RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Media's Campaign Against Bernie Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49870"><span class="small">John Cusack, Twitter</span></a>   
Wednesday, 02 January 2019 09:22

Cusack writes: "How can Bernie Sanders be too left and too mainstream at the same time?"

Jon Cusack. (photo: Mills Entertainment)
Jon Cusack. (photo: Mills Entertainment)


The Media's Campaign Against Bernie

By John Cusack, Twitter

02 January 19

 

s NY Times and others have been in full attack mode re -Bernie. Another home-page story today. There’s been a wave anti sanders stories —They say the same things

he’s too left, but, on the other hand, all the Dems have taken up his ideas, so…he’s too mainstream. How can he be too left and too mainstream at the same time? Don’t worry more attacks comming - he’s too old, too grumpy, too socialist, not the right gender etc.

Do they think people don’t notice that they are running these screeds nonstop, in the guise of news /analysis . Front page of the times is not neutral real estate and yet the premise is so thin

It’s almost laughable .

Is the New York Times really worried that Bernie cant get STAFF? Thats’s a front page story?

On the other hand, these stories make clear that the Times and their ilk are scared shitless that Bernie might be for real. That he can win .

On the merits here’s why NY Times front page story is jive

…1 other elected officials who may not be with him this time…so what?…his campaign was on issues and for All American people, wasn’t dependent on other electeds or corporate donors that contribute to other electeds..…2 Staff that may not be with him this time…so what?...his campaign was on issues and for All American people, wasn’t dependent on hired Staff who are really just Jockeys looking for a horse to ride, easily replaced….there are NO geniuses in this field…only people with good memories and enough vision to see new tech and how it can help in an election…the Staff can be replaced by the next 20 something hot shit kids who wants to fight for Bernie….there’s only millions of them….3 the Beto comparison is a joke…Beto isn’t competing with Bernie, Bernie is already established with 40 years of clear and consistent advocacy - Beto is competing with everyone else — all trying to establish themselves —and lets call it straight -many of them are presenting themselves in Bernie’s cloak…who made this agenda mainstream? Virtually every policy position of this new iteration of the dems is due to the sanders movement. All the policy positions once thought unthinkable - thanks to Bernie - now have the feeling of the inevitable.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump and Russia: What to Expect From Mueller in 2019 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49869"><span class="small">Christian Northeast, NBC News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 02 January 2019 09:22

Northeast writes: "One ex-federal prosecutor said he is beginning to believe conspiracy with Russian election meddling is not the most serious crime Mueller is investigating."

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Washington DC, 2017. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Washington DC, 2017. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)


Trump and Russia: What to Expect From Mueller in 2019

By Christian Northeast, NBC News

02 January 19


One ex-federal prosecutor said he is beginning to believe conspiracy with Russian election meddling is not the most serious crime Mueller is investigating.

n the weeks after Donald Trump became the Republican nominee in late July 2016, the FBI warned him that foreign adversaries, including Russia, would attempt to spy on and infiltrate his campaign.

It was a standard briefing, the kind routinely given to presidential candidates, capped with an admonition that Trump should call the FBI if he learned of any unusual approaches from foreigners.

But there was something the FBI didn't tell him.

The bureau just recently had opened counterintelligence investigations into four Trump advisers suspected of improper interactions with Russians — a fact, then-secret, that emerged much later in Congressional testimony.

Two of the four, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, were top Trump aides with Russian baggage. A third, George Papadopoulos, had been offered Hillary Clinton emails by a Russian agent. The fourth, Carter Page, had traveled to Russia while advising the Trump campaign.

Those FBI inquiries grew into what has become special counsel Robert Mueller's sprawling Russia investigation — a legal juggernaut that threatens to overwhelm Trump's presidency.

The Mueller probe has led to criminal charges against 33 people, including three of those original four, and engulfed the Trump administration in a legal and political morass unlike anything the country has witnessed since the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and before that, Watergate.

But a central question remains unanswered, and it's one that could hold the key to what happens over the next few months: What did FBI officials know in the summer of 2016 that dissuaded them from telling Trump they were investigating his top aides?

The world may soon know the answer. Government officials and others familiar with the situation tell NBC News that Mueller is nearing the end stages of his investigation, and a report by the special counsel is expected to be submitted to the Justice Department as early as mid-February.

Appointed in May 2017, Mueller, a Republican, Vietnam combat veteran and career public servant who led the FBI after 9/11, assembled a team of veteran prosecutors. They called upon the fruits of secret U.S. intelligence gathering to lay bare, in two indictments, how Russian intelligence officers and agents used fake social media personas and illegal hacking to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

When it comes to any American involvement in that Russian operation, much of what Mueller has learned remains a tantalizing secret.

Even so, the evidence that has surfaced so far — of crimes and lies and questionable judgment — is of a sort that might have crippled previous presidencies.

