RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Tribal Dakota Pipeline Resistance the Start of Something Bigger Print
Saturday, 03 September 2016 13:18

Keeler writes: "The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe announced via its Facebook page on Sept. 1 that 188 Tribes, or Native Nations, from across the United States and Canada have declared their support for the Lakota/Dakota Tribes’ fight to stop the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline carrying heavy Bakken crude oil from crossing the Missouri River and threatening the sovereign nations’ main water source."

Native American protesters marching against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline near Cannon Ball, N.D. IMGCRDTFOUR
Native American protesters marching against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline near Cannon Ball, N.D. IMGCRDTFOUR


Tribal Dakota Pipeline Resistance the Start of Something Bigger

By Jacqueline Keeler, teleSUR

03 September 16

 

This pipeline has sparked a prairie fire of united Native American resistance not seen since Wounded Knee, and a return of the Great Sioux Nation.

he Standing Rock Sioux Tribe announced via its Facebook page on Sept. 1 that 188 Tribes, or Native Nations, from across the United States and Canada have declared their support for the Lakota/Dakota Tribes’ fight to stop the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline carrying heavy Bakken crude oil from crossing the Missouri River and threatening the sovereign nations’ main water source.

Protesters against the pipeline prefer to be called “water protectors.” Some even objected to a New York Times cover article that claimed they were “Occupying the Prairie”— since all of this land, even that north of the border of the reservation was originally treaty territory. Elders at the camp released a response (We’ve Always “Occupied the Prairie” and We’re Not Going Anywhere) to the New York Times that said, "We are Protectors not Protesters. Our camp is a prayer, for our children, our elders and ancestors, and for the creatures, and the land and habitat they depend on, who cannot speak for themselves."

On Wednesday, 38 “protectors” were arrested for nonviolent protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline, eight in North Dakota and 30 in Iowa. Iyuskin “Happy” American Horse, 26, a young Lakota man among the arrestees, had chained himself to a digging machine for six hours in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience.

This 1,168-mile pipeline extending across four states from North Dakota to Illinois has sparked a prairie fire of united Native American resistance not seen since Wounded Knee, and a return of the Great Sioux Nation. This is the first time since the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn that all seven council fires have camped together.

The Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota are all members of the Océti Sakówin, the seven council fires, commonly known to most Americans as the “Great Sioux Nation.” Their dialects are distinct but they are all one people. The people of Standing Rock are known as Sitting Bull’s people (the Húnkpapa), but also include Ihánkthunwannaa (Yanktonai Dakota) bands.

According to the 1868 Treaty of Ft. Laramie, the “Great Sioux Reservation” comprised nearly 60 million acres and was roughly the size of the United Kingdom. The Standing Rock reservation is adjacent to another even larger reservation belonging to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Together, these two reservations equal in size to El Salvador or Israel span across two states and constitute the largest continuous land area left to the Océti Sakówin. Four more Dakota/Lakota reservations along the Missouri could also be impacted. This archipelago of reservations is all that remains of their former lands — now in the hands of often hostile state governments.

In July, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which had granted the final permit for the Dakota Access Pipeline in federal court. However, on August 24, Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court from the District of Columbia delayed a decision for the Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and promised a decision before or on Sept. 9.

The delay was met with disappointment by the 2,000 supporters at the Camp of the Sacred Stones near the site of the pipeline construction site at Cannonball, North Dakota. Thousands more, mainly Native Americans following the protest, registered their concern over social media under the hashtags #NoDAPL and #RezpectOurWater. Despite the huge encampment and an unprecedented intertribal unity unseen before on any issue, there has been little media coverage, especially when compared to the 24-7 CNN coverage of the Bundy family’s armed standoffs with federal authorities.

Sacred Stone Camp is owned by Standing Rock Sioux tribal member Ladonna Bird Bull Allard who is Yanktonai Dakota.

After a 2014 meeting with the Dakota Access Pipeline representatives, Allard recalled in a recent interview with KBOO Radio, “I remember at the end, I walked up to a young woman who was from Dakota Access and I said remember me. I just looked at your maps, I’m the closest landowner. Remember my face. I will stand there even if I stand alone, you cannot put this pipeline next to my home.”

