Tag Archives: Clinton

Advice for the Democrats, That They Won’t Take

Yes, impossible as it sounds, Donald Trump is president-elect of the United States. He of the multiple wives and revenge-fueled actions; misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic attitudes; an originator of the birther movement and xenophobe extraordinaire will soon inhabit the White House. That is a frightening thought, but add to that the fact that with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, there is no reasonable check on Mr. Trump’s impulses. And since many members of Congress disparaged, insulted and refused to support him during the campaign, they will be crawling on glass as penance as they approach him to regain favor, and will not want to thwart anything he may propose.

And what will this mean? Well, he has vowed to abolish the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, thus depriving at least 20 million people of basic health care. He said he will nullify the Iran nuclear deal, destroying the trust of European allies in the word of the U.S, and bringing the world closer to nuclear disaster. He will prevent any Muslims from entering the country, provide greater impunity (if that is even possible) to the nation’s racist police, put an end to same-sex marriage, and, in many ways, bring the nation back to the era of the 1950s. For those who don’t remember those days, segregation was the law of the land, a woman’s place was in the home, anyone suspected of any communist leanings was publicly persecuted, and the Cold War was in full swing. Ah, yes! The good old days!

Predictions of the demise of the Republican Party were certainly premature; it is now the Democrats who need to take a careful look in the mirror. The fact that they probably won’t is neither here nor there.  But, on the off chance that someone in the Party thinks doing so is a good idea, we will provide them with a bit of guidance, to send them on their way.

First, they might want to rethink this whole ‘super delegate’ thing. Yes, it seemed to them that Hillary Clinton somehow ‘deserved’ the nomination, and why let the people decide such a thing? What do they know? And while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders proved himself to be nothing more than a common politician, with no more integrity than that implies, this wasn’t necessarily common knowledge during the primary campaign. But, the Democratic Party, in a most undemocratic way, set about to torpedo his chances, and install Hillary Clinton as their chosen one.

We must ask: why did they think this was a good idea? What was it about Mrs. Clinton that made the powers-that-be in the Party think she was their savior? She and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have enriched themselves through their ‘service’ to the nation. She carried along the campaign more baggage than a freight train. She was disliked and distrusted by large swaths of the population.  Yet this was the candidate who was going to break the glass ceiling, proving to all young girls that there were no gender-based limits. It would be she who would carry on President Obama’s legacy of healthcare for Americans, women’s’ rights, marriage equality, and other, less savory policies, like murder by drone, oppression of the Palestinians, etc., etc.

But. alas, the little people had other ideas about all this, and decided that a racist, misogynist, inexperienced blowhard was a better choice. We all know that, to hear the Democrats and their fawning minions tell it, the GOP is the Party of the rich, and the Democrats, of the working man and woman. Too bad those decision-makers have such an obstructed view from their ivory towers, and can’t quite see that, Republican or Democrat, they are different iterations of the same tired programs.

Second, the Democrats might try differentiating themselves from the Republicans in some significant ways. For example, both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and a variety of other candidates, bowed and scraped before their Israeli masters at the annual AIPAC (Apartheid Israel Political Affairs Committee) convention in March; Mr. Sanders skipped that event, and instead sent a letter, criticizing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This did nothing to sink his candidacy; the internal workings of the Democratic Party did that to him. So, including as part of the platform, perhaps, some statement about making further financial assistance to Israel contingent upon that country adhering to international law and improving its dismal human rights record, might have been attractive to many voters. Mirroring the Republican policy doesn’t provide much choice.

Third, going back at least to the era of the 1960s and ‘70’s, as the Vietnam War raged, the Democratic Party eventually began to embrace the controversial concept of peace. Now, this, of course, was never fully adapted; who in their right mind wants peace over war? Whoever heard of such a thing? The U.S., we all know, must flex its military muscle almost constantly, in order to keep the arms manufacturers happy. But the idea of ending barbaric drone warfare, not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and perhaps even dismantling some of the U.S’. nuclear arsenal might have had more appeal than the tired, pro-war policies of Hillary Clinton.

Following the defeat of the odious Mitt Romney by Mr. Obama in 2012, there was much talk about the need for the Republican Party to redefine itself, to, perhaps, even, become more inclusive. Nothing ever came of that high-sounding rhetoric, and remaining as it was seems now to have been a formula for success. So, perhaps the Democrats will do the same; look for someone to blame for this electoral disaster, talk about how to prevent it in the future, and then carry on with business as usual.

Politics in the U.S. isn’t about governing; it’s about keeping high-paying, low-responsibility jobs. After all, for most of us, there are a certain number of days required for us to attend our jobs; we may have a few weeks of paid vacation, but other than that, we are expected to be working. Not so for elected officials. Also, most of us have certain deliverables we need to produce: lesson plans, software programs, various products, etc. Again, elected officials have no such responsibilities. And if the wealthy individuals and organizations that donate to politicians’ election campaigns are happy, what else matters?

The next couple of months will prove interesting, and will provide us with a view of the next few years. From where this writer sits, it isn’t looking pretty. But the view of U.S. governance has never been very pleasant, since an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy can never conceal its true nature. And with the wild card called Donald Trump due to move into the White House, what happens next is anyone’s guess.

Originally published by TheTruther.US.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Militarism, Palestine, U.S. Politics

The Democrats’ Great Mistake

Donald Trump is president-elect. It is still difficult for this writer to string those words together. He watched the unfolding disaster on election night, knowing, when he sat down to his computer screen, that, regardless of who won, it would be a disaster. He had not, however, anticipated this particular one.

Democrat Hillary Clinton appears as of this writing to have won the popular vote, but Mr. Trump prevailed in the archaic, outdated and counterproductive electoral college. One hopes he doesn’t see his win as a mandate, but this is Donald Trump we are talking about, so we might as well forget that idea.

But how did this happen? How did an obnoxious, egotistical blowhard like Mr. Trump manage to be elected president of the United States? He discusses women in the most repulsive, derogatory manner. He has insulted Mexicans and wants to ban Muslims from entering the country. He has vowed to remove health care from at least 20 million U.S. citizens. He has wondered aloud why the country has nuclear weapons if it isn’t going to use them. The frightening list goes on.