Court documents, emails and testimony have shown that the president's son was willing to accept incriminating information on Clinton from the Russian government; that the president didn't tell the truth about his dealings with Russia during the campaign; and, in a separate federal probe, that the president directed his lawyer to commit campaign finance crimes.

Three men who once sat in Trump's inner sanctum — Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn — have been convicted or pleaded guilty to serious crimes and have cooperated, to varying degrees, with the investigation.

A number of the assertions in the controversial Steele dossier on Trump, paid for by Democrats and compiled by a former British spy — though they are raw, uncorroborated and derided by Trump and his allies — have proven to be accurate, according to multiple analyses by former intelligence officers.

But.

And it's an important "but."

Mueller has so far not showed the public proof that speaks to the central question he was hired to answer: Whether Trump or any of his associates actively conspired with the effort by Russian intelligence officers to hack, leak and otherwise interfere in the 2016 election. None of the criminal charges filed to date have addressed that issue.

That stubborn fact, which could change any day or remain fixed for eternity, is what fuels Trump allies who echo the president's assertion that the investigation is illegitimate.

On Sunday, Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani challenged Mueller via Twitter to "put up or shut up. You have no evidence of the President being involved in a conspiracy with anyone including Russia ... And you also have no evidence of collusion."

It's a view that is repeated daily in conservative media and embraced by tens of millions of Americans who remain loyal to the president.

"Collusion just does not exist," said Victoria Toensing, a conservative lawyer who represented Trump aide Sam Clovis and other unnamed witnesses in the probe, and therefore has been in meetings with the Mueller team.

"All these little things about a meeting with a Russian here or there," Toensing told NBC News. "It doesn't add up to anything."

Toensing said she believes the investigation was concocted by a cabal of government insiders "who decided they had to save the country from Donald Trump."

Many legal experts have a sharply different view.

They argue that what Mueller has already established is damning, and hints at far more shocking revelations to come.

"We have yet to see the smoking gun, but we have a lot of smoke," said Frank Figliuzzi, who once hunted for Russian spies as head of the FBI's counterintelligence division and is now an NBC News analyst. "Would I expect Mueller to have shown his hand yet in all of this? Absolutely not."

Trump's Twitter campaign to discredit Mueller has harmed the prosecutor's image among a subset of Americans, polls show. But among the public at large, it does not appear to be working.

Fifty-four percent of Americans believe Mueller has conducted a "fair investigation," according to an NPR/PBS News Hour/Maris poll this month, while 33 percent call it a "witch hunt."

In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Dec. 16, 62 percent of Americans say Trump has been untruthful about the Russia probe, while half of the country says the investigation has given them doubts about Trump's presidency

The Mueller investigation has already exposed serious misconduct, according to NBC News analyst Chuck Rosenberg, a former federal prosecutor who once headed the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"The president is all but an unindicted co-conspirator in election law crimes and Russia seems to crop up in every aspect of the case, from internet troll farms to GRU hacking to Manafort's business dealings. And all the false statements by Papadopoulos, Cohen, Flynn — all those cases concern Russia," Rosenberg said.

Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said he is beginning to believe that conspiracy with Russian election interference is not the most serious crime Mueller is investigating.

Goldman, also now an NBC News analyst, postulates that at the heart of the inquiry is a question of whether the president has made foreign policy decisions — particularly with regard to Russia and Saudi Arabia — for personal financial reasons, rather than in the best interest of the country.

"What we are learning is that there may have been a much larger conspiracy to provide sanctions relief to Russia either in return for personal business and financial benefits or in return for assistance in the campaign," Goldman said.

That is why, Rosenberg, Goldman and other legal experts say, the Mueller team almost certainly has obtained many years of Trump's tax returns and business records, and is poring over past transactions, particularly his foreign ones.

So it has come to pass that Trump is the first president in 40 years to withhold his tax returns from the public, but also the first president to have them scrutinized, in all likelihood, by a team of IRS and FBI experts.

Meanwhile, the question of whether Trump obstructed justice — by asking FBI Director James Comey to drop the bureau's investigation into Flynn, firing him when he didn't and publicly denouncing the investigation on Twitter — remains another subject of Mueller's inquiries, as an FBI lawyer recently confirmed to Congress.

The beginning

It started — at least one strand of it — at a bar in London.

In May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young political striver who had landed a spot advising the Trump campaign on foreign policy, sat down for drinks with a senior Australian diplomat.

As the diplomat, Alexander Downer, later recounted it, Papadopoulos told him he had been informed by a mysterious Maltese professor that the Russians had thousands of emails that could embarrass Trump's opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

At the time, few people were aware that the Russians had hacked the Democrats.

Two months later, when Democratic emails began leaking, Downer's report about his conversation with Papadopoulos reached the FBI, according to documents later released by Congress.