Two years later, she is not alone. The camp is full of supporters averaging between 1,000 and 2,000 tribal members from across the country.

“What I see is healing of Native nations,” Allard told Telesur. “What I see is an amazing event that I could never have imagined in my whole life.”

The Missouri River Tribes, like all tribes really, have a painful and difficult history with the federal government — and the Army Corps of Engineers in particular. In the mid-20th century the Corps built dams on the river almost exclusively on tribal lands, flooding hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farm land effecting 23 Tribes and displacing 1,000 Native American farmers, and of course to benefit white farmers.

The name of the camp stems from this historic of violation of tribal sovereignty and land and treaty rights, which yet again seems to be happening.

“When I was a child the river used to create this whirlwind and it created round sandstones,” Allard recalled. “And when the Army Corps [of Engineers] came with the Pick-Sloan [dams] and flooded us the river no longer made round sandstones but the people always called it the place where they made sacred stone. So that’s why I named the camp after the original name of the place.”

Today, environmental disasters in the form of oil spills awaits if this project is allowed to go through. Allard said that in North Dakota the Tribe has counted 200-plus pipeline breaks, including the Keystone Pipeline spill in 2011 that spilled 400 barrels of oil and a 2010 spill from an Enbridge Line 2 that released 3,784 barrels of crude oil with only 2,237 barrels were recovered, which foreshadows the environmental devastation awaiting the tribes if the Dakota Access Pipeline is allowed to be completed.

“Right now, because oil spills are happening north of us, we’re pulling fish out with tumors and sores and some really bad things coming out of the river,” said Allard. “But right where we live they’re planning on putting that pipeline under the Missouri River — underneath a burial ground because there’s an island right out there they have to cross. They are planning to go 82-feet down into the bed of the river.”

By the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s estimates it will take less than two minutes for a pipeline break to bring heavy Bakken Crude Oil to the Tribe’s Early Head Start building and less than 5 minutes to reach an elementary school. Then 15 minutes to reach the Tribe’s water intake.

“We get all our water from the Missouri River and we will be without water. And I keep asking who is going to come to help us? Who will come when we have no water?” said Allard. “You go down and ask the Diné people [the Navajo Nation was downriver from the Gold King Mine spill last year] who came? They have had no water since it destroyed their water system. Who is helping them? You have to remember our bodies are 70 percent water everything in the world is water, water is life.”

This week, the Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye and Vice President Jonathan Nez arrived on Allard’s land and planted their Tribe’s flag in a line of flagpoles representing Native Nations. The Navajo Nation is the largest Native Nation in the United States with about 350,000 tribal members and a land base the size of Ireland. At least 2,000 Navajo farmers were affected by the Gold King Mine spill in the Animas River last year.

Despite the peaceful nature of the encampment, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple (R), Lieutenant Governor Drew Wrigley and Morton County Sheriff Kirchmeier have accused the protestors of being violent and unlawful. The sheriff actually claimed during a press conference that “water protectors” were armed with pipe bombs. None of these claims have been substantiated by observers including the ACLU who sent the governor a letter threatening legal remedies for First Amendment rights violations of nonviolent protesters. Chairman Archambault was himself arrested and has been hit with a temporary restraining order to stay away from the construction site. He issued a statement critical of the governor’s inflammatory language, noting that the only pipes were canunpas, traditional pipes used for prayer.

The state’s continued blockade of Highway 1806, the main road used by tribal members to reach Bismarck, North Dakota for shopping has been criticized as an undue burden on the Tribe. This week Amnesty International called for the U.S. government to protect the “protectors’” human rights to freedom of expression and assembly, while the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues called for a "fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process to resolve this serious issue and to avoid escalation into violence and further human rights abuses."