Yet how this came to pass isn’t really a secret; self-deluding Democrats may wonder about it, but the evidence is clear: the Democratic Party offered a deeply flawed candidate.

Let’s go back even earlier than the primary season, to find the source of this crucial error. The Democrats created the ‘super delegate’ model, providing all Democratic members of Congress, party bigwigs and insiders with nominating votes that had no accountability to rank-and-file party members. As a result, Hillary Clinton entered the primary season with hundreds of pledged delegates. Then, regardless of the outcome in state primaries and caucuses, these delegates were not obligated to vote for the candidate who won; they were free to vote for anyone they chose, and nearly all of them were committed to Hillary Clinton.

This causes at least two problems: 1) a candidate who doesn’t have widespread support (Mrs. Clinton) can be nominated, and 2), if that happens, Democrats who voted for the opponent (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders) for the nomination feel cheated, and, rather than falling into line like good little soldiers, seek out a third-party alternative, or just opt to stay home on election day.

Now, let’s look at the candidate herself. Hillary Clinton has a long and storied history in U.S. politics and governance. She was twice First Lady of Arkansas during her husband’s two, non-consecutive terms as governor there, and then was First Lady of the U.S. for eight years. She was twice elected to the senate, representing New York State, resigning midway through her second term to become Secretary of State, a role she held for four years.

Each of these roles deserve some consideration.

Following Governor Bill Clinton’s defeat for governor after his first term, it was Mrs. Clinton who engineered his comeback. This certainly indicates an ambitious and politically savvy woman, both traits needed for elective office. Yet during his time in office, it was more than subtly suggested that he directed lucrative government contracts to the law firm that employed her. There was never any proof; neither of them was charged with any wrongdoing, but this was just the first of the shadows of impropriety, bordering on illegality, that would haunt her through the 2016 election.

Additionally, during the time of Mr. Clinton’s tenure as governor, Mrs. Clinton invested the modest sum of $1,000.00 in cattle futures. At the end of ten months, when she decided to stop trading, without having any training or experience in this area, she had turned that amount into $100,000.00.

Now, that could be considered luck, or simply being a ‘quick study’. No one has ever accused Mrs. Clinton of being stupid.

At one period during this ten-month stretch of time, Mrs. Clinton was in debt for over $100,000 to a financial services firm. Typically, in such a circumstance, the financial services firm would require the investor to pay the funds, or offer some collateral against the debt. This, however, was not done in this case. What, one might have asked at the time, might the firm have received in return for its generosity towards the governor’s wife?  The shadow, therefore, lengthened.

As First Lady of the United States, she didn’t fulfill the traditional role. She was considered a close advisor for her husband, and was appointed by him to develop a healthcare plan. This also caused deep resentment against her; she had no official position in office, but was given a major responsibility.

During these years, she was accused of orchestrating the dismissal of the White House travel staff, so that her own friends and those of her husband could replace them. Although questioned, she was never charged, but the prosecutor said that, while many of her statements were ‘factually false’, there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

In June of 1996, Mrs. Clinton was implicated in what became known as ‘Filegate’. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security, had requested and received from the FBI information about a large number of individuals, mainly advisors from previous, Republican administrations. Mrs. Clinton was accused of requesting, or authorizing the request of, these files, for political purposes. She and the president were eventually exonerated.

During Mr. Clinton’s re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton was implicated in a scheme to obtain donations to the Democratic National Committee from China, in violation of U.S. law.

In 1996, Mrs. Clinton became the first, and to date, only, First Lady to testify before a Federal grand jury. This was in the investigation into possible obstruction of justice at the White House regarding an inquiry into her former Arkansas law firm.

On the day before Mr. Clinton left office, he pardoned 450 people convicted of various crimes. Included in this number were two people who each paid Mrs. Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodman, $200,000.00 to represent their cases for clemency. One can imagine that Mr. Rodman may have had an ‘in’ to the president, that not every lawyer had.

When Mrs. Clinton decided to run for senate from New York, she had to make a change in her life: she had to establish residency in a state in which she had never lived. Despite the fact that she was the first and, thus far, only First Lady to run for elective office after her husband’s term as president ended, being a senator from Arkansas, where she lived for many years, apparently was not as potent a springboard to her further ambitions as being senator from NY would be. So, she and Mr. Clinton bought a house in New York, she announced her candidacy, and won.

Before she threw her hat into the ring, the most likely person to run was Representative Nita Lowey. However, as soon as Mrs. Clinton expressed an interest in running, Ms. Lowey stepped aside. This brought about more than a little criticism; Ms. Lowey had been a member of the House for ten years, and Mrs. Clinton had held no elective office.

It is interesting to note Ms. Lowey’s sentiments during the most recent primary season. She, of course, was a ‘super-delegate’, who had pledged to vote to nominate Mrs. Clinton. When her spokesperson was asked if she would switch her vote, should Mr. Sanders win the NY primary, this was the response: “Absolutely not… Hillary Clinton is Congresswoman Lowey’s friend, colleague and her constituent, and she is behind her 100%.” This ‘loyalty’, which disregards the will of the people does nothing to endear Mrs. Clinton to the average voter.

When Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received millions of dollars in donations, not only from huge, multinational corporations, but also from foreign governments. The appearance of conflicts of interest in this situation is too strong to be overlooked.

More recently, her use of a private server for highly-confidential emails, and the resulting FBI investigations, further cast doubt on her integrity, and added to the general consensus that she sees herself above the law.

The millions of people who despise Mrs. Clinton will say that no one can be under so many different clouds of suspicion, and be completely innocent. Her countless fawning minions will say that, despite all attempts to besmirch her good name, she has never been charged with anything.

Let’s look now at some of her policies that may have been troubling for the U.S. voter.

