couldn't find real political power with both hands if it was dropped in their laps.
When Trump supporters engage in such behavior they are righteously condemned. Such are the tactics of fascists, and those who play into the hands of fascists.
Which is why they are no less reprehensible when the guilty parties are those who claim to be on our side. No true supporter of Bernie Sanders, and what he stands for, would do any such thing.
By now you may have heard about the peaceful, though raucous, disruption at the NV Democratic convention. Our own man Harrison has coverage on this, and live testimony about what actually happened there, in a special emergency installment of the Smart Show on UTalk, the revolutionary new internet radio interface, including the participation of legendary investigative reporter Greg Palast and more.
NV Convention Uproar: https://www.utalk.us/?s=jvZplwqq16
Check it out, and please make a contribution to support Harrison's vitally important work for you, if you can, right on the same page where you can listen to the segment now.
It is clear that the NV Democratic Party schemed to disqualify enough Sanders delegates to the state convention to gain an advantage for Clinton in the delegates to be sent to the national convention itself. And the reason why it rises to the level of a scheme is because the disqualified delegates were not given fair advance notice and an opportuntity to challenge their disqualification.
In effect they arrived to vote and were told on the spot that they had been purged.
Anyone in their right mind should have known this would breed discord.
But none of this is any excuse for reports that in the aftermath of this the cell phone number of the NV Democratic chair was leaked, who now claims to have received death threats.
Some of this may be hyperbole. And there has been no actual violence that we know of.
But this in unacceptable.
This is not the political revolution we are interested in.
And what makes it even more stupid is that it was over a mere 2 delegates out of nearly 5,000 to choose a presidential nominee.
If you are resentful, you have a right to be resentful, given the other unfair advantages build into this system for Clinton's behalf.But channel your resentment into making phone calls for Bernie in the remaining primary states.
If you are angry, have every reason to be angry. But channel your anger into knocking on doors for Bernie in the remaining primary states.
And especially, we need 100,000 action page submissions RIGHT NOW protesting the tilting of the Democratic convention committees.
This is a winnable fight, as winnable as the other political victories we are scoring with our dedicated fax server right now. But we are stalling here at about 13,000 at the moment. For crying out loud, we've distributed more FREE Bernie bumper stickers to you folks than that.
Tell The DNC, Stacking Committees NOT Fair: https://www.utalk.us/?a=proportional_committees
We have given you every political tool you need to bring about as much political change as you could wish for. We have dedicated our lives to creating these resources.
And if you have not responded to this call to action yet, all you have to do is get off of "they'll never listen to us" whatevers, and fully use them, at the cost of one click of a mouse.
The one thing that we can promise you will NOT work, the one thing that can discredit in a heartbeat all the good work we and so many others do, is violence.
Use these sharing links to post this the convention protest action to all your favorite social media sites. It may in fact be the only way to save the Democratic party from itself.
#showThem Twitter: https://www.utalk.us/showThem.php?s=twitter
#showThem Facebook: https://www.utalk.us/showThem.php?s=facebook
#showThem GooglePlus: https://www.utalk.us/showThem.php?s=google
Do it EVERY day, and add a personal comment or minor modification so it's not treated like a duplicate.
If you are angry and resentful, THIS is your path to victory, MASS numbers speaking out, not isolated individual counterproductive threats of lone wolf violence, whether actually acted on or not.
Anyone who would even think about making a death threat is a political chucklehead, and an enemy of real positive political change.
Violence is the first resort of those who could not mobilize their way out of paper bag.
Violence is the path to one thing and one thing only ... political represssion.
And by the way, if you appreciate the force we are for positive progressive political change, and want to help us continue to expand our work for positive progressive change, here is a direct Paypal link you can use.
https://www.utalk.us/donate_paypal.php
Or click on any of the gift or donate links in the new UTalk internet radio interface, where we are empowering you to make your actual voice heard, and all you have to do is upload an mp3 for that.
UTalk For Mobiles & Desktops: https://www.utalk.us
Or if you just feel inspired to drop a check in the mail, here is the address for that.
The People's Email Network, PO Box 35022, L.A., CA 90035
We are making as much peace as we can here, folks.
You may forward this message to any friends who would find it important.