It was one of a number of troubling reports streaming into U.S. intelligence agencies that summer suggesting a covert Russian intelligence campaign to influence the upcoming U.S. election, current and former U.S. officials told NBC News.

Intelligence on what the Russians were up to was pouring in from allies, assets and electronic intercepts.

To their distress, FBI and CIA officials began to see indications that Americans might be helping.

John Brennan, who was the CIA director at the time, told Congress last year that he "encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."

He said he shared the CIA's intelligence with FBI Director Comey, who shared with him some things the FBI had learned.

On July 29, 2016, the bureau formally opened a counterintelligence investigation focusing on four people, according to congressional testimony by Comey.

U.S. officials told NBC News that the four people were Papadopoulos, Page, Manafort and Flynn.

Page and Manafort had already been on the FBI's radar — Page because he had been previously targeted for recruitment by Russian intelligence; Manafort because of his consulting work for a Russian-backed Ukrainian politician.

It's not known exactly what got the FBI interested in Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. One factor, officials said, was his decision to accept $45,000 to speak at the 10th anniversary gala of the Russian state media company RT in December 2015, where he dined with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

When the FBI briefed Trump on foreign spy threats after the Republican National Convention, it was decided that briefers would not mention that two of his top aides were under scrutiny, a former senior official told NBC News. The concern was that doing so could tip off the targets of the probe. Nobody knew what Trump would do.

"It really complicated matters tremendously given the nature of the individuals under investigation," the former official said.

Comey out, Mueller in

As one of his last acts in office, President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two Russian-owned compounds in the U.S. in response to Russia's election interference. Most experts expected Putin to respond in kind.

To their surprise, he took no action.

On Jan. 12, 2017, a possible reason for that emerged. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Flynn had been in touch with the Russian ambassador in Washington, Sergei Kislyak, several times on the day the expulsions were announced.

Flynn publicly denied the two men had discussed sanctions. Then he denied it to two FBI agents who came to interview him on Jan. 24.

What happened next set off a chain of events that led to the legal imbroglio in which Trump now finds himself.

Trump fired Flynn after it became clear he had lied to the vice president about his conversations with Kislyak. A day later, by Comey's telling, Trump pulled the FBI director aside in the Oval Office and asked him to drop the investigation into Flynn.

Three months later Trump fired Comey, citing a memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein criticizing Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The sacking shocked official Washington, conjuring up images of 1973's Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon ordered the removal of the Watergate special prosecutor. The rule of law seemed under threat, and Rosenstein's reputation as a straight-shooting career civil servant was in danger.

Rosenstein, who was in charge of the Russian investigation in the wake of a recusal by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was stung by intense criticism. He decided he had to act.

What he did next changed Donald Trump's presidency.

Without consulting the White House, Rosenstein announced the appointment of Robert Swan Mueller III as special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation.

While Mueller reported to the Justice Department, his status as a special counsel immediately transformed the Russia investigation.

He had a separate budget and was able to pick his own team of prosecutors and agents, some of whom left jobs with seven-figure salaries. Unlike other federal law enforcement officers, they had the luxury of devoting every waking hour to a single assignment.

Their mandate seemed to be narrow: To investigate how the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, including whether Trump or his associates conspired with Russia. But the instruction also allowed Mueller to look into any other matters that arose.

Soon enough, other matters did arise.

In June, based on interviews Mueller's team was conducting with Cabinet members and others, it became clear that the special counsel was investigating the question of whether Trump had obstructed justice.

If the president wasn't under investigation before, he was now.

In July, FBI agents raided Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia, apartment, a sign that they had amassed significant evidence against him.

In October, Manafort and the second-in-command at his political consultancy, Rick Gates, were indicted on a host of bank and tax fraud charges related to their work for Russian interests in Ukraine. It was clear to most legal observers that Mueller was throwing the book at the former Trump insiders in part to secure their cooperation. It would only be the beginning of their legal troubles.

On the same day, Papadopoulos was charged with lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Maltese professor — a suspected Russian agent who told him about the Clinton emails.

That was the first indication that the Russians had broached the subject of hacked emails with a member of the Trump campaign. It remains unclear how far within the campaign that information traveled — another important unanswered question about Trump and Russia.

In December, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Mueller. Much of what he has told the special counsel — including why he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador — remains a mystery.

Mueller indicts Russians, flips Trump insiders

Having slapped the cuffs on some of Trump's closest aides, Mueller and his investigators had come to preoccupy not only a president quick to vent his anger on Twitter, but much of the news-consuming public. The investigation hovered over Washington like a mysterious alien spacecraft that occasionally hurled energy bolts to set the capital abuzz.

Mueller's team was believed not to leak, and the only thing his spokesman would tell reporters on background is that more than half of the news reports about the investigation were wrong.