It is said that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind of the decision to overthrow the government of Libya, which has caused untold suffering in that nation. No one believes that Muammar Gaddafi was a choir boy, but the death toll since his overthrow far exceeds the numbers that died during his reign. And Mrs. Clinton’s flippant attitude about his death also repels many people.

After the September 11 attacks on the United States, Mrs. Clinton voted to authorize the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. This invasion killed at least a million people, sent millions more into refugee camps, spawned a civil war, and left Iraqis in dire situations.

She fully supports Israel, despite its ongoing violations of numerous international laws, and ignores the legitimate claims to basic human rights of the Palestinian people. She says nothing in opposition of the draconian, apartheid laws of Israel, or the brutal killings of unarmed, innocent, Palestinian men, women and children by Israeli soldiers and settlers. She is silent about the illegal Israeli settlements.

Mrs. Clinton supports the foreign fighters opposing the government of Syria. She has accused Russia of crimes in Syria, ignoring the greater crimes of the U.S. in that country. She says nothing about the barbaric human rights record of Saudi Arabia, with which the U.S. has full diplomatic relations.

Now, there are many factors that impact the result of an election. The popularity of the incumbent; the state of the economy; the personality of the candidates, etc., all play into the decision-making process of the voters. This year, the Democrats offered a candidate:

  • Who is the quintessential Washington insider;
  • With a long history of activities that apparently were just short of illegal;
  • That had the demonstrated support of party bosses, but not of the rank-and-file voter;
  • Who supported a war that much of the world opposed, that was built on transparent lies, and
  • With a long record of supporting war.

This shouldn’t imply that the Republicans nominated an angel; seldom, if ever, has a more unsuitable candidate been elected president. But the voting public wasn’t interested in more Clinton: eight years of Bill, and Hillary being in the public eye for decades, was simply more than enough. She could not be seen as a ‘change agent’; no one perceives her as being able to ‘shake things up’.

Although Mr. Sanders showed his true colors when he gave Mrs. Clinton a glowing endorsement at the Democratic convention, after the nomination had been stolen from him, and after he’d said she was unfit to be president, he was by far the stronger candidate than she. But the strength of the ultimate U.S. ‘power couple’ far outweighed logical considerations. Mrs. Clinton had been waiting in the wings for years, the curtain was soon to rise, and she wasn’t going to miss her cue. She and the Democratic Party didn’t realize that the audience had already departed.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Militarism, Palestine, Political Musings, U.S., U.S. Politics

The First Woman President: We Can Do Better than This

Well, with just a few weeks to the 2016 presidential election, the voters seem to be hesitantly lining up behind (‘rallying around’ denotes some level of enthusiasm, and is really too strong a term to use here) what many consider to be the less loathsome of two loathsome choices. These are people who overlook the blood, carnage and death that Hillary Clinton left in her wake from her time in the U.S. senate, and as Secretary of State. They focus, instead, on Donald Trump’s repugnant misogyny, his leaked comments about women, and the many women who have come forward to accuse him.

So, it does appear that the U.S. will follow-up on the history-making election of an African-American, with the history-making election of a woman. But does it have to be her? Surely, in a nation with hundreds of millions of people, there are women more qualified than one so wealthy, self-centered, and out of touch with the common man and woman, owned by corporate lobbyists, beholden to every individual or corporation whoever wrote her a check in excess of $50,000, who disdains human rights and international law. Somewhere, there must be a woman qualified to lead the United States out of the current corrupt, war-mongering mess it has gotten itself into.

Well, this writer wouldn’t bring up such a serious problem, unless he had an answer to it.  A woman who is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton is, in fact, running for president, not as a Republican or Democrat, two sides of the same ugly coin, but representing the Party for Socialism and Liberation. He refers, of course, to Gloria La Riva.

gloria_la_riva

He first learned of Ms. La Riva when looking for a third-party candidate for whom to vote, being ready to fling himself off a bridge before voting for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. He subsequently had the opportunity of interviewing her, after studying her platform. Recently, she was interviewed by Abby Martin on ‘The Empire Files’, and once again demonstrated that she is an intelligent, articulate woman who is able to describe realistic solutions to the complex problems the U.S. has brought onto itself and the world.

On October 25, Ms. La Riva will be one of three (thus far) candidates scheduled for a presidential debate sponsored by ‘Free and Equal’, in Boulder, Colorado. She, of course, is not allowed into the three-ring circus known as the Republican and Democratic presidential debates. No, only the two aforementioned clowns can perform there, because Ms. La Riva, Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson don’t qualify with a large enough standing in the polls. Of course, those rules are set by the Democrats and Republicans. One might think that some independent organization would sponsor debates to which all potentially-viable candidates were invited. Oh, wait; an organization has done so. It’s known as ‘Free and Equal’. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump are too busy with their own program to guest-star on another one. After all, aren’t three debates enough for the little people? What do they expect? Transparency? Choice? Ha!

So, does this writer think that, if the stars align just right, Ms. La Riva will be elected president? He is many things, but naïve is not one of them. Yet with the major parties offering repulsive candidates, a vote for Ms. La Riva and her sensible platform is the only vote that makes sense to him.

If we want to look for a glimmer of hope for the United States, perhaps we should look to the youth. In California, several high schools recently held a mock election (a good term for the farce that approaches on November 8). Of the nearly 190,000 votes cast, Ms. La Riva received about 7%, or approximately 13,000 votes. It is noteworthy that, despite the media blackout on all third parties except for Dr. Stein and Mr. Johnson, and media coverage of them being limited at best, fully 7% would vote for the Socialist Party candidate. As Ms. La Riva said: “Students are increasingly aware of the problems in their society. They know when their family is struggling to get by, or doesn’t have stable housing or enough food to live on. Students experience the pain and insecurity of capitalism.” The social media generation, which relies less on the corporate-owned media for news, may be what saves the U.S., if it isn’t simply too late to do so.

trump-and-clintonWhen this writer announces to friends and associates his intention to vote for Ms. La Riva, he hears the same tired objections to third-party voting that he himself made in previous years: you are throwing away your vote; you are drawing a vote from the lesser terrible candidate, thus ensuring the election of the more terrible one, etc., etc. You need to vote for Hillary Clinton, he is told, otherwise a racist, misogynist, Islamophobic, homophobic blowhard will be elected president, with his finger on the nuclear button! Or, you must vote for Donald Trump, otherwise a corrupt, war-mongering, hypocritical liar will be elected president, with her finger on the nuclear button! Blah, blah, blah.