This stand by the descendants of Sitting Bull’s band has been both prayerful and political, a mix once explained by the late Vine Deloria, Jr., Standing Rock tribal member and a prominent historian and critic, famous for his landmark 1969 book “Custer Died For Your Sins.” In his book “The Nations Within,” he stated that “the people” for most Native nations had its origins in “religious events such as the coming of a primordial holy person who gives ceremonies, rituals and prophecies contributing to tribal identification as a distinct people.” This origin gave even "the idea of the treaty”— seen by Europeans as merely a legal, political instrument of International Law — a sacred basis.Archambault encapsulated this when he said:

“Opposite is the Ihanktonwan camps, my people’s camps, and on the Cannonball side, we have the Mandan camps … there are also ceremonial sites and burial sites and medicine rocks and origination of people sites. There's so much history right there that I can't understand how the state and the federal government doesn’t understand how important these areas are to Native people—they are the center of who we are. Our footprints in the land. Our hearts are in that land. We can tell you the history of all of these sites, who put them there, how they got there, why they are there, why we go there to pray.”

He went on to tell tribal members that he plans to continue to build on the traditions and unity the fight stop the Dakota Access Pipeline has brought about. And Allard plans to keep the camp going and to create a culture camp for kids.

”Once we win the pipeline we have a camp where kids can learn about culture, tradition and language,” she said. In the meantime, “We are asking everyone to come stand with us and every prayer is welcome. We protect the water.”


Jacqueline Keeler is a Navajo/Yankton Dakota Sioux writer living in Portland, Oregon. She has been published in Salon, Indian Country Today, Earth Island Journal and the Nation. She is finishing her first novel "Leaving the Glittering World" set in the shadow of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State during the discovery of Kennewick Man.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20588"><span class="small">The Washington Post</span></a>   
Saturday, 03 September 2016 13:12

Excerpt: "In the face of the most calamitous refugee crisis since World War II, the United States has finally begun granting refuge to displaced Syrians on a pace that, while still unequal to the problem’s scale and the United States’ capacity, at least starts to acknowledge that a crisis exists."

A boat filled with refugees. (photo: Fotis Plegas G/Reuters)
A boat filled with refugees. (photo: Fotis Plegas G/Reuters)


America Has Accepted 10,000 Syrian Refugees. That’s Still Too Few.

By The Washington Post

03 September 16

 

N THE face of the most calamitous refugee crisis since World War II, the United States has finally begun granting refuge to displaced Syrians on a pace that, while still unequal to the problem’s scale and the United States’ capacity, at least starts to acknowledge that a crisis exists.

In an announcement Monday, the White House said the administration had met its goal of granting asylum to 10,000 Syrians in the current fiscal year, which ends in a month. Officials said they expect to continue accepting asylum applications in coming weeks and months.

The modesty of the numerical goal is incommensurate with the weight of the challenge posed by some 5 million Syrian refugees, including roughly 1.1 million already in Europe. Measured against resettlement programs on behalf of refugees by Germany, France, Britain and other Western countries, to say nothing of those by Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, America’s own efforts are meager. Canada, with a population barely a tenth the size of the United States’, has resettled three times more Syrian refugees since last fall. And Washington’s goal for the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1, is no greater than its goal for the current year.

National security adviser Susan Rice heralded the arrival of the 10,000th refugee by releasing a statement lauding the “important message” President Obama had sent. Given the craven resistance to any resettlement, especially among some Republican governors, the self-congratulation was understandable. Yet the United States could do much more.

Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were resettled in this country after the war there. More than 120,000 Cubans came to the United States in the course of a few months during the Mariel boatlift in 1980. As former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley has noted, if the United States, a country of 320 million, granted asylum to 65,000 Syrians, it would be statistically akin to adding 6½ people to a baseball stadium holding 32,000. And notwithstanding grandstanding politicians who depict the refugees as a grave threat, many of those who have been resettled, in towns and smaller cities in nearly 40 states, say they have been treated well by their new American neighbors.

The political headwinds have more to do with xenophobia, especially regarding the Middle East and Muslims, and a generalized fear of terrorist attacks, than with any specific or real threat posed by Syrian refugees.

While most Syrian refugees resettled in the past year are children and women, it is impossible to assure that none of them, and none of the 75,000 refugees accepted from around the world, may pose a security threat, now or in the future. Still, Syrian asylum-seekers have been subjected to intensive and enhanced security vetting, including face-to-face interviews by U.S. officials, scrutiny of social media accounts and other screening measures.