Still, reports of witnesses being summoned to visit with Mueller prosecutors — or angles Mueller was said to be investigating became a staple of Washington journalism throughout 2018.

Interesting strands seem to surface and then fade from view. A meeting in the Seychelles, a reported subpoena to a German bank, allegations of foreign campaign contributions — no one outside of Mueller's team had any clear idea where these stories fit, if at all, in the investigation.

For his part, Mueller spoke only through court documents. In February and again in June, he spoke loudly and in great detail, releasing massive indictments against Russians that harnessed the fruits of secret U.S. intelligence collection to expose how the Russian government and their agents manipulated the American electorate.

The first indictment laid out how a former chef of Putin and his minions, operating out of a St. Petersburg office building, used American social media companies to spew propaganda and manipulate voters, mostly in the service of promoting Trump for president.

The second indictment, which named Russian intelligence officers, sketched a conspiracy to hack into the Democratic National Committee, steal thousands of emails and leak them in a way to cause maximum disruption to the Clinton campaign.

Both documents accused defendants of conspiring to defraud the United States, leaving open the possibility that any American found to have aided that conspiracy — whether he or she knew the full contours of it — could be charged with felonies.

On Aug. 21 came another turning point.

Manafort was convicted of eight counts of fraud and failure to disclose foreign bank accounts in his Virginia trial, one in which his former partner Gates, now a government cooperator, testified against him. He now faced many years in prison and another trial in Washington.

And just as the Manafort verdict was breaking, an even more consequential development was unfolding in New York.

Former Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen, who once said he would take a bullet for Trump, walked into a courtroom, pleaded guilty to felonies and implicated the president in a campaign finance crime over hush money payments to women.

He didn't have a formal cooperation deal, but his lawyer said he would tell the truth about Trump to any prosecutor who asked. Mueller's team would take him up on it.

In September, on the eve of his second trial, Manafort agreed to cooperate with Mueller as well.

The special counsel had now flipped two people who knew the secrets of the Trump campaign — Gates had been deputy campaign chairman and knew the secrets of the Trump Organization.

As Justice Department guidelines dictate, Mueller went quiet in the weeks before the November election. Democrats won the House, insuring that they would be able to subpoena, among other things, the fruits of Mueller's work, should anyone try to bury it.

Endgame?

After the election, Mueller began speaking again through the courts on what seemed like a weekly basis.

The news was relentless.

Manafort's plea deal fell apart after Mueller accused him of lying, exposing him to a virtual life sentence and mystifying legal experts.

Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about a Trump Tower project in Moscow, in the process putting a spotlight on the president's untruths about contacts with Russians.

During his first news conference as president in February 2017, Trump was asked five times whether he or any of his aides were in touch with Russians during the campaign. He said he was aware of no such interactions.

But in the Cohen charging document, Mueller's team said Trump conferred with Cohen in November 2015 "about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia's interest" in a Trump-Putin meeting at the United Nations.

Trump did not explain the contradiction.

Flynn, who had been quiet for a year since he made a deal with Mueller, burst into public view again when Mueller filed a sentencing document praising his cooperation and calling for no prison time.

The most newsworthy thing about the filing was that half of it was blacked out, showing that Flynn had helped prosecutors with investigations that were still ongoing.

The public parts of the document did not answer the most fundamental questions about Flynn: Why did he lie about his conversations with the Russian ambassador? What did Trump know about that? Was he aware of any Trump campaign coordination with the Russians?

As for Cohen, Mueller made clear in a sentencing memo that he had been significantly helpful on the Russia questions at the core of his investigation — but he didn't reveal what Cohen had told him.

The other federal prosecutors dogging Cohen, from the Southern District of New York, were less satisfied. They said Cohen had refused to come clean about past criminal conduct.

But in their sentencing memo, they endorsed Cohen's claim that Trump had directed him to pay hush money to women who claimed they had sex with Trump, and that this was a felony under campaign finance law because it exceeded contribution limits and wasn't disclosed.

The federal prosecutors in New York announced that the parent company of the National Enquirer, which had been involved in one of the payments, also took the view that Trump had directed the hush money to help his campaign.

So as Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, legal experts were chewing on the idea that the president had committed a felony — something Trump denies — and what that could mean for the future of his presidency.

Even Democrats, however, seemed to doubt that this single, complicated issue would lead to Trump's impeachment.

Yet NBC News reported that the New York prosecutors continued to investigate the matter, raising questions about how far into Trump's business dealings prosecutors would go.

Trump's lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, complained that prosecutors were poring through Trump's business records going back to 1982.

As 2018 drew to a close, the core Russia question — whether Trump or people around him conspired to allow a foreign power to influence the election — remained unanswered.