Well, please allow this writer to repent and apologize; he sees clearly now that to which he was previously blind. Or, just perhaps, there was some semblance of choice in previous elections, but he will leave his justifications for another time.

Voting for either of the 1% candidates to which we are subjected by the so-called major parties only entrenches them further, and enables them to keep their monopoly on elections.

By voting for Gloria La Riva, this writer is endorsing significant change, and indicating to the powers that be that their crimes will no longer be universally overlooked. He is helping to lay the groundwork for a new party, not just something established or propped up by the Democrats to appear to offer the voters a choice, as the Republican Party self-destructs. With his vote for Ms. La Riva, he hopes to motivate others to look at alternatives, and not just for a more ‘liberal’ Democrat (does such a creature even exist today?), but someone who offers real change, who respects domestic and international law, and recognizes the basic human rights of every man, woman and child on the planet. This is not something we see among the Democrats or Republicans; they may be a somewhat distorted mirror image of each other, but they are a mirror image nonetheless.

Gloria La Riva proposes smashing that mirror, and establishing a United States based on justice for all, an end to the oligarchy, and making the country a responsible global citizen, rather than the frightening global thug it is today.

Throwing away his vote? Not at all. He is pleased to cast it for Ms. La Riva.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, U.S. Politics

Black is White in the United States

It seems that United States society, somewhat like poor Alice, has eaten some kind of mushroom that is distorting reality. At first, this peculiar mushroom was a side dish, and those consuming it were considered the more bizarre elements of society. Today, however, it is the main course, greedily eaten whenever the opportunity presents itself.

And why does this writer think such a thing has happened? Let us look at what is, today, criticized, and what is embraced. The reader can then determine if a better explanation than the taking of some hallucinogenic exists.

  • Education: There was a time when it was thought beneficial to be educated. This would not only, it was said, get_a_brain_morans - resizedassure a better job, but would also make the educated person more well-rounded. While one may have focused on, say, accounting in college, required courses probably included world history, literature, a foreign language and other subjects not pertinent to balancing ledgers. Yet such a person could converse easily with a variety of people from different backgrounds; would have insights into different opinions, and would, it was thought, be open to new ideas.

Not so, say today’s politicians. Education is associated with ‘elitism’, an ‘I’m-better-than-you’ attitude that has no place in our society. After all, what good is ‘book learning’, when one can quote, out of context, a few passages of the Bible, and not need to think beyond that?

  • Tolerance: Many people can remember something referred to as ‘The Golden Rule’. This, simply stated, is: ‘Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you’. This is the foundation of most religious beliefs in the world today.

But in twenty-first century, U.S. society, why do we need such a thing as tolerance? What has it ever gotten us? Well, for one thing, it has gotten us foreigners! Yes, people who don’t speak English; people whose houses of worship don’t mosque - resizedhave crosses atop them; women so unenlightened as to want to keep their bodies covered, if one can imagine anything so backward!

And if that’s not bad enough, closets everywhere are opening, and gay people are coming out of them! Trying, by their very existence, to indoctrinate impressionable children into their way of life! Some of them even marry each other!

No, this tolerance thing has no place in U.S. society.

  • Respect: A general admiration for someone or something is usually thought of as a positive trait. One may disagree with a person, but still respect the thoughtful consideration of their position that has led them to draw the conclusions that they have. Respect is demonstrated by such things as not interrupting people; being able to disagree without criticizing, and treating them as one would like to be treated oneself (please see reference to ‘The Golden Rule’, above).

Today, who needs such old-fashioned things like respect? Much better to let one’s true feelings be known by referring to Hillary Clinton as ‘Crooked Hillary’ (this writer is not disputing that she is, indeed, crooked, but thinks there are better ways of getting that point across), or chanting ‘Dump Trump’. Clever, indeed, but not too respectful, but then again, like tolerance, respect is simply an outdated concept with no place in modern U.S. society.

  • Human rights: It is generally understood that certain rights, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence (remember that old thing?), are basic to every human being on the planet. The Declaration of Independence describes them broadly as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, human rights are all well and good for some, but let’s not go around giving them to everyone. What do human rights and young black men wearing hoodies have to do with each other? Nothing! And while we’re on the topic, who do any unarmed black men think they are that they should have human rights? If police officers want to shoot them, stop murder by police - resizedthey can and should be able to do so. How else are they going to improve their shooting skills, in case they are called to a real crime scene, if they don’t have innocent blacks to practice on?

Related to this is the privilege of health care. Now, one may believe, naively, that all people are entitled to medical care, that it, too, is a human right. Not so, say today’s talking heads. Candidates actually run for office with a pledge to reduce the number of people who get health care! This seems to this writer to be a most bizarre campaign promise.

  • Religion: For centuries, people have looked to a higher power, for comfort and guidance, in good times and bad. The various interpretations of sacred books such as the Bible and the Quran have resulted in multiple sects, most of them following the Golden Rule as well as they can. These religions taught tolerance and respect, so we can all see where they belong today.

But they are, actually, still around, and for most of those who choose to follow them, tolerance and respect are part of their daily lives. But others have chosen to use religion as a weapon with which to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with their position. This perversion has actually been used to pass anti-bullying laws that have exceptions for  ‘religious oriented bullying’. Now, this concept is most puzzling to this writer. He is a Christian, active in the religion he embraced in his twenties. His familiarity with scripture makes the entire concept of ‘religious oriented bullying’  one that gives him a headache. Are there actually people walking the streets of our towns and cities who believe Jesus Christ was intolerant? Do they truly think he would endorse any kind of bullying? Alas, such people exist, and are in positions of influence, in the government, and the corporate-owned media.