Previous waves of immigrants and refugees — Irish, Italians, Jews and Vietnamese — have been despised, feared and shunned by some Americans, much as Syrians are being vilified by some Americans now. Yet like their predecessors, Syrians, joining 150,000 of their countrymen already in the United States, will make new and productive lives that ultimately add to America’s unique dynamism.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sticks and Stones and Dead Wolves Print
Saturday, 03 September 2016 13:11

Miller writes: "Insults. Name-calling. Death threats. Sound like a Trump rally? Actually, it’s all part of the dialogue among conservation-minded folks in response to a recent Washington state decision to kill a wolf pack that had been preying on livestock on public land."

A gray wolf. (photo: Shutterstock)
A gray wolf. (photo: Shutterstock)


Sticks and Stones and Dead Wolves

By Stephen Miller, Yes Magazine

03 September 16

 

Misdirected public outrage over the killing of a Washington wolf pack may do more harm than good.

nsults. Name-calling. Death threats. Sound like a Trump rally? Actually, it’s all part of the dialogue among conservation-minded folks in response to a recent Washington state decision to kill a wolf pack that had been preying on livestock on public land.

But these aren’t death threats hurled at ranchers or poachers, as one may assume; the mud is being slung within the wildlife conservation community.

“Go enjoy a big old greasy burger,” commented one Facebook user on a Conservation Northwest (CNW) post explaining its support of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife decision to eradicate the Profanity Peak wolf pack.

“Hope you choke:-)”

Melodramatic outcries are blades of grass in the social media landscape, but the vitriol has extended to professionals on both sides of this complex debate.

On one hand are organizations like CNW, which joined a panel of other conservation nonprofits, ranchers, and officials in Washington’s Wolf Advisory Group, and stands behind its sometimes-lethal protocol for managing conflicts between wolves and livestock. On the other side are organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which promoted a rally at Washington’s state capital on Thursday to protest the killings. It has called for a ban on public-lands grazing.

Though many are involved, the discourse between these groups exemplifies the communication breakdown. Members of the CBD have accused CNW of selling out to the cattle industry and supporting the slaughter of a threatened species. Some within CNW have lashed out at the CBD, which does not operate in Washington, for appearing to exploit the plight of the Profanity Peak pack to generate donations.

It’s easy, from the outside, to get caught up in the rhetoric and miss the point. “There’s a lot more agreement than disagreement, but it comes down to the details,” said Noah Greenwald, the CBD’s endangered species director.

Everyone agrees that non-lethal measures to avoid livestock conflicts are the best solution. There were 11 wolves in the pack, and killing any is a last resort, employed only after other means have failed, said Paula Swedeen, CNW’s carnivore policy lead.

But Greenwald and others don’t believe that the advisory group protocol requires enough of ranchers—or even that killing wolves should be an option—and the Profanity Peak pack is the unfortunate example of the agreement’s shortcomings, he said.

It doesn’t help that the rancher whose cattle were lost was involved in the sanctioned killing of six wolves in 2012, or that a Washington State University associate professor had fanned the flames by commenting to The Seattle Times that the rancher “elected to put his livestock directly on top of (the wolves’) den site.” These comments were later said to have no basis in fact.

Then there’s the ongoing and heated debate over public-land use. “I just assume not ever have wolves killed on public lands,” Greenwald said, stressing a need for tolerance that allows for the inevitable. “Even if you’re doing everything you’re supposed to do, you’re going to lose some cows.”

But for those working in places where rural communities meet wild spaces, the ranching industry is not so easily shrugged aside.

Swedeen said that beef producers cannot tolerate a no-kill policy. Many families have held their grazing allotments for decades (True, that’s far shorter than the eons over which wolves roamed wild.) And private pastures in some cases actually help maintain what open space remains in a fast developing world.

Success so far has depended on building relationships with rural communities. For years, government policy allowed for the near complete destruction of U.S. wolf populations. As public opinion on wolves has changed, ranching culture is warming up to the animal’s presence again. Forced concession may hamper long-term efforts.

This year, Swedeen said ranchers—who are compensated for lost livestock—have employed more non-lethal tactics. Still, she could not deny the “viscerally difficult contradiction” of killing a species she’s working to protect.

There was weariness in the voices of people I spoke with about this story. Quickly drawn public outrage can easily paint an overly simplistic picture, when the full image has been pieced together over many years.

Wolves have bounced back in Washington. There are 19 known packs, and CNW’s on-the-ground Range Rider program, which places horseback patrols on grazing allotments, and efforts to build relationships and shift sentiment about wolves among rural communities should not be discounted.

Yet, it’s no exaggeration that by the time you read this, the Profanity Peak pack may be gone. That’s 11 lives, and about 10 percent of the state’s total population.

“Wolves can come back from this, but if you keep killing that many wolves, eventually you’re going to have a declining population,” Greenwald said.

The advisory group will hold a meeting on Sept. 14. Debate is necessary. Outrage over destruction of life is warranted. But we live in a time of excess hyperbole, when misinformation can quickly lead to regrettable action. If your beef is with the cattle industry, may I suggest the chicken?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: New York's Cuomo Tries to Bail Out Dying Nukes Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=25330"><span class="small">Harvey Wasserman, The Progressive</span></a>   
Saturday, 03 September 2016 11:10

Wasserman writes: "New York’s “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to ram through a complex backdoor bailout package worth up to $11 billion to keep at least four dangerously decrepit nuclear reactors operating.”

A nuclear power plant. (photo: Matt Champlin/Getty Images)
A nuclear power plant. (photo: Matt Champlin/Getty Images)


New York's Cuomo Tries to Bail Out Dying Nukes

By Harvey Wasserman, The Progressive

03 September 16

 

ew York’s “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo is trying to ram through a complex backdoor bailout package worth up to $11 billion to keep at least four dangerously decrepit nuclear reactors operating.

To many proponents of safe energy, the move comes as a shock. Its outcome will have monumental consequences for nuclear power and the future of our energy supply.

For years, Governor Cuomo has made a public show of working to shut down two Entergy-owned reactors at Indian Point, thirty-five miles north of Manhattan. He and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have fought Entergy in court, trying to stop operations. They warn that the reactors are too dangerous to run so close to New York City, which cannot be evacuated in case of a major accident.  More than ten million people live within a fifty-mile radius of Indian Point, whose two operating reactors opened in the 1970s.  

Entergy is now trying to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the expired operating licenses for the two plants, Indian Point Two and Three. (Indian Point Unit One was shut in October 1974 due to its lack of an Emergency Core Cooling System).

Cuomo claims he still wants to close Indian Point Two and Three. Like most aging reactors, they have been continually plagued with leaks, mechanical failures, structural collapse, and unplanned shutdowns. Recent revelations of major problems with critical bolts within Indian Point’s core structure, and tritium leaks into the broader environment, have deepened public opposition.

The national and local groups fighting to shut Indian Point, some for decades, include Riverkeepers, Clearwater, the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition, the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Earth, and many more.

But now Cuomo wants to earmark more than $7 billion in public money, for starters, to keep four upstate nuclear reactors on line. One is the Ginna reactor, near Rochester; the other three—FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point One, and Nine Mile Point Two—occupy a single site on Lake Ontario. Fitzpatrick is owned by Entergy. The rest are owned by Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power owner/operator.

All four reactors are in various stages of advanced deterioration and were slated for permanent closure. Without massive public subsidies, none can compete with natural gas or with wind and solar, which are rapidly dropping in price.

Entergy announced last fall that economic factors would force it to shut Fitzpatrick in January 2017. Exelon told the New York Public Service Commission that it would probably shut Nine Mile 1 and Ginna next year as well.   

Environmentalists hailed the announcements. The aging U.S. fleet now involves about 100 reactors, down from a maximum of about 130, and 900 fewer than the 1,000 Richard Nixon predicted in 1974. Many of them, like Ginna, are well over forty years old. Many are known to be leaking various radioactive substances, most commonly tritium, as at Indian Point. Major leaks have also recently been revealed at FitzPatrick. Structural problems like Indian Point's missing bolts and a crumbling shield building at Ohio’s Davis-Besse are rampant.  

Nonetheless, in a complex twelve-year package ostensibly meant to promote clean energy, Cuomo’s PSC has passed a huge subsidy plan meant keep the four upstate reactors going

The deal’s arcane terms involve a transfer of Fitzpatrick from Entergy to Exelon.  The handouts from the public to the nuclear industry would be spread over more than a decade. Ironically, they could, under certain circumstances, also be used to keep open the two reactors at Indian Point.

Cuomo has made much of “saving” some 2,000 reactor jobs jobs in a depressed region where unemployment is rampant. But Stanford economist Mark Jacobson has shown that the billions spent to keep the reactors open could create tens of thousands of jobs throughout the state if spent on pursuing wind and solar energy and increased efficiency. Those sources could provide New York with far more energy at a much cheaper rate, without the long-term safety, ecological, and public health problems caused by the aging reactors.

Cuomo has also cited former climate expert James Hanson, claiming the prolonged nuke operations will not emit carbon. But the pro-nukers ignore the four reactors’ huge hot water and steam releases.

U.S. reactors each dump some 800 million to 1.25 billion gallons of hot water and steam into the environment every day, a major source of global warming. The estimate for the daily emissions at California’s double-reactor plant at Diablo Canyon is about 2.5 billion gallons of hot water per day. Only about one-third of the energy U.S. reactors produce actually makes it onto the grid in the form of useable electricity. About ten percent of that is then lost in transmission.  

Nuke operators throughout the United States are watching to see if New York’s proposed subsidies will keep set a precedent for states to jump in and keep money-losing reactors operating as they crumble. Exelon has lost a fight for billions in Illinois. Environmental, consumer, and even competing utilities are fighting huge bailout demands from FirstEnergy for its Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo.

At the turn of the twenty-first century, the industry fought for deregulation, arguing that its reactors would do well in a “free market economy.” But in the process it demanded (and got) about $100 billion in public handouts for “stranded costs” that it argued were unfairly imposed on its massively inefficient technology.

Now that the reactors are failing even after that huge cash infusion, the industry wants another round of huge subsidies

Meanwhile, there are some positive signs. In California, a turning-point deal has been cut at Diablo Canyon with the state, Pacific Gas & Electric, the plant’s unions and major environmental groups to shut the two huge reactors in about nine years, when their licenses expire. In the meantime, the utility will shift almost entirely to carbon-free wind and solar, and will “retain and retrain” the bulk of the plant’s workers.

California’s anti-nuke community worries that the nine years left for Diablo to operate are too much. The two reactors sit on or near a dozen earthquake faults, and are just forty-five miles from the San Andreas, half the distance Fukushima was from the epicenter of the quake that destroyed it.

But the deal marks the first time a nuclear utility has admitted that all the power from its reactors can come instead from renewables. And it’s the first major phase-out plan to allow for a transition for both the plant’s workers and the nearby communities, which will lose a substantial tax base when the reactors close.

With such developments as a backdrop, the New York fight could be a serious turning point in nuke power’s last battle.

The reaction among New York anti-nuke groups to Cuomo's handout has been fierce. The battle heads back to the PSC in the form of public comment, and then into the courts. Opponents are buoyed by the growing success of the state’s solar industry. As the interests tied to Solartopian technologies expand, their opposition to bailouts like this escalates.

It’s unclear how the battle over nuclear power in New York will be resolved. “The fight,” promises Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “is far from over.”



Harvey Wasserman, a co-founder of the global “No Nukes” movement, has been writing for The Progressive since 1967. He is author of Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth, and edits www.nukefree.org.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: I Stand With My Dear Brother Colin Kaepernick Print
Saturday, 03 September 2016 10:25

West writes: "I stand with my dear brother Colin Kaepernick as he sits or kneels in the name of justice and love of black people. I also applaud brothers Eric Reid and Jeremy Lane as they follow their conscience with courage.”

Professor Cornel West. (photo: Vice)
Professor Cornel West. (photo: Vice)


I Stand With My Dear Brother Colin Kaepernick

By Cornel West, Cornel West's Facebook Page

03 September 16

 

stand with my dear brother Colin Kaepernick as he sits or kneels in the name of justice and love of black people. I also applaud brothers Eric Reid and Jeremy Lane as they follow their conscience with courage.

As a youth, I was kicked out of school for refusing to salute the flag. Now I stand for the memory of my beloved father and others who gave much under the flag -- yet I stand in order for others to have the right to refuse to stand -- just keep the "Love Supreme" at the center of the refusing.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Next > End >>

Page 1914 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