Also unknown was what, if anything, Mueller had learned about any financial entanglements between Trump and Russians — whether Putin had something, to be blunt, on the president of the United States.

While Mueller appeared to be wrapping up, legal experts pointed to the unfinished business regarding two Trump associates, Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone. Both had said they expected to be indicted, and a draft plea agreement accused Corsi of knowing in advance that WikiLeaks had obtained hacked Democratic emails, and lying about it.

Also, the sentencing of cooperator Gates had been postponed, amid reports he was helping with a third federal criminal investigation into fundraising and spending by Trump's inaugural committee.

Expectations were high in Washington that when Mueller files his report, at least some portion of it would be made public.

But whatever that report finds, the incoming New York state attorney general has promised sweeping investigations of Trump and his family.

And House Democrats are gearing up to examine everything from Trump's involvement in decisions over a new FBI headquarters that could affect his Washington hotel to his son-in-law's security clearances.

Even if Mueller were to close up shop in early 2019, few believe it would spell the end of investigations into Donald Trump and those around him.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Take Action: Parkland Students on Five Ways to Fight Gun Violence in 2019 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49868"><span class="small">Hannah Kapoor, Dara Rosen and Brianna Fisher, Guardian UK and Eagle Eye</span></a>   
Wednesday, 02 January 2019 09:22

Excerpt: "There is power in numbers and the slightest initiative can contribute to an entire societal wave demanding reform."

Emma González listens with other students during the March for Our Lives rally in Washington DC on 24 March. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Emma González listens with other students during the March for Our Lives rally in Washington DC on 24 March. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)


Take Action: Parkland Students on Five Ways to Fight Gun Violence in 2019

By Hannah Kapoor, Dara Rosen and Brianna Fisher, Guardian UK and Eagle Eye

02 January 19


Last year, students from Parkland, Florida inspired a wave of activism after the mass shooting at their high school. Student journalists from Parkland share ideas for keeping that momentum going in 2019

ast March, the Guardian invited invited student journalists from the Eagle Eye, the award-winning newspaper at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school, to serve as guest editors of our US site and oversee the Guardian’s coverage of March for Our Lives. Our collaboration was honored with the Global Youth and News Media prize, an international award sponsored by News-Decoder, Google News Initiative and the European Journalism Centre.

As we enter 2019, the Guardian is sharing our platform with the Parkland students once again. This piece on how you can fight gun violence in 2019 was written by three student journalists from the Eagle Eye.

1. Don’t become desensitized to gun violence on the media

Look beyond the smiling faces of victims on the news and see the real loss behind every photo. Their faces represent a family with one less seat at the dinner table, friends with one less shoulder to lean on and an entire community forever tainted by evil. The students and staff of Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and the residents of Parkland, Florida, never imagined that our picture-perfect town would be nearly torn apart by senseless gun violence. We had let our guard down. We implore other communities do not do the same. Not enough has been done to prevent mass shootings since 14 February 2018, and they will happen again – they already have happened again.

2. If you see something, say something

Not only was the massacre at our high school one of the worst in US history, it was perhaps one of the most preventable. The Parkland community is able to recognize that the shooter slipped through countless cracks within the system, and we will continue to fight to hold all negligent individuals accountable for their actions. However, accountability goes beyond policies and protocol – it starts with each and every one of us. From students, to teachers, to even neighbors, always stay mindful of everyone in your surroundings. The dawn of mental health awareness has only just arrived in our country but preventioncan be as simple as seeing something suspicious and reporting it. Don’t let the case of Parkland be a deterrent in stepping forward towards authority – you never know who may take your concerns to heart. .

3. Form your own opinions by staying informed about local and national issues

It is all too easy to lose sight of common ground in the political brawl. In an age of great polarization, it is imperative to stay informed of the facts, all the facts. It is no surprise that the media can be biased at times, and the best way to overcome miscommunication between opposing parties is to delve into the perspective of the other side. Diversify your news sources and stay informed on all prominent topics in the world.

4. Vote and pressure your representatives

Every vote matters, your vote matters. The 2018 midterm elections proved this, with staggeringly close margins in states such as Florida and Georgia that prompted recounts. Maybe you feel that, you, as an individual, can’t do anything to change the way the world is, but your representatives can. Contact them: email, call, write letters or even go to their offices. There is power in numbers and the slightest initiative can contribute to an entire societal wave demanding reform.

5. Become involved

The idea of “making change” is a daunting one, yet getting involved is not as demanding as most would think. Joining forces with certain grassroots organizations such as March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign are some of the easiest ways to start.

  • March for Our Lives was launched by Parkland students days after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas. While it is perhaps most well known for the countless marches it sparked, the organization continues to spread awareness about gun violence prevention. It strives to increase funding for gun violence research and intervention programs, increase voter participation, ban high capacity ammunition magazines, disarm all domestic abusers, mandate universal background checks and institute safe store and mandatory theft reporting.