So, let’s review the new ‘virtues’ of U.S. society: ignorance, intolerance, disrespect, selective human rights, and religion as a weapon. This is the ‘great melting pot’ of the United States, the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave’.

These attitudes are the very reason the U.S. is faced with two of the worst candidates in history in this year’s presidential election.  For example, Mrs. Clinton relies on the ignorance of the people to foster the idea that Palestine is a threat to Israel, when the reverse is clearly true. Intolerance for and disrespect of Muslims allow her to threaten Iran and oppress Palestine, and deny Palestinians their basic human rights.

Mr. Trump appealed to the basest instincts of an ignorant, intolerant population to propel himself to the GOP (Generally Opposed to Progress) nomination, and will continue this method as he attempts to gain the White House.

Can this be reversed? Although the situation has become dire, and the country seems to be at the brink of disaster, there is hope, and that hope resides in third party candidacies.  There are dozens of parties running candidates for president this year, and this writer encourages the reader to explore them. Of particular note is Gloria La Riva, of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). The 10-Point Program of the PSL is a treatise of practical, common sense
solutions to the many problems plaguing the 99% in the U.S. today, problems that benefit the powerful, governing 1%, thus removing from them any incentive to resolve them.

In an election year where there is clearly no lesser of two evils, a vote for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton is a throwaway vote; it doesn’t really matter which of the two is victorious. But a vote for a third-party candidate is significant, as it sends a message, one that will grow with time, that the status quo, the nomination of members of the established oligarchy, will no longer be accepted as a fait accompli.

Change does not happen overnight, but with the current situation in the U.S., it must not be delayed.

Originally published in TheTruther.US.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Palestine, Political Musings, U.S. Politics

A Perfect Couple: Sanders and Clinton

Much to the surprise of absolutely no one but his most ardent fans, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has sold his soul and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Only time will tell what he received in return: a position in a Clinton Cabinet, or perhaps a prestigious assignment in the senate. One hopes he held out for more than a meaningless plank in the Democratic Party platform which, when combined with all the other meaningless planks, makes for a meaningless platform. More on that later. But this is all business as usual when the kingmakers are hard at work, plying their craft.

There was talk in the last several days about overtures the Green Party had made to Mr. Sanders, with the gross exaggeration that likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein had offered to step aside to enable him to head the ticket. Dr. Stein herself issued a clarification, saying that while the party had reached out to the senator, there were a variety of issues that would need to have been discussed if there was any partnership to be established. She also said that, unlike the Democratic Party, the delegates to the Green Party convention would determine the nominee; it wasn’t hers to give away.

Mr. Sanders’ statement endorsing his former opponent is puzzling indeed. The constraints of time and space prevent a thorough analysis, but we will look at a few key points, and attempt to make sense of them.

“Together, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution continues.”

I think not. Certainly, many people jumped on the Sanders bandwagon, hoping for such changes as a higher minimum wage and an end to astronomical student debt. But, while these are certainly desirable, they do not a revolution make. A good place to start a revolution might be to end war and international militarism, but the good senator had no intention of doing any such thing.

“Together, we continue the fight to create a government which represents all of us, and not just the one percent….”

Senator Sanders would have us believe that Mrs. Clinton, a woman with an estimated fortune of $45 million, is going to fight for the 99%. This is a woman who never met a corporate lobby she didn’t love. Perhaps Mr. Sanders thinks that his devoted followers will buy whatever it is he chooses to sell, so he decided to bring out the snake oil.

“It is easy to forget where we were seven and a half years ago when President Obama came into office. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, our economy was in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.”

Curiouser and Curiouser! Does Mr. Sanders forget that the woman whose praises he is now singing earned nearly $700,000 for three, yes three, speeches to Goldman Sachs? Does he expect anyone to believe that she will oppose corporate advantages in order to fight for the common worker? Favors, in the amount of fees and campaign donations, have been granted, and will certainly be called in during a Hillary Clinton administration.

Mrs. Clinton “…knows that it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given year because of loopholes their lobbyists created.”

Please see comment, above.

During this puzzling speech, Mr. Sanders referred to the Democratic Platform, and said this: “… we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.” ‘Progressive’ is such an appealing term to pass around and make liberals feel good. And while this writer risks boring the reader with endless bullet points, he reviewed a draft of the platform, and would like to point out just two of the ‘progressive’ aspects of it:

“Democrats will also address the detrimental role Iran plays in the region and will robustly enforce and, if necessary, strengthen non-nuclear sanctions. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. It violates the human rights of its population, denies the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, and has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East.”

Iran is not the ‘leading state sponsor of terrorism; by any and all accounts, that dubious distinction belongs to the United States, which ‘has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East’.

“We will continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity.”

“Israelis deserve security, recognition, and a normal life free from terror and incitement. Palestinians should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity.”

Now, this paragraph deserves our close attention, so the writer will dissect it, like a scientist in a lab.

“We will continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The U.S. has been unsuccessful in this endeavor or generations, and will continue to be as long as the government is bought and paid for by Israeli lobbies. And it is likely that the U.S. has no interest in ending this ‘conflict’.

“…negotiated directly by the parties…”

As this writer has pointed out previously,  negotiations can only take place between two parties, each of which has something the other wants, and that can only be obtained by surrendering something it has. Israel takes what it wants from Palestine with complete impunity. There can be no negotiations.

Additionally, does the Democratic Party have no respect for international law? Israel is in violation of that law by its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and blockade of Gaza. Why would anyone suggest negotiations?

Such negotiations are supposed to “…guarantee Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provide the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity.” Shouldn’t any plan also guarantee Palestine’s future as a ‘secure and democratic state with recognized borders’?

“Israelis deserve security, recognition, and a normal life free from terror and incitement. Palestinians should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity”

Do not Palestinians deserve ‘security, recognition and a normal life free from terror and incitement’?

So much for Mr. Sanders’ ‘progressive’ platform.