Contributions to The People's Email Network or ActBlue are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
From: Thomas Scott
Subject: Consortium News - Political Look in the Past
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/13/ghosts-of-68-in-election-2016/
| |||||||
|
| | | | | | |
Ghosts of '68 in Election 2016 – Consortiumnews Longtime observers of American politics have noted striking parallels between the unpredictable wartime election of 1968 and the bizarre presidential contest of 201... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
| |||||||
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/13/lbjs-x-file-on-nixons-treason-3/
| |||||||
|
| | | | | | |
LBJ's 'X' File on Nixon's 'Treason' – Consortiumnews From the Archive: The 1968 election had one shocking turn after another, but its final and arguably worst twist – still largely unknown to Americans – traded untold... | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
| |||||||
From: albert baca
Subject: Fw: Is Hillary a Neo-Con, a Neo-Lib or Both?
I report. You decide. Is this going to be a difficult election?
In a message I sent last night entitled, "We Came, We Saw, He Died", I stated I didn't particularly like the Hill and would have to hold my nose while I voted for her as I could never vote for Trump. I am sending some more info so you can better understand my dilemma.
You know I read comments. There are so many comments where people state that they can never vote for Hillary. They state that they will either vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party or write in Bernie.
SO DON'T BE TOO SURPRISED IF TRUMP BEATS HILLARY. Remember what this message says if Trump is the next president.
Our "dumbed down" country is too dumb to understand what Bernie is talking about. Faux Noise, Yell Radio and El Rusho have seen to that. Bernie is really talking the same talk as FDR did when selling "The New Deal" and LBJ did when selling the "War on Poverty." Why are Americans so dumb? I know. Blame it on the teachers. They get blamed for everything else.
As far as I am concerned, domestically, things started going to hell when Tricky replaced LBJ. Carter paid the price for Tricky's and Henry's stupidity (The Oil Shocks and Tricky's Inflation) and then St. Ronnie and Poppy Bush said "bend over suckers" to the middle class and the poor. Slick Willie did some dumb things too so Slick Willie didn't help much but it was a small respite. When the SCOTUS said "Merry Christmas" to the puppet Shrub and his string puller, Cheney, we had a fairly big recession in the Shrub's first term and a giant one in the Shrub's second term. Did those ever hurt? Around here, damn near 8 years later, there are still plenty of homes in foreclosure. Poor people.
YIPEE YI YAY KI OH !!!! Was that ever good for Wall Street and the Banks? You bet. Money makes the world go round. Especially if you have a gazillion dollars stashed in the Cayman Islands.
Obama was given a mandate to fix things when he beat McCain and Sister Sarah - but Obama proceeded to play footsie with the GOP to try to do things in a bipartisan nature. Big mistake. There was no bipartisanship as the GOPers were determined to obstruct Obama since day 1. Does that qualify as racism? What do you think? Just asking?
Which brings to mind, why doesn't the Senate approve Merrick Garland for the SCOTUS? Garland is far from being a liberal ideologue. I will bet anybody a dollar to a dime that if the Hill wins the election, the Senate will quickly approve Garland for fear the Hill would nominate somebody who is left of Garland. That tells me McConnell is merely obstructing Obama.
For a different view on what I have ranted about, read what the premier right wing think tank had to say about LBJ's War on Poverty:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
To the article on Neo Cons, Neo Libs, and Hillary:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/11/neocons-and-neolibs-how-dead-ideas-kill/
NEOCONS AND NEOLIBS: HOW DEAD IDEAS KILL
May 11, 2016
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton wants the American voters to be very afraid of Donald Trump, but there is reason to fear as well what a neoconservative/neoliberal Clinton presidency would mean for the world, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
For centuries hereditary monarchy was the dominant way to select national leaders, evolving into an intricate system that sustained itself through power and propaganda even as its ideological roots shriveled amid the Age of Reason. Yet, as monarchy became a dead idea, it still killed millions in its death throes.
Today, the dangerous "dead ideas" are neoconservatism and its close ally, neoliberalism. These are concepts that have organized American foreign policy and economics, respectively, over the past several decades – and they have failed miserably, at least from the perspective of average Americans and people of the nations on the receiving end of these ideologies.
Neither approach has benefited mankind. Both have led to untold death and destruction; yet the twin "neos" have built such a powerful propaganda and political apparatus, especially in Official Washington, that they will surely continue to wreak havoc for years to come. They are zombie ideas and they kill.
Yet, the Democratic Party is poised to nominate an adherent to both "neos" in the person of Hillary Clinton. Rather than move forward from President Barack Obama's unease with what he calls the Washington "playbook," the Democrats are retreating into its perceived safety.
After all, the Washington Establishment remains enthralled to both "neos," favoring the "regime change" interventionism of neoconservatism and the "free trade" globalism of neoliberalism. So, Clinton has emerged as the clear favorite of the elites, at least since the field of alternatives has narrowed to populist billionaire Donald Trump and democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.