  • Moms Demand Action was launched in light of the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. The grassroots organization welcomes all individuals and hopes to transform misconceptions about gun culture in America. Their missions include limiting the proliferation of guns on school campuses, prevention of children accessing guns and general advocacy for stricter gun laws

  • The Brady Campaign, which was founded after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan when he was president, is perhaps one of the oldest gun violence prevention movements in the US. The campaignfocuses its agenda into a three-point plan: expand “Brady background checks” to all gun sales, ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and pass extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws.

Each organization has its own perspective on the second amendment to the US constitution about the right to bear arms, and grew from a community where gun violence has been inflicted. They are each aimed at fixing laws, exposing corruption and giving hope to the rest of the world. Each defines at least one mission that ought to resonate with a range of political views. A visit to their websites is all it takes to become involved. There’s no better way to restore hope in the nation than joining movements that catapult change.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Honduras: How US Policy Set the Stage for Today's Migration Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49867"><span class="small">Joseph Nevins, teleSUR</span></a>   
Wednesday, 02 January 2019 09:21

Nevins writes: "The U.S. role in shaping migration raises questions about its responsibility toward those now fleeing the ravages its policies produced."

Manuel Zelaya. (photo: Once Noticias)
Manuel Zelaya. (photo: Once Noticias)


Honduras: How US Policy Set the Stage for Today's Migration

By Joseph Nevins, teleSUR

02 January 19


The U.S. role in shaping migration raises questions about its responsibility toward those now fleeing the ravages its policies produced.

ondurans fleeing poverty and violence – who make up most of the participants of a 'caravan' estimated at between 7,000 and 8,000 people – are slowly moving through Mexico in the hope of reaching the United States and receiving refuge.

President Trump has responded by characterizing the caravan as, among other unflattering things, “an onslaught” and “an assault” on the United States. Trump’s statements, which do not accurately characterize the makeup and motivations of the migrants, have pushed many media outlets to rebut his false claims.

The mainstream narrative of such movements of people often reduces the causes of migration to factors unfolding in migrants’ home countries. In reality, migration is often a manifestation of a profoundly unequal and exploitative relationship between countries from which people emigrate and countries of destination.

As I have learned through many years of research on immigration and border policing, the history of relations between Honduras and the United States is a prime example of these dynamics. Understanding this is vital to making immigration policy more effective and ethical.

U.S. Roots of Honduran Emigration

I first visited Honduras in 1987 to do research. As I walked around the city of Comayagua, many thought that I, a white male with short hair in his early 20s, was a U.S. soldier. This was because hundreds of U.S. soldiers were stationed at the nearby Palmerola Air Base at the time. Until shortly before my arrival, many of them would frequent Comayagua, particularly its 'red zone' of female sex workers.

U.S. military presence in Honduras and the roots of Honduran migration to the United States are closely linked. It began in the late 1890s, when U.S.-based banana companies first became active there. As historian Walter LaFeber writes in “Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America,” U.S. companies “built railroads, established their own banking systems, and bribed government officials at a dizzying pace.” As a result, the Caribbean coast “became a foreign-controlled enclave that systematically swung the whole of Honduras into a one-crop economy whose wealth was carried off to New Orleans, New York, and later Boston.”

By 1914, U.S. banana interests owned almost 1 million acres of Honduras’ best land. These holdings grew through the 1920s to such an extent that, as LaFeber asserts, Honduran peasants “had no hope of access to their nation’s good soil.” Over a few decades, U.S. capital also came to dominate the country’s banking and mining sectors, a process facilitated by the weak state of Honduras’ domestic business sector. This was coupled with direct U.S. political and military interventions to protect U.S. interests in 1907 and 1911.

Such developments made Honduras’ ruling class dependent on Washington for support. A central component of this ruling class was and remains the Honduran military. By the mid-1960s it had become, in LaFeber’s words, the country’s “most developed political institution,” – one that Washington played a key role in shaping.

The Reagan Era

This was especially the case during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, U.S. political and military policy was so influential that many referred to the Central American country as the 'U.S.S. Honduras' and the 'Pentagon Republic.'

As part of its effort to overthrow the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua and 'roll back' the region’s leftist movements, the Reagan administration 'temporarily' stationed several hundred U.S. soldiers in Honduras. Moreover, it trained and sustained Nicaragua’s 'contra' rebels on Honduran soil, while greatly increasing military aid and arm sales to the country.

The Reagan years also saw the construction of numerous joint Honduran-U.S. military bases and installations. Such moves greatly strengthened the militarization of Honduran society. In turn, political repression rose. There was a dramatic increase in the number of political assassinations, disappearances and illegal detentions.