Difficult as it is to say anything positive about the Republican Party, at least its voters thought ‘outside of the box’ this year. There was no decent candidate running, so rather than choosing some tired career politician, they selected a billionaire racist, homophobic, Islamophopic misogynist. The Democrats played by their rigged rulebook, and are about to nominate the quintessential Washington insider.

Is there a lesser evil between these two? Hardly! Each, in his or her own way, will cause untold suffering at home and abroad; do nothing to assist those who are struggling; enrich their friends and associates, and leave a trail of blood and carnage in their wake.

On July 12, this writer had the opportunity of interviewing Gloria La Riva, the presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. He strongly encourages the reader to review her policy recommendations, which, unlike the Democratic Party platform, are filled with practical, common sense solutions to the complex problems facing the country and the world.

Never has the time been better than now to vote third party.

Originally published by Counterpunch.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Apartheid, BDS, Gaza, Human Rights, Israel, Militarism, Palestine, Palestine, U.S., U.S. Politics

Efforts To Legislate BDS Out Of Existence Will Only Backfire

KITCHENER, Ontario — (Analysis) From September 2000 to February 2005, more than 3,200 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during the Second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising. From June to October 2004 alone, Israeli forces launched major assaults in Northern Gaza, killing at least 150 Palestinians, injuring hundreds of others and leaving as many as 800 people homeless.

These assaults were the latest in decades of violence and oppression perpetrated by Israel that ultimately inspired the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Launched in July 2005 by a broad alliance of more than 170 Palestinian political parties, trade unions, refugee networks, NGOs and grassroots associations, the BDS movement aims to pressure Israel to end its apartheid regime and grant equal rights to Palestinians, with the ultimate goal of the establishment of a Palestinian state with the pre-1967 borders.

 Modeled after similar initiatives targeting Apartheid South Africa a generation prior, the movement is having an undeniable impact. Even the government led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man guilty of the most heinous crimes, has defined BDS as an “existential threat” to Israel. (Other threats include the recent Iran nuclear deal, and, incredibly, a request by Palestine to FIFA, the world soccer association, to ban Israeli participation.)

The impacts of the BDS movement, once dismissed by Israel as little more than a college fad,  are now being taken seriously. The Israeli economy is expected to suffer a $15 billion loss because of the movement.

There is also a huge psychological impact, as academics, including physicist Stephen Hawking, performers, including Roger Waters of Pink Floyd and Elvis Costello, and novelists such as Alice Walker, refuse to participate in any events in Israel. Additionally, Palestine has received the support of rock group Coldplay, and actresses Mia Farrow and Vanessa Redgrave, to name just a few.

Mr. Netanyahu decries all this as an effort to “delegitimize” Israel: “It is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence. It does not matter what we do; it matters what we symbolize and what we are.”

He appears to be in denial, since the movement is, indeed, connected to Israeli actions — actions which are themselves causing Israel to be “delegitimized.”

Can BDS be legislated out of existence?

But when a popular people’s movement is having an impact, what is a cruel, barbaric Israeli leader to do? Well, since Congress is bought and paid for by Israeli lobbies, what better response for Israel than to instruct its congressional employees to outlaw it?

Israel has had some success in this new initiative. The recently-signed Trans-Pacific Partnership includes anti-BDS provisions, “which will discourage European governments from participating in BDS activities by leveraging the incentive of free trade with the United States.”

To say that is was not Israeli-inspired is to demonstrate a remarkable naivete.

Additionally, several states are considering, or have actually passed, anti-BDS legislation. And Israel’s anti-BDS efforts aren’t confined to the United States, its most favorite bottomless pit of money; the United Kingdom, too, has passed such legislation.

So, does this mean that the most effective, nonviolent means that people of conscience around the world have of supporting human rights and justice for the Palestinians will now cease? Will the countless university proposals to divest from Israel, along with the religious bodies which have made the same decision, be rendered null and void? Will the endorsement of BDS by various British unions now cause the union members to get in line with barbaric Zionism?

Hardly.

No such thing as bad publicity?

Let’s step back for just a moment and do what Israel has long refused to even consider: take a reality check. Far from than defeating the movement, this backlash against BDS is likely to propel it forward.

Jay Michaelson, writing about billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s university campus initiative to thwart BDS in The Forward in July, described why, as he put it, opposition to BDS will be a “boon” for the movement. This opposition, Mr. Michaelson argues, puts Jewish students and their non-Jewish peers in a “For Us or Against Us” scenario. Accepting the “For Us” position aligns students with “patriotism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and a refusal to admit ambiguity and nuance.” Further, he states that, from his own observations, the pro-Zionist movement presents a caricature of BDS supporters that no reasonable person could possibly accept.

Further, Mr. Michaelson suggests that this anti-BDS initiative completely misses the point. BDS isn’t growing because of anti-Semitism, he argues, it’s growing “because many people think it’s wrong for any state to deny 4 million people the right to vote, to determine their own future, and to live free of military occupation.”

So the anti-BDS initiative on college campuses doesn’t seem to have much promise for Israel. But what about the greater effort, the attempt to legislate BDS out of existence? Well, the news there isn’t too promising, either.

Laws to prevent BDS serve to publicize it, allowing more people to know of its existence. When President Barack Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, he endorsed the provisions protecting Israel from boycott, but also said he won’t observe the measures requirement to extend those same protections to what is generally called “Israeli-controlled territories” (read: Palestine). So the controversy over BDS, rather than being silenced by this measure, only increased.

And so it is with racist Zionists such as Mr. Adelson and Haim Saban: As they sink millions into efforts to defeat the BDS movement, their attempts merely serve to help to publicize it, along with Israeli crimes. Their goal of “demonizing the demonizer” fails, as people see that Israel, by its racist, apartheid policies, only indicts itself.

Some say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but this is far from the truth for Israel. As it publicizes BDS in an futile effort to thwart it, it only shines a spotlight on its own crimes and on Palestinian victimization. This inspires more people to shun Israel, support Palestine, and embrace BDS.