Democratic Party insiders appear to be counting on the mainstream news media and prominent opinion-leaders to marginalize Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, and to finish off Sanders, who faces long odds against Clinton's delegate lead for the Democratic nomination, especially among the party regulars known as "super-delegates."
But the Democratic hierarchy is placing this bet on Clinton in a year when much of the American electorate has risen up against the twin "neos," exhausted by the perpetual wars demanded by the neoconservatives and impoverished by the export of decent-paying manufacturing jobs driven by the neoliberals.
Though much of the popular resistance to the "neos" remains poorly defined in the minds of rebellious voters, the common denominator of the contrasting appeals of Trump and Sanders is that millions of Americans are rejecting the "neos" and repudiating the establishment institutions that insist on sustaining these ideologies.
THE PRESSING QUESTION
Thus, the pressing question for Campaign 2016 is whether America will escape from the zombies of the twin "neos" or spend the next four years surrounded by these undead ideas as the world lurches closer to an existential crisis.
The main thing that the zombie "neos" have going for them is that the vast majority of Very Important People in Official Washington have embraced these concepts and have achieved money and fame as a result. These VIPs are no more likely to renounce their fat salaries and overblown influence than the favored courtiers of a King or Queen would side with the unwashed rabble.
The "neo" adherents are also very skilled at framing issues to their benefit, made easier by the fact that they face almost no opposition or resistance from the mainstream media or the major think tanks.
The neoconservatives have become Washington's foreign policy establishment, driving the old-time "realists" who favored more judicious use of American power to the sidelines.
Meanwhile, the neoliberals dominate economic policy debates, treating the "markets" as some new-age god and "privatization" of public assets as scripture. They have pushed aside the old New Dealers who called for a robust government role to protect the people from the excesses of capitalism and to build public infrastructure to benefit the nation as a whole.
The absence of any strong resistance to the now dominant "neo" ideologies is why we saw the catastrophic "group think" over Iraq's WMD in 2003 and why for many years no one of great significance dared question the benefits of "free trade."
After all, both strategies benefited the elites. Neoconservative warmongering diverted trillions of dollars into the Military-Industrial Complex and neoliberal job outsourcing has made billions of dollars for individual corporate executives and stock investors on Wall Street.
Those interests have, in turn, kicked back a share of the proceeds to fund Washington think tanks, to finance news outlets, and to lavish campaign donations and speaking fees on friendly politicians. So, for the insiders, this game has been a case of win-win.
THE LOSERS
Not so much for the "losers," those average citizens who have seen the Great American Middle Class hollowed out over the past few decades, watched America's public infrastructure decay, and worried about their sons and daughters being sent off to fight unnecessary, perpetual and futile wars.
But inundated with clever propaganda – and scrambling to make ends meet – most Americans see the reality as if through a glass darkly. Many of them, as Barack Obama indelicately said during the 2008 campaign, "cling to guns or religion." They have little else – and many are killing themselves with opiates that dull their pain or with those guns that they see as their last link to "freedom."
What is clear, however, is that large numbers don't trust – and don't want – Hillary Clinton, who had a net 24-point unfavorable rating in one recent poll. It turns out that another indelicate Obama comment from Campaign 2008 may not have been true, when he vouched that "you're likable enough, Hillary." For many Americans, that's not the case (although Trump trumped Clinton with a 41-point net negative).
If the Democrats do nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be hoping that the neocon/neolib establishment can so demonize Donald Trump that a plurality of Americans will vote for the former Secretary of State out of abject fear over what crazy things the narcissistic billionaire might do in the White House.
Trump's policy prescriptions have been all over the place – and it is hard to know what reflects his actual thinking (or his genuine ignorance) as opposed to what constitutes his skillful showmanship that made him the "survivor" in the real-life reality TV competition for the Republican nomination.
Does Trump really believe that global warming is a hoax or is he just pandering to the know-nothing element of the Republican Party? Does he actually consider Obama's Iran nuclear deal to be a disaster or is he just playing to the hate-Obama crowd on the Right?
OPPOSING THE 'NEOS'
But Trump is not a fan of the "neos." He forthrightly takes on the neocons over the Iraq War and excoriates ex-Secretary of State Clinton for her key role in another "regime change" disaster in Libya. Further, Trump calls for cooperation with Russia and China rather than the neocon-preferred escalation of tensions.
In his April 27 foreign policy speech, Trump called for "a new foreign policy direction for our country – one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace. …It's time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold. …
"My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make. America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration."
Such comments – suggesting that "new voices" are needed and that "ideology" should be cast aside – were fighting words for the neocons, since it is their voices that have drowned out all others and their ideology that has dominated U.S. foreign policy in recent years.
To make matters worse, Trump outlined an "America First" strategy in contrast to neocon demands that the U.S. military be dispatched abroad to advance the interests of Israel and other "allies." Trump is not interested in staging "regime changes" to eliminate leaders who are deemed troublesome to Israel.
The real estate tycoon also has made criticism of "free trade" deals a centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that those agreements have sold out American workers by forcing them to compete with foreign workers receiving a fraction of the pay.
Sen. Sanders has struck similar themes in his insurgent Democratic campaign, criticizing Hillary Clinton's longtime support for "free trade" and her enthusiasm for "regime change" wars, such as those in Iraq and Libya.
Examining her long record in public life, there can be little doubt that Clinton is a neocon on foreign policy and a neolib on economic strategies. She stands firmly with the consensus of Official Washington's establishment, which is why she has enjoyed its warm embrace.
She has followed Wall Street's beloved neoliberal attitude toward "free trade," which has been very good for multinational corporations as they shipped millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries. (She has only cooled her ardor for trade deals to stanch the flow of Democratic voters to Bernie Sanders.)
WARS AND MORE WARS
On foreign policy, Clinton has consistently supported neoconservative wars, although she might shy from the neocon label per se, preferring its less noxious synonym "liberal interventionist."
But as arch-neocon Robert Kagan, who has recast himself as a "liberal interventionist," told The New York Times in 2014, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
Summing up the feeling of thinkers like Kagan, the Times reported that Clinton "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
In February 2016, distraught over the rise of Trump, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's Iraq War, openly threw his support to Clinton, announcing his decision in a Washington Post op-ed.
And Kagan is not mistaken when he views Hillary Clinton as a fellow-traveler. She has often marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented their aggressive "regime change" schemes against governments and political movements that don't toe Washington's line or that deviate from Israel's goals in the Middle East.
She has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon" and "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?"]
SEEKING 'COERCION'
A glimpse of what a Clinton-45 presidency might do could be seen in a recent Politico commentary by Dennis Ross, a former special adviser to Secretary of State Clinton now working at the staunchly pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
In the article, Ross painted a surreal world in which the problems of the Middle East have been caused by President Obama's hesitancy to engage militarily more aggressively across the region, not by the neocon-driven decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the similar schemes to overthrow secular governments in Libya and Syria in 2011, leaving those two countries in ruin.
Channeling the desires of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ross called for the United States to yoke itself to the regional interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their rivalry against Shiite-led Iran.
Ross wrote: "Obama believes in the use of force only in circumstances where our security and homeland might be directly threatened. His mindset justifies pre-emptive action against terrorists and doing more to fight the Islamic State. But it frames U.S. interests and the use of force to support them in very narrow terms. …
"The Saudis acted in [invading] Yemen in no small part because they feared the United States would impose no limits on Iranian expansion in the area, and they felt the need to draw their own lines."
To counter Obama's hesitancy to apply military force, Ross calls for a reassertion of a muscular U.S. policy in the Middle East, much along the lines that the neocon establishment and Hillary Clinton also favor, including:
–Threatening Iran with "blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions" if Iran deviates from the Obama-negotiated agreement to constrain its nuclear program (the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran zombie lives!);
–"Contingency planning with GCC states and Israel … to generate specific options for countering Iran's growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region";
–A readiness to arm Sunni tribes in Iraq if Iraq's prime minister doesn't;
–Establish "safe havens with no-fly zones" inside Syria if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
Employing the classic tough talk of the neocons, Ross concludes, "Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it."
One might note the many logical inconsistencies of Ross's arguments, including his failure to note that much of Iran's supposed meddling in the Middle East has involved aiding the Syrian and Iraqi governments in their battle against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Or that Russia's intervention in Syria also has been to support the internationally recognized government in its fight against Sunni extremists and terrorists.
But the significance of Ross's prescription to "reapply" U.S. "coercion" across the region is that he is outlining what the world can expect from a Clinton-45 presidency.
Clinton made many of the same points in her speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and in debates with Bernie Sanders. If she stays on that track as president, there would be at least a partial U.S. military invasion of Syria, a very strong likelihood of war with Iran, and an escalation of tensions (and possible war) with nuclear-armed Russia.
The logic of how all that is supposed to improve matters is lost amid the classic neocon growling about showing toughness or reapplying "coercion."
So, the Democratic Party seems to be betting that Hillary Clinton's flood of ugly TV ads against Trump can frighten the American people enough to give the neocons and the neolibs one more lease on the White House – and four more years to wreak their zombie havoc on the world.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
End of M PEN e-Newsletter
posted by lucas at 6:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home