The Reagan administration also played a big role in restructuring the Honduran economy. It did so by strongly pushing for internal economic reforms, with a focus on exporting manufactured goods. It also helped deregulate and destabilize the global coffee trade, upon which Honduras heavily depended. These changes made Honduras more amenable to the interests of global capital. They disrupted traditional forms of agriculture and undermined an already weak social safety net.

These decades of U.S. involvement in Honduras set the stage for Honduran emigration to the United States, which began to markedly increase in the 1990s.

In the post-Reagan era, Honduras remained a country scarred by a heavy-handed military, significant human rights abuses and pervasive poverty. Still, liberalizing tendencies of successive governments and grassroots pressure provided openings for democratic forces.

They contributed, for example, to the election of Manuel Zelaya, a liberal reformist, as president in 2006. He led on progressive measures such as raising the minimum wage. He also tried to organize a plebiscite to allow for a constituent assembly to replace the country’s constitution, which had been written during a military government. However, these efforts incurred the ire of the country’s oligarchy, leading to his overthrow by the military in June 2009.

Post-Coup Honduras

The 2009 coup, more than any other development, explains the increase in Honduran migration across the southern U.S. border in the last few years. The Obama administration has played an important role in these developments. Although it officially decried Zelaya’s ouster, it equivocated on whether or not it constituted a coup, which would have required the U.S. to stop sending most aid to the country.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in particular, sent conflicting messages, and worked to ensure that Zelaya did not return to power. This was contrary to the wishes of the Organization of American States, the leading hemispheric political forum composed of the 35 member-countries of the Americas, including the Caribbean. Several months after the coup, Clinton supported a highly questionable election aimed at legitimating the post-coup government.

Strong military ties between the United States and Honduras persist: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, formerly Palmerola, in the name of fighting the drug war and providing humanitarian aid.

Since the coup, writes historian Dana Frank, “a series of corrupt administrations has unleashed open criminal control of Honduras, from top to bottom of the government.” The Trump administration’s recognition, in December 2017, of President Juan Orlando Hernández’s re-election — after a process marked by deep irregularities, fraud and violence. This continues Washington’s longstanding willingness to overlook official corruption in Honduras as long as the country’s ruling elites serve what are defined as U.S. economic and geopolitical interests.

Organized crime, drug traffickers and the country’s police heavily overlap. The frequent politically motivated killings are rarely punished. In 2017, Global Witness, an international nongovernmental organization, found that Honduras was the world’s deadliest country for environmental activists.

Although its once sky-high murder rate has declined over the last few years, the continuing exodus of many youths demonstrates that violent gangs still plague urban neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, post-coup governments have intensified an increasingly unregulated, free market form of capitalism that makes life unworkable for many by undermining the country’s limited social safety net and greatly increasing socioeconomic inequality. Government spending on health and education, for example, has declined in Honduras. Meanwhile, the country’s poverty rate has risen markedly. These contribute to the growing pressures that push many people to migrate.

What will happen to the thousands of people now moving northward? If the recent past is any indication, many will likely stay in Mexico.

What the Trump administration will ultimately do with those who arrive at the U.S. southern border is unclear. Regardless, the role played by the United States in shaping the causes of this migration raises ethical questions about its responsibility toward those now fleeing from the ravages its policies have helped to produce.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Human Dignity Is in Danger. In 2019 We Must Stand as One to Survive Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=19442"><span class="small">Ai Weiwei, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 01 January 2019 14:59

Weiwei writes: "What does it mean to be human? That question sits at the core of human rights. To be human has specific implications: human self-awareness and the actions taken to uphold human dignity - these are what gives the concept of humanity a special meaning."

Ai Weiwei. (photo: M. Kappeler/DPA)
Ai Weiwei. (photo: M. Kappeler/DPA)


Human Dignity Is in Danger. In 2019 We Must Stand as One to Survive

By Ai Weiwei, Guardian UK

01 January 19


Persecution, censorship and environmental destruction are on the rise – but resistance is possible

hat does it mean to be human? That question sits at the core of human rights. To be human has specific implications: human self-awareness and the actions taken to uphold human dignity – these are what gives the concept of humanity a special meaning.

Human self-awareness and human actions determine the interplay between individual thought and language and the wider society. It is our actions as humans that deliver economic security, the right to education, the right to free association and free expression; and which create the conditions for protecting expression and encouraging bold thinking. When we abandon efforts to uphold human dignity, we forfeit the essential meaning of being human, and when we waver in our commitment to the idea of human rights, we abandon our moral principles. What follows is duplicity and folly, corruption and tyranny, and the endless stream of humanitarian crises that we see in the world today.

More than two centuries have passed since the concept of human rights was first developed. During that time humanity has gone through various stages of history and the world has seen enormous changes. In Europe, what was once a collection of colonialist, autocratic states has transformed into a democratic society with a capitalist orientation, establishing a mechanism that protects individual rights. Other societies are also seeing structural changes, and the concept of human rights is facing grave challenges.