Francis Bacon said that “knowledge is power.” This notion appears to be confirmed, as Israel suffers from the BDS movement, a movement that exists and grows because of knowledge.

Originally published by MintPressNews.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Apartheid, BDS, Gaza, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Palestine, U.S., U.S. Politics

“Hillary Clinton is a Threat to Peace and Justice throughout the World”

My interview with Mohsen Abdelmoumen of May 15, 2015

http://whatsupic.com/special-usa/robert-fantina425764.html

Robert Fantina: « Hillary Clinton is a threat to peace and justice throughout the world ».

————————————————————————————-

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: There was Ferguson, and then Baltimore; the United States live almost daily riots. What is your analysis of these scenes of chaos in the US?

Robert Fantina: Ferguson and Baltimore are just two of the many episodes in the United States where white police officers have killed unarmed black men, usually with complete impunity. This is a continuation of a long, unjust and very ugly tradition within the country. Generations ago, blacks were lynched (hung) in the southern part of the U.S. for no other reason than for being black. These lynchings were attended by large crowds who seemed to see these murders as entertainment. No one was ever convicted for any of these horrendous crimes.

Today it is rare for a police officer to be charged with any crime when killing an unarmed black person, and even more rare for such an officer to be convicted. Several police officers have been indicted in Baltimore, which is extremely unusual, not only for the indictments themselves, but also for the speed in which those indictments were made.

It must be remembered that many U.S. police departments, including some within Ferguson, receive training from the Israeli military, which is one of the most inhuman, brutal military systems in the world. Additionally, the Pentagon provides military equipment to many municipalities in the U.S. for their police departments. This militarization of the police cannot be seen as a method to prevent or solve crimes; it is all part of blatant, and mainly successful, efforts on the part of the U.S. government to stifle dissent, intimate the poor, and maintain the continued oppression of the poor for the benefit of the wealthy.

In front of return of the racist crimes which take us back into the bloody history of the United States, what is your assessment of the first American black president who condones crimes against the American black population?

As the election of 2008 approached, throughout the United States there was excessive and unwarranted optimism about the changes that might be ushered in by the nation’s first black president. Hearing the eloquent rhetoric of then-Senator Obama, many people seemed to see him as the new American savior. People forget that, in order to be elected to any but local municipal offices in the United States, there are countless special-interest groups that must be satisfied. They will donate vast amounts of money, and provide endless volunteers, but they are not doing this for the good of the common man and woman; they have certain specific goals, and they expect that by providing resources for a candidate, that candidate, when elected, will provide it with the expected benefits.

Mr. Obama is no different in needing that support, and being willing to pay his corporate owners appropriately from the Oval Office. He cannot restrict police departments without risking the anger of the military industry, or of any corporate group that relies on cheap labor to produce its good and services.

 According to our information, you left the United States to settle near Toronto in Canada following the reelection of George W. Bush and the neocons’ comeback in the US administration. Can you enlighten us about that?

In 2000, in the presidential election in which the major candidates were Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore, Mr. Gore won the majority vote. However, due to bizarre provisions in the U.S. electoral system, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. Bush president. Four years later, when Mr. Bush ran for re-election against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, I did not expect the president to be successful. There were known voting irregularities in 2000 in Florida, and others in Ohio in 2004, but regardless, Mr. Bush was apparently voted in for a second term. I had worked as a volunteer for Mr. Kerry in Florida, and decided then that I could no longer live in the U.S.

I must mention here that while I saw Mr. Kerry as far better than Mr. Bush, I did not expect great statesmanship from him. Since he has been the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry has done nothing but disappoint, especially in his unfair, unjust and unreasonable support for Israel at the expense of the basic human rights of the Palestinians.

Immediately following that election, I began seeking employment in Canada, and moved there in June of 2005, as soon as I found suitable employment. I lived in the western part of the country for almost three years, and moved to the Toronto area in 2008. In November of 2014, I became a Canadian citizen. I still have U.S. citizenship, and will keep it to expedite travel to the U.S., where I still have extended family.

 The United States continues to play a murky role in the Middle East, first by supporting Saudi Arabia in its infamous war against Yemen, on the other hand getting closer to Iran. What do you think of this balancing act of the USA that juggle between the two major powers in the region, one representing Sunni Islam and the other Shiite Islam?

The U.S.’s goal is to continue its world economic domination, and to achieve that it will support any nation that it sees as strategically advantageous, and oppose any that get in its way. Additionally, the importance of lobby groups to U.S. elected officials cannot be overstated. The American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a major tool of the brutal Israeli regime, and one that holds tremendous influence over most U.S. government officials. It is rare for the U.S. to defy it, although it is doing so in Iran, despite the rhetoric of government officials, even those negotiating with that nation remaining hostile in regard to Iran.

U.S. support or opposition for any regime cannot be seen as either agreement or disagreement with the philosophy of that government. The U.S. will, has and does support the most brutal, repressive regimes if those countries’ leaders do as the U.S. instructs. The U.S. government has no interested in supporting or opposing Sunni Islam or Shiite Islam; it looks at where its economic goals are, determines which countries will support those goals, and then provides support accordingly. There is no limit to the barbaric civil rights violations that the U.S. supports, if those perpetrating them follow U.S. economic instructions.

What is the weight of the Zionist lobby, headed by AIPAC, in the designation of the US president, knowing that supports Hillary Clinton?

As I mentioned before, AIPAC is a very powerful lobby in the U.S., and Mrs. Clinton speaks of Israel in the most positive and affectionate of terms. AIPAC will not need to use its considerable influence to elect Mrs. Clinton, because it won’t matter to AIPAC or Israel who wins the election, since each current candidate, Democratic and Republican, worships at the AIPAC altar.

But it’s interesting to note how AIPAC’s influence is felt. Mrs. Clinton, during last summer’s genocidal attack on Palestine by Israel, echoed the standard government words about Israel’s right to defend itself. There are numerous things wrong with this statement:

1) It is illogical to think of an occupying nation ‘defending’ itself from its victim; all it can do is further oppress the victim nation.

2) Israel has the fourth most powerful military system in the world, backed and completely financed by the most powerful. Palestine has no army, no navy and no air force.

3) So-called rocket fire from the Gaza Strip consists of what Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors and a strong advocate for Palestinian rights, calls ‘enhanced fireworks’. Another journalist said that those rockets could be made with an eighth grade chemistry set. Israel, on the other hand, has the most advanced and deadly weaponry in the world, some if it illegal under international law, all provided by the U.S. Also, during the 51-day slaughter by Israel of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Israel fired more rockets into Gaza than Gaza had fired into Israel in the previous fourteen years.

4) International law states that an occupied nation has the right to resist the occupation.

5) During the 2014 onslaught, Israel bombed schools, mosques, United Nations refugee centers, press vehicles, hospitals and private residences, all in violation of international law.

Mrs. Clinton didn’t consider any of these factors when she blindly defended Israel.

For the first time, we see the US elections without any suspense. Democratic side, Clinton has any competition, and in Republican side, they have difficulty to nominate a candidate. Don’t you think that the games are already made and Hillary Clinton is already president of the United States? The USA can they afford a president who has failed in her mission of Secretary of State by losing her ambassador in Benghazi by negligence?

It is true that there does not seem to be much suspense regarding the next presidential election. Mrs. Clinton has access to vast amounts of money, much of which will obligate her to the wealthy corporations that donate it, and greater name recognition than anyone else who might enter the race. The Republican candidates that have either announced their candidacy, or are expected to do so, all impress the extreme right wing of that party, but really have no chance of being elected in a national election.

The situation in Benghazi, and any responsibility Mrs. Clinton may have for it, is still unclear. However, there are many reasons why the U.S. cannot afford a Hillary Clinton presidency. Her obligations to the wealthy and the military industry; her past actions on foreign affairs, including her vote to authorize the disastrous, immoral and illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq; her statement in 2008 about ‘obliterating’ Iran; her blindness to international law in the context of Israel and Palestine, all make her, as a potential president, a threat to peace and justice throughout the world.

 Are you informed that Mrs. Clinton received bribes (money, villa) from the King of Morocco who lobbied her to get her support in its colonialist policy against the people of Western Sahara? Do you think the American public knows the problem of Western Sahara and the support of Hillary Clinton to the king of Morocco in its settlement policy of the territory of Western Sahara? Is it normal that a pretender for the US presidency receive money from another country, in this case the Kingdom of Morocco?

Sadly, this is business as usual in the United States. If the country ever was a democracy, and I doubt that that was ever actually the case, it has long since ceased to be so, and is now definitely an oligarchy. The Clinton foundation’s acceptance of the $1 million donation that you refer to is just one way that the rich control the country. The donation by the office Cherifien des Phosphates is just one of the many foreign businesses or governments that have supported Mrs. Clinton, and will continue to do so.

Neither Mrs. Clinton nor her millions of devoted fans care about the exploitation of the Western Sahara. Most of the U.S. public is probably unaware of this; unfortunately, telling them wouldn’t make a difference. The crimes that the U.S. has committed internationally for generations are hidden, but can be clearly located with minimal research. Yet the government public relations activities are sufficiently successful that the citizenry is happy to accept whatever it is told.

The U.S. citizenry made history in 2008 when it elected a black president, and seems eager to follow that up with the election of the first woman president. There does not seem to be a close scrutiny of her past actions, or her current policy pronouncements.

Israel continues its policy of colonization and extermination openly before the world. Its criminal leaders aren’t worried by any international tribunal, while we see judgments of African leaders and other. These courts, like the ICC, represent they a two-speed justice, and what is the role of the UN and its bodies, unable to give to the Palestinians their most basic rights?

The United Nations is powerless against the United States; the U.S. has shown that it isn’t interested in international law, and that it considers itself the lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner in all circumstances.

The U.S. is the only country that could influence Israel to end the occupation and blockade; after all, the U.S. gives Israel over $3.8 billion in aid every year. Simply by making that aid conditional on adherence to international law would resolve most of the problems. But it is not reasonable to expect one corrupt, lawless regime (the United States) to require changes in another corrupt, lawless regime (Israel).

Yet there are some positive signs. Social media is doing what the corporate-owned media, especially in the U.S., refuses to do, and this is exposing the horrors committed on a daily basis by Israel. Also, as the Israeli government becomes more radical, it is increasingly isolated in the world community. A strong indicator of this is the fact that, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that there would never be an independent Palestine while he was Prime Minister, U.S. President Obama indicated that the U.S. would need to re-evaluate its relationship with Israel. Any criticism of Israel from the U.S. is extremely rare.

The Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement has grown in strength over the years, and that is taking a toll on Israel, as more and more entertainers are refusing to appear in Israel, academics are refusing to participate in joint educational ventures, and companies will not do business with Israeli companies operating in the occupied West Bank. The U.S. is currently attempting to outlaw the BDS movement, but it is unlikely that any laws attempting to do so would be upheld under a court challenge.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is now investigating Israel for possible war crimes committed during the bombing and invasion of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2014. Its findings will not impact Israel directly, since Israel, like the U.S., refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court and never joined it. However, condemnation by the ICC would be a public relations disaster for Israel, which can ill afford any more problems with its very battered image.

Can you tell us if you have new book projects?

I am currently working on a book about growing up under the cruel, savage Israeli occupation. Through Facebook I am in contact with several young people in Palestine, in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These are people who were born under the occupation, and have lived their entire lives under it. They have known multiple bombings, deprivation, hunger, thirst, terror, gross injustice and untold suffering. They have seen family members, friends and other loved ones die at the hands of Israeli terrorists, with no justice for the innocent victims. They have had homes destroyed repeatedly.

Yet they have a resilience that is almost unfathomable. They continue to work and hope for peace and justice, even in the face of astounding violence and injustice. Their stories are both heartbreaking and inspirational.

I expect the book to be completed by the end of this year, and hopefully available by the end of 2016, or early 2017.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Palestine, U.S. Politics