In part these challenges stem from the disparate demands of countries in different stages of development, with contrasting economic situations and competing interests. But challenges also come from divergent conceptions and understandings of human rights, human dignity, morality and responsibility, and from different interpretations and applications of the core principles of human rights. In the contemporary world, as our grasp of the fundamental values and principles of human rights and humanitarianism weakens, we risk losing our rights, responsibilities and our power to uphold human dignity.

History shows that a moral failure is always accompanied by painful realities, visible everywhere. The global refugee crisis is worsening daily, and 70 million refugees have been forced to leave their homes by war and poverty. Our living environment is constantly being degraded, and the ecological balance is ever more fragile. Armed conflicts persist and potential political crises lurk; regional instabilities grow more acute; autocratic regimes brutally impose their will, while democratic governance is in decline. Unreasoning and unrestrained expansion under a nationalist, capitalist order is exacerbating the global gap between rich and poor. Our views of the world have become more divided and more conflicted than ever.

Individuals in many countries and regions lack the opportunity to receive an education, to access information or communicate freely. They have no chance to exercise their imagination and creativity or fulfil their ideals; no chance to enjoy freedom of belief and freedom of association. Such rights and freedoms pose a fatal threat to autocracy and authoritarianism. This is why, in so many places, lawyers have been imprisoned, journalists have been disappeared and murdered, why censorship has become so pervasive, why religious and non-governmental organisations have been ruthlessly suppressed. Today, dictatorships and corrupt regimes continue to benefit from reckless arms sales, and enjoy the quiet support of capitalist nations. Religious divisions, ethnic contradictions and regional disputes all feed into primitive power plays. Their logic is simple: to weaken individual freedoms and strengthen the controls imposed by governments and dominant elites.

The end result is that individuals are deprived of the right to live, denied freedom from fear, and freedom of expression, or denied the rights to maintain their living environment and develop.

The concept of human rights needs to be revised. Discussions of human rights used to focus on the one-dimensional relationship between the state’s rights and individual rights, but now human rights involve a variety of relationships. Today, whether demands are framed in terms of the rights of the individual or the goals pursued by political entities and interest groups, none of these agendas exists in isolation. Historically, the conditions governing human existence have never been more globally interdependent.

The right of children to grow up and be educated, the right of women to receive protection, the right to conserve nature, the right to survival of other lives intimately connected with the survival of the human race – all these have now become major elements in the concept of human rights. As science and technology develop, authoritarian states invade privacy and limit personal freedom in the name of counter-terrorism and maintaining stability, intensifying psychological manipulation at all levels. Through control of the internet and command of facial recognition technology, authoritarian states tighten their grip on people’s thoughts and actions, threatening and even eliminating freedoms and political rights. Similar kinds of controls are being imposed to varying degrees within the global context. From this we can see that under these new conditions human rights have not gained a common understanding, and if discussion of human rights becomes narrow and shortsighted, it is bound to become nothing more than outdated, empty talk.

Today, Europe, the US, Russia, China and other governments manufacture, possess and sell arms. Pontificating about human rights is simply self-deluding if we fail to curb the dangerous practices that make armed conflict all the more likely. Likewise, if no limits are placed on capitalist global expansion and the pervasive penetration of capital power, if there is no effort to curb the sustained assault by authoritarian governments on natural human impulses, a discussion of human rights is just idle chatter. Such a blatant abdication of responsibility can lead to no good outcome.

Human rights are shared values. Human rights are our common possession. When abuses are committed against anyone in any society, the dignity of humanity as a whole is compromised. By the same token, it is only when the rights of any individual and rights of the people of any region receive our care and protection that humanity can achieve a shared redemption.

Such is the principle of human rights, in all its stark simplicity. But a shared understanding of that truth still eludes us. Why so? Could it be that we are too selfish, too benighted, too lacking in courage? Or, perhaps, we are insincere, we don’t really love life enough: we con ourselves into imagining we can get away without discharging our obligation to institute fairness and justice, we fool ourselves into thinking that chaos is acceptable, we entertain the idea that the world may well collapse in ruin, all hopes and dreams shattered.

If we truly believe in values that we can all identify with and aspire to – a recognition of truth, an understanding of science, an appreciation of the self, a respect for life and a faith in society – then we need to eliminate obstacles to understanding, uphold the fundamental definition of humanity, affirm the shared value of human lives and other lives, and acknowledge the symbiotic interdependency of human beings and the environment. A belief in ourselves and a belief in others, a trust in humanitarianism’s power to do good, and an earnest recognition of the value of life – these form the foundation for all human values and all human efforts.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 Next > End >>

Page 1024 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN